Dark Phoenix X-Men: Dark Phoenix News and Speculation Thread - - - - Part 13

[psylockolussus]

Dark Phoenix, we wait!

I doubt we are getting a trailer in neXt month's San Diego Comic Con. Maybe in NYCC.

 

[SumT]

It's been a while since I've seen the movie. When exactly did this happen? All I remember is Beast asking Mystique to form the team again.

poor Beast doesnt have a f**** clue about how to form or reunite the X-Men.
So much for a 38 (or older) smart/scientist/engineer mutant living at a school for mutants.

 

[x-er]

I know you mentioned averages but at the end of the day there were no movies in the franchise in 2012, none in 2015. It's possible the X-men in the MCU can see the same amount of appearances as they currently do over at Fox. Probably not the entire team but relevant characters might show up in other non X-men team films (which isn't any different from Cyclops and Storm cameoing during the Cerebro sequel in First Class or Jean's appearance in The Wolverine).

But more importantly, (and I have no doubt) the X-men under the MCU will finally be leads in their own movie.



The irony of your post is that within that "9 year stretch" here's what the "X-men" have to show for from the franchise:

2011: there was no X-men team in First Class (no matter how Kinberg wanted to retcon that with JLaw's dialogue in Apocalypse);
2013: was the term "X-men" even mentioned in The Wolverine;
2014: there was no X-men team in the past; nor were they X-men in the future according to Singer;
2016: it was a running joke in Deadpool 1 that they can only afford Colossus and his trainee Negasonic Teenage Warhead;
2016: Comic book A-lister X-man Beast, who in the movies can't seem to do anything right, waits for messianic X-woman herself Mystique to show up since he's still too chicken ***t to organize the team on his own; How long were they "X-men" in that movie?
2017: The X-men are killed by their mentor; They appear in a comic book;
2018: 2 second cameo;
2019: ?
2019: ?

That's a sad showing for the X-men and it's even sadder to think that some people can accept this treatment.

And they left behind a team we see in the Gifted called the Mutant Underground; these guys constantly refer to the X-Men (set in 2017/2018 ?)

If Fox has any chance at redemption, they should reassemble an X-Men team for an X5 with

• Cyke as the leader
• Emma Frost as the telepath (recast)
• X-23 as the Wolverine's successor
• Kitty Pryde,
• Beast (recast)
• Colossus (recast)
• Rogue & Gambit
• Bishop
• Iceman

And you've got a solid team. We've technically not seen any of these mutants die on screen and you've got imagination, right? There's only James Marsden, Anna Paquin and Ellen Page for returning original cast members. X-23 is your new poster child. Gambit would make the ladies swoon. Get new writers and directors to give your guys a break.

Why not an X5?

 

[x-er]

you've also got Magneto's successor looking pretty angry in the Gifted (Polaris). I found this fan-made video and finally realized why they gave Polaris a green aura effect to her powers whereas Magneto never had anything but metal sound effects:

SPOILER ALERT!!

[YT]gzEWtZ5547M[/YT]

Magneto would've had some magnetic wave effect if we'd seen something supper comic accurate

[YT]I0yvWDrzo5s[/YT]

here she is taking down a plane with a government official inside it. she takes after her father a bit :*)

 

[EnDz0n3]

Its also the title of a comic book property with over 400 characters that have been going since the 60s and are still being produced today in red versions or blue versions of separate teams

You recognize X-men is a title of a comic book property with over 400 characters (thus people should be open to other fans' ultimate "X-men" roster) and yet when someone complains that Mystique and Magneto have appeared in every single "X-men" titled film (with the former as a lead character in three of the last six, and the latter a main character in six of the last six movies), you're usually the first to come to those characters' defense.

 

[GuestStar2004]

You recognize X-men is a title of a comic book property with over 400 characters (thus people should be open to other fans' ultimate "X-men" roster) and yet when someone complains that Mystique and Magneto have appeared in every single "X-men" titled film (with the former as a lead character in three of the last six, and the latter a main character in six of the last six movies), you're usually the first to come to those characters' defense.

I don't see what one has to do with the other. Like the comics the characters get played with however they decide to play with them.

 

[Charzhin0]

Have we really got to the point where there are arguments over the semantics of Xmen?

 

[sleekstereo]

I'm hoping that Comcast or Disney does not get Fox and a Tech Giant swoops to take it.

Comcast and Disney are already big enough and they shouldn't own more than 50% of the box office.

 

[DACrowe]

I doubt we are getting a trailer in neXt month's San Diego Comic Con. Maybe in NYCC.

I'll bet you 50 imaginary internet bucks we get a trailer at SDCC. We can't not if Fox is hoping to change the narrative in geek culture around. (Whether they succeed is something else entirely.)

 

[DACrowe]

Have we really got to the point where there are arguments over the semantics of Xmen?

It would seem that way.

Pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[Jh7058622]

I'm hoping that Comcast or Disney does not get Fox and a Tech Giant swoops to take it.

Comcast and Disney are already big enough and they shouldn't own more than 50% of the box office.

Agreed. They both would be far too much like a monopoly but Comcast is at least the lesser of two evils as they would allow it to be it's own entity under Comcast's parent company.

 

[DACrowe]

Yes, if someone is going to have them, Apple would be my preferred choice. They are slightly more scruples than Google (at least in the U.S., they're both awful in Asia), and they do not have a movie studio, so might be very interested in using that as a platform to innovate into the 21st century. Disney and Comcast are just devouring everything they can.

 

[Micromind]

Yes, if someone is going to have them, Apple would be my preferred choice. They are slightly more scruples than Google (at least in the U.S., they're both awful in Asia), and they do not have a movie studio, so might be very interested in using that as a platform to innovate into the 21st century. Disney and Comcast are just devouring everything they can.

Disney's CEO ( Bob Iger) has a stake in Apple and Disney's CEO is on Apple's board member. And someone confirm this, Apple's CEO Tim Cook also has a stake (percentage of ownership) of Disney.

So they are not very different from each other, their business styles also are somewhat similar. My point is.. they already have several things in common, so no great benefit can be derived if Apple buys Fox, it will essentially be same thing as Disney buying Fox.

 

[psylockolussus]

And they left behind a team we see in the Gifted called the Mutant Underground; these guys constantly refer to the X-Men (set in 2017/2018 ?)

If Fox has any chance at redemption, they should reassemble an X-Men team for an X5 with

• Cyke as the leader
• Emma Frost as the telepath (recast)
• X-23 as the Wolverine's successor
• Kitty Pryde,
• Beast (recast)
• Colossus (recast)
• Rogue & Gambit
• Bishop
• Iceman

And you've got a solid team. We've technically not seen any of these mutants die on screen and you've got imagination, right? There's only James Marsden, Anna Paquin and Ellen Page for returning original cast members. X-23 is your new poster child. Gambit would make the ladies swoon. Get new writers and directors to give your guys a break.

Why not an X5?

No need to include the Wolverine knock off. Also Kelsey is the perfect for the role and you forgot PhoeniX.

 

[DACrowe]

Disney's CEO ( Bob Iger) has a stake in Apple and Disney's CEO is on Apple's board member. And someone confirm this, Apple's CEO Tim Cook also has a stake (percentage of ownership) of Disney.

So they are not very different from each other, their business styles also are somewhat similar. My point is.. they already have several things in common, so no great benefit can be derived if Apple buys Fox, it will essentially be same thing as Disney buying Fox.

Well actually, I didn't think about this, but you're half-right: this is why Apple would never be the one to step in. They have literal stake in Disney, but that is because Steve Jobs co-founded and was CEO (or president?) of Pixar when Bob Iger bought it for $4 billion.

But Apple would be better, because they do not own multiple film studios like Disney and Comcast do, and would therefore be more interested in utilizing Fox as massive gateway into content and media production. They've already begun to enter that market, but in theory this would allow them to take it "in-house" and have a massive studio infrastructure to work from. (Same would apply to Google, they're just more low-key shady than Apple.) Whereas Disney is primarily interested in Fox's foreign assets (Sky in the UK, Star in India) and Fox's back catalogue of a century's worth of film content to mine for streaming.

The actual moviemaking production of Fox--and Fox Searchlight--remains a mystery. And based with how Disney has treated its own branches of non-IP generators in the last 10-15 years (i.e. spinning them off, winding them down, or cutting partnership ties), I find the whole idea that Disney will allow Fox and Fox Searchlight to exist for more than a few years after the acquisition incredibly dubious.

 

[Drexelhand]

Well actually, I didn't think about this, but you're half-right: this is why Apple would never be the one to step in. They have literal stake in Disney, but that is because Steve Jobs co-founded and was CEO (or president?) of Pixar when Bob Iger bought it for $4 billion.

But Apple would be better, because they do not own multiple film studios like Disney and Comcast do, and would therefore be more interested in utilizing Fox as massive gateway into content and media production. They've already begun to enter that market, but in theory this would allow them to take it "in-house" and have a massive studio infrastructure to work from. (Same would apply to Google, they're just more low-key shady than Apple.) Whereas Disney is primarily interested in Fox's foreign assets (Sky in the UK, Star in India) and Fox's back catalogue of a century's worth of film content to mine for streaming.

The actual moviemaking production of Fox--and Fox Searchlight--remains a mystery. And based with how Disney has treated its own branches of non-IP generators in the last 10-15 years (i.e. spinning them off, winding them down, or cutting partnership ties), I find the whole idea that Disney will allow Fox and Fox Searchlight to exist for more than a few years after the acquisition incredibly dubious.

The role you think Jobs had in starting Pixar was actually George Lucas, Jobs became involved after convincing Lucas to let him invest in Pixar for $5 million or something like that.

 

[psylockolussus]

I'll bet you 50 imaginary internet bucks we get a trailer at SDCC. We can't not if Fox is hoping to change the narrative in geek culture around. (Whether they succeed is something else entirely.)

What I meant is a trailer that will uploaded online right after SDCC. Aquaman's trailer IMO is coming out late, and I doubt Fox would release Dark PhoeniX's online quite early. Personally, I hope they can release it now and release the film earlier like in January or its original release date.

 

[Jh7058622]

You do know that’s two different people that said that right? Person A said Black Panther “[will] get a Best Picture nomination.” Person B laughed off all the Oscars talk because even Suicide Squad got an Oscar

You're so irrelevant I contemplated even writing back but here it goes... Yes Zarex did say that Logan's nomination won't matter as much anymore when Black Panther gets a best picture nomination as if that would happen. And I never said anything about them being the same person. Also why are you so triggered by me?

 

[psylockolussus]

I'm hoping that Comcast or Disney does not get Fox and a Tech Giant swoops to take it.

Comcast and Disney are already big enough and they shouldn't own more than 50% of the box office.

Well tell that to other major film studios specifically Sony and Paramount that can't/couldn't keep up from Disney. Warner Bros. would have bigger than Disney if they knew what to do with their DC movies. Its not really Disney's fault that their movies appeal to many people and that they succeed more. Properties like the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, Avatar, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Ice Age and Rio could flourish more under Disney. While I don't see why Fox the studio would suddenly be a pg-13 only film studio.

Anyway,I've checked Fox's upcoming schedule for the neXt 36 months. And in terms of blockbuster franchises, they only got the X-Men and Avatar films. God knows if there would be more Predator, Alien and Kingsman after 2018. So they would definitely need Disney's guidance.

 

[Jh7058622]

Yeah because Disney only has winning franchises (Solo, The Lone Ranger, Alice in Wonderland, Cars, John Carter) all successes!

 

[psylockolussus]

Obviously I clearly said Disney didn't have misses, are you gonna continue act snarky to every member you have an disagreement with. Anyway welcome to the ignore list. now have fun replying to my posts without a response from me.

 

[Drexelhand]

So if the ignore list has everyone else on it...

I think though, in terms of Comcast and Fox, the biggest thing still in Comcast's way are regulatory struggles. Sure, AT&T got through it, and it sets a precedent, but it doesn't mean that Comcast will be completely free of them.

 

[psylockolussus]

They won't. Anyway can't wait for Fox to turn them down. If not, for the regulators to dismiss their request.

 

[Cktopl33]

I'll bet you 50 imaginary internet bucks we get a trailer at SDCC. We can't not if Fox is hoping to change the narrative in geek culture around. (Whether they succeed is something else entirely.)

Well, we know they have a trailer so it isn't a matter if they have footage to show but rather what their marketing timetable is.

 

[-JKR-]

Well tell that to other major film studios specifically Sony and Paramount that can't/couldn't keep up from Disney. Warner Bros. would have bigger than Disney if they knew what to do with their DC movies. Its not really Disney's fault that their movies appeal to many people and that they succeed more. Properties like the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, Avatar, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Ice Age and Rio could flourish more under Disney. While I don't see why Fox the studio would suddenly be a pg-13 only film studio.

Anyway,I've checked Fox's upcoming schedule for the neXt 36 months. And in terms of blockbuster franchises, they only got the X-Men and Avatar films. God knows if there would be more Predator, Alien and Kingsman after 2018. So they would definitely need Disney's guidance.

They've done alright without Disney's guidance so far, and they wouldn't need it in the future, either.
They've got 'ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL' coming up this year, which could potentially turn into a new blockbuster franchise. God forbid someone tried something new and untested.
And they share the distribution rights to Tim Miller's 'TERMINATOR' film co-plotted and produced by James Cameron, handling the International release, while Paramount will cover the US market.
Also, 20th Century Fox doesn't usually announce their movies years and years in advance, so we don't really know what else they've got coming up in the next 36 months.
And when you consider that they've managed to make blockbuster money with titles such as 'THE REVENANT', 'THE MARTIAN' and 'THE GREATEST SHOWMAN' then, yeah, I'd say they don't need anyone's guidance.
Aside from their animated titles, when was the last time Disney has managed to make a successful movie which wasn't based on one of their brands/past animated movies or a Marvel/Lucasfilm title? Yeah, I can't remember, either. But I can remember 'A WRINKLE IN TIME', 'THE BFG' (which Disney co-financed and released in the US), 'THE FINEST HOURS' and 'TOMORROWLAND' (which I loved, BTW) flopping at the box office.
Disney got lucky/was smart with their acquisitions and the idea to milk their animated brands for nostalgia, by remaking them into four-quadrant live-action blockbusters (which basically is the only kind of movie they know how to make and sell: four-quadrant blockbuster movies which tick all market boxes, ie. family and China-friendly, based on brands).
Otherwise their situation wouldn't be so rosy on the live-action side.