X-MEN: DARK PHOENIX directed by Simon Kinberg (11/2/18) 4 4

[Bosco685]

17 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This list is misleading, though, since many of those characters got bare minimum screen-time.

Example:

Angel in Last Stand - he was in one scene for like 90 seconds, and then he appears again in the final melee for less than 10 seconds.

Colossus in X2 - Piotr gets...what? Two minutes of total screen time (If that?), including all of 10-20 seconds actually as Colossus?

If anything, Kitty Pryde makes the most impact across the films -- in terms of a minor character done right -- because her powers are unique and instantly recognizable. Believe she appeared in four of the seven films.

Misleading? No, that would be your confused opinion more than reality.

Many of the characters appeared, and some had much more screen time. They didn't need to dominate the story to make the point the X-Men was made up of many characters supporting one another.

Nice try, though.

Edited August 13, 2019 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

21 minutes ago, Antpark said:

Ughh, if only I could forget. I have a really strong dislike for her portrayal in all 3 of the movies. I'm not a big Anna Paquin fan, which probably didn't help either.

I thought she did a good job. Though with Rogue I always pictured someone with a louder personality, and not going to allow the males on the team to reduce her involvement. I liked how the X-Men TAS portrayed her throughout the show.

 

[Bosco685]

Another sassy scene with Rogue where she was nobody's wallflower.

 

[Bosco685]

For those that missed it, even with Days of Future Past marketing it made it clear there was a much larger team.

 

 

 

Or, as part of my dastardly plan to mislead people I just whipped these up on my PC in a few minutes. 

[Ken Aldred]

4 hours ago, Hollywood1892 said:

I dont know why people didnt like Apocalypse 

I mean,maybe it was a bad movie and I had amped myself up for it,so I wouldnt be let down.

I’d been numbed rather than amped up by the reviews, so when I saw it on TV a few months back I thought it was okay as a CGI style-over-substance super-hero film.

I even watched it twice.

[Bosco685]

30 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

I’d been numbed rather than amped up by the reviews, so when I saw it on TV a few months back I thought it was okay as a CGI style-over-substance super-hero film.

I even watched it twice.

[Hollywood1892]

1 hour ago, Ken Aldred said:

I’d been numbed rather than amped up by the reviews, so when I saw it on TV a few months back I thought it was okay as a CGI style-over-substance super-hero film.

I even watched it twice.

Me too

[ComicConnoisseur]

Still though the top three Fox X-Men movie characters were

Wolverine

Magneto

Professor X

Was there a fourth movie X-Men character that came close to those three?

Yes, other X-Men characters had their moments but nothing like the big three.

Let`s keep Deadpool out of this because that was his own movie series.

I would say for me the biggest disappointment in the X-Men movie series was Scott Summers.

Such a vital character in the Chris Claremont X-Men run who did not translate well in the Fox X-Men movies.

Hope Marvel fixes this.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by ComicConnoisseur

[Bosco685]

27 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Still though the top three Fox X-Men movie characters were

Wolverine

Magneto

Professor X

Was there a fourth movie X-Men character that came close to those three?

Yes, other X-Men characters had their moments but nothing like the big three.

Let`s keep Deadpool out of this because that was his own movie series.

I would say for me the biggest disapointment in the X-Men movie series was Scott Summers.

Such a vital character in the Chris Claremont X-Men run who did not translate well in the Fox X-Men movies.

Hope Marvel fixes this.

This is a misleading post because no matter what, your answer is 'the MCU does it better'. I'm sure they will figure out how to insert Iron Man and Captain America in the film.

We shall now brand you as 'MCU Mascot'.

[ComicConnoisseur]

lol.

[theCapraAegagrus]

X-Men: Apocalypse is a damn insult to the title character. That is why people don't like it.

"Oh, hey, I can straight-up murder people with sand. I'm only gonna do it once though."

For a movie made within the last 5 years, the CGI is awful.

[Gatsby77]

18 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Misleading? No, that would be your confused opinion more than reality.

Many of the characters appeared, and some had much more screen time. They didn't need to dominate the story to make the point the X-Men was made up of many characters supporting one another.

?

That's the point.

It's not the "number of characters" shoehorned in that makes an X-men film good, any more than it's the number of villians shoehorned into a Spider-Man film that makes it good.

I'm with Comic Connoiseur, that for most of the X-Men films, the producers "didn't do a good job of taking the comic book spirit of these great characters and translating them into the movie versions well."

Are you *really* trying to defend Collossus's literal 4 (!) seconds in X2 to say...his actual fleshed-out appearance in Deadpool 2?

Or defend how Bishop was turned from a bad- character in the 90s comics to a 2-minute plot device in Days of Future Past?

Or the difference between Sabretooth in X-Men as a nearly-mute piece of muscle vs. the character's writing (and actor's performance) in the (otherwise-horrific) first Wolverine film?

Of *course* we know there were a lot of X-Men, and that they worked together to support each other. But many -- if not most -- of those characters deserved better characterization than we got.

*Especially* Scott Summers.

While I think only two of the seven core X-Men movies were actively *bad,* at least four of them could have done more with less -- fewer characters, but highlighted in a more egalitarian manner.

[Bosco685]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

?

That's the point.

It's not the "number of characters" shoehorned in that makes an X-men film good, any more than it's the number of villians shoehorned into a Spider-Man film that makes it good.

I'm with Comic Connoiseur, that for most of the X-Men films, the producers "didn't do a good job of taking the comic book spirit of these great characters and translating them into the movie versions well."

Are you *really* trying to defend Collossus's literal 4 (!) seconds in X2 to say...his actual fleshed-out appearance in Deadpool 2?

Or defend how Bishop was turned from a bad- character in the 90s comics to a 2-minute plot device in Days of Future Past?

Or the difference between Sabretooth in X-Men as a nearly-mute piece of muscle vs. the character's writing (and actor's performance) in the (otherwise-horrific) first Wolverine film?

Of *course* we know there were a lot of X-Men, and that they worked together to support each other. But many -- if not most -- of those characters deserved better characterization than we got.

*Especially* Scott Summers.

While I think only two of the seven core X-Men movies were actively *bad,* at least four of them could have done more with less -- fewer characters, but highlighted in a more egalitarian manner.

?

Calling someone's post 'misleading' or in the past calling my box office posts 'dishonest' is your method of making your posts more credible than someone else's. That's quite an ugly approach to make a point.

Look how long it took the MCU to finally allow Scarlet Witch to stand out as a powerhouse in Endgame. In her previous appearances, it was always as a supporting character to help in building up a story. That doesn't make those appearances worse or the films horrible for that. The focus was mainly Iron Man and Captain America in much of the team films, with Black Widow or Thor as the next tier focus. Hulk was even treated as just a supporting character in the team films until Ragnarok.

The X-Men franchise utilized the characters to help convey the strength of the stories in that there were many characters as part of this universe. Sure, it could have focused more on them. But acting like the MCU never did this and now it will fix it all is - well - biased and ignorant.

[Gatsby77]

8 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

?

Calling someone's post 'misleading' or in the past calling my box office posts 'dishonest' is your method of making your posts more credible than someone else's. That's quite an ugly approach to make a point.

Look how long it took the MCU to finally allow Scarlet Witch to stand out as a powerhouse in Endgame. In her previous appearances, it was always as a supporting character to help in building up a story. That doesn't make those appearances worse or the films horrible for that. The focus was mainly Iron Man and Captain America in much of the team films, with Black Widow or Thor as the next tier focus. Hulk was even treated as just a supporting character in the team films until Ragnarok.

The X-Men franchise utilized the characters to help convey the strength of the stories in that there were many characters as part of this universe. Sure, it could have focused more on them. But acting like the MCU never did this and now it will fix it all is - well - biased and ignorant.

I only point it out when your posts are a) "misleading" or b) straight-up "dishonest."

In this case, including 10-second to 2-minute cameos of well-known characters alongside full-fledged, fleshed-out leads in X-Men films and presenting them as co-equal is misleading.

Just like claiming that Guardians of the Galaxy cost $230 million or more to produce, which has been countered by *every single other source* as incorrect *and* is based on fundamentally misreading of the article itself (i.e., the piece itself states it cost $230 million but they received $30 million in tax credits, thus netting to $200 million) is intellectually dishonest.

 

Beyond that, I never mentioned anything about the MCU in this thread -- rather, I was criticizing an aspect of the X-Men films on their merits. I also don't actually expect Disney will do any better, so I agree with your comment that "acting like the MCU never did this is...biased and ignorant." = 100% agree with you.

To this day, I don't understand why you continue to foment this "Marvel vs. DC" BS.

I don't think it exists.

DC simply has the misfortune to have produced some -poor superhero films over the last decade (including Jonah Hex, Suicide Squad and Justice League).

Just as they've produced some of the best the genre's ever seen (including Superman / Superman 2, Batman, The Dark Knight, and Wonder Woman).

[Bosco685]

13 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

I only point it out when your posts are a) "misleading" or b) straight-up "dishonest."

In this case, including 10-second to 2-minute cameos of well-known characters alongside full-fledged, fleshed-out leads in X-Men films and presenting them as co-equal is misleading.

Just like claiming that Guardians of the Galaxy cost $230 million or more to produce, which has been countered by *every single other source* as incorrect *and* is based on fundamentally misreading of the article itself (i.e., the piece itself states it cost $230 million but they received $30 million in tax credits, thus netting to $200 million) is intellectually dishonest.

 

Beyond that, I never mentioned anything about the MCU in this thread -- rather, I was criticizing an aspect of the X-Men films on their merits. I also don't actually expect Disney will do any better, so I agree with your comment that "acting like the MCU never did this is...biased and ignorant." = 100% agree with you.

To this day, I don't understand why you continue to foment this "Marvel vs. DC" BS.

I don't think it exists.

DC simply has the misfortune to have produced some -poor superhero films over the last decade (including Jonah Hex, Suicide Squad and Justice League).

Just as they've produced some of the best the genre's ever seen (including Superman / Superman 2, Batman, The Dark Knight, and Wonder Woman).

You truly know how to spin a tale. I'm the one preaching 'DC vs Marvel' fights? Yes. The board member that gets just as excited over Marvel films as DC films, and goes to many of these at the theater. I'm the one preaching one over the other.

I think your level of ignorance in wanting to preach versus discuss these films to the point you attempt to brand someone as dishonest is all the example that is needed. Where did I say supporting cast are co-equals to the main cast? Even when I noted Scarlet Witch as an example, I pointed out for the longest time she was a supporting cast before being given a chance to stand out as a powerhouse. Just like with the X-Men films how it used characters as supporting cast to help enhance the story.

Do you really think trying to call someone out as dishonest in discussing films is a winning stance when we are talking about - wait a moment - films and TV shows? Get a clue, Blue!

Edited August 14, 2019 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

And here are the two articles Gatsby is attempted to cause a stir over in his continued quest to save the boards from financial 'misrepresentation'.

Disney Reveals Guardians Of The Galaxy Was Over Budget At $232 Million

Quote

Media giant Walt Disney has revealed that the production cost of last summer’s blockbuster comic book movie Guardians of the Galaxy came to $232.3 million which was “slightly over the agreed budget.”

 

The attraction of filming in Britain isn’t just a ready supply of skilled staff but also the government’s film tax credit scheme. It entitles movies with expenditure of more than $31.8 million (£20 million) to claim back up to 20% of their production costs. The costs of movies qualifying for the rebate are consolidated in a single company which makes it easier to work out their entitlement. It also gives an insight into their finances because publicly available financial statements need to be filed by the companies.

 

They usually have colourful code names so that they don’t blow their cover when filing for permits to film off-site. Guardians of the Galaxy was mainly filmed at Britain’s Shepperton Studios but also shot scenes on location in central London and southern England. The Disney company behind the movie is named Infinity Works Productions after the object at the heart of the film. Last week it released financial statements for the 10 months to 31 August 2014 which show that costs came to $87.4 million bringing the total to $232.3 million.

 

The budget is higher than estimated with Box Office Mojo claiming that it was due to come in at $170 million. It is also higher than Marvel expected as the financial statements say that “the estimated final cost of the motion picture was slightly over the agreed budget.”

 

One of the biggest areas of expense was spending on the production staff which peaked at 441 in 2013. They were paid a total of $21.5 million and the tax credit scheme helps to keep them in work.

Why the number difference came out is although Disney doesn't have to report the actual details, the British Film Institute (BFI) does have to publish such details to justify the tax incentive plan it offers studios to attract filming locally. And what is more interesting is the $232.3M was after the tax incentives, as the actual costs before rebates was higher.

Disney Reveals Financial Muscle Of 'Avengers: Infinity War'

Quote

Production for seven of the movies based on Marvel Comics superhero characters has taken place in Britain, and as the table below shows, the cost so far of Infinity War is surpassed only by the $495.2 million (£306.1 million) spent on its prequel, 2015 blockbuster Avengers: Age of Ultron. There is good reason Disney has thrown its weight behind it.

 

 

Figures released by the British Film Institute (BFI) show that $2.6 billion (£1.9 billion) was spent on the production of movies in Britain last year, with $2.4 billion (£1.7 billion) of it coming from foreign firms. They include Paramount’s Mission Impossible 6 and the latest installment in the Warner Bros. Harry Potter saga, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them 2.

 

The total spend was a 23% increase on the previous year and the highest since the BFI began collecting records more than 20 years ago. The surge has even prompted Disney to open a new London base for Industrial Light and Magic (ILM), its post-production studio responsible for special effects.

 

Disney has figured out a great plan with London to cut down its costs massively. It's a smart move on its part.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Bosco685
added details about the British film incentive program

[Bosco685]

On 8/7/2019 at 9:30 AM, paperheart said:

‘Dark Phoenix’ was a giant bomb that hurt Disney earnings

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dark-phoenix-was-a-giant-bomb-that-hurt-disney-earnings-122655952.html

the gift that keeps on giving

The bigger Disney financial picture not factored into the equation.

Disney: ‘Captain Marvel’ Q3 Home Entertainment Revenue Comes Up Short to ‘Black Panther’

Quote

Disney/Marvel Studios’ Captain Marvel has sold about 2 million discs since its June 11 packaged-media release, according to industry estimates. Despite the strong start, that’s about half what Marvel’s Blank Panther sold last year following its disc release May 15, 2018.

 

Disney Aug. 6 attributed the difference between them to why it posted lower third-quarter (ended June 29) home entertainment revenue.

So I guess Dark Phoenix wasn't Disney's only problem, financially. 

Quote

Direct-to-Consumer & International revenue for the quarter increased from $827 million to $3.85 billion and segment operating loss increased from $168 million to $553 million. The increase in operating loss was due to the consolidation of Hulu, the ramp up of investment in ESPN+, which was launched in April 2018 and costs associated with the upcoming launch of Disney+.

Disney+ will be huge in the end. But it definitely through off the market results for now.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Bosco685

[Cozmo-One]

Yes, but the industry continues to change, so I'd expect disc sales to be be lower across the board.  I think I've purchased one disc in the past year (an Abbott and Costello!) when I used to but at least one per month.  I think a better or more interested metric would be the # of disc sales for Infinity War vs Endgame.  

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/04/dvd-and-blu-ray-sales-nearly-halved-over-five-years-mpaa-report-says/

I would still think Endgame would have more disc sales than Infinity since it is the biggest movie ever/end of an event/etc, but 

Side note - although i now watch a lot of streamed movies/shows, the instant gratification does seem to take away *something* from the experience.  I remember walking into the local video store when Batman 89 first came out being amazed as it was the first time I saw an entire section of the wall filled with VHS tapes for rent (and having none available!).  Probably just being too nostalgic, especially since I worked at a Blockbuster in high school 

 

[Bosco685]

4 hours ago, Cozmo-One said:

Yes, but the industry continues to change, so I'd expect disc sales to be be lower across the board.  I think I've purchased one disc in the past year (an Abbott and Costello!) when I used to but at least one per month.  I think a better or more interested metric would be the # of disc sales for Infinity War vs Endgame.  

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/04/dvd-and-blu-ray-sales-nearly-halved-over-five-years-mpaa-report-says/

I would still think Endgame would have more disc sales than Infinity since it is the biggest movie ever/end of an event/etc, but 

Side note - although i now watch a lot of streamed movies/shows, the instant gratification does seem to take away *something* from the experience.  I remember walking into the local video store when Batman 89 first came out being amazed as it was the first time I saw an entire section of the wall filled with VHS tapes for rent (and having none available!).  Probably just being too nostalgic, especially since I worked at a Blockbuster in high school 

I agree Digital HD has become the hidden heavy-hitter in that there is little to no tracking on sales, yet much activity is taking place.

But in one year a film doing half of the other from the same franchise, no. Disc sales trends differing in so short a time is not the primary contributor. That's a huge shift, which even Disney had to admit it surprised its financial plan.

[theCapraAegagrus]

I enjoy having physical copies. What if my internet goes out (it's happened - for a 3-day stretch before)? What if I wanna watch a movie elsewhere and don't wanna give them access to my account(s)?

The movies that I own digital-only: Captain America: Civil War, Thor: Ragnarok, Shazam, and Godzilla: King of the Monsters. When the MCU Phase 3 Collection is released that list will shrink to 2, though.