'The New Mutants' Still Set For August 28th Theater Release

I've heard a mixed bag of reviews. Anywhere from not so bad to great. Haven't actually heard that it stunk up the joint.

As I see it, production was already done on the thing. Disney probably just decided to see how it went while possibly gauging what worked and what didn't. Personally, I think Fox's biggest problem has always been in the miscasting of it's characters. Aside from the Hugh Jackman gamble and the superb casting of Ryan Reynolds and PatrickStewart, no character they've ever cast came anywhere near as good as the MCU's castings. I think Illyanna is being pushed out front and Rahyne is probably pretty good, but the rest can go pound salt.

I'll see it, no way can it be as bad as the Woke Phoenix. I'll be glad to see those actors move on to smaller and worse things in the future. If the X-Men had an old school NES reset button, they're mashing down that beeyatch as hard as they can right now.

1 hour ago, Gigantor said:

Wolverine is the most well known of the X-men & the most popular one, he can & will carry his own movie, can't say that about any other X-Men, be it under the MCU banner or Fox.

Given a good producer, director, writer; and a healthy respect for the source material, absolutely. Unfortunately, Disney is building up an impressive record of wasting great characters on bad comedy.

7 minutes ago, mako said:

We can't even say THAT for sure. Remember, Wolverine is now in the hands of the people who made Thor 3, Ant-Man, and Guardians of the Galaxy. No matter how you feel about those movies, do we really want to see him in that context?

Wolverine is the most well known of the X-men & the most popular one, he can & will carry his own movie, can't say that about any other X-Men, be it under the MCU banner or Fox.

22 hours ago, Gigantor said:

Wolvie is the only X-Men character that can carry a solo movie.

We can't even say THAT for sure. Remember, Wolverine is now in the hands of the people who made Thor 3, Ant-Man, and Guardians of the Galaxy. No matter how you feel about those movies, do we really want to see him in that context?

5 hours ago, bashpics99 said:

My understanding was that disney was obligated to give this movie a theatrical release instead of just going with streaming/vod, as part of the deal when they purchased fox.. but i could be wrong.

Anyhow the movie probably did about as well as could be expected, i'm not sure it would've made a ton more money had it been released under 'ordinary' circumstances when it would have faced more competition. might've done better opening weekend but i'm guessing it would've faced a rapid decline in b.o. returns in subsequent weekends.

Even ignoring the amount of time the movie(ironically) spent in limbo, after reading reviews i don't have a ton of interest in seeing it but will probably check it out someday when i'm bored. Feels like it kind of wasted a good cast but that's fox for you. At least its probably better than Trank's F4.

Roger Corman's version is a masterpiece compared to the "Woke" version of Trank's FF.

My understanding was that disney was obligated to give this movie a theatrical release instead of just going with streaming/vod, as part of the deal when they purchased fox.. but i could be wrong.

Anyhow the movie probably did about as well as could be expected, i'm not sure it would've made a ton more money had it been released under 'ordinary' circumstances when it would have faced more competition. might've done better opening weekend but i'm guessing it would've faced a rapid decline in b.o. returns in subsequent weekends.

Even ignoring the amount of time the movie(ironically) spent in limbo, after reading reviews i don't have a ton of interest in seeing it but will probably check it out someday when i'm bored. Feels like it kind of wasted a good cast but that's fox for you. At least its probably better than Trank's F4.

Let's be honest even making half of its money back during this pandemic is good. Also releasing it in the cinemas was the right move. It allowed cinemas to have something new to show, thus hopefully attracting customers, so they can stay in business and now they can give it a home release where they have a chacne of getting back more of their money

5 hours ago, RyanDaly said:

Also, you're really calling it the China Virus?

Yes, thats what it is. I don't play the PC game nor sugarcoat things.

14 minutes ago, Gigantor said:

Then they shoulda held it back till next yr like the other MCU movies have been. What was their though process in letting it hit during the China Virus pandemic?

Also, you're really calling it the China Virus?

7 minutes ago, Gigantor said:

Then they shoulda held it back till next yr like the other MCU movies have been. What was their though process in letting it hit during the China Virus pandemic?

It was a sacrificial lamb, to be sure. Disney had no confidence the movie would break any box office records, so they sent it out to die during a time when no one would see it. But it served two purposes:

1. They could have been wrong. If by some slight chance, legions of fans came out in droves to see New Mutants, Disney would have felt more confident in releasing movies like Black Widow and Mulan to theaters. Obviously it didn't happen, so they're holding everything back.

2. The movie was already made and paid for by Fox when Disney acquired the film. It's production costs were already factored into the purchasing price when Disney bought the other studio, so, in a way, the movie didn't cost them anything extra. Therefore, whatever the movie made back in the box office was all profit. Sure, nobody at Disney is getting a sweet bonus because a movie made $70 million. That's pretty pathetic, but there is an argument to be made that it's just found money. That can go into production budget for Fantastic Four whenever that happens.