X-Men: Dark Phoenix film

[Divine Spark]

Apparently use 'X-Men' in the Dark Phoenix title so it would have more than doubled its' current box office.

Which doesn't really explain Deadpool's success without having to use the word X-Men in the title. Or Logan.

Everyone knows Wolverine’s “real” name is Logan and it’s trailer had a picture of Hugh Jackman as a thumbnail.

Deadpool is not a X-Men movie.

[ClanAskani]

Ryan Reynolds And Hugh Jackman are bigger stars than Sophie. SophieÂ’s acting was good, itÂ’s just that her name is big enough. Nothing that went wrong with this film had to do with her, so I hope she is cast as Phoenix/Jean in MCU.

Ryan and Hugh have had plenty of movies which have failed. Studios put far more weight into "names" and the assumption that people go see movies because they like the actor, not the character. Ryan's last movie The Hitman's Bodyguard opened to $21M and before that Life flopped with a $12M opening.

Men In Black International with Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson opened a few weeks ago to $30 Million, so technically Sophie opened a movie better than they did. But in reality, people don't go to see Avengers or Thor for Chris Hemsworth. They want to see Chris Hemsworth play Thor.

In order to secure funding for production costs, there needs to be metrics which show a movie will be successful. So there's actually market research with surveys asking listing the basic premise of a movie and the name of an actor and whether they would see that movie just based on that. Casting decisions are frequently based on those types of metrics.

But it's not really accurate. Did anyone want to see Life because Ryan Reynolds was it in? No. People make decisions off the trailer, not a name. Ryan promotes movies on social media, he goes onto talk shows. But people no longer actually just go to a movie because they like the actor. Maybe if you see an actor's name on a movie on Redbox or Netflix you'll watch it, but it doesn't mean going to the theater to see a movie you don't want to see just for Ryan Reynolds.

Years back, Sony/Columbia Pictures got trouble for using a fake reviewer for quotes in review tv spots. These weren't quotes about the movie being good. The fake quotes they got in the most trouble for was for A Knight's Tale and the quote was about Health Ledger being the next big star.

Part of the reason studios can't understand why one movie does well and another doesn't is that there the content of the movie is ignored and so many irrelevant factors like the celebrity factor of the lead actors is considered why people decide to see a movie. And it is really random. It's hard to put numbers behind sentiment about a trailer, but CinemaScore's survey lists a few questions about why the audience saw the movie which includes the lead actor. You'll see numbers that 50% of the people going to Aladdin went to see Will Smith - like the only factor that mattered for all of those ticket buyers was Will Smith.

It's not uncommon when a movie is testing well, there's discussion between the marketing exec from the studio and the lead actresses' publicist to do more "promotion". That isn't talk show appearances. It's staged paparazzi photos, usually with some tabloid material related to a new boyfriend or something like that. That sound insane that it would impact the box office, but if a movie is going to flop, word of mouth is going to be bad, what else can be done to market it? Celebrity factor is all that's left.

I think it's telling the quotes from Maisie Williams that she told her agent "no" when they wanted to build her image and promote her so she'd get more roles, and then you see the circus around Sophie Turner right now because it sounds exactly what studio execs expect actresses to do book roles. Nothing against Sophie, but Saorise Ronan should have been cast. Casting decisions shouldn't be based on whether the lead actress wants to put her private life on public display. No one went to Dark Phoenix because Sophie married a Jonas brother.

[PsychoEFrost]

Everyone knows Wolverine’s “real” name is Logan and it’s trailer had a picture of Hugh Jackman as a thumbnail.

Deadpool is not a X-Men movie.

There's a case to be made that Deadpool 2 was the most X-Men a movie has been since X-2.

[spirit2011]

Ryan and Hugh have had plenty of movies which have failed. Studios put far more weight into "names" and the assumption that people go see movies because they like the actor, not the character. Ryan's last movie The Hitman's Bodyguard opened to $21M and before that Life flopped with a $12M opening.

Men In Black International with Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson opened a few weeks ago to $30 Million, so technically Sophie opened a movie better than they did. But in reality, people don't go to see Avengers or Thor for Chris Hemsworth. They want to see Chris Hemsworth play Thor.

In order to secure funding for production costs, there needs to be metrics which show a movie will be successful. So there's actually market research with surveys asking listing the basic premise of a movie and the name of an actor and whether they would see that movie just based on that. Casting decisions are frequently based on those types of metrics.

But it's not really accurate. Did anyone want to see Life because Ryan Reynolds was it in? No. People make decisions off the trailer, not a name. Ryan promotes movies on social media, he goes onto talk shows. But people no longer actually just go to a movie because they like the actor. Maybe if you see an actor's name on a movie on Redbox or Netflix you'll watch it, but it doesn't mean going to the theater to see a movie you don't want to see just for Ryan Reynolds.

Years back, Sony/Columbia Pictures got trouble for using a fake reviewer for quotes in review tv spots. These weren't quotes about the movie being good. The fake quotes they got in the most trouble for was for A Knight's Tale and the quote was about Health Ledger being the next big star.

Part of the reason studios can't understand why one movie does well and another doesn't is that there the content of the movie is ignored and so many irrelevant factors like the celebrity factor of the lead actors is considered why people decide to see a movie. And it is really random. It's hard to put numbers behind sentiment about a trailer, but CinemaScore's survey lists a few questions about why the audience saw the movie which includes the lead actor. You'll see numbers that 50% of the people going to Aladdin went to see Will Smith - like the only factor that mattered for all of those ticket buyers was Will Smith.

It's not uncommon when a movie is testing well, there's discussion between the marketing exec from the studio and the lead actresses' publicist to do more "promotion". That isn't talk show appearances. It's staged paparazzi photos, usually with some tabloid material related to a new boyfriend or something like that. That sound insane that it would impact the box office, but if a movie is going to flop, word of mouth is going to be bad, what else can be done to market it? Celebrity factor is all that's left.

I think it's telling the quotes from Maisie Williams that she told her agent "no" when they wanted to build her image and promote her so she'd get more roles, and then you see the circus around Sophie Turner right now because it sounds exactly what studio execs expect actresses to do book roles. Nothing against Sophie, but Saorise Ronan should have been cast. Casting decisions shouldn't be based on whether the lead actress wants to put her private life on public display. No one went to Dark Phoenix because Sophie married a Jonas brother.

Serious casting have nothing to do with followers on social media. Marvel booked Brie Larson even before she won a Oscar and was basically a unknown

[Psyknight]

Serious casting have nothing to do with followers on social media. Marvel booked Brie Larson even before she won a Oscar and was basically a unknown

Exactly. This is something that is really admirable about Marvel. They cast people who fit their vision for a character, regardless of how famous or not famous that actor is.

[Wiccan]

Marvel got Brie AFTER the Oscar. But I honestly think being a oscar-winner is a totally valid reason to consider someone for a role, as long as they're fitting for it enough.

[spirit2011]

Marvel got Brie AFTER the Oscar. But I honestly think being a oscar-winner is a totally valid reason to consider someone for a role, as long as they're fitting for it enough.

It was before the oscar. She was signed with Marvel one year before the comic con reveal

https://twitter.com/infinitespider/s...12761538781187

[ClanAskani]

Serious casting have nothing to do with followers on social media. Marvel booked Brie Larson even before she won a Oscar and was basically a unknown

Marvel is absolutely breaking the mold. They cast actual actors who have personality so they can do very well during interviews and press junkets. They focus on likability along with acting ability. The number of social media followers explodes when they cast someone.

Other studios probably are pissed off the MCU actors really aren't able to move on to other roles and consistently bring in an audience to whatever other movies they do. Chris Hemsworth has had a string of "meh" openers. Chris Pratt has done well with Jurassic Park, but Passengers (starring Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence) flopped hard with a $15M opening. Lawrence was paid $20M+ for Passengers, Pratt was paid $12M. They were counted on opening that movie to at least $75+M due to star power alone.

Jennifer Lawrence was able to demand that ridiculous amount of money due to the box office success of X-Men films and Hunger Games, but no one really was going to see her, but studios believed they did.

[Omega Alpha]

Jennifer Lawrence was able to demand that ridiculous amount of money due to the box office success of X-Men films and Hunger Games, but no one really was going to see her, but studios believed they did.

Nah, Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle were big hits in no small part because of her. The problem is that she was overexposed, to the point of nearly winning a second Oscar in a row for AH, which would have been absurdly undeserving, and then people got bored.

[spirit2011]

Nah, Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle were big hits in no small part because of her. The problem is that she was overexposed, to the point of nearly winning a second Oscar in a row for AH, which would have been absurdly undeserving, and then people got bored.

She did and said a lot of crap things. People got over her easily

[Omega Alpha]

She did and said a lot of crap things. People got over her easily

Yeah, it did felt like she was pushing too hard the "girl says whatever is on her mind" thing to the point it stopped feeling genuine.

[phantom1592]

MCU will not do another Dark Phoenix story. It’s been fine twice and it just cannot be done again. Phoenix/Jean can be one of their cosmic heroes, since the cosmic line and films do well with them.

The original DPS had Mastermind corrupt Jean in what would be considered sexual assault, and the victim of sexual assault ended up dying in that storyline while the shellfire Club as awhole was not punished. You cannot retell that story in film. Which is why both the last stand and Dark Phoenix gave Jean deep psychological issues that needed to
Be addressed.

The original DPS had an alien trial and an epic battle Royal vs Superman and the legion of Superheroes copies ON THE MOON!!!

Really, every version of DPS has been a pale imitation. They take about 2 or 3 interesting tidbits and try to make a movie out of it. I will say I liked THIS Dark Phoenix better than Last Stand. There was space... the alien presence possessing her, the flame bird didn't show up MUCH... but there was some... But really trying to push all of the Dark Phoenix concept purely on Jeans fragile mind is lame.

[WebLurker]

Are people using marketing as an excuse as to why this film was poorly received, vs.... I don't know... The calibur of the writing, acting, and directing of the film....

Thing is, I don't think the latter was that bad. Yeah, it has its share of problems, but it is easily middle-line in regards to the series as a whole. Far worse movies, like Venom, have made it big. We do know that it was given a bad release date to appease James Cameron in regards to his Alita project (another example of a flawed movie pulling through). It wasn't that well marketed and had the curse of needing to serve as the series finale when written as a middle installment. Factor in whatever bad press the project got from reshoots, delays, and whatnot, it's a pretty reasonable assumption.

[Divine Spark]

had the curse of needing to serve as the series finale when written as a middle installment.

Yeah, I’ve seen many people criticize it for being an anticlimactic end even those the closing narration literally has Jean telling the audience that this was not meant to be the end...

That and complaints about Jean never really becoming a flat out villain like the marketing would have you believe. I don’t think this movie would have been well received but the misleading marketing definitely made things worse.

The original DPS had an alien trial and an epic battle Royal vs Superman and the legion of Superheroes copies ON THE MOON!!!

Really, every version of DPS has been a pale imitation. They take about 2 or 3 interesting tidbits and try to make a movie out of it. I will say I liked THIS Dark Phoenix better than Last Stand. There was space... the alien presence possessing her, the flame bird didn't show up MUCH... but there was some... But really trying to push all of the Dark Phoenix concept purely on Jeans fragile mind is lame.

This was planned as a two-parter with the Shi’ar and Jessica Chastain as Lilandra. Then Fox for whatever reason condensed into a single movie right before filming begun. A lot had to be cut out.

[WallStreeter]

Yeah, I’ve seen many people criticize it for being an anticlimactic end even those the closing narration literally has Jean telling the audience that this was not meant to be the end...

That and complaints about Jean never really becoming a flat out villain like the marketing would have you believe. I don’t think this movie would have been well received but the misleading marketing definitely made things worse.



This was planned as a two-parter with the Shi’ar and Jessica Chastain as Lilandra. Then Fox for whatever reason condensed into a single movie right before filming begun. A lot had to be cut out.

Fox had a lot of internal issues which hit them hard. First the guys at Fox News got MeTooed. Then to XMen directors, Singer and Ratner got MeTooed.

That and political problems of Fox News being so pro Trump was causing rifts with Fox Entertainment.

There’s probably people we don’t even know about who were forced out because of this.

I think had Singer been able to stay on there might have been a two parter.

But none of that matters now.

Fox is now a part of Disney and lots of people have been laid off. In fact that was a reason for Fox executives not to market Dark Phoenix. They knew they would be fired and of course the merger is another reason why the film could not be a two parter.