X-Men: Dark Phoenix film

[chamber-music]

More like killing her Banshee, Angel Salvatore, Azazel, and Riptide (Okay Riptide is forgivable) but killing the rest off screen in DOFP was dumb and short sighted.

That has pretty much been a big issue with the X-Men films. Far too many characters that are just squandered. Either they are killed off or just used for action set piece/glorified cameo.

I don't get why they pointlessly killed off Angel in X-Men Apocalypse. All the other Horsemen survived.

There were even characters that have appeared in multiple X-Men movies have very little character development, backstory or individual identity.

[Force de Phenix]

Well, I wasn’t that interested in the movie to begin with, but it’s kinda a bummer that it’s crashing and burning. Hope Disney doesn’t view it as a toxic property now...

Disney's proved that name recognition doesn't mean anything as long as people enjoy the films. In one film they were able to catapult Thanos into pop culture for movie history.

It's a bit toxic, but so was Spider-Man and they fixed him two years after he failed. There's no question they're going to use them, but after the Infinity War and Dark Phoenix, they aren't as hot as before. People are counting the days to see them.

[ClanAskani]

Deadline on the reasons Dark Phoenix tanked:

https://deadline.com/2019/06/dark-ph...hy-1202629749/

[Divine Spark]

Deadline on the reasons Dark Phoenix tanked:

https://deadline.com/2019/06/dark-ph...hy-1202629749/

Damn, even Deadline brings up the two-parter thing.

Now, Dark Phoenix was originally planned to be two movies, we hear, and during late pre-production, the studio changed gears and said it was to be one movie. Kinberg, we hear, was flexible and rewrote. Days of Future Past erased the timeline of The Last Stand, so a rebooted story about Jean Grey was possible here. Our sources tell us that testing Dark Phoenix was a continual headache, and the feature adaptation of Chris Claremont, John Byrne, and David Cockrum’s fan-beloved Dark Phoenix Saga comic was hard to get right.

[jmc247]

The Fox X-Men franchise did suffer from not having a show runner with a fraction of the power and influence of Kevin Feige. It’s important to remember though that Kevin F. only managed his freedom by going to the Mouse and getting a divorce from Marvel Entertainment.

Singer was a great director, but not a script writer nor was he given serious show runner powers. The Fox franchise managed to get script writers to add in the comedy needed in how super hero films are seen these days of the MCU, but they were Deadpool writers.

I do think they made a mistake ever going to the Phoenix Saga (and made the mistake twice) as it’s something that needed one or two set up films and at least two movies three hours a piece to get close to doing it justice. They were better off sticking with storylines that don’t require the emotional build of the Phoenix Saga because Fox execs weren’t ones to support an Endgame like multi film plan including long run time films.

[Jokerz79]

Damn, even Deadline brings up the two-parter thing.

Kinberg was told during Preproduction even late he still had time to try and make a more cohesive story. But what to expect from the guy who wrote Apocalypse.

[Maestro 216]

To think in the early 2000 X men films were among the good standard of superhero movies.

[Theleviathan]

Damn, even Deadline brings up the two-parter thing.

Deadline also points out that Venom got bad reviews but was a fun movie so people turned out for it. This article does your little campaign no favors.

You've gotta tone down the excuse factory you're running. You know why reshoots and Fox interference keeps coming up? It's a bad movie. Director's cut? It's a bad movie. Virtually every post you are making on this film is the kind of thing that happens when something is a bad movie and you want to find a scapegoat. Reshoots, director's cuts, studio interference happen in every movie. They become cute little stories that fans like hearing after the fact about a movie they loved.

They become flimsy scapegoats when the movie is bad. This movie is going to lose money not because of reviews but because it's a bad movie made by a dude who should've long been removed from this franchise. You can personally like the movie, but it's clear consensus on the franchise and the movie is "meh" to "blech". And Kinberg is to blame. (This article makes it clear)

[Divine Spark]

Kinberg was told during Preproduction even late he still had time to try and make a more cohesive story. But what to expect from the guy who wrote Apocalypse.

I don’t think the story is unfocused but rushed and short.

Deadline also points out that Venom got bad reviews but was a fun movie so people turned out for it. This article does your little campaign no favors.

You've gotta tone down the excuse factory you're running. You know why reshoots and Fox interference keeps coming up? It's a bad movie. Director's cut? It's a bad movie. Virtually every post you are making on this film is the kind of thing that happens when something is a bad movie and you want to find a scapegoat. Reshoots, director's cuts, studio interference happen in every movie. They become cute little stories that fans like hearing after the fact about a movie they loved.

They become flimsy scapegoats when the movie is bad. This movie is going to lose money not because of reviews but because it's a bad movie made by a dude who should've long been removed from this franchise. You can personally like the movie, but it's clear consensus on the franchise and the movie is "meh" to "blech". And Kinberg is to blame. (This article makes it clear)

Let me debunk the notion that I “love” or “personally like” this the movie. Here is my review from a few days ago.

So I went offline for before the embargo lifted. Wanted to watch the movie blind and go in with zero expectations and I did. Had no idea what its reception was until after I saw it.

That said, I thought the movie was decent but nothing special. Good action, SFX, acting, and never drags. I thought it was an improvement over Apocalypse, better X3 and Origins. So I’m kinda shocked that it’s RT meter is below Origins. I did have a feeling that this was going to be another Godzilla 2 where it has good social media reaction but not good critical reception.


spoilers:

Oh and I called D’Bari thing.

end of spoilers

So I am one of the people calling this “meh”.

I understand you dislike Kinberg but it’s making you a bit too combative. I never even said that Kinberg wasn’t at fault so you are making a serious strawman.

[Divine Spark]

Deadline also points out that Venom got bad reviews but was a fun movie so people turned out for it. This article does your little campaign no favors.

Okay, I read the whole article and I think you are cherry picking here. It also says that part of Venom’s success was its release date.

Dark Phoenix‘s calamity should be compared to the great success of Sony’s Venom. Here’s a movie that had bad reviews (29%) and constant buzz about fights between the pic’s director Ruben Fleischer and star Tom Hardy. Sony made Venom work with a great release date (Oct 5, with the pic posting the month’s best opening of $80.2M), sold the fun and gave audiences a great ride — all the way to $855M worldwide. Sony, led by studio boss Tom Rothman’s eye, willed Venom to its accomplishments. That didn’t happen here with Fox and Dark Phoenix.

The article earlier mentions that the release date being part of the problem.

The odor on Dark Phoenix became more toxic after the studio pushed the film back again from Feb. 14 to June 7 — and this was two days after they dropped the second trailer, which screamed out the release date of Feb. 14! Not only did that confuse fans, but it really sent the message that Dark Phoenix could be a potential turd.

First off, the movie was never intended to be a summer film. Dark Phoenix is darker and more psychologically complex than other X-Men movies. It was always seen as an off-season release, and the original plan was to get out ahead of Captain Marvel (March 8) and be the first female-led Marvel movie.

We hear that Fox Studios CEO Stacey Snider was insistent on the change, and gave James Cameron the better pre-merger release date of Feb. 14 for Alita: Battle Angel after the pricey production was pulled out of the crowded Christmas corridor. Putting Dark Phoenix after Captain Marvel, and in particular after Avengers: Endgame, simply damaged the film’s image further. The best Marvel movies of the year are already set in critics and audience minds, and, natch, innate comparisons will be made. Fox, back in September, said they pushed Dark Phoenix to June after the second trailer popped in China, and opening over this weekend’s holiday was in the pic’s best interest (China beat the U.S. opening, $48.1M to $33M).

It doesn’t really put much of the blame on Kinberg, even people in the comment section are saying they should blame him.

Also, the cut that it talks about was the pre-reshoot version. The cut I gave details on was an extended version of the post-reshoots.

[AHRNIHAL]

https://www.cbr.com/dark-phoenix-end...ampaign=CBR-TW

[Cerridwen]

Ugh there isn't any dialogue between Jean and Storm. They could've used a new Rogue and Gambit as Magneto's mutants instead of Selene and Red Lotus.

[phoenixzero23]

They could've used a new Rogue and Gambit as Magneto's mutants instead of Selene and Red Lotus.

That could be a blessing in disguise. Now they are brand new for the MCU.

[HandofPrometheus]

Deadline on the reasons Dark Phoenix tanked:

https://deadline.com/2019/06/dark-ph...hy-1202629749/

Dark Phoenix’ Bound To Lose $100M+??? And I oop-

[Ambaryerno]

I just got back.

Honestly, I didn't think it was nearly as bad as the reviews. The problem is it was just kind of...there.