Dark Phoenix X-Men: Dark Phoenix News and Speculation Thread - - - Part 12

[EnDz0n3]

I suspect if they really wanted too they would find a way to do it no matter when the film are set. Presumably it's more down to everyone doing their own thing and films makers being less interested in touching or giving out characters that another film maker currently has their own plan with.

Yukio
Caliban
Colossus
Sunspot
Emma
Jubilee
Angel
Psylocke
Beast
Shaw
Cyclops
Storm
Bolivar Trask
Toad
Sabretooth
and countless others.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Yukio
Caliban
Colossus
Sunspot
Emma
Jubilee
Angel
Psylocke
Beast
Shaw
Cyclops
Storm
Bolivar Trask
Toad
Sabretooth
and countless others.

How many of these were continuations between movies? Wolverine is probably the only character so far that has jumped back and forth between various X-Men and solo movies and doing that did result in mangold removing his original ending for The Wolverine as presumably DOFP got in the way of what he originally wanted to do.

 

[X-Maniac]

I seek to absolve Kinberg of any responsibility in what way? I stated clearly Kinberg is a co-writer and co-producer on these movies. That is a fact based statement. Every writer carries out on-set screenplay rewrites to appease studio demands. That's common knowledge in Hollywood film-making. Every script undergoes multiple rewrites. He's not responsible for the outcome said past movies because that's the director's job. It seems you're the one trying to absolve responsibility from said titles, not me.

Kinberg is an overseer, period.

While he may not hold a title like Kevin Feige, president of Marvel Studios, it's clear from what the cast and Hollywood trades are saying that he is the de facto overseer of the X-Men franchise.

Neither Singer nor Shuler Donner seemed to have the same 'head honcho' status as Kinberg but all of Kinberg's interviews sound like he is command of the X-Men (and F4) films, the cast describe him as such and the Hollywood trades describe him as such.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Case closed. I don't care what official titles you throw out. We had similar deniers on here strenuously insisting Mystique was not leader of the X-Men and that Singer hadn't gone AWOL during X:A. LOL! Nice try!

And with Mark Millar.....again.....you seem not to understand what a creative consultant does in the film industry. It's the exact same thing Kinberg has done with star wars or other Disney properties. They are simply involved in the writing process for scripts. Not much more than that. It's usually an non-credited role. Regarding Millar, you'll have to take that up with 20th Century Fox who would be responsible for any deals established with Millar. At the time Bryan Singer seemed to have his own ideas on where the x-men franchise should go and didn't seem particularly interested in Millar when he was directing Days of Future Past

My mention of Millar was to determine the extent of his involvement in these films. Clearly it did not amount to much. I'd hoped he might have been able to offer some comic book knowledge to a franchise where there is clearly very little.

I'm wondering what excuses we will hear from you if Dark Phoenix is a turd. 'Oh, well he was forced to change things by the studio execs' or 'He changed things after the test screenings so it's the fault of the people who saw those screenings'...

Or maybe you'll come up with some other excuse, as will Kinberg.

 

[psylockolussus]

Yukio
Caliban
Colossus
Sunspot
Emma
Jubilee
Angel
Psylocke
Beast
Shaw
Cyclops
Storm
Bolivar Trask
Toad
Sabretooth
and countless others.

Geez FoX!

 

[psylockolussus]

Both Hoult and McAvoy were so baby-faced back in First Class. It's like they went through a 2nd puberty and then some.
Fassbender went from suave classic 007 to Daniel Craig.

It didn't look like its been 10, 20... And from the photos of McAvoy/Fassbender, 30 years since they met each other. While Quicksilver didn't age at all, his hairstyle was still the same too.

 

[Cktopl33]

Kinberg is an overseer, period.

While he may not hold a title like Kevin Feige, president of Marvel Studios, it's clear from what the cast and Hollywood trades are saying that he is the de facto overseer of the X-Men franchise.

Neither Singer nor Shuler Donner seemed to have the same 'head honcho' status as Kinberg but all of Kinberg's interviews sound like he is command of the X-Men (and F4) films, the cast describe him as such and the Hollywood trades describe him as such.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Case closed. I don't care what official titles you throw out. We had similar deniers on here strenuously insisting Mystique was not leader of the X-Men and that Singer hadn't gone AWOL during X:A. LOL! Nice try!



My mention of Millar was to determine the extent of his involvement in these films. Clearly it did not amount to much. I'd hoped he might have been able to offer some comic book knowledge to a franchise where there is clearly very little.

I'm wondering what excuses we will hear from you if Dark Phoenix is a turd. 'Oh, well he was forced to change things by the studio execs' or 'He changed things after the test screenings so it's the fault of the people who saw those screenings'...

Or maybe you'll come up with some other excuse, as will Kinberg.

That's not his job. All you've done is determine he's an overseer in your mind. Nothing more. There was never a case there to begin with. Therefore your point is irrelevant. It seems you are the one in denial. Both Singer and Donner have been on the franchise longer than Kinberg. Kinberg is a producer who has co-produced a lot of the x-men films. His position is nothing more than the others who do the same. It seems at this point he'll get the opportunity to take on his own ideas for the x-men that he perhaps didn't get to do in the past now that he's directing. That's the big difference in his current occupation and he's stated this very fact.

Any involvement Millar would have with the films would be determined by the studio. The studio controls all of those factors and has the final say on everything.

And again.....I don't know why this needs constant repeating...it's such a simple easy to understand point. But whether or not Dark Phoenix is a critical and/or commercial success will be determined by Simon Kinberg who is the DIRECTOR. No different than how the past successes or failures of these films are determined by their director. Now, let's flip it. What excuses will we hear from you if the movie is a success? It'll be hard to side step Kinberg's involvement since this movie is all based on a singular vision & story from the director.

 

[psylockolussus]

He's an overseer because Fox hired him to do so and that's what the industry and the press say.its just not a product of X-Maniac's mind. Do you know how silly that sounds? Just stop.

And you keep putting it on all on the director.... Lmao do you know how instrumental a screenwriter can be for a film??? Kinberg is a common denominator in the bad films he co wrote/wrote that's why people don't have faith in him. Anyway, see you in February, now that he's credited for those roles. And if we are wrong so what? We had valid reasons. But I doubt we would be.

 

[Cktopl33]

He's an overseer because Fox hired him to do so and that's what the industry and the press say.its just not a product of X-Maniac's mind. Do you know how silly that sounds? Just stop.

And you keep putting it on all director.... Lmao do you know how instrumental a screenwriter can be for a film??? Kinberg is a common denominator in the bad films he co wrote. Anyway, see you in February, now that's credited for those roles.

Fox hired him as a writer/producer and now director. I did a search on Simon Kinberg/ x-men and clicked the first couple of articles just to see how the press describe him in relation to these films:

“X-Men” franchise writer-producer Simon Kinberg, a 2016 Oscar nominee as a producer of the blockbuster sci-fi drama “The Martian,”

"Kinberg has been involved with the X-Men franchise as a writer and producer since 2006’s X-Men: The Last Stand. If he takes the director’s chair on the next X-Men movie, it will mark his feature film directorial debut."

"—marks the directorial debut of Simon Kinberg, who co-wrote and/or wrote The Last Stand, Days of Future Past, and Apocalypse and also produced those X-Men films. He’s been heavily involved in the crafting of these comics adaptations, but until now has never been handed the reigns to do it his way. Until Dark Phoenix."

"This is according to longtime X-Men producer Simon Kinberg who spoke recently to ET at the premiere of Deadpool 2."

"At Monday’s New York premiere of “Deadpool 2,” producer Simon Kinberg revealed the status of another highly anticipated film: “Gambit,” starring Channing Tatum."

"He also served as a producer on Logan, making this something of a reunion for him and James Mangold. Also, what many may not know, is that Kinberg was an executive producer and writer on Star Wars: Rebels, which just wrapped up earlier this year."

Hmmm. Don't see anything silly about that. Most articles describe his position accurately. Perhaps some equate producer with "overseer".

I keep putting it all on the director because the outcome of a movie IS the director's job. Sorry you are ill-informed on that fact. You CLEARLY don't know how instrumental and influential a director is for a film and how little power screenwriters have on a film because they are always overridden by the director and/or others higher up. This is even more so when multiple writers are involved with a script. Common knowledge in Hollywood.

As I stated previously, the success or failure of the movie rest on Kinberg as director. I have no qualms in saying so if the movie fails. But it will be interesting to hear what you say if the film does well after all this time of you posting rants about Kinberg.

 

[psylockolussus]

It sounds like you give Kinberg an easy pass to everything. You don't hold him accountable for anything just because he ain't the director or the head of Fox films. Yet he's an impeccable producer.

And yes,it will be interesting what my reaction would be if Dark Phoenix turns out to be great. He certainly burned me up with Fantastic Four and Apocalypse... Assuming that Dofp made him a better writer. So for me, its already better to assume the worst, than to assume the best, because I already did that with Apocalypse (regardless of my corcerns) and Fantastic Four (despite all the bad buzz) and they both failed my eXpectations.

 

[Cktopl33]

It sounds like you give Kinberg an easy pass to everything. You don't hold him accountable for anything just because he ain't the director or the head of Fox films. Yet he's an impeccable producer.

Odd. It sounds like you blame Kinberg and hold him accountable for things that aren't his responsibility. The primary responsibility of a producer is to ensure a movie is produced on time and within budget. Because he co-writes on many of these films, his responsibilities on script are shared with others. But you keep ignoring the fact that screenwriters work with directors. The director shapes this process, thus control the outcome of the movie, whether a screenwriter like it or not. If a scriptwriter wants more control over their own script, they direct their script as a film director. That's why some directors write and co-produce their own scripts. This is how the process works in the film industry. X-men Apocalypse failed and I rightly blame Byran Singer for that. I praised his success with Days of Future Past. Now it will be Kinberg's chance.

 

[psylockolussus]

He was responsible for those scripts, that he was credited for the script as seen in the credits. So of course I am gonna hold him accountable regardless what you claim about studio politics. Other screenwriters managed to turned a great script and received awards for their script work despite studio politics, and Kinberg can't do the same. You are making it sound like he's a puppet/yes man for Fox which is worse.

 

[Cktopl33]

He was responsible for those scripts, that he was credited for the script as seen in the credits. So of course I am gonna hold him accountable regardless what you claim about studio politics. Other screenwriters managed to turned a great script and received awards for their script work despite studio politics, and Kinberg can't do the same. You are making it sound like he's a puppet/yes man for Fox which is worse.

Well....he's credited...with other writers. That's what a co-writer is. He didn't write many of those scripts alone. And other screenwriters have manage to have great scripts, yet didn't receive any awards too. You can't use that as a determining factor that if they didn't win an award, then they can't produce a good script. Look at screenwriters and producers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely who worked on a handful of the Avengers movies including Winter Soldier (my favorite) and Infinity War (good, but not my favorite). They didn't receive any awards for their scripts either. But I attribute the success of those movies on the vision of the Russo Brothers, whom they worked with to build the scripts. As for awards, you understand Writers Guild of America's eligibility requirement shaped its nominations....right? Not any script can get nominated. Many awards only consider films that were made under the guild's oversight. Others have different requirements.

And I have to keep telling you again, the script is not an indicator for how the outcome of a movie will be. Even if one deems a script well written, it can still be directed in an entirely different way because the script is open to the interpretation of the director. That's why the director steers the ship. If a screenwriter receives an award for a script, that's not an award for the outcome of the film. Because scriptwriters don't control that. And even when a script win an award, that doesn't mean said script didn't go through many rewrites and input from higher-ups:

from a Professional screenwriter and director: I've written about fifteen screenplays "on assignment" from different production companies and studios. The contracts I sign for each project stipulate how long I have to complete three "steps." For the "first draft," I'm given 10-12 weeks. Then I get a round of notes from executives and producers. For the "revision" of that draft I'm given 6 weeks, and receive another round of notes. Lastly I do a "polish" which is supposed to take 3 weeks. The important thing to remember is that screenplays are never really "finished." Drafts are finished, but they are subject to revision. When a director is attached, he or she will have a "take" that may change things. Production difficulties may require changes as it is shot. Just last year I was called upon to write new scenes for "reshoots" on a project that had finished principal photography four months earlier. So, I'd argue that screenplays are really protean documents, subject to continual revision, and aren't "finished" until the movie actually premiers.

Everyone in the film industry is a yes man for any studio they work for. The Studio controls all aspects of a production- they decide when a film can enter into production, what can go in a film, have final say on actors, who the producers will be, final say on directors. Studios can hire and fire anyone at will or halt a production entirely. How this escapes you is beyond belief.....

 

[EnDz0n3]

Just replying to an older post:

Except both films* were commitee writing projects not his sole creative concept.

*Kinberg's X3 and Apocalypse

So DOFP worked so well with Kinberg and Singer writing the script that Fox decided they should go back to their writing-by-committee format for Apocalypse?

Those new talking points don't make much sense.

It's funny how you use those as your "everyone needs to pick up their pitchforks and hate Kinberg" moment but yet you fail to give credit where due when it comes to him writing DOFP the best reviewed X-Men film to date. Actually outside of the initial script by Matthew Vaughn and co.

The X2 writers were only there for the "story by" phase for Apocalypse. But yes let's blame them for Apocalypse's shortcomings when we don't credit the "story by" writers for DOFP.

Kinberg and Singer were the main story and dialogue creators of that film unlike in his other movies that he was literally being controlled and things he would write in the script would be vetoed or just ignored (Rogue not taking the cure/Jean having Phoenix Raptors etc.)

Crediting Kinberg for a job well done for DOFP would be much, much, much easier if that was his only writing credit. Unfortunately it isn't. So I make no apologies when I base my opinion of his writing ability on the batting average of all his other previous rotten films and his one other fresh film (Sherlock).

Look I'm not saying he's going to be oscar worthy, far from it, but I want to see what he can come up with left to his own devices. You're right in the sense that now it is on his shoulders squarely.

You can use blind faith all you want, I’ll use Kinberg’s filmography, but more importantly his history in this franchise and how he’s treated these characters.

After all, as that filmography plainly shows, it's easier to make a bad script than a good one.

I'm wondering what excuses we will hear from you if Dark Phoenix is a turd. 'Oh, well he was forced to change things by the studio execs' or 'He changed things after the test screenings so it's the fault of the people who saw those screenings'...

Or maybe you'll come up with some other excuse, as will Kinberg.

We've already heard some version of that on the boards: that this was originally a two-parter and with the pending Disney deal, the mouse is forcing Kinberg to end his story in one film. And thereby ruining this film.

 

[Alison Blaire]

X2 is the best x-men movie ever,with the best cast and the best script!Kinberg who?

 

[def28]

As good as it was the time of X2 is long gone.

Hopefully Kinberg brings something fresh for X-Men's audiences. This is a different era of filmmaking and audience expectation. Been against this flick for awhile but even I'm sick of the negativity.

We're getting a new line of X-Men films one way or the other so yeah, hopefully he's learned from past mistakes and ends on a solid note. We'll have new direction soon either way.

 

[psylockolussus]

Kinberg deserves the heat that he is getting. He tarnished the potential of the X-Men and the Fantastic Four especially when the MCU is right there showing him how it should be done. He's the wrong person for these properties and the fact he's still here (still producing and now directing a X-Men film) is infuriating. The MCU version of those two will take time and God knows what repercussions those films would have because of Fox's movies.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Tbh when you look at how much involvement Kinberg has had with the franchise as a whole and alot of the decisions made its probably alot less then people would want to believe.

In the long run the overall direction from X3, Origins to FC was very much a committee of people going back and forth trying to figure out what they were even doing. Bryan Singer pitched the first class movie we ended up getting to FOX and most of the decisions since FC were likely a mixture of Matthew Vaughn and Bryan Singer direction.

But then if you want to cry about Apocalypse you do have to take into consideration it was a Bryan Singer movie. he was the boss when it came to the overall direction the film went in and what he wanted from it. Nothing was gonna get past the script unless he was happy with it.

Doesn't mean Simon shouldn't get any blame because he certainly should, but then he shouldn't get thrown aside for the critical success of DOFP either when it suits people to cherry pick.

And i also think alot of film makers share a similar view on the franchise as say Bryan Singer or Simon Kinberg, whether its Ratner, Mangold, Boone, Vaughn, which is probably different to what alot of fans would like to believe where they hope a hardcore fan would come onboard and push away what came before it out of some biast and do something closer to the books... when really no, most would come onboard willingly, look the current films and just continue with what the last film left off on.

 

[The Guard]

Is there really an argument about Kinberg's role in shaping the X-Men universe? He's been creatively key dating back to The Last Stand. It was after he and Zak Penn got involved that the franchise started to get more outlandish, comic booky, etc. Penn has moved on from the X-Verse, but that approach has largely remained intact, with time travel and more expansive stories and comic booky displays of powers, etc.

The fact that he's been a producer since FIRST CLASS is another clue that he has had a role in shaping the universe for a while now.

Is he the ONLY person who has had impact? Of course not, but he is one who has arguably had a lot of impact, being a writer on three of the core X-Men films as well as a producer. He was apparently instrumental in making the FIRST CLASS sequel into DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, and pushing for Apocalypse.

When you look at the fact that he's worked on numerous other superhero films, from a genre perspective, it makes some sense that FOX would cede a lot of the responsibilities to him.

 

[EnDz0n3]

How many of these were continuations between movies? Wolverine is probably the only character so far that has jumped back and forth between various X-Men and solo movies and doing that did result in mangold removing his original ending for The Wolverine as presumably DOFP got in the way of what he originally wanted to do.

What was Mangold’s original The Wolverine ending? Was it a bigger fustercluck than Wolverine losing his adamantium and then showing up with them in DOFP?

After a quick check of my list here’s how I read those double characters from the franchise.

There’s a storyline to be told (though I don’t really want to see it, and quite frankly we’re way past it) about how Nick Hoult takes a hiatus from the X-men, takes a government job and later comes back as Kelsey Grammer.

Yukio was picked out of a Fox book of 400 characters by the Deadpool 2 writers. She “stood out” to them. They admitted to it. And there’s a big chance they didn’t know she’s already premiered in The Wolverine. An odd thought considering how the Deadpool franchise keeps referencing the Wolverine franchise.

The Caliban from DOFP is obviously not the same from Logan, for one thing, the ages don’t line up. I mean you’re more than welcome to make excuses for it but even Mangold admitted to it.

It could be said Cudmore becomes Deadpool’s Colossus. Though he somehow gained a Russian accent.

Who knows when New Mutants film is set but when it comes to Sunspot, there’s a good chance this is one of those born in a different decade from the DOFP time travel shenanigans.

The best explanation for the two Emma’s is still Emma Silverfox and Emma Frost. And that’s still pretty bad.

Born-in-a-different-decade Jubilee.

Born-in-a-different-decade Angel.

Born-in-a-different-decade Psylocke.

Dead Kevin Bacon Shaw vs. Quick Cameo Shaw.

X: O Wolverine Cyclops, Quick First Class cameo Scott, X:A Cyclops

X: O Wolverine deleted cameo Ororo, Quick First Class cameo Ororo, X:A Storm

Trask is the easiest to explain on here. Bill Duke simply had the same last name (based on what’s shown on film) or full name (based on film credits).

Evan’s Toad can still become Ray Park.

Liev gets more feral and becomes Tyler Mane’s Sabretooth?

Forgot to mention a big one that has no explanation whatsoever, and shows the utter lack of planning. Moira MacTaggert.

So to restate your original question, how many of these were continuation between movies? And how many of it are just fans coming up with excuses when the filmmakers themselves didn’t give any of them a second thought?

 

[ImSGirl95]

Maaaan, when you put it that way, it's even worse than I think with those timeline issues ..

 

[x-er]

As good as it was the time of X2 is long gone.

Hopefully Kinberg brings something fresh for X-Men's audiences. This is a different era of filmmaking and audience expectation. Been against this flick for awhile but even I'm sick of the negativity.

We're getting a new line of X-Men films one way or the other so yeah, hopefully he's learned from past mistakes and ends on a solid note. We'll have new direction soon either way.

Avengers right now is doing some very neat, intricate stuff, developing characters, setting up for the next films, building slowly and effectively. That's something that Singer did with X1 and X2. It came crashing down with Ratner's X3 as the article above states, Singer came back for X4/DOFP and it was supposed to resolve a lot of continuity issues. My understanding was X4 would lead into X5 but instead we got Prequel #3 which felt more like X3. To me, Apocalypse really isn't Singer's baby at all. With Singer gone, Fox can't create an XCU. It doesn't matter if audiences expect something more colorful, something more "comical", the issue is Fox currently can't build a franchise with what they've got, they can't tell us a story over the span of several films.

One of my biggest issues with the current prequels is (1) Jennifer Lawrence should have been written out at DOFP; her character's death should have been what changed the future. (2) Apocalypse should have had some sort of mention of DOFP; Charles was aware of the time travel and can probably tell us Apocalypse is awake because of the time travel. Also weren't there rumors Ian McKellen would be appearing? (3) none of the character development was effective... why Nightcrawler? Why Angel? What's up with Quicksilver giving up on joining his dad? Why Oscar Isaac in such a poorly written role? You're not supposed to take down Apocalypse in one film like that. Also why Wolverine? Wouldn't it have been better to just go ahead and make an X5 with him instead?

I've said it before, the only good scenes in Apocalypse were Singer injecting some sci-fi into the film: Apocalypse hacking Cerebro and Charles engaging Apocalypse in the astral plane.

 

[x-er]

And I don't care how much bad cred Singer's been getting, he definitely didn't do away with characters so readily before Apocalypse; and it doesn't make sense for him to have dropped out of the picture like that and suddenly take all the blame, from everybody. It stopped being his work at Apocalpyse for me.

 

[Alison Blaire]

And I don't care how much bad cred Singer's been getting, he definitely didn't do away with characters so readily before Apocalypse; and it doesn't make sense for him to have dropped out of the picture like that and suddenly take all the blame, from everybody. It stopped being his work at Apocalpyse for me.

That's the truth

 

[psylockolussus]

Maaaan, when you put it that way, it's even worse than I think with those timeline issues ..

Its terrible! I wonder how they act when these things are brought up to them.

 

[psylockolussus]

My understanding was X4 would lead into X5 but instead we got Prequel #3 which felt more like X3. To me, Apocalypse really isn't Singer's baby at all. With Singer gone, Fox can't create an XCU. It doesn't matter if audiences expect something more colorful, something more "comical", the issue is Fox currently can't build a franchise with what they've got, they can't tell us a story over the span of several films.

One of my biggest issues with the current prequels is (1) Jennifer Lawrence should have been written out at DOFP; her character's death should have been what changed the future. (2) Apocalypse should have had some sort of mention of DOFP; Charles was aware of the time travel and can probably tell us Apocalypse is awake because of the time travel. Also weren't there rumors Ian McKellen would be appearing? (3) none of the character development was effective... why Nightcrawler? Why Angel? What's up with Quicksilver giving up on joining his dad? Why Oscar Isaac in such a poorly written role? You're not supposed to take down Apocalypse in one film like that. Also why Wolverine? Wouldn't it have been better to just go ahead and make an X5 with him instead?

I've said it before, the only good scenes in Apocalypse were Singer injecting some sci-fi into the film: Apocalypse hacking Cerebro and Charles engaging Apocalypse in the astral plane.

Wrong direction from wrong people in charge. Singer and company really dropped their ball deciding to go back in the past. And I still blame Singer for X3, as that was his responsibility IMO to continue the story despite how hard it was there to work with Fox. Like Solo, prequels rarely attract a much bigger audience. And making a prequel after Dofp was a choice that clearly didn't attract more viewers.