 |
Certainly, X-Men fans should be happy, since Singer directed the two good X-Men films, and neither of the two shitty ones. But let's not kid ourselves and think that Singer is doing this gig for any reason other than the fuck-up that was Superman Returns. After X-2, Singer was one of the hottest directors in Hollywood, and he had several projects in the works, including a Logan's Run re-make and a Battlestar Galactica movie. Clearly, he can't get any of those off the ground following the box office failure of Superman Returns, and he needs to build his cred back up. Likewise, the X-Men franchise -- which has continued making plenty of money since Singer's absence, but have been horrible movies -- certainly wouldn't mind some of Singer's original magic to help prolong the franchise, so the X-Men don't wind up with Disney. So it's win-win for both Fox and Singer... but it comes after a serious lose-lose. That's all I'm saying. (Via First Showing)
65 comments
Comments
Bill said:
Ugh.
I'd like to see all of Marvels movie properties under one umbrella...that of Marvel Studios. Besides, does the X movie franchise NEED another prequel?
Genius Jones replied to Bill:
While the Marvel Studios track record has been okay so far (the excellent Iron Man and the passable Incredible Hulk), the studio's direction and quality could change drastically with any major personnel change. And then all of their character's films would suffer. Which is exactly the same potential problem that faces all DC characters' movies being under the single umbrella of Warner Bros.
RobP said:
Other than Superman Returns being a half hour too long, the horrible mis-use of Kal Penn, and the super boy subplot, I really like it as the third movie following Superman II. I'll admit that we didn't need another Superman flick with Lex Luthor as the villain, but Kevin Spacey's version was pretty damn good and closer to the comics than Gene Hackman's performance ever was (but that's NOT a knock on Gene Hackman). Plus, Superman Returns is effin' gorgeous!
Still, I'd much rather Bryan Singer direct a new X-Men flick... Preferably if he ignored X-Men: The Last Stand and made a proper conclusion to that aborted trilogy. Sorta like he did, in theory, with Superman Returns...
JOE replied to RobP:
As much as that sounds like I good idea, I really think we need to steer away from endorsing any more alternate sequels to movies. It's bad enough that every series gets rebooted in three years time anyway. Now were getting movies that have more than one timeline. Essentually, it's just more incentive for Hollywood to slop (and I mean slop) together movies, knowing that if they screw up they can just remake it again and again.
mrm1138 replied to RobP:
All they would need to do is, at the start of the film, show a montage of clips from X-Men: The Last Stand, the cuts getting faster and faster, gaining more and more intensity until we see Professor X bolt upright in bed--providing his paralysis allows that sort of thing--and then says, "What a horrible, nonsensical dream!"
Problem solved.
Arcane replied to mrm1138:
Or it could be Scarlet Witch, and we could then introduce her and Quicksilver later in the film. This however requires her to be unbelievably hot, so that we remember her by face.
Tom replied to RobP:
When I saw the movie in the theater I thought it was pretty good, but on a second viewing months later at home it just does not hold up very well. This is not a Superman film for modern fans, not after Clark Kent has gone through so many dramatic character changes over the past twenty years. Add to that him and Lois being married and Singer's movie feels...dated.
Sure, Spacey's Luthor is great, but it would have been nice to see another Superman villain like Brainiac or The Parasite. Superman Returns was a rehash of the first film; Luthor has plan for real estate.
And the film makes Superman look incredibly stupid for not establishing some sort of security system for his fortress. Luthor knows where it is, his knowledge of the workings say blatantly he had been there before. So Supes just...leaves the place vulnerable while he goes away for five years? Wow. Just...wow...
Also, after so many years of Lex being a genius businessman, seeing him screwing over old ladies for money like a 1940s radio villain took away from the movie a lot.
It was five years. You're telling me he couldn't have built LexCorp in five years?
Um. That was sort of the whole point of the movie. It was supposed to be a throwback to the Christopher Reeve movies, which were a throwback to the serials of the 1940s and 1950s (if not, specifically, the George Reeves Superman serials). Other than the technology used to make and augment the movie, it was in no way, shape, or form, supposed to be "modern."
I do agree, however, that Brainiac should be the villain-- or, the main villain-- if they do another Superman movie. Anybody wishing for Darkseid just doesn't get it; same with the X-Fans waiting for an Apocalypse movie. Those are never going to happen. They're too out there, the characters too bizarre and complicated (convoluted?) to put into a 2 hour movie. Each of them would need a whole trilogy, but your average moviegoer would be hardpressed to put their butts in the seats for something like that. Not saying I would not love to see either/both of those scenarios play out, but I'm not (most of us here aren't) average moviegoers.
Yeah, but we've learnt over the past twenty years that there's better ways of doing aspects of Superman than the Reeve movies did, with Luthor being the most obvious example (and the depiction of Clark being another). Those were really easy changes to make, and it hurt the movie.
Just because Singer wanted to make something in the style of the Reeve movies didn't mean he had to be a slave to them, but that's exactly what happened. Well, that and the disastrous super-stalker / super-kid plotlines that turned so many people off that repeat business on the movie was virtually nil.
mrm1138 replied to Tom:
Tom wrote: "And the film makes Superman look incredibly stupid for not establishing some sort of security system for his fortress...."
And people laughed at John Peters's idea of polar bear sentries at the Fortress of Solitude. Has history now vindicated him???
Monkey boy said:
I think singers the one who needs this more than fox. Say what you will about x3 and wolverine, they performed well at the box office. And fox (also, any movie company ever) has never cared about anything else beyond box office performance. X3 and wolverine might not have been the best movies, but I don't think fox would count them as "lose"s.
Geoff replied to Monkey boy:
They're going to have to pay more to Singer than to whomever directed Wolverine. It's a bit of a lose, simply because there's nothing studios hate to give away more than points.
Anonymous replied to Geoff:
Makes you wonder why they even want singer when it's clear the x men franchise can thrive at the box office without singer, but without the x franchise singer has floundered.
Chris Sanders said:
I get that Superman wasn't a juggernaut money wise but that's not his fault. I think ANY superman movie would have bombed.. people just don't care about him or his stories.
fishman2020 said:
ugh.
This is getting kind of annoying.
CATR's Chris said:
I would have liked a movie going after the X-Movies, not prequels, but with the third X-movie and the body count, that's kind of impossible :-/
Jenova520 said:
Between this and the Iron Man 2 trailer, I'm a happy happy nerd today.
Friginator said:
Personally, I thought the third X-Men was pretty good. But having Bryan Singer back is awesome.
theBRUCE said:
Wait the first 2 X-Men movies were good? Where were the good parts? Bryan Singer needs to stay away from Comic movies. I read the First Class comics which means this movie is gonna be crap although I doubt they'd go off the source material which guarantees crap. Leave the X-Men alone they deserve better
Bleh replied to theBRUCE:
X-Men 2 is pretty f@ckin' good. It like, has a plot and stuff.
theBRUCE replied to Bleh:
yeah and it centers around Wolverine. and really did we need more movie about Wolverine? The movie was the best in the series but that's like saying it was the smartest kid in the Remedial Class
At the time it was the... second... movie about Wolverine, and Jean and Magneto were just as important to the overall plot.
If you want to see a movie with Wolverine overload, look at X3. Fucking asshole Ratner killing off Cyclops ten minutes into the movie....
"Ratner killing off Cyclops ten minutes into the movie...."
That. Yes. In Ratner's defense, Scott's death was in the original script, and was one of the reasons Singer walked away from the movie. The studio wouldn't budge, they wanted Wolverine to be the guy who brings down Phoenix/sacrifices his love at the end of the flick, and not Scott. Ratner is just a director-for-hire. Points (the camera) and shoots.
Friginator replied to RobP:
Singer has never expressed any negative feelings over the X-Men 3 script. He left to do Superman Returns, but he's said many, many times that he would have liked to direct both if the timing had worked out.
Batzarro replied to theBRUCE:
Dude, It's always like that with X-Men. People claim they like it because of the parallels between mutants and Blacks/gays/jews/furries/mecanophiliacs. But in real life the most popular characters, like WOlverine, Juggernaut, Apocalypse, have Jaquelin Squat to do with that. X-Men will always revolve around the pissed off guy with the claws coming out his hands becase that's what people buy. Wolverine sells, and you's guys are buying, plain and simple.
However, this movie reportedly won't have him. That's weird. It would be refreshing, and Synger's direction was at least competent within the material given. He simply took the core and eliminated the cheese elements of X-Men. I do wish he'd worked them in, but the last two films where less successfull than him at it, se we'll see.
Ahriman said:
X-men 4! Now Gambit is on screen for FIVE WHOLE MINUTES!!
Balls to a prequel-where's my Apocalypse or Mr Sinister? Some actual villains instead of Magneto aka Bloke I'd side with if I was a mutant or Stryker aka God I suck as a bad guy.
Baltimoron replied to Ahriman:
Apocalypse needs a 3.5-4 hour costumer epic/biopic covering the amazing span of his life and his influence on human history.
It'll never get made, but yeah.
Morgenstern said:
There is a 4th X-men movie?
Ahriman replied to Morgenstern:
X-Men:Wolverine:Origins.
Or as I know it Sniktbub-Sniktbub:SniktSnikt
Morgenstern replied to Ahriman:
Forgot that one (and haven't watched it), but what does Sniktbub-Sniktbub:SniktSnikt mean?
Ahriman replied to Morgenstern:
Snikt is the sound Wolvies claws make as hey come out. He usualy refers to people as bub. Hence his nickname Sniktbub. In other words the film was
"OMG WOLVERINE!!11 *Fap Fap Fap* SPOOGE"
for the Wolvie fan base. Nothing more.
Friginator replied to Ahriman:
It was a terrible movie, unlike the first three X-Men movies. They all had flaws, but they were still good movies.
nightcrawler666 said:
I am always going to give Bryan Singer a pass just for writing and directing The Usual Suspects and getting House (not including last season) on TV.
RobP replied to nightcrawler666:
Singer didn't write The Usual Suspects, Christopher MacQuarrie (sp?) did. He also wrote The Way of the Gun (directed that, too) and Se7en. Excellent writer. Not sure what happened to him.
mrm1138 replied to RobP:
Since you're correcting people on who wrote what, I figured I'd point out that Chris McQuarrie didn't write Se7en. Andrew Kevin Walker, who also wrote 8mm and the upcoming The Wolfman, was the writer on that.
Bad Horse said:
This is a much better idea than re-re-booting BSG. That had disaster all over it.
zipzapzopzoup said:
Are we forgetting that he did Valkyrie after Superman Returns flopped?
JOE replied to zipzapzopzoup:
Valkyrie made 83 Mil out of a 75 mil budget. Hardly a flop, but I don't know how the industry considers it. Maybe they weren't impressed it only made a 8 mil prfoit and then disappeared.
zipzapzopzoup replied to JOE:
@JOE: Not sure where you're getting those numbers from. Valkyrie grossed more than $200 million worldwide. The studio clearly made their money back (and more). But regardless, I brought it up simply to question the idea that Singer's projects since Superman Returns haven't been able to get off the ground. He's made Valykyrie since and is now working on Jack The Giant Killer. Doesn't seem like he's hurting for work (or slinking back to a franchise) to me.
Friginator replied to zipzapzopzoup:
Superman Returns was a flop? What?
Superman Returns broke records for the biggest opening since the third Matrix, and went on to make $180 million in profit alone. This is despite the fact that the film was the most expensive movie ever made at the time. It also got reasonably good reviews from critics. That's not a flop.
zipzapzopzoup replied to Friginator:
Hey dude, I was just accepting the logic the original post. I guess you missed the reference to Superman Returns as a box office failure? Down fan boy, down!
Anonymous said:
If he just ignores all the movies (including his own 2) and actually simplifies things and makes this about the original 5 X-Men vs. the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, maybe even throwing in a little dated 60's flavor like the Incredibles, this could be excellent. This is a situation where casting young actors is actually the right move. No one older than 21 years old. Make Iceman 14, Jean 17, Scott 18-19, Warren and Hank 20-21.
RoboKy said:
Really? More X-Men? Because there are obviously no other Marvel(or for that matter DC) characters/groups that could be mined as film material.
I'm not asking for anything even semi-obscure(though seeing a Runaways or Outsiders movie could be amazing). But come on, lets try something new for a change...
...And if not, could we at least try turning everything on it's head with a plot along the lines of Age of Apocalypse or House of M?
Baltimoron replied to RoboKy:
A Runaways movie is actually in development. I believe BKV is actually writing the screenplay.
mrm1138 replied to RoboKy:
Remember, Fox is the entity trying to get this project going. Now that Disney owns Marvel they only have rights to X-Men, Fantastic Four and Daredevil and can't develop any other Marvel properties. Of those three, I'm guessing they think the mutants are their best bet.
Snoodle said:
If it has to be made, I'm glad Singer is the one to be doing it.
kevin n. said:
You know they're gonna replace Beast and Angel with Storm and Wolverine.
CChaos said:
For all things good and holy, why must Hollywood dredge up every possible thing for a prequel? The creative tap has run so dry there that all they can think about now is putting the franchises through the 'well, you already know what happens, let's add in things anyways!' section.
Do they not realize that the one way to destroy anything resembling suspense is to make a prequel? Guh.
Hezaa said:
If the story is anything like the X-Men: First Class comics, then it should be pretty cool. *fingers crossed*
Scortia said:
I wish the damn license would just run out and Marvel could start over. Singer's movies were better than X-men 3, but this is the guy who told his actors to not read the comics so they could perfect their characters.
But the thing is, how can they do this in the context of the other movies? Warren had gone to the Xavier institute for the first time in 3, and he was way too young. Same goes for Bobby.
I am so game for a total reboot.
jedieb said:
I got no problem with someone saying Superman Returns wasn't a good movie or a critical smash, but you can't call it a box office failure. A domestic take of $200M and a worldwide gross of $391 insured it made its money back. Throw in the DVD sales and the movie was profitable. It wasn't a smash, but it made money.
You can say it sucks, but you can't say it's box office sucked.
Greg said:
How many more times can we go back to the well? How about making a movie about a group you haven't already completely shit upon? The last two movies pretty well destroyed the X-franchise. How about abusing Power Pack for a couple of movies? You can get Robert Rodriguez to direct like those crappy Spy Kids movies he likes to make.
demoncat said:
too bad now that Bryan is back to the xfranchies he does not go and remake x3 the way it should have been instead of a prequal or maybe do a wolverine film and i will be happy when fox no longer has any of the marvel properties in their hands and they are under one roof
Arsenal said:
I am just hoping that as Super Hero movies are starting to be taken seriously and being made well and that semi follow the comics, we might actually get a X-men movie that is close to the comics, no chance that it will not have Wolverine in it, but I could luck out and get a real first class. Angel Iceman, Beast, Cyclops and marvel Girl would just make my life
Anonymous said:
I'm not a huge Superman fan, but Superman Returns was a great movie. I've never understood how people thought it failed. If a movie like this has a lot of good moments, despite how far-fetched they may be (come on guys, it's a super-hero movie), and those moments connect well with each other and you have a good time, it is a success. Look at "Last Stand", it had too few good moments and what was good about it just didn't hold up the tepid parts. There are moments I love, but all in all, it failed.
Greg replied to Anonymous:
He picked up a fucking kryptonite mountain.
Glass said:
Maybe now that Singer can't jack-off Wolverine, he'll learn that the X-Men are a TEAM!
1-7 said:
Who are we kidding? This is FOX! Cluster Fox, Sly Fox, What the Fox? They'll ALWAYS find a way to fuck up their movies. This is no different.
vendetta said:
If by directed the first 2 good xmen movies you mean the first 2 pieces of over hyped crap that sucked so hard I want to stab myslef in the frontal lobe, then yes.
