Can we talk about why X-Men adaptions are so hard to get right?

[Agent Z]

Well of course it's hard if you don't know what the hell you're doing. But it's not just the X-Men universe. It goes for ALL Marvel characters. We've seen that with the dozens of failed Marvel adaptations. Just look at all the failed or mediocre adaptations of Spider-Man, Captain America, Hulk, Punisher, Elektra or Daredevil! All of these characters had a very poor track record when it comes to live action adaptations before Marvel themselves took a real shot at it. After Marvel managed to give it a try they did exceptionally well! It just shows that when you know the source material well adapting it into other mediums isn't as difficult. And who else would know Marvel characters better than Marvel themselves?

Um Spider-Man didn't have a poor track record aside from Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2.

[donpricetag]

And why would they?

What business would hold off on their huge profit product because someone involved went to go work on another product for another company?

There's no guarantees that Singer would come back immediately after Superman. They'd be waiting indefinitely to release their movie until Bryan decided he was ready to come back and do it.

That's atrocious business.

Fox was not in the wrong, even in the least bit, for not waiting.

There's lots that can be blamed on Fox for X-Men 3. That's not one of them. Singer leaving was entirely his own doing.

...I'm not defending Singer. I'm just stating a fact.

[donpricetag]

No,you said because he wanted to work on a rival studios franchise.

There's this word "probably" I put in front of that. That part was more of an observation or note. Not a fact. I meant for it be "it didn't help that he was going to a rival studio".

[SeanBansheeCassidy]

It's actually easy. Singer is just making us see that it's difficult when it's not. I mean, why are they having difficulty even just making a costume similar to comics or at least make a cool one? If MCU was making the X-men movie, they definitely get the costumes right.

Like the MCU had Wanda and Hawkeye in their comic outfits?

Hell the amount of complaining when Munn's costume was revealed kinda shows how hard it is to please everyone

[JustAnotherFan]

Um Spider-Man didn't have a poor track record aside from Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Every Spidey film after the 2002 film brought in less money than the previous one with the exception of Spider-Man 3 which you yourself just admitted to being a bad film and which was pretty badly received. And when you only have 2 actually good films among 5 films with 1 being terrible and 2 being somewhere between meh and bad you're not doing all that well. And there have been earlier live action Spidey adaptations that were also rather weak so yeah, I'd say that Spidey doesn't have the greatest possible track record when it comes to live action adaptations even if his track record is better than most other Marvel characters' before Marvel took over. And I have a feeling that Marvel will be making the best received Spidey film soon and if that happens then my point is further proven.

[donpricetag]

I think this thread should be renamed "Why is it do hard to please everyone?" When making movies of this caliber, the makers have to look at the widest avenue to take because that road will yield the most profit. The producers will look at appealing to broader audience opposed to the few hundred outspoken fans on a message board, 95% of which will still go see it in the theaters and still buy it when it hits DVD/BluRay/Digital due to OCD-like completionist tendencies. Piss off some fan-boys and girls VS Make a billion dollars on a 150 million investment. It's rare they'll be able to stay true to source materiel while trying to appease niche groups, special interest groups, stock holders, execs, advertisers, actors, fans, critics etc. It's why minor characters and villains become main characters and heroes, why historically hetro characters are change to gay, why we see changes in ethnicity or tweaks to age old character models, costumes and/or habits. This is true in theaters and TV. You simply can't please everyone and when you try, you get Spider-Man 3, X3 and F4. Someone is going to be let down and sorry, but we comic book readers are a very small percentage of the population that goes out to see these movies. Funny enough, this wont change and it isn't helped when the "faithful comic book readers" constantly put down, criticize and threaten to boycott.

[Galerion]

Every Spidey film after the 2002 film brought in less money than the previous one with the exception of Spider-Man 3 which you yourself just admitted to being a bad film and which was pretty badly received. And when you only have 2 actually good films among 5 films with 1 being terrible and 2 being somewhere between meh and bad you're not doing all that well. And there have been earlier live action Spidey adaptations that were also rather weak so yeah, I'd say that Spidey doesn't have the greatest possible track record when it comes to live action adaptations even if his track record is better than most other Marvel characters' before Marvel took over. And I have a feeling that Marvel will be making the best received Spidey film soon and if that happens then my point is further proven.

Kinda speaks for itself when even "bad" Spider-Man movies make much more money than the X-Men. Weren't the X-Men at the top along with him? Isn't that the reason why Fox even bought those rights?
Like I said already wasted potential is what the X-movies had as a motto so far. That's no wonder when you have people at the helm who are afraid of the source material. You know the actual thing that made those properties into the big franchises they are in the first place.

I agree though that Marvel will make the best Spider-Man movie ever and show once again how it's done.

[Franchise408]

I think this thread should be renamed "Why is it do hard to please everyone?" When making movies of this caliber, the makers have to look at the widest avenue to take because that road will yield the most profit. The producers will look at appealing to broader audience opposed to the few hundred outspoken fans on a message board, 95% of which will still go see it in the theaters and still buy it when it hits DVD/BluRay/Digital due to OCD-like completionist tendencies. Piss off some fan-boys and girls VS Make a billion dollars on a 150 million investment. It's rare they'll be able to stay true to source materiel while trying to appease niche groups, special interest groups, stock holders, execs, advertisers, actors, fans, critics etc. It's why minor characters and villains become main characters and heroes, why historically hetro characters are change to gay, why we see changes in ethnicity or tweaks to age old character models, costumes and/or habits. This is true in theaters and TV. You simply can't please everyone and when you try, you get Spider-Man 3, X3 and F4. Someone is going to be let down and sorry, but we comic book readers are a very small percentage of the population that goes out to see these movies. Funny enough, this wont change and it isn't helped when the "faithful comic book readers" constantly put down, criticize and threaten to boycott.

Agreed with this

[Franchise408]

Kinda speaks for itself when even "bad" Spider-Man movies make much more money than the X-Men. Weren't the X-Men at the top along with him? Isn't that the reason why Fox even bought those rights?
Like I said already wasted potential is what the X-movies had as a motto so far. That's no wonder when you have people at the helm who are afraid of the source material. You know the actual thing that made those properties into the big franchises they are in the first place.

I agree though that Marvel will make the best Spider-Man movie ever and show once again how it's done.

"Wasted potential"

A film series that has been a box office success 7/7 times, has broken box office records, and is a bona-fide A list movie franchise.

Wasted potential.

Scared of the source material.

...

[Galerion]

I think this thread should be renamed "Why is it do hard to please everyone?" When making movies of this caliber, the makers have to look at the widest avenue to take because that road will yield the most profit. The producers will look at appealing to broader audience opposed to the few hundred outspoken fans on a message board, 95% of which will still go see it in the theaters and still buy it when it hits DVD/BluRay/Digital due to OCD-like completionist tendencies. Piss off some fan-boys and girls VS Make a billion dollars on a 150 million investment. It's rare they'll be able to stay true to source materiel while trying to appease niche groups, special interest groups, stock holders, execs, advertisers, actors, fans, critics etc. It's why minor characters and villains become main characters and heroes, why historically hetro characters are change to gay, why we see changes in ethnicity or tweaks to age old character models, costumes and/or habits. This is true in theaters and TV. You simply can't please everyone and when you try, you get Spider-Man 3, X3 and F4. Someone is going to be let down and sorry, but we comic book readers are a very small percentage of the population that goes out to see these movies. Funny enough, this wont change and it isn't helped when the "faithful comic book readers" constantly put down, criticize and threaten to boycott.

Unfortunately Fox doesn't do movies that respond extremely well with the general audience. Otherwise the X-Men would be on par with other superhero franchises when it comes to box office but they aren't.
Spider-Man is more successful, Batman and Superman are more successful (yeah despite Synder) and the entire MCU is more successful. That's three different companies with different properties.
How do you explain that two solo movies featuring one of the most popular character in comics (Wolverine) did way less money than the first Iron Man movie in 2008? Robert Downey Jr. wasn't one of the biggest Hollywood stars at that time and the MCU basically didn't exist yet either because that movie kickstarted it. Way more people at least heard of Wolverine opposed to Iron Man in that time. Three arguments that come flying right out of the window. On paper that shouldn't have happened but it did. Nowadays it's not even a contest at all.

How did Fox fail to capitalize on the popularity of the franchises they have access to?
That's the question but there is no doubt they did. It's the same company that already tanked two other superhero franchises.
Deadpool is the brightest exception to that. It's also the movie that comes closest to the spirit of the source material out of all the Fox movies so far and that only happened because the meddlers at Fox were kept out of it for the most part. Go figure.

[donpricetag]

Unfortunately Fox doesn't do movies that respond extremely well with the general audience. Otherwise the X-Men would be on par with other superhero franchises when it comes to box office but they aren't.
Spider-Man is more successful, Batman and Superman are more successful (yeah despite Synder) and the entire MCU is more successful. That's three different companies with different properties.
How do you explain that two solo movies featuring one of the most popular character in comics (Wolverine) did way less money than the first Iron Man movie in 2008? Robert Downey Jr. wasn't one of the biggest Hollywood stars at that time and the MCU basically didn't exist yet either because that movie kickstarted it. Way more people at least heard of Wolverine opposed to Iron Man in that time. Three arguments that come flying right out of the window. On paper that shouldn't have happened but it did. Nowadays it's not even a contest at all.

How did Fox fail to capitalize on the popularity of the franchises they have access to?
That's the question but there is no doubt they did. It's the same company that already tanked two other superhero franchises.
Deadpool is the brightest exception to that. It's also the movie that comes closest to the spirit of the source material out of all the Fox movies so far and that only happened because the meddlers at Fox were kept out of it for the most part. Go figure.

Doesnt have to resonate with audiences to make money. X3 was Panned across the board but still brought in close to a half billion dollars. Same with Transformers. That last one was horrid... billion dollars.

[JustAnotherFan]

Kinda speaks for itself when even "bad" Spider-Man movies make much more money than the X-Men. Weren't the X-Men at the top along with him? Isn't that the reason why Fox even bought those rights?
Like I said already wasted potential is what the X-movies had as a motto so far. That's no wonder when you have people at the helm who are afraid of the source material. You know the actual thing that made those properties into the big franchises they are in the first place.

I agree though that Marvel will make the best Spider-Man movie ever and show once again how it's done.

Unfortunately Fox doesn't do movies that respond extremely well with the general audience. Otherwise the X-Men would be on par with other superhero franchises when it comes to box office but they aren't.
Spider-Man is more successful, Batman and Superman are more successful (yeah despite Synder) and the entire MCU is more successful. That's three different companies with different properties.
How do you explain that two solo movies featuring one of the most popular character in comics (Wolverine) did way less money than the first Iron Man movie in 2008? Robert Downey Jr. wasn't one of the biggest Hollywood stars at that time and the MCU basically didn't exist yet either because that movie kickstarted it. Way more people at least heard of Wolverine opposed to Iron Man in that time. Three arguments that come flying right out of the window. On paper that shouldn't have happened but it did. Nowadays it's not even a contest at all.

How did Fox fail to capitalize on the popularity of the franchises they have access to?
That's the question but there is no doubt they did. It's the same company that already tanked two other superhero franchises.
Deadpool is the brightest exception to that. It's also the movie that comes closest to the spirit of the source material out of all the Fox movies so far and that only happened because the meddlers at Fox were kept out of it for the most part. Go figure.

I have to agree, it does speak about something that the FoX-Men films haven't reached the financial/critical success and fan approval that MCU and other adaptations have. Heck, as you said Deadpool is the most successful film in all of theses areas and it's also the closest one to the source material. But I'm sure that staying true to a formula that has been proven to work well (in cartoons, comics, games and every other medium before) is not what made it such a success. *eyeroll*

I think this thread should be renamed "Why is it do hard to please everyone?" When making movies of this caliber, the makers have to look at the widest avenue to take because that road will yield the most profit. The producers will look at appealing to broader audience opposed to the few hundred outspoken fans on a message board, 95% of which will still go see it in the theaters and still buy it when it hits DVD/BluRay/Digital due to OCD-like completionist tendencies. Piss off some fan-boys and girls VS Make a billion dollars on a 150 million investment. It's rare they'll be able to stay true to source materiel while trying to appease niche groups, special interest groups, stock holders, execs, advertisers, actors, fans, critics etc. It's why minor characters and villains become main characters and heroes, why historically hetro characters are change to gay, why we see changes in ethnicity or tweaks to age old character models, costumes and/or habits. This is true in theaters and TV. You simply can't please everyone and when you try, you get Spider-Man 3, X3 and F4. Someone is going to be let down and sorry, but we comic book readers are a very small percentage of the population that goes out to see these movies. Funny enough, this wont change and it isn't helped when the "faithful comic book readers" constantly put down, criticize and threaten to boycott.

"Wasted potential"

A film series that has been a box office success 7/7 times, has broken box office records, and is a bona-fide A list movie franchise.

Wasted potential.

Scared of the source material.

...

Doesnt have to resonate with audiences to make money. X3 was Panned across the board but still brought in close to a half billion dollars. Same with Transformers. That last one was horrid... billion dollars.

No, there is no need for the films to be accurate or please the hardcore comic fans. We've seen that a film can do well at the box office even if it infuriates the hardcore comics fans. But we've also seen that the movies that make the most money and are the least divisive critically (and from fan perspective) are the ones that stay closest to the original source material (MCU, Deadpool, Spidey films). Everyone can draw from that their own conclusions.

[ciscostudent561]

"Wasted potential"

A film series that has been a box office success 7/7 times, has broken box office records, and is a bona-fide A list movie franchise.

Wasted potential.

Scared of the source material.

...

lol ikr
just cause fanboys dont approve doesnt mean it hasn't reached critical and commercial success.. worldwide!

[AbnormallyNormal]

I am not sure I agree OP even though I think maybe you are on track. Some comics translate better than others to film or various media and I think the issue is that the X-Men are bigger than 100 minutes of theater film. You simply can't cram everyone and everything in effectively. I feel they would work better as a big budget TV series or Netflix show to give people time to learn and invest in the characters and then to really do justice to some of the classic stories over multiple seasons.

Yep this is entirely the case

I still think the movies could be done better and as a comics fan I of course wish they were way more accurate

But the MCU films are simply too light hearted and too superficial for me

I dont want "Wholesome family friendly entertainment" that's not really what I like about comics....

[Franchise408]

Doesnt have to resonate with audiences to make money. X3 was Panned across the board but still brought in close to a half billion dollars. Same with Transformers. That last one was horrid... billion dollars.

This narrative needs to stop. X-Men 3 was not panned across the board. It was panned among fans.

Among critics, it was mixed at worst, leaning towards positive (very similar to X-Men: Apocalypse), and among general audiences was received positively.

It was received less positively than the first 2 movies for sure, but was still a generally well received movie.

Just not among the internet comic book fan community .