Vastly Underrated - Dark Phoenix (2019) Discussion

[–] Redsfan001 (6003) 4 years ago

It bombed for one simple reason.

Avengers.

The Avengers finale awakened the idea of teamwork and comradarie in people. Working on a common goal, putting aside petty differences, the movie lifted peoples spirit.

THIS movie was all about disunity, mistrust, misinterpretation, everything than can be ugly in human nature.

No suprise to me that the audience reaction was negative.

reply

[–] Allison44 (602) 4 years ago

That's a terrific interpretation. Agreed!

reply

[–] Allison44 (602) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

The X-Men franchise had been on its last leg for a while. X3 and Origins were both failures. First Class and DOFP were good enough to keep it afloat but neither movie was as much of a box office success as the originals. Deadpool was a major hit but it was only tangibly connected to the X-Men. Logan did well too but it was also a solo movie and Hugh Jackman’s last turn as Wolverine who, let’s face it, was the main character of the franchise. Dark Phoenix, meanwhile, was a retread of X3. We already saw that and it sucked. It doesn’t help that without Wolverine, they lost their money-maker. It was the final nail.

So no, it didn’t fail just because Apocalypse sucked.

reply

[–] PussyMonster (294) 4 years ago

That is like saying Deadpool is a retread of Origins.

You’re seriously saying that Jean was the protagonist in X3 like she was in Dark Phoenix?

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

The main plots are more or less the same: Jean goes crazy with power, kills an X-Men during a fight at her parents’ old house, gets manipulated by the bad guy, then kills herself in a heroic sacrifice. Beast even plays a larger role in both movies.

reply

[–] PussyMonster (294) 4 years ago

Jean was simply suffering from PTSD that the force had unleashed, Xavier didn’t really die in X3 as the post-credit scene shows, Jean completely ignored any Magneto orders he gave to her, and finally Jean didn’t die at the end of the movie she became the Dark Phoenix.

Remember that vision future Jean had in X-Men: Apocalypse of a world being destroyed by fire? That was suppose to happen in the sequel to this movie.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

This is a guy who didn't watch Dark Phoenix.

reply

[–] AP (5258) 2 years ago

I did. It wasn’t good and the parallels are the same as I described them.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8100) 4 years ago

X3 and Origins were both failures.

Except that they weren't; far from it. Both were uber-successful at the box office with X3 making the most in the franchise up up until the seventh film in the series, Days of Future Past, eight years later.

You might not like these films (I do, especially Origins: Wolverine), but they were not "failures."

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

X3 was financially successfully but was a failure with both critics and audiences, which is why they did not have any follow-ups and decided to go with prequels. Origins failed even financially. Originally, Origins was meant to be the first in a series of movies featuring the origins of various X-Men (Xavier and Magneto were meant to have their own Origins movies). Since X-Men Origins: Wolverine failed, they abandoned it and went with First Class instead, resulting in a soft reboot.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8100) 4 years ago

Non sequitur. If X3 was a "failure with audiences" how exactly was it able to make the most at the box office, by far, of the first six movies? You're rewriting history because you don't like the film.

they did not have any follow-ups

The trilogy was complete and it was time to explore different storylines.

Since X-Men Origins: Wolverine failed

Except that it didn't fail. While it made less at the box office than the previous two X-Men films, it made more than X-Men First Class with a lesser budget. Plus the budget of X3 was 60 million more than Origins; the latter's earnings must be viewed in light of this.

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

"Non sequitur. If X3 was a "failure with audiences" how exactly was it able to make the most at the box office, by far, of the first six movies? You're rewriting history because you don't like the film."

Easy. The first and second movies were popular, so everyone went to see the third. Batman and Robin made more money than the previous Batman films and it was terrible. People went to see these flicks because the previous movies were good but they later learned they were bad. Have you ever looked at fan-rankings of X3 on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.? It's not good.

"The trilogy was complete and it was time to explore different storylines."

The movie is setup to have Xavier return and have a whole new set of X-Men. We never got a follow up.

"Except that it didn't fail. While it made less at the box office than the previous two X-Men films, it made more than X-Men First Class with a lesser budget. Plus the budget of X3 was 60 million more than Origins; the latter's earnings must be viewed in light of this."

It made less than projected. It did not earn enough money for the Magneto and Xavier sequels it was supposed ot get. That is why we got First Class.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8100) 4 years ago

If a movie truly sucks, word spreads quickly and people won't go to see it en masse, which means it wouldn't be the most profitable film of the first six movies in a franchise.

Batman and Robin made more money than the previous Batman films and it was terrible.

Wrong. To you it was terrible. It was actually the best of the tetralogy. Want proof?

- It has the best Batman/Bruce Wayne in Clooney. Although Kilmer had the better Bruce Wayne demeanor, Clooney just LOOKS like Wayne. He's charismatic & entertaining in the role from beginning to end.

- It has the best sense of family between the inhabitants of Wayne Manor. The warmth and camaraderie of Bruce, Dick/Robin (Chris O'Donnell), Alfred and Barbara/Batgirl (Silverstone) is a pleasure to behold.

- It has Alicia as Batgirl.

- Uma Thurman shines in the role of Poison Ivy. I usually don't find tall, thin women appealing, but Uma completely owns the over-the-top role of Poison Ivy and is thoroughly alluring.

- Arnold is great as Mr. Freeze. Yes, every time he merely opens his mouth you know it's Schwarzenegger, but he's amusing and has a great look/costume.

- The film has heart. Although Poison Ivy is truly ee-vil and gets her comeuppance, you can't help but sympathize with Freeze's love for his wife and desire to resurrect her. Batman sees under his icy veneer to a warm heart that's willing to accept redemption & make restitution.

- Lastly, the film is full of vibrant colors and goofy over-the-top thrills. It's just a fun movie, if you're in the mood for a half-serious/half-campfest superhero flick. It's wildly more all-around entertaining than the overrated Batman (1989).

It made less than projected. It did not earn enough money for the Magneto and Xavier sequels it was supposed to get. That is why we got First Class.

And yet Origins: Wolverine made $20 million more than First Class with $10 million less of a budget.

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

Finding the handful of people who like X3 or Batman and Robin does not disprove my point in that they are unpopular movies.

And while First Class did not make as much money as the previous movies, it also does not disprove my point. In fact, it proves my point in that everything has been downhill for a while.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8100) 4 years ago

Handful? X3 attracted more people to the box office, by far, compared to the other five of the first six X-Men films.

It's true that Batman & Robin made the least at the box office of the 1989-96 quadrilogy, but in my opinion it was easily the best for the reasons cited. By the way, according to your reasoning that, if previous films in a franchise are popular everyone will go see the next one, Batman & Robin should've automatically made more money than the successful Batman Forever.

everything has been downhill for a while

Except that Days of Future's Past and Apocalypse kicked total axx and were superior to the first three films (although X2 was arguably just as good despite its overlength).

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

Again, you are conflating making money with popularity.

Also, just say ass. You can fucking cuss on this board.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8100) 4 years ago

No, I prefer saying axx.

you are conflating making money with popularity.

Not really since I value myriad great movies that didn't do so well at the box office for one reason or another. Meanwhile "Batman" (1989) made loads of money and was greatly popular (and generally remains highly regarded) even though it was easily the least of that tetralogy IMHO.

You can fucking cuss on this board.

Ooo, we're all so impressed (rolling my eyes).

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

And now you're conflating popularity with your opinion.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8100) 4 years ago

Point taken, but even in that case it depends: A movie fails at the box office, which indicates it wasn't popular at the time of release for whatever reason. But it goes on to build a respectable following in years to come, which shows that it is a popular movie, just not when it was released.

"The Wizard of Oz" is a good example, which failed at the box office when it debuted in 1939.

This discussion began because you stated, so axiomatically, that X3 and Origins were both failures. Answer: Not when they were released based on box office earnings, which are the facts of how many people paid to see them in theaters at top dollar. You point out that these films weren't popular with critics, but "critics" are just an infinitesimal fraction of the "audience." The only difference is they write reviews that influence people. But their negative reviews didn't work in these cases because people flocked to see them, even though you suggest that Origins underperformed in the minds of producers.

After matter of factly stating Origins was a failure, you said First Class helped keep the franchise afloat, implying of course that it wasn't a failure. But, as I pointed out, Origins made 20$ million more at the box office while costing $10 million less to produce. In other words, if Origins is a "failure" then First Class is decidedly more so.

So then who makes these movies "popular" in your eyes since it's obviously not the people who paid top dollar to see them upon release? I'm guessing the comic book fans because general audiences obviously favored X3 and Origins. Here's the thing: I'm a comic book fan and Origins ranks with my all-time favorite superhero flicks. If you'd like reasons why, I'll give 'em. As for X3, while it may be the least of the trilogy (mainly due to the routine and dull 'big battle' at Alcatraz Island in the last act), it's far from a cinematic turd and superior to First Class and, more so, Wolverine.

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

"Point taken, but even in that case it depends: A movie fails at the box office, which indicates it wasn't popular at the time of release for whatever reason. But it goes on to build a respectable following in years to come, which shows that it is a popular movie, just not when it was released.

"The Wizard of Oz" is a good example, which failed at the box office when it debuted in 1939."

X3 and Origins are both over a decade old and have not gotten any more popular. People still rag on them.

"After matter of factly stating Origins was a failure, you said First Class helped keep the franchise afloat, implying of course that it wasn't a failure. But, as I pointed out, Origins made 20$ million more at the box office while costing $10 million less to produce. In other words, if Origins is a "failure" then First Class is decidedly more so."

First Class was a soft reboot that made just enough to warrant sequels. Also, it was more popular with critics and fans. This is why the franchise was kept afloat. BTW, something being kept afloat is not really a good thing.

"So then who makes these movies "popular" in your eyes since it's obviously not the people who paid top dollar to see them upon release?"

You can see audience scores on a variety of websites. Google them.

And again, people went to see X3 because the first two movies were big hits. Once they saw the movie, they decided they didn't like it. That movie making a lot of money does not mean all the people paying to see it liked it. You don't seem to know how this works for some reason.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8100) 4 years ago

People still rag on them

Who? People in your fanboy circles? Speaking as a fanboy, X3 is quite good up until the cliched 'big battle' close at Alcatraz Island while Origins ranks with my all-time favorite superhero flicks for several reasons.

it was more popular with critics and fans.

It's useless to note critics since they're merely an infinitesimal fraction of a movie's audience; they just have more influence than other viewers. And, if critics are so pivotal to a film's worth & success, why did moviegoers ignore their negative critiques and go see these films anyway?

As far as fans go, speaking as a fan, X3 is all-around more interesting in comparison to First Class (until the unimaginative last act) while Origins is all-around superior. You might say "that's your opinion," but my position is backed by the FACT that they both made considerably more money at the box office than First Class; in other words, they drew more people to the theaters paying top dollar.

You can see audience scores on a variety of websites. Google them.

I did. CinemaScore glaringly disagrees with your assessment. Everything depends on who is being surveyed and how many. Tomatometer isn't the all-and-end-all on a movie's worth, as you seem to think. Note the paltry numbers surveyed. For a more accurate popular assessment simply read the general reviews on, say, IMDb & Amazon, or ask people at random (as opposed to people in your circles who are prone to agree with your perspective).

Speaking of which, another thing to consider is the 'herd mentality' you'll observe in fandom. It's The Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. The idea that Batman (1989) is anything more than a (great-looking) boring & redundant superhero flick is Exhibit A.

people went to see X3 because the first two movies were big hits

By that logic Batman & Robin would've been a financial hit.

The bottom line is that X3 and Origins were not and are not "failures," especially the latter. True, the dull close of X3 mars the movie, but there's enough interesting & entertaining items present that it cannot be deemed a "failure."

I encourage you to not be so black & white with film appreciation and these axiomatic conclusions that you so confidently voice.

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

X3 has a 58% on metacritic and 57% on RT. IMDb has it 6.7/10 which is a little above average. It is not a popular movie. If you don’t accept reality, that’s on you. I’m throwing in the towel.

reply

[–] PussyMonster (294) 4 years ago

Apocalypse wasn’t really superior to them. Because it was suppose to be a disaster movie about Apocalypse destroying/taking over the world. However, the disaster does not happen until the last half hour and it’s only shown for a few short clips. So it failed by the criteria of its genre.

It’s like a slasher film that doesn’t showcase any kills until towards the end of its runtime and only has a couple them. And there are more major objective flaws with it.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8100) 4 years ago

It's the sixth X-Men film (not including the spinoffs), who cares about the title? Besides, everything culminates in the titular apocalypse. Similarly -- since you brought up slashers -- the story in "Jason Takes Manhattan" doesn't take place in the Big City until the last act.

IMHO "Apocalypse" ranks high in the franchise because it includes many of the best elements of the X-Men and everything I would want in a great X-Men flick:

Professor X's ongoing goal for an educational sanctuary for interesting mutants from all over the world; his love for Moira; Magneto's increasing mastery of his great powers and his struggle to go on the offensive against prejudiced humanity; a greater focus on Cyclops and his potent power, both of which were neglected in the original trilogy; an outstanding actress to play Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), who is far better than the bland Famke Janssen; Olivia Munn's ultra-hotness as Psylocke; a worthy subplot on Weapon X with the corresponding guest appearance of Wolverine; an excellent collection of young mutants, like Storm, Beast, Quicksilver, Nightcrawler, Havok, Angel, etc.; a worthy main villain in the mold of Dr. Doom and Thanatos; an epic, apocalyptic final act (sorry); I could go on and on.

This isn't to say the movie doesn't have faults; the cartoony overblown prologue in ancient Egypt is Exhibit A.

reply

[–] PussyMonster (294) 4 years ago

I’m not talking about the title. The filmmakers said it was a disaster film, it was marketed as a disaster film, and the comic it was based on was a disaster storyline. Even the intro of the film establishes that tone and promises the audience that it is will be a film about Apocalypse taking over the world. It failed to deliver on that promise and that is a huge problem.

Don’t get me wrong, it is fine to personally like the film. However, film criticism isn’t simply about judging movies based personal preferences but whether or not they succeed at what they are trying to accomplish.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 4 years ago

Well, I haven't seen Dark Phoenix, but I do disagree with you on Logan, which I think is still the best comic book film I've seen.

I really disliked Apocalypse, but I didn't care for Days of Future Past much, either (with the Quicksilver scene being a rip-roaring exception). I didn't hate Days of Future Past, I just didn't really like it.

Deadpool was a great character (I was a fan of the comic Deadpool for awhlie - I loved the absurdist/meta thing), and that elevated it.

For ranking, I'd go:
Logan
Deadpool
X2
X-Men
First Class
Days of Future Past
Apocalypse, X3

I haven't seen the others. I heard The Wolverine was good...

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

The Wolverine starts off well but the third act turns it into a Schumacher Batman movie. The villainess reminded me of Poison Ivy from Batman & Robin. Meanwhile, they turn the Silver Samurai into an Iron Man bad guy for some reason. Oh, and, as is typical of X-Men movies, it sets up subplots that are never addressed in future movies.

Also, I agree that DOFP is a little overrated. It was good, but I wasn't blown away by it. I saw it once in theaters and never had the urge to see it since.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I disagree.

reply

[–] PussyMonster (294) 4 years ago

A lot of the film’s criticism are pretty invalid though. Many judged it with the wrong criteria (to some degree) and people compared it to the wrong story arc.

So it’s underrated in the sense that it was not judged fairly.

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1067) 4 years ago

Can you elaborate? What criteria? What story arc?

reply

[–] PussyMonster (294) 4 years ago

Watch this video for context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8qFJ7Frbm8&list=PL4P2exRjRCFzVfdXDBXQqJxVI0h0tyXsQ

Also, it was meant to be somewhat of an origin story about Jean becomes Phoenix. Designed to be a psychological-driven film about struggling with emotional trauma and overcoming it.

However, most people weren’t judging it by that criteria. They judged it by the criteria of a grand finale and thought that Jean’s action were the result of possession.

reply

[–] Ed (522) 3 years ago

I heard it sucked, so I didn’t watch until today on HBO. Surprisingly, better than I thought. Better than Apocalypse, X3, Origins, New Mutants. I enjoyed it but it is a dark, sad film. Seems like a trend of many of the Xmen films.

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1067) 3 years ago

True.

I think a lot of people avoided it like you did and I originally did. The bad reviews, after Apocalypse really did suck, were a deadly combo.

reply

[–] Kowalski (57861) 3 years ago

REALLY?...DARK PHOENIX IS AN 8 AND LOGAN IS A 6?....YOU DONT SEEM TO HAVE VERY GOOD OPINIONS.🤔

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1067) 3 years ago

Typing in all caps PROVES THAT YOUR OPINIONS ARE BETTER.

reply

[–] Kowalski (57861) 3 years ago

I AM GLAD WE CAN AGREE ON THAT AT LEAST.🙂

reply

[–] rnmboon (376) 2 years ago

Saw it yesterday for the first time and I must say that I really enjoyed it. Measured against the IMDB rating (currently a 5.7) it is definitely underrated. Not sure why Dark Phoenix failed. Maybe the series has run its course? 10 films in 19 years is a bit much and to be fair: the way these films are set up hasn't changed much over the years. I still enjoy them but I can imagine others not liking that as much anymore.

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1067) 2 years ago

Yeah, I can imagine that people hesitated to go see it after how bad Apocalypse was, and then they heard it was bad so never went back to see it on home video or anything. That was the case for me for a good couple years after it came out. But I don't understand all the hate people direct at it. Have those people actually seen it?

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

I think a lot of the hate is just blind mcu fueled bias. Hell, in recent years, I've noticed a lot more negative comments regarding pertaining to X2 or Days of Future Past, and it's like dude, when those came out, they were universally beloved and rightfully so. A lot of this is undeserved, revisionist backlash.

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1067) 2 years ago

That's sad.

reply

[–] joej2923 (2959) 2 years ago

I think the lack of X-Men in the title hurt the marketing of the film. The comic book fans probably know the Dark Phoenix story/character but most casual fans do not. I didn't even think of X-Men initially when I saw the Dark Phoenix ad with Sophie Turner in it. I think the director was trying to go for some girl power theme since it was about the rise of Dark Phoenix. JLaw even made the stupid comment about the X-Men name. I wish they had cast another actress instead of JLaw to play Mystique since Mystique can take on any form. I loved Dark Phoenix but I love all the X-Men movies.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

It's a shame. I really enjoyed this film myself, and honestly, that fight in the street between Xavier's team and Magneto's team was fantastically filmed. That was on the level of Avengers 1 for me. Contrast those to Civil War's "legendary" teamup where it's not really coherent what everyone is doing at any given time (Vision and Wanda are just fucking around in the corner for most of the fight).

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1067) 2 years ago

I didn't notice that level of detail in terms of the fight choreography, but it's really cool to hear about.

reply