actually, the article says it's NOT in regards to DOFP and Wolvy, but something else.
X-MEN: Days Of Future Past (Casting, Rumors, Pics till release)
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
actually, the article says it's NOT in regards to DOFP and Wolvy, but something else.
Wasn't she originally cast by Singer?
Matthew Vaughn I believe cast Ellen Page as well prior to his departure from "The Last Stand". Anyway, I made a mistake, and misread the above article I posted. Millar is talking about Fox's "Grand Plan" for their Marvel films in it though being the "big" announcement.
Bryan Singer says he will "fix" some things from The Last Stand. Maybe if he had made X3 (instead of Superman Returns) he wouldn't have to go back and "fix" things with Days of Future Past.
What, is he going to "fix" things on Superman Returns as well? I have high hopes for Days and loved X2 but I fear he may be heading down the Shyamalan road with 3 flops in a row. He really needs a hit with his declining track record.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/03...nger-told-me-about-x-men-days-of-future-past/
What, is he going to "fix" things on Superman Returns as well? I have high hopes for Days and loved X2 but I fear he may be heading down the Shyamalan road with 3 flops in a row. He really needs a hit with his declining track record.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/03...nger-told-me-about-x-men-days-of-future-past/
We already know that he's going to "fix things from "The Last Stand" and Singer was originally going to return to do X3 after "Superman Returns" but I believe there were problems involving Tom Rothman that prevented this from happening.
The character actually appeared in all three films, though played by a different actress each time.
He said he was going to fix the continuity errors that have plagued the series starting with X-Men: The Last Stand and perpetuated with X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Also, he wanted to make X-Men 3. Even though it was his decision to leave the project, Tom Rothman and 20th Century Fox were being notoriously difficult in their dealings with him. They were lowballing him with a mediocre offer, which they are known to do, and Singer wasn't happy with what they were offering. You also have to understand that making the first two X-Men movies weren't easy either. They cut his schedule by six months on the first movie and slashed his budget on the second (he wanted to incorporate elements like Sentinels and Angel, but the budget didn't allow for such things). Of course, Brett Ratner gets cart blanche and a huge $200 million budget for X-Men: The Last Stand, which is what Singer was originally fighting for.
On the other hand, Warner Bros. was offering him that cart blanche with Superman. Unlimited creative control, the budget he was wanting to work with, and a decent payday. Warner Bros. is also famous for being easy to work with and allowing artists to flourish; that's why Christopher Nolan has made every single movie of his since Insomnia with them, and that's why such artists like Alfonso Cuaron and David Yates were brought on-board the Harry Potter franchise. Leaving X-Men for Superman was probably a no-brainer for Singer, especially with his personal connection to the character. If 20th Century Fox were easier to work with, he probably would have stayed to direct X-Men 3. They obviously learned from their mistakes and made peace with Singer by offering him X-Men: First Class and now hiring him to direct Days of Future Past.
Also, as you can tell in the article, Singer had a difficult time watching X-Men: The Last Stand because of his emotional attachment to that series. Someone showed him a rough cut of the movie on a computer just so he could be okay with watching it at the premiere, which he sneaked into because of his mixed feelings regarding the whole thing.
Three flops? Superman Returns wasn't a flop. It was made for $200 million and earned almost $400 worldwide. That's not a flop. Valkyrie also earned $80 million on a $60 million budget, which isn't bad either and also not considered a flop by any means. I will concede that Jack the Giant Slayer will probably be a flop, and it hasn't done well at the box office, but that doesn't constitute three flops in a row.
Jack the Giant Slayer has no big name actors in the leads and is not an established brand name or franchise. Plus it was released in a slow time of the year. It does not surprise me it did not do well.
Not to mention Ian McShane as well. Nicholas Hoult is becoming a leading actor in his own right now as well. I don't get why people are making that comment about the film.
See I did not even know any of them are in the movie. Are they the focus of the advertising? Notice I said leads.
Nicholas Hoult, Ewan McGreggor, and Melanie Laurent have all been promoted as the leads of the film.
Ok Ewan is the only one even know. I have no idea who the other two are! My point is the film does not have a HUGE movie star with a track record for big openings based on there name alone.
Nicholas Hoult starred in "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and of course as Hank McCoy in "X-Men: First Class". I made a mistake, Melanie Laurent isn't in this lol. Eleanor Tomlison is who is fairly new, so I'll grant you that one.
Either way the film was really enjoyable IMO and I liked what Singer did with the aspect of fairy tales in it.
Either way the film was really enjoyable IMO and I liked what Singer did with the aspect of fairy tales in it.
I want to see it myself. I am a fan of Singer's other films. I had to many distractions in my life lately. My general point was the marketing did not make this a must see right away for me.
For a comparison Oz, The Great and Powerful has better known leading man and is based on a beloved film and book series. Jack and the Beanstalk is one of those fairytales that everyone has vague memories from childhood but has no real attachment to.
For a comparison Oz, The Great and Powerful has better known leading man and is based on a beloved film and book series. Jack and the Beanstalk is one of those fairytales that everyone has vague memories from childhood but has no real attachment to.
^ Oh yeah. I agree with you about the brand recognition and star power of the two films, but I went to see "Jack the Giant Slayer" on the basis that it was a Singer film. I also agree with the marketing campaign, which I don't think was aggressive enough or really put the film in the forefront of people's minds. I was curious as to how Singer would approach the material...and the film exceeded my own expectations. In fact it's one of my favourite Singer films...and this seems to be in the minority with regards to the film and opinions of it, but that's okay. It also had a exceedingly high budget for some reason. I think it was almost a two hundred million dollar movie. It think it's made barely $50 of that so far.
JacksonArcher said:
But there weren't any noteworthy continuity errors between the films as of The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, other than things like the less than perfect consistency between Logan's Origins backstory and Stryker's declaration in X2 that he gave Logan claws, the difference in Creed's appearance from Origins to X1, and perhaps the appearance of a human-looking Hank McCoy in X2, and these seem unlikely to be addressed by Singer. The continuity problems were caused by First Class not matching up with the preceding films, TLS and Origins included. Continuity errors were not "plaguing" the series before then, but the films were being criticized for other reasons ( including differing from the source material in the comics ).
First Class definitely messed up with continuity for a variety of reasons (Emma Frost being in the 60's and then appearing younger in the 80's in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Xavier getting paralyzed far sooner than The Last Stand depicted, the issue of Moira McTaggert, etc).
I think Singer means he's going to try and fix some of the continuity errors that have arose in the films starting with X-Men: The Last Stand, being carried over with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and continuing with X-Men: First Class. At least that's the impression I get from interviews when he talks about it, even though he stresses that's not going to be the main point of Days of Future Past.
I think Singer means he's going to try and fix some of the continuity errors that have arose in the films starting with X-Men: The Last Stand, being carried over with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and continuing with X-Men: First Class. At least that's the impression I get from interviews when he talks about it, even though he stresses that's not going to be the main point of Days of Future Past.
We are all reading too much in his comments about "fixing things". It may have nothing to do with continuity. He mentioned not liking characters being killed off. He could return things to the status quo without spending much screen time explaining. Xavier's return was setup in the after credit scene. But I don't think he needs to waste too much screen time developing that.
I'm actually curious about how he plans to bring back Xavier.
Yes, it becomes apparent Xavier's consciousness was transferred to someone in the end credits tag in X-Men: The Last Stand, but that scene was really vague and I'm not sure how many people know that... if they even stuck around for that scene after the credits.
I'm sure most regular audiences know that Xavier died at the end of The Last Stand, so I am very curious to see how Singer plans to address that.
Yes, it becomes apparent Xavier's consciousness was transferred to someone in the end credits tag in X-Men: The Last Stand, but that scene was really vague and I'm not sure how many people know that... if they even stuck around for that scene after the credits.
I'm sure most regular audiences know that Xavier died at the end of The Last Stand, so I am very curious to see how Singer plans to address that.
