X-MEN: Days Of Future Past (Casting, Rumors, Pics till release)

That's very cool, but it wouldn't work as a movie poster. Only hardcore comics fans of a certain age would get it. And the potential audience for this movie is much bigger than that.

 

I'm not sure I agree. It does a good job of conveying what the story is about: "Mutants are being hunted, Wolverine is the focal point, and Kitty plays a role." Plus it adds some mystery as to why so many Mutants are either dead or in custody.

Does the actual poster in any way at all give you any indication what the movie is about? I think this fan work based on the actual comics cover does a much better job.

 

Well, for one thing, Kitty isn't really a big draw to the average movie-goer so why emphasize her at the expense of, say, Jennifer Lawrence or Michael Fassbinder or Ian McKellan or Halle Berry or Patrick Stewart? Kitty is a big deal in the comics but much less so in the movies.

(And did Kitty star in The Hunger Games? I think not.)

Movie posters are not about explaining the plot. They're about advertising the movie's main selling points to the vast majority of the movie audience who have never read the comics.

The message you need to get across here is: "Look! It's Wolverine with the original cast and the FIRST CLASS cast. (Plus, Jennifer Lawrence is blue and naked.)"

A cool riff on a thirty-four-year-old comic book cover is not going to entice the Friday night date crowd.

 

You're right. Though to be fair once upon a time movie posters did give you a tease of the plot in lieu of pimping out the stars that are in the movie.

 

Plus it's one hell of a spoiler.

 

Although just hyping the stars and glamour has always been a thing, too, even in the Golden Age of Hollywood. The original posters for, say, Sullivan's Travels or Night of the Hunter don't tell you much more than that there's a hot blonde in them . . ..

Heck, check out this poster for Casablanca:

https://www.google.com/search?q=cas...encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn

Not a lot about the actual plot there.

 

I could see doing it as a special promotional giveaway at a big comic-con, although San Diego and NYC have already come and gone.

 

It would be neat if there's a shot in the movie with Wolverine and Kitty matching the comic cover. Maybe they're sneaking through the wasteland or something and they run into some Sentinels.

 

That's very possible. As I recall, Singer "quoted" the original ACTION COMICS cover in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

 

Awesome trailer. I am beyond hype for this movie. I really hope Singer does not mess this up, as he has been on a string of bombs lately

 

I dunno. I loved Valkyrie. Superman Returns was pretty good. (At least Singer GETS Superman, unlike SOME directors! [Makes another voodoo doll of Zack Snyder.]) And Jack the Giant Slayer was a fun little fluff piece.

 

I feel bad for Singer. He makes one tepidly received superhero film (Superman Returns) and the fan community turns on him like he was Joel Schumacher or something (and speaking of Schumacher, I feel bad for him too since he's actually a decent filmmaker). I guess it is easy to forget that Singer has made two of the best superhero films in the genre.

FWIW, I loved Superman Returns. I much prefer it over Man of Steel. While Jack the Giant Slayer wasn't my cup of tea, I thought Valkyrie was a taut, intense and poignant thriller. I will say, though, that I know someone who has seen a cut of Days of Future Past and says it is the best X-Men film since X2, so I don't think we have anything to worry about.

 

That always seems to happen. The Internet has a very "what have you done for me lately?" attitude. Happened to Sam Raimi too, two good films in and then one that people didn't lie so much...suddenly he's a hack who can't make a good film.

 

It's weird. They hate on SR but in endlessly attacking Origins and The Last Stand ( attacks which are themselves overblown ) they always praise Singer's X-Men films by comparison.

I am green with envy. Green like this guy --->

 

From what it sounds like, Singer always had a big vision for the X-Men but he was never able to make the desired movie he wanted to make. 20th Century Fox kept on shortchanging him when it came to scheduling & budget. For example, Singer originally wanted to include Sentinels, Angel and more characters/mutants in X-Men 2 but his budget didn't afford that so those elements were cut from the story.

(The irony being that a big reason why Singer left to do Superman Returns was because WB allowed him the creative control & budget he wanted - then when Fox hires Brett Ratner, they give him an extensive budget for X-Men: The Last Stand.)

Judging by the trailer for X-Men: Days of Future Past and what I've read/heard so far, it seems that Singer finally has the kind of budget he's always been asking for. The scale & scope of the movie looks bigger than any X-Men movie I've seen so far. It also looks like the most sci-fi of all the X-Men films, which is exciting in and of itself (which makes sense given Singer's admitted inspiration being the Terminator films for the dystopian future part of the story). The action also looks massive & intense and I always remember that being a criticism of Singer even with his X-Men films: they lacked scope & action. So I am very excited for Days of Future Past if anything to see Singer off the leash working with the kind of things (budget, proper schedule & resources) he's always wanted to have when making an X-Men movie.

 

The budget for X2 was something like US$110m hardly small when it was made in what 2002?

But a big budget doesn't equate to a great film, sure the budget for X-Men: The Last Stand was something like US$210m but which was better the US$210m X-Men: Last Stand or the US$160m X-men: First Class. My vote is for First Class.

 

True, a big budget doesn't automatically guarantee a good movie, but look at what you got in X:LS. Magneto tossing and crushing cars and lifting bridges, Jean displaying her godlike abilities, several different sets, armies of mutants, and the Juggernaut. First Class (though a way better story) didn't give us that level of special effects. I think it's safe to get ones hopes up when not only are you getting a director who knows the material and a good story, but they're getting the funding they need, and they already green lit an Apocalypse movie too

 

It was a decent budget back then but Singer always had to deal with budget cuts and scheduling conflicts. For example, his schedule was cut six months when he was making the first X-Men movie, forcing him to cut down the script, exorcise characters and truncate the story.

With X2, he planned on bringing a lot of new elements to the sequel including the Danger Room, Sentinels and more characters like Angel. Once more, his budget was cut back and he had less time to make the movie than originally anticipated. Tom Rothman was notorious for shortchanging Singer because he didn't believe in the X-Men movies. It was only after the success of the first X-Men that Singer even had a decent budget for X2 and even with that came stipulations & studio wrangling.

I'm not trying to say that having a bigger budget automatically equates to a better movie, but having the kind of budget that affords you to tell the kind of story you want to tell (as well as the schedule to permit you the proper time to tell it) means the world of difference when making a big-budget comic-book movie. That's why I said it looks like Singer finally has the budget & resources to make the X-Men movie he always wanted to make but couldn't.

 

As I've said before Tom Rothman being gone from Fox has a lot to do with the current freedom that Singer is now enjoying. Even Simon Kinberg has commented recently about the difference in atmosphere working at Fox from when he was involved with "The Last Stand" to now working with Bryan.