X-Men Cinematic Universe

[XPac]

The video didn’t mention what he did in DOFP just Apocalypse. In Apocalypse the public never found out that Magneto took part of the destruction as it was reported that Apocalypse was the cause and Magneto helped. Yeah, they don’t remember like the time they said the president in X3 was a villain.

The problem is not that screen junkies forgot the X-Men films... the problem is the X-Men films were hoping the public would forget Magneto just happens to be a super villain who belongs behind bars. Which in and of itself isn't the worst thing in the world... but it's fair game to call them on it. So the line about Magneto belonging behind bars is fine.

[Divine Spark]

The problem is not that screen junkies forgot the X-Men films… the problem is the X-Men films were hoping the public would forget Magneto just happens to be a super villain who belongs behind bars. Which in and of itself isn’t the worst thing in the world… but it’s fair game to call them on it. So the line about Magneto belonging behind bars is fine.

The ending of Apocalypse played it up like he was was pardoned for helping stop Apocalypse. Far-fetched? Yes. But that is an issue that should be taken with Apocalypse instead of Dark Phoenix, since it was that movie that showed he was a free man. It seems like they are surprised that he is a free man in this movie.

I just finished watching their commentary and do explain the Mystique thing at 27:30. Fair enough. Though they still misremember events of the previous films. Breakdown:

-9:00 Complaining that Jean already had the “force” inside of her when really that was just Jean’s telekinetic energy from her mutant power as they stated in that movie awhile with X2 and X3. They also alluded to that power in this movie.

-11:00 Saying that they ignored the Hellfire Club. Forgetting that they are dead.

-16:30 They say that the events of Apocalypse didn’t hurt mutant-human relations. But it did because at the end of that movie they said that it’s going to hurt mutant-human relation.

-18:10 They forgot Jean’s characterization in Apocalypse. Her whole thing was that she was afraid of hurting people, which she does in this movie.

-26:25 Says that Jean was looking for Magneto and had the “Phoenix Force” inside her.

[Divine Spark]

Btw, had this conversation a few months back.

Jean doesn’t become Dark Phoenix in the movie. The story about her evolving from that fate thanks to Xavier having hope in Jean controlling her powers. Similar to how DOFP was about Xavier turning Raven away from becoming Mystique. Both Dark Phoenix and DOFP even have the same narration opening about evolving beyond a destined fate.

The notion of Jean being the X-Men’s greatest foe is a marketing misdirection.

It wasn't marketing misdirection it was bad story telling. Jean wasn't the "enemy" technically in the Dark Phoenix Saga since the X-Men wanted to save her thru out the storyline. But the Phoenix persona no matter if going with the cosmic entity or darkside of Jean reveled in committing acts of evil and while not their greatest foe she is their greatest threat. The film tried to tell this story but failed this wasn't misdirection it was ineptitude.

The story opens with a narration about evolving beyond a destined fate and that is the story it wanted to tell. Apocalypse had a vision of Jean committing acts of evil, that was her destiny and if that had happened it would have went against the opening narrations. It would be like Mystique not putting the gun down in Days of Future Past, which basically had the same exact narration.

Sad fact is you and many fans put more thought into wait was done in these films than the filmmakers for these films.

The behind the scenes content has Sophie Turner confirming what I said. Jean was not meant to be a villain. Guess it wasn’t bad storytelling.

[Midvillian1322]

Btw, had this conversation a few months back.









The behind the scenes content has Sophie Turner confirming what I said. Jean was not meant to be a villain. Guess it wasn’t bad storytelling.

Just because Jean wasnt meant to be the bad guy doesnt make that story any better for most people.

[KurtW95]

I’ve come to find that people on Screen Junkies seem to have a hard time remembering events from the X-films. Mystique tried to kill Trask instead of the president and Magneto being a free man was explained at the end of Apocalypse.

Also, come to found that a lot of people mistakenly believe Jean’s behavior was directly influenced by the force.

They shill for the Disney Marvel movies just like everybody else and the quality took a massive dump when they became a big corporation and again when Andy Signore was shown the door.

[Midvillian1322]

They shill for the Disney Marvel movies just like everybody else and the quality took a massive dump when they became a big corporation and again when Andy Signore was shown the door.

Never watched anything from them other then Honest trailers and like 2 episodes of movie fights back in the day. But the Shill comment is silly af and makes 0 sense.

[XPac]

Btw, had this conversation a few months back.









The behind the scenes content has Sophie Turner confirming what I said. Jean was not meant to be a villain. Guess it wasn’t bad storytelling.

I think you can argue the storytelling was bad either way quite frankly.

[Cyke]

Btw, had this conversation a few months back.









The behind the scenes content has Sophie Turner confirming what I said. Jean was not meant to be a villain. Guess it wasn’t bad storytelling.

Intent and execution are two different things. The movie never gave me the sense that Jean was to be the villain (indeed, in the comics the Phoenix Force is the villain, and Jean is ultimately heroic in her suicide), but that didn't help my negative judgment of the movie. Indeed, I didn't know what Sophie's explanation was (since we're *just* seeing this now) nor that Jean was supposed to be viewed as villainous when I walked away from the theater feeling like I wasted 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back.

But additionally, if one needs to explain something several months after a movie's complete in response to ongoing criticism, then it means that the movie haven't portrayed the intention of the movie properly. This is one of the big reasons why, say, Game of Thrones Season 8 was so negatively received despite the anticipation. Movies, above all else, are about capturing the viewer in the moment of viewing. Explaining something months after people watch the movie is not capturing the viewer in the moment.

[Divine Spark]

Just because Jean wasnt meant to be the bad guy doesnt make that story any better for most people.

Wasn’t saying it does. Interestingly, I’ve seen a lot of people misread the story because she was marketed to be evil.

Intent and execution are two different things. The movie never gave me the sense that Jean was to be the villain (indeed, in the comics the Phoenix Force is the villain, and Jean is ultimately heroic in her suicide), but that didn't help my negative judgment of the movie. Indeed, I didn't know what Sophie's explanation was (since we're *just* seeing this now) nor that Jean was supposed to be viewed as villainous when I walked away from the theater feeling like I wasted 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back.

But additionally, if one needs to explain something several months after a movie's complete in response to ongoing criticism, then it means that the movie haven't portrayed the intention of the movie properly. This is one of the big reasons why, say, Game of Thrones Season 8 was so negatively received despite the anticipation. Movies, above all else, are about capturing the viewer in the moment of viewing. Explaining something months after people watch the movie is not capturing the viewer in the moment.

It’s behind the scenes content that was recorded during filming(notice how she has red hair), not after release. Sophie wasn’t responding to criticism and giving an explanation, it was just an interview explaining her character.

And the only reason why some people even said that is because she was marketed to be a villain.

[XPac]

Wasn’t saying it does. Interestingly, I’ve seen a lot of people misread the story.



It’s behind the scenes content that was recorded during filming(notice how she has red hair), not after release. Sophie wasn’t responding to criticism and giving an explanation, it was just an interview explaining her character.

And the only reason why some people even said that is because she was marketed to be a villain.

Well, I suppose when you bump off an X-Man or two that sort of thing can happen.

[Divine Spark]

Well, I suppose when you bump off an X-Man or two that sort of thing can happen.

The Hulk in the MCU has innocent blood on his hands too. In fact, Jean’s storyline was very similar to a Hulk story.

While we are on the subject of the movie Chris Claremont confirmed the two parter plan and studio interference rumors(he had a cameo in the movie).

The entire comic-book saga unfolded over more than a dozen issues of "Uncanny X-Men" in the late 1970s and 1980, which means it can be challenging to adapt it for a two-hour movie. Deadline reported in June that "Dark Phoenix" was originally planned as two movies, but the studio Fox scrapped those plans, and director Simon Kinberg — who had been a longtime franchise producer and writer — rewrote the script to accommodate.

"Simon wanted to do it as two films," Claremont confirmed. "One to make the audience fall in love with Jean and the other to break their hearts. But to do it in an hour and 50 minutes is a challenge. To his credit, despite a lot of outside interference from companies that will remain nameless, he pretty much got away with it."

https://www.insider.com/dark-phoenix...tations-2019-8

[XPac]

The Hulk in the MCU has innocent blood on his hands too. In fact, Jean’s storyline was very similar to a Hulk story.

While we are on the subject of the movie Chris Claremont confirmed the two parter plan and studio interference rumors(he had a cameo in the movie).



https://www.insider.com/dark-phoenix...tations-2019-8

This was probably a blessig in disguise. We've already seen 2 Kinberg Phoenix movies... no need to subject the audience to a third. Quit while you're behind.

[Divine Spark]

This was probably a blessig in disguise. We've already seen 2 Kinberg Phoenix movies... no need to subject the audience to a third. Quit while you're behind.

2 Kinberg Phoenix movies? If you are referring to X3 Kinberg had only wrote a draft that was heavily rewritten by Zak Penn due to studio mandate as they felt it was too dark and expensive. This has been known for years and Claremont also confirms it in the link(he had a cameo in that movie too).

Claremont blamed Singer's departure on a "long negotiation, if you want to use that word, between him and Fox. Neither side was prepared to give."

"He got a better offer to do Superman, which is something he apparently wanted to do forever," Claremont said. "And everything sort of cascaded from there ... ['The Last Stand'] lost two directors [Singer and Matthew Vaughn, who later directed 2011's 'X-Men: First Class.'] They brought in Brett Ratner. He shot it in lickity-split time. But Simon [Kinberg, who also cowrote 'The Last Stand'] and the other writers weren't allowed to change anything."

I don’t know why anyone would think Kinberg had much creative control on X3. It makes no sense.

[Theleviathan]

I don’t know why anyone would think Kinberg had much creative control on X3. It makes no sense.

Perhaps because he's framed this as a "second chance". Wouldn't that imply there was a first?

[Divine Spark]

Well, this puts an end to the whole “they retconned Apocalypse” complaint.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MarvelatFox...orce_question/