X-Men: Apocalypse.

[Glebe]

First trailer.

Motion poster.

Have to say I'm not particularly impressed by that trailer. Nice to see

Spoiler alert

McAvoy go full Stewart

[close]

, though.

[checkoutgirl]

Have you accidentally linked to some shitty fan made trailer that has nothing to do with the actual film?

[Glebe]

Have you accidentally linked to some shitty fan made trailer that has nothing to do with the actual film?

Fuck's sake. Sorry. Fixed.

[Kelvin]

I thought it looked okay, liked the 80's use of colour and I trust Singer with anything X-Men. I am worried with the whole mind control thing, though. If people like Magneto and Storm are siding with him because he can control them, rather than because they feel like they want to or have to, it's going to seriously undercut some of the main characters. I'm hoping that at least some of them, like Magneto, are doing it out of their own free will.   

[lipsink]

Where's

Spoiler alert

Wolverine

[close]

then? I thought the final scene from Days of the Future Past with him was setting up things for this one?

I must say I'm quite pleased and impressed that they've stuck with this continuity and haven't rebooted it already. Having said that, the continuity is a bit all over the place but apparently that's only because Singer and co are disregarding a lot of the events of X MEN 3.

[The Region Legion]

Presumably Wolverine's story picks up in his last film, at which point Jackman hangs up the claws, and the current X franchise (lasting an incredible 16 years now) is put to bed for good so that Marvel can sort out the rights to bring them into their cinematic universe? Avengers can only last so long.

[Kelvin]

Presumably Wolverine's story picks up in his last film, at which point Jackman hangs up the claws, and the current X franchise (lasting an incredible 16 years now) is put to bed for good so that Marvel can sort out the rights to bring them into their cinematic universe? Avengers can only last so long.

Fox won't sell the X-Men back to Marvel. The core films are hugely popular, critically well received and frankly better than 90% of the Marvel/Disney films. Plus, Marvel don't need all those characters cluttering up their already packed universe. Mutants work best in a world where they're the only exceptional people.

I can't imagine they even have a very good relationship with them. Marvel have done everything to undermine the x-men in the comics and refused to sell them the merchandising rights for the films.

[Glebe]

Quicksilver's X-Men: Apocalypse Scene Sounds Like A Nightmare To Film.

There's one sequence that took one and a half months to shoot for three minutes of film. It involves the most complex camera moves, very sophisticated explosive algorithms, 3D Phantom cameras travelling at 50mph while shooting at 3,100 frames per second. Evan worked more days on this movie than any other actor because of this one sequence.

Sounds like they're going all-out to top Quicksilver's big scene in Days of Future Past, which let's face it, was the best thing in the film.

[Mango Chimes]

X-Men: The Power Of Baldness.

[Delete Delete Delete]

Looks like absolute dog shit.

[Puce Moment]

So they're still using that repeated one note trumpet thing in trailers in 2015?

Looks shite. Smells like the BO wafts in Forbidden Planet.

[Bingo Fury]

I must say I'm quite pleased and impressed that they've stuck with this continuity and haven't rebooted it already. Having said that, the continuity is a bit all over the place but apparently that's only because Singer and co are disregarding a lot of the events of X MEN 3.

I just wrote out a list of questions about the head-scratching continuity between the original X-films and the trailer for this new one (Nightcrawler? Angel? When is this even set?), but deleted them, because the answer to them all would probably be "Because Wolverine went back in time and made it all better". Am I warm?

[Mango Chimes]

I just wrote out a list of questions about the head-scratching continuity between the original X-films and the trailer for this new one (Nightcrawler? Angel? When is this even set?)

First Class: 60s.  Days of Future Past: 70s.  Apocalypse: 80s.

They'd already decided to ignore Last Stand, and DoFP basically wrote all the original films out of continuity.  X-Men Origins: Wolverine has been swept under the carpet, whilst The Wolverine has also been basically ignored (with it's post-credits DoFP teaser not actually connecting up with DoFP.)  So it's not really a 'cinematic universe' deal; this is just the third of the series started by First Class.

[The Region Legion]

Marvel have done everything to undermine the x-men in the comics and refused to sell them the merchandising rights for the films.

And this will be how they make the deal.

Avengers will have to end very soon after all, and I know they're trying to make the Inhumans their next multi-hero franchise but I don't think that will take as well as Avengers did, given that even though no one cared about Iron Man, Captain America etc. before the films were good, they were at least known of beforehand.

They don't even need to sell the rights, just do a partnership for those particular films. Sony tanked the Spiderman series and X-Men has to end anyway. I can't imagine they wouldn't want a piece of Marvel's extraordinary success.

[Mister Six]

They've already been seeding "gifted" characters in Agents of SHIELD and the Netflix shows; I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to just quietly rename them mutants. Maybe come up with some movie reason why they're suddenly proliferating, and looking goofier, if they want to have Angel, Beast et al.

Still, the mutants do seem like an unnecessary addition to the MCU (and I never thought they made much sense in the context of the Marvel comics either, TBH... they always seemed to be off in their own private sub-universe, save for Wolverine's appearances in everything ever) and I imagine Fox won't want to share their money for a good long while yet.

Anyway, X-Men films: they're okayish at best. The Wolverine would've been great if it was just Wolverine vs yakuza, but then they had to throw in a load of shite with the snake woman and the samurai robot and all that nonsense. First Class is probably the best. The original X-Men movie's not bad. But mostly they're just overwrought, excessively busy and usually pretty shoddily put together. And their inability to be consistent about continuity fucks me off.

[Dr Rock]

No, they're all great.

[The Region Legion]

I imagine Fox won't want to share their money for a good long while yet.

Except they won't have any money after this next X-Men film. Chances of lightning striking twice for Sony? Spiderman is already crossing over into the MCU, after this film I guarantee X-Men is going back to Marvel.

[Mister Six]

Except they won't have any money after this next X-Men film.

What do you base that on? Here's how the last three movies did:

First Class: made a worldwide gross of $354 million on a budget of $160 million.

The Wolverine: worldwide gross of $415 million based on a budget of $120 million.

Days of Future Past: $748 million from $200 million.

VERY healthy numbers, especially that last one. Yes, losing Stewart and McKellen might knock it a bit, but McAvoy and Fassbender have established themselves, and the lack of Wolverine in First Class (save for that one cameo) didn't hurt that film.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Spider-Man movies? Well as much as the X-continuity is nonsense and the quality of the films variable, Fox have done a good job managing the X-Men movies and expanding them out from the initial core cast. Of course, that's made easier by owning a property that has such enormous potential, vast reserves of characters and tons of lore.

Spider-Man was always going to struggle for that, having just a couple of iconic villains and a much smaller world.[nb]And even then, some of those villains - like Kingpin or Punisher - belong to other franchises.[/nb] But Sony buggered it up by becoming overconfident and pushing out Spider-Man 2 before it was ready. X-Men managed two critically acclaimed movies before its much-bashed (but basically competent and commercially successful) third film came out. It had enough momentum that Wolverine: Origins couldn't fuck with it too badly.

after this film I guarantee X-Men is going back to Marvel.

Given that there's the Deadpool movie coming in 2016, a third Wolverine film in 2017, a Channing-Tatum-starring Gambit movie in the works, and early work on X-Force, The New Mutants and a Deadpool sequel, that seems unlikely.

[Kelvin]

Except they won't have any money after this next X-Men film. Chances of lightning striking twice for Sony? Spiderman is already crossing over into the MCU, after this film I guarantee X-Men is going back to Marvel.

They'll just reboot it. No chance in hell it's going back to Marvel unless the next film is a complete and total flop, which it won't be coming off the back of DOFP.

Only chance they sell it is if it stops making them money. And they'll do everything they can to keep wringing money out of it.

I don't want it going back to Marvel anyway. I want the X-Men films to remain good.

[The Region Legion]

Why do you keep talking about them selling it? Of course Fox won't sell the rights. That doesn't stop them teaming with Marvel Films to integrate the characters into their cinematic universe.

It's already known this is the last X-Men film in current continuity. Then there's a Wolverine film to get out the way, a little swansong for the longest running superhero actor ever, and then it's done.

The deal has already been made to bring Spiderman into the MCU, why not X-Men? The numbers are healthy for these projects because they're piggybacking off the success of the Singer films. Why would Sony risk pulling another Spiderman when it can get the money with none of the work or risk by teaming with Marvel?

[Mister Six]

It's already known this is the last X-Men film in current continuity. Then there's a Wolverine film to get out the way, a little swansong for the longest running superhero actor ever, and then it's done.

Nooooope: 'Singer has called this film "kind of a conclusion of six X-Men films, yet a potential rebirth of younger, newer characters" and the "true birth of the X-Men".'

As long as the X-Men movies are bringing in the money, nobody's going to be retiring anything. This is Hollywood, remember? Sign McAvoy up for another couple of sequels so people can get used to the new Cyclops, Jean etc - why not? Doing a fresh reboot (with a very shitty film) was what did for Spider-Man, and they've put enough effort into this soft reboot not to mess things up now.

The deal has already been made to bring Spiderman into the MCU, why not X-Men?

Because the X-Men franchise (which is also the franchise that seriously launched the superhero genre in Hollywood) is healthy and popular, and has been successfully rebooted with a new generation of actors. It looks weak for Fox to team up with Marvel, and more importantly it dilutes their own brand. Audiences that don't read comics think of the X-Men movies and the Marvel movies as different beasts, because, well, they are. They don't want or expect Tony Stark to pop up and start quipping with Wolverine. It would distract from the attachment to the brand that they've already developed, and make the X-Men movies look subordinate to the MCU.

Spider-Man, on the other hand, is a weak brand. Amazing Spider-Man 2, while making very good money worldwide, suffered poor reviews and word-of-mouth, and didn't clear its budget within America. There was also the ghost of the immensely popular Raimi films hanging over the new flicks (only Batman has been able to shake that off, really, and he's become a kind of cinematic uber-figure like Bond).

There had been plans to build a Spider-Man Cinematic Universe, but the bungling of ASM 2 and (I suspect) the realisation that the Spider-Man rights didn't really offer too much variety or quantity in heroes or villains[nb]Basically you've got Spider-Man, Black Cat (who'd get plenty of "she's just Catwoman!" complaints) and maybe Venom as goodies, and then a bunch of villains of varying quality and interest, the best of whom had already been used by Raimi and Webb.[/nb] put paid to that.

Realising that a straight-up re-re-launch of the franchise so soon wouldn't go down well[nb]There's a reason why we've not had a third Hulk movie, despite everyone loving Ruffalo's Bruce Banner.[/nb] and also wanting advice from MCU head Kevin Feige on how to construct a successful movie universe, Sony decided to collaborate with Marvel. This way Sony get a much-needed boost by having their new Spider-Man appear alongside Iron Man and Captain America in Cap 3, while Marvel get to please the fans and claw a little bit of control back from Sony. And in the long run, Sony are hoping to get to use Marvel characters (presumably including villains) in new Spider-Man movies.

Fox and its X-franchise don't need any of this - they can rumble along just fine, as they have before.

[Glebe]

Of course Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were in Age of Ultron, although they weren't allowed to refer to them as 'mutants'. But yeah, don't see the X-Men properly joining the official MCU anytime soon, given the success Fox has had with the franchise.

[olliebean]

Christ, I hope the X-Men doesn't get dragged into the fucking oppressive MCU continuity, or feel they have to imitate it in any way.

[Famous Mortimer]

Anyway, X-Men films: they're okayish at best. The Wolverine would've been great if it was just Wolverine vs yakuza, but then they had to throw in a load of shite with the snake woman and the samurai robot and all that nonsense. First Class is probably the best. The original X-Men movie's not bad. But mostly they're just overwrought, excessively busy and usually pretty shoddily put together. And their inability to be consistent about continuity fucks me off.

I disagree. Apart from some of 3, and the first Wolverine movie, they've been great (DOFP is every bit as good as any Marvel movie).

[Mister Six]

Of course Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were in Age of Ultron, although they weren't allowed to refer to them as 'mutants'.

Yeah, they've had them, some villains/supporting characters in Agents of SHIELD (like a guy from one of the early episodes who could control fire), and now Daredevil, Luke Cage and Jessica Jones. Basically all mutants - albeit ones that look like humans, and don't have wings or weird eyes or whatever - but called "gifted" instead.

And that's fine, I think, because they're keeping the gifted characters a bit more low key than the blockbuster X-Men movies would allow. Plus, having the general public hate "mutants" as a whole but be basically cool with Spider-Man (for example), whose powers might be mutant-based for all they know, never made sense in the comics and would seem even goofier on film.

[Kelvin]

Why do you keep talking about them selling it? Of course Fox won't sell the rights. That doesn't stop them teaming with Marvel Films to integrate the characters into their cinematic universe.

But why? Why would Fox sacrifice some of the money they could make from the films, in any sort of deal with Marvel, unless they weren't able to do anything with the characters anymore? They can make more money from making the films alone and taking all the profits for themselves. Unlike their situation with Fantastic Four, or Sony's situation with Spiderman, the X-Men "brand" is still stong and a sure money maker. It doesn't benefit them at all to get Marvel involved and taking a cut.

It's also clear that Marvel have planned to carry on without obtaining them. They're using inhumans now, to make up for not having X-Men.

It's already known this is the last X-Men film in current continuity. Then there's a Wolverine film to get out the way, a little swansong for the longest running superhero actor ever, and then it's done.

In this continuity, yes. They'll just reboot it afterwards.

The deal has already been made to bring Spiderman into the MCU, why not X-Men? The numbers are healthy for these projects because they're piggybacking off the success of the Singer films. Why would Sony risk pulling another Spiderman when it can get the money with none of the work or risk by teaming with Marvel?

Fox have the rights to X-Men. Sony have the rights to Spiderman. The difference is brand and whether they can make money off it. Spiderman as a brand has been waning for years and a struggling Sony must have decided they could make more money for less effort by loaning the character back to Marvel.

[Kelvin]

Oh, bum. Just read Mister Six's post, and it basically says the same but more eloquently :)

[Tiny Poster]

Spider-Man

[Kelvin]

Batman > Spiderman.

Batman has no hyphen. Therefore, Spiderman isn't getting one either. 

[Tiny Poster]

Xmen