Amph X-Men Movies & TV - Discussion

J-Law

 

J-Law, sorry -- I was meaning this new one. The jet lag... still burns...

I guess I should also include that McKellen and Jackman never won and were at least nominated and Stewart never was even nominated for an Oscar...

 

Also keep in mind, inflation. It's possible similar amounts of people saw the original X-Men and the Avengers, but ticket prices are also higher than they were when the original X-Men opened.

Which is a crime against humanity!

 

Trust me when I say that's not an argument one wants to make against most films and The Avengers especially a film made in the last 15 years...

 

I'm not saying about actors with great achievement, but actors who fit the role perfectly, Jackman and Stewart are two of them. Especially Jackman's Wolverine.

Ian's impression of Gandalf is too deep to me. Maybe they should have picked Sir Christopher Lee. I still couldn't believe that Saruman lost a villain role to Gandalf.

They never gave Peter O'toole even one Oscar, that was horrible.

 

Ian is awesome as Magneto and Gandalf

Now kindly, go home and think about what you just said

 

Ignore the crazy/nonsensical people, please.

 

I'll indulge you this once. You're right, back then the X-Men comic books enjoyed considerably more popularity than the Avengers. The problem is, if you only take into account that small percentage of the population that read comics (let's say, at the height of their popularity, roughly a million people, maybe less), the X-Men could be considered something of a niche brand, in no way as recognizable as DC's Trinity or the better known Marvel property that is Spider-Man. Sure, they also had the Fox cartoon at the time which gave the property even more exposure and may have helped paved the way to the big screen adaptation.

But still, the success of the first X-Men film was a considerable gamble, considering the near disastrous crash of the Batman franchise and Marvel's less than stellar adaptations at the time. It really didn't have much going for it at the time except the growing brand recognition, its backing by the Donners, a director that had gained a certain amount of renown and only three major stars -- in the form of Patrick Stewart (who was simply born to play the role of Charley X), Halle Berry and, IMO, the terribly miscast Anna Paquin -- attached to it. Ian Mackellan wasn't an unknown but the movie that made him a household name was more than a year in the future from being released. And Hugh Jackman was an unknown. It had a troubled and lenghty development, changing directors and scriptwriters more than once and didn't have a major budget compared to other blockbusters. But still, despite all this, it gained a decent box office and helped launch other franchises that are drowning us now in overexposure.

So maybe the movie didn't rake in the money Avengers did and this is not altogether unsurprising. But it was a rebirth of sorts for a genre that was in a near deathly lull at the time and which in turned turned Marvel and its properties into a veritable juggernaut, perhaps one truly more unstoppable than the one our merry band of muties occasionally battled.

 

So excited for this one, the future scenes remind me of Terminator with the bluish tint to them. And as always P Stewart and Ian will own it.

 

i love patrick stewart, but i can't think of any performances that i would exactly call oscar snubs.

 

To take it further, "Spider-Man" had the benefit of coming nearly a year after 9/11 and there was a strong desire for the superhero type, which helped propel Spidey along. Including the coincidental New Yorker scene. The following year, the second "X-Men" film came out and did better than the first film. There was hype leading into both feature films. By the time "The Avengers" rolled around, you had hype behind the whole thing. Five feature films had come out, each with varying degrees of success and there was a strong sense that this was going to be something special which the previous films didn't quite have. That's not to say that they're bad films, but it was a very different feeling. It could have been a hit or a train wreck. It wound up being a success and so afterwards, you had people eagerly awaiting "Iron Man 3", hoping to see something good and what would come after the big money shot that was "The Avengers".

 

But by the time of the 2nd one, Ian was already Gandalf and Jackman's Wolverine was very well received, the box office still didn't go that well, despite X-2 was quite amazing.

 

It recouped its production budget three times.

 

Still not on the level of Iron Man series, it's even less than Thor's box office. Later both the Wolverine and First Class didn't surpass 400m. The 2nd Wolverine barely surpassed 400m because of the oversea box office.

 

XM: 157 / 54
X2: 215 / 86
X3: 234 / 103
FC: 146 / 55

Thor: 181 / 66
Thor 2: 206 / 86

Um, both X2 and X3 did better than Thor and adjusted for inflation will be doing better...

Also, bear in mind that both First Class and The Wolverine will likely be markedly down because of horrible word-of-mouth from previous films (Last Stand and Origins, respectively)...

 

What is that chart? Opening Weekends?

Yeah, Singer left to direct SR so X-3 became a mess. However I still question Singer's ability in box office since both his Superman Returns and Jack the Giantslayer didn't do well.

 

No, total BO domestic / foreign.

 

Totally box office? I remember Thor had 440M and Thor2 had 640M? Sure Thor2 received a boost from The Avengers.

 

Oh, sorry, you are correct. I copied the wrong numbers.

XM: 157 / 139
X2: 215 / 192
X3: 234 / 225
FC: 146 / 207

Thor: 181 / 268
Thor 2: 206 / 438

So, X2 / X3 still outpace original Thor (especially with inflation) and Thor 2 builds off a very good Thor film and Avengers...

 

Oh yeah, maybe I asked too much, I was thinking to let X-Men have crazy box office like the Avengers.

 

What about Blade which came out two years earlier? Wouldn't that be considered the film that kickstarted Marvel films and began to resurrect the superhero genre?

 

Why all of these 3 couldn't do well in their 3rd movie? Blade 3 was meh, X-3 was horrible, Spider-Man 3 was not that bad but still, a lot worse than the 2nd one.

 

No, Spider-Man 3 was an abomination.