Reality Check(Budget vs. Profit)

[danoyse]

The ironic thing is two of the things I criticized Fox for(9 and 10) may have saved X3 from being a huge domestic flop. However, if Ratner had been given more filming time there would be no need to promote the mediocre film to death.

Once and for all, the movie is NOT a flop.

It's made over $232 million domestically, and over $438 million worldwide. And it still hasn't opened in China and Japan.

It's the highest grossing film of the trilogy, which with this film has grossed over $1 billion worldwide. It is the first movie this year to go over $200 million, it's outgrossed "Superman Returns", and it's likely to be one of the top 5 moneymakers of the year.

Then the DVD comes out with a rumored special edition including 21 deleted scenes and 3 alternate endings, and released just as the holiday shopping season begins. Then it hits cable. All of that counts in with how much money the movie is going to make.

You're basing everything on how much Fox is making on this...and trust me, Fox is doing just fine. Would they really be working on a "Wolverine" spinoff if X3 was truly a dud?

You didn't like it, we get it. Obviously, plenty of people did and shelled out the money to see it.

No one *lied* to you about a script. You weren't supposed to see that script. Blame AICN for the damage control everyone had to give to you in months following.

Chastising fans? Please. Fans can call everyone involved in the film whatever they want. If they can't take it back once in awhile, then they shouldn't post on message boards.

The first two X-Men movies had rushed shooting schedules as well--in fact, Fox bumped the release date of X1 from November to July. Nothing new there.

There's no disputing that Fox, like any other studio, makes some terrible business decisions....but compare them to the WB this summer, and their decisions have certainly worked out for the better for them.

 

[Theweepeople]

Once and for all, the movie is NOT a flop. .

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never said X3 was a flop. For the very last time I said it was a domestic box office disappointment.

It's made over $232 million domestically, and over $438 million worldwide.

Considering the way it opened the first week it was on pace to easily break 300 million domestically. Also, don't forget that this film has a weak domestic profit percentage 10.7%. Now I will compare these domestic results will POTC2.

It took POTC2 two weeks and 3 days to break 300 million domestically and will break 400 million at the rate its making money.

POTC2 has already made more money worldwide than X3 !!!

The budget for POTC2 was 15 million more than X3 and it's domestic profit percentage is currently at 42.6% and will probably end up around 77.7%.

POTC2 did not have that absurd 2nd weekend drop off that X3 had because it was a superior film.

Overall X3 is a steaming pile of poo in comparison to POTC2. This comparison merely shows how much better X3 could have been if it was developed by another studio that treats their franchises with care.

And it still hasn't opened in China and Japan.

It will make something around 20 to 35 million in these countries. Am I supposed to be impressed with that?

It's the highest grossing film of the trilogy, which with this film has grossed over $1 billion worldwide.

This is a weak argument. Return of the Jedi and Austin Powers 3 were the highest grossing movies in their franchise however most critics rate these films as the worst in each trilogy.

It is the first movie this year to go over $200 million, it's outgrossed "Superman Returns", and it's likely to be one of the top 5 moneymakers of the year.

Since X3 had almost no competition and was one of the first blockbuster films released during the summer this number does not impress me. Of course it should be the first movie to reach 200 million. MI3 was doomed because of Tom Cruise's antics. Poisedon was doomed because it got horrible ratings and most audiences have lost interest in disaster movies.

It took pirates 1 week to break 200 million. It took X3 2 and a half weeks to break the same number.

Then the DVD comes out with a rumored special edition including 21 deleted scenes and 3 alternate endings, and released just as the holiday shopping season begins. Then it hits cable. All of that counts in with how much money the movie is going to make.

I agree this will help X3 make more money.

You're basing everything on how much Fox is making on this...and trust me, Fox is doing just fine. Would they really be working on a "Wolverine" spinoff if X3 was truly a dud?

10 years ago after Alien Resurrection flopped you would think Fox had learned it's lesson about hiring the right people to develop alien movies. Then in 2004 they came up with the brilliant idea of making an Alien vs. Predator film(a spinoff). That movie destroyed any chance that future movies involving aliens or predators will be successful.

I never said X3 was a dud. But, the X-Men fanbase has undergone some extensive damage in the last couple of months. Fox needs to make one incredibly good Wolverine film to bring the fanbase back.

You didn't like it, we get it. Obviously, plenty of people did and shelled out the money to see it.

Obviously, plently of people didn't like it or there would not have been a huge 2nd weekend dropoff.

No one *lied* to you about a script. You weren't supposed to see that script. Blame AICN for the damage control everyone had to give to you in months following.

Fox made a public announcement concerning the material in the script in June of 2005. They said there had been many changes made to it. That's a lie. Then Kinberg and Penn spent a whole year lieing to fans about what was going to be in the film on thexmovieverse.com

Chastising fans? Please. Fans can call everyone involved in the film whatever they want. If they can't take it back once in awhile, then they shouldn't post on message boards.

I never said studio executives don't have the right to call fans who pay money to see their films idiots. I just don't think it's a wise business venture to bite the hand that feeds you.

The first two X-Men movies had rushed shooting schedules as well--in fact, Fox bumped the release date of X1 from November to July. Nothing new there.

I never said this was new. It's merely more evidence that Fox never takes the production of their comic book movies serious.

There's no disputing that Fox, like any other studio, makes some terrible business decisions....but compare them to the WB this summer, and their decisions have certainly worked out for the better for them.

Fox made better decisions than WB but, Disney made better decisions than both companies.

 

[ntcrawler]

The result was to save time, and money, by using a dramatic set piece (the bridge) as the climax of the movie rather than having the climax set outside Worthington Labs.

How is that the climax of the film? OK! Magneto moves the bridge. Bridge gets dumped on Alcatraz. Everyone gets off the bridge and the battle starts. Bridge is now forgotten, battle is the most important thing, never referred to or used again. So how is the bridge important? really now, the amount of money they spent building that 2500-foot model and adding in the CGI could have been used to add firebird effects and more character development instead.

 

[X-Maniac]

You are right that technically they did not change directors. But, Fox basically forced Vaughn to leave by sticking with the ridiculous release date. Vaughn must have known his film was going to be average. Once Vaughn decided to leave that should have been enough evidence for Fox to either can this film or extend the release date by a couple of months. .

We don't know exactly why Vaughn left. He cites family reasons. If it was the release date, surely he knew that when he came on board? Fox would never have extended the date by a couple of months and I don't think it would have made that much difference if they had done.

You are supporting my argument with this quote. If Fox gave Ratner enough time to properly film the final battle then we may have ended up with a much superior X-Men film. Brian Singer spent 9 months filming X2 and made a great movie with a 110 million budget. Ratner spent 4 and a half months filming X3 and made an average movie with a 210 million budget. The main reason X3 cost 100 million more was because Fox was forced to overspend for completing the film before the insane release date..

Bryan has proved with SR that time and money do not guaranteee a fantastic movie.

This is debatable but, considering how much of a jackass Tom Rothman is I would not be suprised if he was behind this. Penn and Kinberg must have known from the beginning that fans would want to lynch them if they said anything about the film that turned out to be false. I think Rothman threatened them to mislead fans.

You have no proof of this. It's just malicious speculation. Who knows what their reasons were for deciding to do the Q&A sessions? They said it was a chance to connect with fans - but of course they were never going to be negative about their own work.

 

[X-Maniac]

How is that the climax of the film? OK! Magneto moves the bridge. Bridge gets dumped on Alcatraz. Everyone gets off the bridge and the battle starts. Bridge is now forgotten, battle is the most important thing, never referred to or used again. So how is the bridge important? really now, the amount of money they spent building that 2500-foot model and adding in the CGI could have been used to add firebird effects and more character development instead.

The moving of the bridge was Magneto's supreme, climactic act of terrorism, and a massive symbolic gesture about tearing down any attempts to build bridges between human and mutant.

But I agree about the firebird effects. We DID get character development but not the same sort (understated vagueness) that Bryan gave us (and continued to give us in SR).

 

[AznBABYBANDIT]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD... IT IS THE END OF THE TRILOGY. THERE IS RAREly ( anyfilms)
CHAR developement.

Starwars Original Trilogy. Not much. See a vader without mask. thats really alll, redemption.

LoTR
Shrek II?

 

[X-Maniac]

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never said X3 was a flop. For the very last time I said it was a domestic box office disappointment. .

Breaking box office records on its opening weekend is not a disappointment! There is no way in hell you can claim the movie is a flop, financial disappointment or a commercial failure. That is plain rubbish.

Considering the way it opened the first week it was on pace to easily break 300 million domestically. Also, don't forget that this film has a weak domestic profit percentage 10.7%. Now I will compare these domestic results will POTC2.

It took POTC2 two weeks and 3 days to break 300 million domestically and will break 400 million at the rate its making money.

POTC2 has already made more money worldwide than X3 !!!

The budget for POTC2 was 15 million more than X3 and it's domestic profit percentage is currently at 42.6% and will probably end up around 77.7%.

POTC2 did not have that absurd 2nd weekend drop off that X3 had because it was a superior film.

Overall X3 is a steaming pile of poo in comparison to POTC2. This comparison merely shows how much better X3 could have been if it was developed by another studio that treats their franchises with care.

Why compare with POTC2, a non-superhero movie in a totally different vein (camp, colourful, rip-roaring, thigh-slapping adventure) that was always guaranteed to do exceptionally well? I'd love to hear what you say about SR and how that did by comparison with X3 and POTC2. You are basically saying that X3 would have done even better if it were treated like POTC2 - would you honestly want to see an X3 made in anything like the same way as POTC2? An X3 made as a camp, OTT fun piss-take? Shiver me timbers!

It took pirates 1 week to break 200 million. It took X3 2 and a half weeks to break the same number..

That sounds pretty good to me, considering the factors. Audiences are showing that they are tired of dark, leaden and sombre (SR) and want more fun and energy (X3 and POTC2).

Obviously, plently of people didn't like it or there would not have been a huge 2nd weekend dropoff.

The drop-off is relative, because the initial peak was so high.

I'd like to add that I enjoy X3 and have seen it four times. It's still on in my local cinemas. It's not perfect (nothing ever is) but it had the right balance of drama, energy and fun to appeal across the board, whereas SR didn't -lacking the energy and fun to appeal to everyone.

 

[danoyse]

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I never said X3 was a flop. For the very last time I said it was a domestic box office disappointment.

No, you said this:

"The ironic thing is two of the things I criticized Fox for(9 and 10) may have saved X3 from being a huge domestic flop."

Overall X3 is a steaming pile of poo in comparison to POTC2.

And isn't that a non-childish response to a movie you didn't like.

Since X3 had almost no competition and was one of the first blockbuster films released during the summer this number does not impress me.

The DaVinci Code?

Of course it should be the first movie to reach 200 million.

One of less than 5 films to do so this year.

MI3 was doomed because of Tom Cruise's antics.

Tom Cruise jumped on a couch prior to the release of "War of the Worlds." Which went on to be his highest grossing film.

Poisedon was doomed because it got horrible ratings and most audiences have lost interest in disaster movies.

POTC2 was one of the worst reviewed movies of the year.

How do think "World Trade Center" will do next month?

It took pirates 1 week to break 200 million. It took X3 2 and a half weeks to break the same number.

Here's a lesson: that's a GOOD thing.

10 years ago after Alien Resurrection flopped you would think Fox had learned it's lesson about hiring the right people to develop alien movies. Then in 2004 they came up with the brilliant idea of making an Alien vs. Predator film(a spinoff). That movie destroyed any chance that future movies involving aliens or predators will be successful.

Most "Alien" fans know that series ended long before Alien Resurrection.

I never said X3 was a dud.

It's all you say.

Obviously, plently of people didn't like it or there would not have been a huge 2nd weekend dropoff.

Off a holiday weekend? Even POTC2 dropped by half it's second weekend.

Fox made a public announcement concerning the material in the script in June of 2005. They said there had been many changes made to it. That's a lie. Then Kinberg and Penn spent a whole year lieing to fans about what was going to be in the film on thexmovieverse.com

Again...about a script YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO SEE.

I never said this was new. It's merely more evidence that Fox never takes the production of their comic book movies serious.

Tell that to the WB.

Fox made better decisions than WB but, Disney made better decisions than both companies.

Disney? Who nearly had Johnny Depp replaced during filming of the first "Pirates" because they had no idea what he was doing with the role?

Do you think things were easy for the sequels? The paid through the roof to get all 3 leads back--and both Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom demanded bigger roles before they would agree to come back. Sound familiar?

Comparing POTC to X3 in terms of box office is absurd. POTC2 is the first film in 5 years to keep the #1 spot for 3 straight weeks. It's broken records held by Star Wars and Spiderman. Is that supposed to make every other movie look bad now?

No, no matter what you say.

 

[danoyse]

It will make something around 20 to 35 million in these countries. Am I supposed to be impressed with that?

Yes, that's a big number in a foreign market.

 

[gambitfire]

POTC2 was one of the worst reviewed movies of the year.

Off a holiday weekend? Even POTC2 dropped by half it's second weekend.

really?- http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1808556813&cf=info


As for it dropping, it was still #1 while X3 fell to #2 to a bad Rom-Com.

 

[gambitfire]

It's sad that Superman didn't do good in the B.O. Considering it was better made movie, IMO. I think it sucks that X3 lovers get too throw that in the face of those who disliked X3. Well in all due fairness, SR had more against it than X3 did. SR had to live up to a past that ppl could not live down while X3 had 2 very recent Succesfull movies. I have to admit when i am wrong and if there is one thing i was wrong about was thinking Bryan Singer could not make an X-Men movie. It took X3 and SR to show me that the man knows what he is doing, but too much of a good thing doesn't turn out good which i think got SR in the end that and the Competition was too much.

Bryan Singer i apologize for trash talking you when i heard you left X3 and thinking that Ratner could do better than you did, little did i know he couldn't even meet you half way. I was just upset and acted as immature as FOX in hoping it could defeat SR, well i got my wish and i now wish i didnt.

 

[X-Maniac]

It's sad that Superman didn't do good in the B.O. Considering it was better made movie, IMO. I think it sucks that X3 lovers get too throw that in the face of those who disliked X3. Well in all due fairness, SR had more against it than X3 did. SR had to live up to a past that ppl could not live down while X3 had 2 very recent Succesfull movies. I have to admit when i am wrong and if there is one thing i was wrong about was thinking Bryan Singer could not make an X-Men movie. It took X3 and SR to show me that the man knows what he is doing, but too much of a good thing doesn't turn out good which i think got SR in the end that and the Competition was too much.

Bryan Singer i apologize for trash talking you when i heard you left X3 and thinking that Ratner could do better than you did, little did i know he couldn't even meet you half way. I was just upset and acted as immature as FOX in hoping it could defeat SR, well i got my wish and i now wish i didnt.

SR didn't do as well as expected because it was a rehash/remake of previous movies and possibly because it was too long (the same mistakes apply to King Kong). And it also had lack of conflict, plotholes, a choppy beginning and a weak ending. It should have started with the court appeal (and freedom) of Lex Luthor as a good solid piece of drama, not some silly old widow on her deathbed who died within seconds and thus wasn't worth viewers engaging with - if you fail in emotional investment so early on, the signs are bad.

X3 had plenty of conflict (people vs people, emotionally or physically) and a lot of energy. Yes, it had flaws and in places it lacked subtlety or craft, but as an entertaining movie, it works very well. I think the aggressive marketing worked well here, much more so than the general public's fading memories of the first two movies.

A movie somewhere between X3's comicbook-inspired epic energy and SR's careful crafting would be spot on; instead, these films represent very different approaches and POTC2 confirms what kind of movie the public wants - adventure, escapism, nothing overly sombre, nothing too understated and leaden, action driven by emotion and drama.

 

[gambitfire]

your right about one thing X3 had the right element while SR lacked it, but SR told it better and lenght wasn't a problem it's just the truth is now in days ppl want to see more booms and bams or something along those lines. While POTC 2 is my favorite movie of the year and on my list of best ever, it wasn't as emotional and dramatic as you paint it too be it was pretty popcorn filmish but nonetheless i loved every second of it.

 

[danoyse]

really?- http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1808556813&cf=info

Really. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pirates_of_the_caribbean_dead_mans_chest/

As for it dropping, it was still #1 while X3 fell to #2 to a bad Rom-Com.

And Pirates was the first movie to stay at #1 for 3 weeks in 5 years. Hardly defeat. Even Superman had to fight off "Devil Wears Prada."

Never underestimate the chick flicks.

 

[X-Maniac]

your right about one thing X3 had the right element while SR lacked it, but SR told it better and lenght wasn't a problem it's just the truth is now in days ppl want to see more booms and bams or something along those lines. While POTC 2 is my favorite movie of the year and on my list of best ever, it wasn't as emotional and dramatic as you paint it too be it was pretty popcorn filmish but nonetheless i loved every second of it.

It's not that they want 'more booms and bams' - they want emotional and physical conflict: person versus person. Superman had plenty of action - but mostly, it was Superman versus inanimate objects, reacting to events or showing his power. It never had Superman and Lois engaging in conflict about his absence, his abandonment of her without telling her, his leaving her with a child, his reaction to having a child, and the scenes with Lex and his cohorts beating up Superman were also lacking in emotion.

The impact of Superman's five-year absence was poorly considered. He was gone the exact same length of time as Clark, yet no one suspected. His absence was the reason Lex was free, yet that was never explored. Lois would have known that the remains of Krypton had apparently been discovered (she is a reporter after all). And Lois must have had sex with Richard White pretty damn quick after she slept with Superman in order for Richard to think the boy might be his.

I expected better from Bryan Singer and his writers. Someone as apparently fastidious as Bryan did not perform at his best here.

I find it curious that you love the popcorn entertainment of POTC2 but that you cannot appreciate any lighter touches in X3 and that you like the leaden, sombre tones of SR which was very tacit, implict, unspoken, all strange glances and troubled thoughts.

As soon as I saw the opening scene with the irrelevant widow in SR (who cares about her, she was dead in seconds) and the child stupidly screaming when he threw his wig at her (why would a wig make someone scream like that!) I started to get worried.

 

[ntcrawler]

I find it curious that you love the popcorn entertainment of POTC2 but that you cannot appreciate any lighter touches in X3 and that you like the leaden, sombre tones of SR which was very tacit, implict, unspoken, all strange glances and troubled thoughts.

Personally, the lighter touches in X3 are irrelevant. Cyclops is "dead" from the first 10 minutes, Xavier is "dead" soon after, and the once beloved, heroic Jean is now a monster who betrayed her friends and family and everything is going to hell. With that kind of tone, I really couldn't care less about Rogue being sad because she can't have sex with her BF or Kitty missing the snow that falls back home (hey she's in NY state, they get snow too, or did the writers forget that?). It's about as misplaced as cracking jokes and smalltalk at a funeral. The overall tone of X3 is this impending sense of doom, and trying to lighten it up doesn't work.

 

[Theweepeople]

No, you said this:

"The ironic thing is two of the things I criticized Fox for(9 and 10) may have saved X3 from being a huge domestic flop."

Have you completely lost your mind. Why do 90% of our conversations consist of me making a point, you distorting it, and me correcting you? This must be around the 20th time you've done this. I am now convinced you are distorting everything I say on purpose. Despite your intentions I will continue to respond to you.

The above quote says X3 was saved from being a huge domestic flop. I never said it was a domestic flop!!! There's a difference. Apparently you are incapable of understanding basic semantics.

And isn't that a non-childish response to a movie you didn't like.

There is nothing childish about being brutally honest.

The DaVinci Code?

No kidding. That's why I said it had almost no competition.

One of less than 5 films to do so this year.

Every summer there are films that make over 200 million. That is not impressive anymore. Making over 300 million is impressive. Usually only one movie accomplishes that each year.

Tom Cruise jumped on a couch prior to the release of "War of the Worlds." Which went on to be his highest grossing film.

Another weak argument. I was referring to Tom's idiotic statements about Brooke Shields not needing to take medication for her depression. That caused an uproar among the feminists. Tom is on the verge of losing his A-list actor status.

POTC2 was one of the worst reviewed movies of the year.

Don't forget to add X3 to the list of worst reviewed movies.

How do think "World Trade Center" will do next month?

My prediction is an average domestic box office gross. However, I would not be surprised if this film flops.

Here's a lesson: that's a GOOD thing.

That's a good thing when your film costs 210 million to make?

Most "Alien" fans know that series ended long before Alien Resurrection.

That's not a good reason to make crappy spinoff film when the series could have been continued with a Ridley Scott and James Cameron script!!!!

It's all you say.

I said it was a domestic box office disappointment!!!!! Deja Vu again.

Off a holiday weekend? Even POTC2 dropped by half it's second weekend.

Good point.

Again...about a script YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO SEE.

This is not a rebuttal to what was previously said.

Tell that to the WB.

What would be the point in doing that? There last CEO got fired for messing up the Batman series by hiring Joel Schumeacher. Wasting at least 60 million dollars on superman scripts before Singer came on board. Finally, for producing Catwoman. The WB already knew they weren't treating their comic book movies with respect. They started to get their act together with the best comic book adaptation ever(Batman Begins). Singer's superman is a box office domestic disappointment but, not as great a people think. Singer's movie cost 204 million. He admitted this in various magazines(Wizard, Sci-fi, and Entertainment weekly).

So there is no need to be overcritical towards the WB. They used to make DC comic moives that flopped. Now the WB have made a few that did just fine and are currently on track to produce more quality comic book movies.

Disney? Who nearly had Johnny Depp replaced during filming of the first "Pirates" because they had no idea what he was doing with the role?

Why wouldn't Disney be concerned about the way Johnny Dept was acting? I don't recall Pirates having a history of acting feminine. However, despite Disney's concerns they came to the realization that Johnny's representation of Captain Jack was brilliant.

On the other, hand X3 had some very bad casting ideas. Vinnie Jones picked as Juggernaut. What the hell? Why not save the money used to make a damn muscle suit by hiring a huge professional wrestler to play the role. It was done in the first X-Men film. The people chosen to play Callisto and Quills couldn't act if their lives depended on it. I wonder why arclight had no lines. Could it be that the actress who played her is an actrocious actress?

Do you think things were easy for the sequels? The paid through the roof to get all 3 leads back--and both Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom demanded bigger roles before they would agree to come back. Sound familiar?.

No suprises here. Yet, Disney somehow managed to make an interesting and action packed film that was 2 and a half hours long.(Also, this movie kicked X3's butt both domestically and worldwide in less than 3 weeks.)

Comparing POTC to X3 in terms of box office is absurd. POTC2 is the first film in 5 years to keep the #1 spot for 3 straight weeks.

X3 came out a month and a half before POTC.

X3 had a four day weekend to make money. A luxury pirates did not have.

X3 was the third movie in a triology thereby giving it more audience anticipation than Pirates. A luxury pirates did not have.

X3 was promoted to death thanks to 45 million spent on advertising. That does not include the promotion it got from X2 being televised on basic cable for months before the film was released. Pirates of the Caribean 1 was televised for the first time a few weeks ago.

So no matter what you say my comparison of POTC2 with X3 is valid.

It's broken records held by Star Wars and Spiderman. Is that supposed to make every other movie look bad now?

You really need to improve your reasoning and logic skills. These films mentioned above were not domestic box office disappointments and had very favorable profit percentages unlike X3.

 

[ntcrawler]

Every summer there are films that make over 200 million. That is not impressive anymore. Making over 300 million is impressive. Usually only one movie accomplishes that each year.

The standards are only going to keep going higher and higher, as are the costs. Remember when Waterworld's $100 million pric tag was once considered astronomical? these days a comedy costs $100 million to make. My my but that's starting to sound like real money. Not only that but the powers that be keep insisting that the next movie will be bigger and better. They make promises that they can't realistically keep.

Don't forget to add X3 to the list of worst reviewed movies.

With an average approval rating of about 50% on Rotten Tomatoes that definitely doesn't give it critical acclaim or a chance at the academy awards, does it?

That's a good thing when your film costs 210 million to make?

A good film is one that makes the largest relative profit, not absolute sums. For that reason, the Blair Witch Project would be considered more profitable and successful than X3 ever will be.

What would be the point in doing that? There last CEO got fired for messing up the Batman series by hiring Joel Schumeacher. Wasting at least 60 million dollars on superman scripts before Singer came on board.

haha, that's not good business practice. But then again, it's sad when the art of filmmaking becomes a pure business practice. Costs / profits only, not customer satisfaction. If it makes money, therefore it must be good. Since X3 is making alot of money, therefore it must be a masterpiece [shakes head]

Finally, for producing Catwoman. The WB already knew they weren't treating their comic book movies with respect. They started to get their act together with the best comic book adaptation ever(Batman Begins). Singer's superman is a box office domestic disappointment but, not as great a people think. Singer's movie cost 204 million. He admitted this in various magazines(Wizard, Sci-fi, and Entertainment weekly).

Yes, but using the best source material doesn't help if you're not faithful or respectful to it. Phoenix saga comes to mind. If this is how they treat the Phoenix saga, I'd hate to see what they would do with the Apocalypse Story Arc. Now I'm starting to wonder what LOTR would look like if it was made by these hacks at FOX instead of Jackson.

On the other, hand X3 had some very bad casting ideas. Vinnie Jones picked as Juggernaut. What the hell? Why not save the money used to make a damn muscle suit by hiring a huge professional wrestler to play the role.

I'm sure there are very buffy WWF extras and stand-ins who would love the work. But that would actually make sense. Plus they could ditch the whole Golden Gate BRidge idea, hav Magneto just transport his army using a boat or two, and save the special effects for the firebird animations instead.

It was done in the first X-Men film. The people chosen to play Callisto and Quills couldn't act if their lives depended on it. I wonder why arclight had no lines. Could it be that the actress who played her is an actrocious actress?

Well, I dunno know about that. I mean even Jean had no lines during the whole Alcatraz sequence, and it's not because Famke is a bad actress. They just had bad writers. But what can you expect? This is the ultimate example of power gaming gone out of control. They create a character that has the power of God. You really can't interact or fight a character like that. So the only thing they COULD do was just have her stand around and twiddle her thumbs and look pretty and menacing while everyone else was mixing it up down there. Hell, even Magneto defended her from a volley of cure syringes.

No suprises here. Yet, Disney somehow managed to make an interesting and action packed film that was 2 and a half hours long.(Also, this movie kicked X3's butt both domestically and worldwide in less than 3 weeks.)

People are willing to sit extra if it's a good movie. The argument that people hate long movies because their butts hurt is just pathetic.

X3 came out a month and a half before POTC.

X3 had a four day weekend to make money. A luxury pirates did not have.

Pirates was successful because it did not claim to be something it was not. POTC claimed to be an exciting adventure film that lets you sit back while your brain is being pureed in a blender. X3 actually promised to be more, and failed to deliver. Personally I considered that an insult. The realism with which these characters were brought to life in the 1st 2 films, they deserved more than to be used as cheap, convenient forms of entertainment.

X3 was the third movie in a triology thereby giving it more audience anticipation than Pirates. A luxury pirates did not have.

It also claimed to be the exciting conclusion of a saga. As you said before, it did not conclude the saga, or was even a part of the saga story and character-wise. All it did was put the franchise's artistic ability and story into jeopardy. 3 movies and 1/2 the cast is already dead or out of the picture (no pun intended). At this rate, after 2 more movies there won't be any characters left. Xavier's school will turn into an orphanage full of kids but no adults to raise them.

X3 was promoted to death thanks to 45 million spent on advertising. That does not include the promotion it got from X2 being televised on basic cable for months before the film was released. Pirates of the Caribean 1 was televised for the first time a few weeks ago.

45 million? you could make a movie with that...

 

[Theweepeople]

We don't know exactly why Vaughn left. He cites family reasons.

Yeah that's believable. Vaughn was probably so stressed out with having to deal with the pressure of an insane release date and a jackass named Tom Rothman breathing down his kneck. So of course he needed time to spend with his family after going through hell for a few months..[/quote]

Bryan has proved with SR that time and money do not guaranteee a fantastic movie.

Agreed. Everything about your film needs to be perfect. Singer did not make a perfect Superman movie. His film lacked action. Sam Rami made two fantastic Spider-man movies due to having time, money, and superb scripts. Singer's Superman script had too many flaws.

You have no proof of this. It's just malicious speculation. Who knows what their reasons were for deciding to do the Q&A sessions? They said it was a chance to connect with fans - but of course they were never going to be negative about their own work.

Are you telling me it is evil to speculate about the honesty of unscrupulous people? Rothman is malicious for allowing Kinberg and Penn to tell fans about things he knew would not be in the film. Kinberg and Penn are at the very least idiots for telling fans about things they knew may not be in the film considering 20th century Fox's disreputable history.

 

[ntcrawler]

Yeah that's believable. Vaughn was probably so stressed out with having to deal with the pressure of an insane release date and a jackass named Tom Rothman breathing down his kneck. So of course he needed time to spend with his family after going through hell for a few months..

I'd run too if I realized what they were trying to do. IT makes me wonder why Ratner accepted the job. Did he think of himself as that good and capable? Or just that crazy? I wonder what the cast and crew thought. Filming in 4 1/2 months must have been really crazy.

Agreed. Everything about your film needs to be perfect. Singer did not make a perfect Superman movie. His film lacked action. Sam Rami made two fantastic Spider-man movies due to having time, money, and superb scripts. Singer's Superman script had too many flaws.

Same deal with Peter Jackson. He had respect for the sourcework as well as the fanbase. Same deal with the Weta Workshop who made all the costumes and props. He told his crew to treat this like THE MOST important project they will ever be working on. And the results show it. X3's people didn't approach things with the same enthusiasm or respect. The fact that they try to feed us this tripe and expect us to like it and accept it at face value shows it. Agreed with your comments on Sam Raimi. Fortunately, his production studios gave him the breathing room necessary to do a good job. They knew they had a golden goose on their hands and nurtured it properly instead of choking it to death to squeeze out one more egg like FOX did with the X-men.

re you telling me it is evil to speculate about the honesty of unscrupulous people? Rothman is malicious for allowing Kinberg and Penn to tell fans about things he knew would not be in the film. Kinberg and Penn are at the very least idiots for telling fans about things they knew may not be in the film considering 20th century Fox's disreputable history.

It's amazing how defensive they are of their work, how brilliant they consider their writing and plot twists. And what's the point of releasing trailers that show you things that either don't happen in the film or are contradicted? If I sell something on Ebay that I claim is red but turns out to be blue, that's false advertising. Why isn't FOX made to fall under the same standards?

 

[Theweepeople]

Breaking box office records on its opening weekend is not a disappointment! There is no way in hell you can claim the movie is a flop, financial disappointment or a commercial failure. That is plain rubbish..

Being added to Box office mojo's 2nd weekend dropoff is embarrassing. Having a domestic profit percentage around 10% with a buget of 210 million is absolutely pathetic for any movie. X3's domestic profit percentage is 10.7%.

Why compare with POTC2, a non-superhero movie in a totally different vein (camp, colourful, rip-roaring, thigh-slapping adventure) that was always guaranteed to do exceptionally well?

I compared these movies because their budgets were similar. Your comment about POTC2 being guaranteed to do exceptionally well is irrelevant. Of course it was probably going to do well. When a studio puts in the time and effort to make a fantastic film the movie will come rolling in.

I guess I will humour you. I will compare X-Men 3 to the Spiderman movies. Spiderman 1 and 2 both did incredibly well and both films were considered financial risks. Could the reason for their financial success be the result of Sony respecting the source material and spending well over 2 years getting these movies started?

I'd love to hear what you say about SR and how that did by comparison with X3 and POTC2. You are basically saying that X3 would have done even better if it were treated like POTC2 - would you honestly want to see an X3 made in anything like the same way as POTC2? An X3 made as a camp, OTT fun piss-take? Shiver me timbers!

You completely missed my point with this nonsense. When a franchise establishes some rules in the first two films of a triology and then blatantly violates them during the third film the end result it usually fan outrage and lukewarm domestic box office results. X3 was susceptible to both of these.

That sounds pretty good to me, considering the factors.)

Let's examine the factors:

X3 almost had a perfect release date.

The only competition it had got terrible reviews from most fans and critics(Da Vinci Code).

The movie was on pace to break 300 million after 4 days.

The movie was marketed to death(45million used on marketing!!!).

Fox spent a whole year misleading fans about what was going to be in the film.

All these factors were on X3's side and it slowly passed 200million. Then it fought to make more than X2 before completely dieing at 232million.

Audiences are showing that they are tired of dark, leaden and sombre (SR) and want more fun and energy (X3 and POTC2).

Audiences like the things mentioned above and they also, like action in these films or the Lord of the Rings movies wouldn't have made squat. The reason Superman Returns was a flop is because it did not have enough action.

The drop-off is relative, because the initial peak was so high.)

There is a flip side to this argument. It's peak was so high because of marketing, misleading fans, and release date.

I'd like to add that I enjoy X3 and have seen it four times. It's still on in my local cinemas.

I'd like to add that X3 was crap and I only needed to see it one time to see the numerous flaws of the film. Also, the film is not playing in my local cinemas.

It's not perfect (nothing ever is) but it had the right balance of drama, energy and fun to appeal across the board, whereas SR didn't -lacking the energy and fun to appeal to everyone.

This is relative. X3 has gotten the most polarizing reviews of the 3 X-Men movies. All my friends, family memembers and acquaintances liked the first 2 films. The reviews from these same people were all over the place for X3. However, there was one thing they all agreed upon. They all were disappointed with the film because it was too short and had too many characters.

As I said before the main problem with Superman was it needed more action.

 

[ntcrawler]

I'm sorry, XManiacX, but I don't consider X3 to be a film that's fun and energetic. If anything, it's dark and tragic and paces well too fast. There's a difference between being energetic and looking like someone accidentally pressed the fast-forward button on the VCR. I see nothing fun about a heroine coming back and instantly turning into a monster that kills off or tries to kill off the same people she just saved. POTC is fun, yes. But X3 was definitely not fun. Unless you enjoy carnage and death and consider a tragic story to be lighthearted entertainment.

 

[MJayX]

DO ANY OF YOU READ VARIETY?

The film is widely known to be budgeted at 165 million, not 210. In fact there's a whole article in todays V about how much of a bargain X3 was for the studio.

 

[N_z0]

Can you post the article?

 

[danoyse]

Have you completely lost your mind. Why do 90% of our conversations consist of me making a point, you distorting it, and me correcting you? This must be around the 20th time you've done this. I am now convinced you are distorting everything I say on purpose. Despite your intentions I will continue to respond to you.

The above quote says X3 was saved from being a huge domestic flop. I never said it was a domestic flop!!! There's a difference. Apparently you are incapable of understanding basic semantics.

Obviously you don't know how to handle a discussion. You make statements and take offense whenever some disagrees with them...mainly by telling them we're either proving you right or that we somehow didn't *understand* your statement.

Don't make such bold statements without solid facts to back them up. Otherwise, expect a rebuke. Not trying to bash you, just pointing out that this is a discussion board.

And for the record, your quote said: "The ironic thing is two of the things I criticized Fox for(9 and 10) may have saved X3 from being a huge domestic flop."

"May have saved" indicates that something wasn't saved. You're claiming you said: "The above quote says X3 was saved from being a huge domestic flop. I never said it was a domestic flop!!!"

See the difference?

There is nothing childish about being brutally honest.

Still your opinion. Not a fact.

No kidding. That's why I said it had almost no competition.

That's not true. "The DaVinci Code" is highly controversial best-selling novel with over 60 million copies in print, has been translated into 44 languages, and is believed to be the 8th best-selling novel of all time. The movie adaptation--which was just as controversial, as many of it's filming locations were marred by religious protesters. It had a $77 million opening weekend--the 2nd highest among adult-geared films, and the 13th highest opening weekend ever. Overseas, it grossed more than "Star Wars Episode III" did in it's opening weekend. It was just as eagerly hyped an anticipated as X3.

Every summer there are films that make over 200 million. That is not impressive anymore. Making over 300 million is impressive. Usually only one movie accomplishes that each year.

But that doesn't mean a movie that makes $200 million isn't impressive. Does that mean "Cars" and "The DaVinci Code" are haven't had impressive takes?

Fox wasn't looking to make $300 off the domestic run of X3...I'm sure they would have loved it, but like every other studio, counted in DVD and TV revenue to make a serious profit--which at this rate they will.

Another weak argument. I was referring to Tom's idiotic statements about Brooke Shields not needing to take medication for her depression. That caused an uproar among the feminists. Tom is on the verge of losing his A-list actor status.

It wasn't weak. You said "MI3 was doomed because of Tom Cruise's antics." You didn't refer to which of Tom's antics doomed the film. His most famous antic...which has been spoofed in another movie already, happened before "War of the Worlds," which, and this is a fact, is his highest grossing film.

MI3 was *doomed* not just because of Cruise, but also because it had been 6 years since the last movie, and not a lot of people liked the first two.

Don't forget to add X3 to the list of worst reviewed movies.

And DaVinci, and Pirates...

That's a good thing when your film costs 210 million to make?

Again, you're touting this number like Fox rolls down the curtain as soon as the movie leaves theaters domestically. The actual profit for the studio would be weak if that were the case...but you're not counting in the foreign markets, which have it now at $438 million, with openings in China and Japan to come, then DVD, then TV revenue.

Regardless of what happened in that second weekend, that huge opening weekend and the final domestic gross in the US still put it in a good place to keep making money when you total all of the outlets in.

That's not a good reason to make crappy spinoff film when the series could have been continued with a Ridley Scott and James Cameron script!!!!

Look, I am an Alien fan. I saw "Alien" as a kid and still think it's the scariest sci-fi film ever made. I saw "Aliens" in the theater twice, and think it's one of the only sequels to ever outdo it's predecessor.

But I always felt the story ended at "Aliens". If the third one had been any good, maybe I'd still want another one. But I hated the 4th film, and never even saw AVP. Series ended for me in 1986, and it did for a lot of the original fans as well.

What would be the point in doing that? There last CEO got fired for messing up the Batman series by hiring Joel Schumeacher. Wasting at least 60 million dollars on superman scripts before Singer came on board. Finally, for producing Catwoman. The WB already knew they weren't treating their comic book movies with respect. They started to get their act together with the best comic book adaptation ever(Batman Begins). Singer's superman is a box office domestic disappointment but, not as great a people think. Singer's movie cost 204 million. He admitted this in various magazines(Wizard, Sci-fi, and Entertainment weekly).

Wait a minute...X3's budget is quoted at $210 million, but you've been calling it's $233 million domestic take a disappointment. Singer's SR budget is quoted as $204 million, and you're saying it's $182 million domestic take is "a disappointment, but not as great as people think."

So why is X3's "disappointment" not as great as people think?

So there is no need to be overcritical towards the WB. They used to make DC comic moives that flopped. Now the WB have made a few that did just fine and are currently on track to produce more quality comic book movies.

Really? I don't see them racing towards a Superman sequel right now.

Why wouldn't Disney be concerned about the way Johnny Dept was acting? I don't recall Pirates having a history of acting feminine. However, despite Disney's concerns they came to the realization that Johnny's representation of Captain Jack was brilliant.

No, they waited until it became a surprise hit to finally realize his performance was brilliant.

On the other, hand X3 had some very bad casting ideas. Vinnie Jones picked as Juggernaut. What the hell? Why not save the money used to make a damn muscle suit by hiring a huge professional wrestler to play the role.

Well, he was one of Matthew Vaughn's casting choices. Weren't you saying before that Vaughn leaving was one of the things Fox did "wrong" with this film?

"20th century Fox did almost everything wrong with the production of this film:

4. Changing directors 2 and a half months before filming."

No suprises here. Yet, Disney somehow managed to make an interesting and action packed film that was 2 and a half hours long.(Also, this movie kicked X3's butt both domestically and worldwide in less than 3 weeks.)

So it's only acceptable when people demand bigger roles in movies you like?

It's kicking everyone's butt domestically and overseas. How is that a specific knock against only X3?

X3 came out a month and a half before POTC.

Your point? When was X3 ever supposed to be more succesful than POTC?

X3 had a four day weekend to make money. A luxury pirates did not have.

And it made a ton of money on it's opening 4-day weekend. SR opening a holiday weekend and wasn't so lucky. POTC had a record-breaking opening weekend. Again, what's the point?

X3 was the third movie in a triology thereby giving it more audience anticipation than Pirates. A luxury pirates did not have.

What? Pirates was the 2nd film to a movie that was not only a surprise hit, but actually outgrossed X2 by nearly $100 million the year it was released. It developed a huge fanbase, and tracking better than all of the other summer movies before X3 was even released.

Everyone knew POTC was going to be the big movie this summer.

X3 was promoted to death thanks to 45 million spent on advertising. That does not include the promotion it got from X2 being televised on basic cable for months before the film was released. Pirates of the Caribean 1 was televised for the first time a few weeks ago.

OK, that is not even remotely true. Have you been in a supermarket lately? Captain Jack is on everything from cereal boxes to M&Ms. There's a Pirates contest going on McDonalds. They have video games, toys, and there are already school supplies and Halloween costumes at the Disney Store. Even the dolls of Mickey and Minnie are dressed like Pirates right now.

This is DISNEY. Do you honestly think they aren't going to promote their big movies as much or more as any other studio.

X3 had good marketing campaign--much better than Superman's. X3 had a teaser full of clips out by December, a full trailer premiered during one of Fox's highest rated shows ("24"), they ran ads during their other high-rated shows like "American Idol," and "House," ran a full 7-minute preview before the series finale of "That 70s Show" and even had Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Romijn make an appearance on AI to plug the movie.

THAT is how you promote your movie. The WB didn't utilize any of that for SR.

So no matter what you say my comparison of POTC2 with X3 is valid.

Not at all.

You really need to improve your reasoning and logic skills. These films mentioned above were not domestic box office disappointments and had very favorable profit percentages unlike X3.

You really need to learn how to be more polite when responding. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they've lost their minds or need to improve reasoning skills. You're the one making the bold statements without anything valid backing them up...don't be so surprised every time you get a response that doesn't agree.

You didn't like X3. We get it. But you're twisting around numbers to back up your point that don't add up or make any sense.

You could just post that you don't like the movie, instead of making crazy box office statements. Just a suggestion.