D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[pemerton]

Yeah, I am about the only one in my circles that doesn't care for the x-men movies. I am hardly an official critic or anything, but my post above is my armchair analysis.

Well, I've been a huge X-Men comic fan from the mid-80s (though my interest in the comics waned in the late-90s post-Claremont era). I like the X-Men films because I feel they capture the best of the comics - the right mix of politics, soap opera, mad schemes from Magneto, and fisticuff action scenes.

I liked the Avengers, but that's because it was the Rober Downey Jr - Mark Ruffalo show. The former has a lot of screen presence, and the latter I've liked ever since I saw him in My Life Without Me, and around the same time playing the younger brother of Laura Linney (?) in a film with Matthew Broderick as a bank manager. (A quick Google tells me its You Can Count on Me, and predates My Life Without Me by 3 years - in my memory the sequence was the opposite, which shows how reliable memory is! At least I remembered the cast.)

The other Avengers films that I've seen haven't really blown me away, although RDJ as Iron Man is fun enough.

 

[Imaro]

You're just making stuff up!

What exactly am I making up? I'm drawing a conclusion from data. Are you saying my data is incorrect?

The first Iron Man movie, in 2008, made over half-a-billion dollars. The first X-Men movie, 8 years earlier, made a bit less than three hundred million. Even allowing for inflation (one site suggested around 25%), the Iron Man movie made more money. This clearly has nothing to do with continuity of canon.

Part of the logic of Days of Future Past was to try to build a longer-running money-making franchise, and this was attempted by changing canon. Now maybe you know more about marketing movies than Fox, but personally I'm sceptical.

Is there any actual evidence that what explains the big sales for Marvel movies is tight continuity of canon?

Ok, let's look at how much each X-Men movie made compared to it's predecessor...

X-Men Fox $157,299,717
X2: X-Men United Fox $214,949,694
X-Men: The Last Stand Fox $234,362,462

So far so good right, revenue increases with each movie. The above movies have a continuous canon and lore to connect them, people get invested in them... then we re-boot and switch it up (arguably with a much better movie than the first 3 at least according to Rotten Tomatoe) and surprise... surprise we get the lowest revenue of any X-Men movie to date at this point...

X-Men: First Class Fox $146,408,305

Why is that?

Why does the revenue suddenly drop to levels below even the original movie while having a much better story if all that matters is a good story? I would argue because the canon and lore being changed and mucked about with lost a big chunk of their audience. It was confusing and the fact that it drew such dismal numbers was probably the reason they decided to try and realign the lore and canon between the two films. But please go ahead and tell me why it's numbers were so bad since X-Men: First Class had a better story and kept the tropes of the X-Men firmly in place... why did it do so bad compared to the first three that were connected?

But let's examine it more. Ok we ditch the old canon and lore reboot and take a dive but hey we grab the old lore and try and get it back on track because... well yeah because our numbers sucked compared to the first film... so they need to pull on the old films as well as the new and they use the alternate timeline story to do just that and we get much better numbers... probably because at least some of those who left the franchise when it re-booted come back because once again it's at least addressing the lore and canon they liked from the first 3 movies... of course it still doesn't top Last Stand, though Rotten Tomatoes rated it as the best X-Men movie in the franchise.

X-Men: Days of Future Past Fox $233,921,534

However at this point the canon and lore is a muddles mess and confusing, alot of things in the details are starting to unravel and we get what should have been one of the most popular storylines with one of the most popular villains that ends up being one of the worst X-Men movies (revenue wise) of all times. This movie drops back to Fist Class numbers not surpassing any of the original X-Men movies and barely surpassing the re-boot.

X-Men: Apocalypse Fox $155,442,489


So if you don't think that the re-boots and lore changes and confusing mash of trying to stitch it together was the cause.. please enlighten me as to your own reasoning (which I've asked for previously) as to why the revenue took such a hit on the re-boot and why the second series of movies never surpassed the first?

 

[Imaro]

Fwiw, I do not think it is the subject of the movies that caused a lower profit. Even back to Iron man 1 the Avengers set of movies was great quality, and more gritty than X-men, which has always seemed far too tied to its drama for my liking. The Avengers set are all high action, with good quality humor and acting, while X-men has a higher need of good graphics, considering the kinds of powers the mutants have, but are mostly lower quality, and have a good number of seemingly disconnected actors. The majority of the actors in the X-men movies seemed fairly flat, while most Avengers movies are loaded with natural behavior, little quirks and ticks that make the characters that much more relatable.

To sum up, quality makes a difference, IMO, which is why Avengers/Guardians has ruled the market so well.

Yes but then X-Men:First Class was of much higher quality then the other X-Men movies with the possible exception of Days of Future Past... and it was the lowest grossing X-Men movie. Why is that if quality is the main determining factor?

 

[Imaculata]

X-Men: First Class Fox $146,408,305

Why is that?

Why does the revenue suddenly drop to levels below even the original movie while having a much better story if all that matters is a good story? I would argue because the canon and lore being changed and mucked about with lost a big chunk of their audience. It was confusing and the fact that it drew such dismal numbers was probably the reason they decided to try and realign the lore and canon between the two films. But please go ahead and tell me why it's numbers were so bad since X-Men: First Class had a better story and kept the tropes of the X-Men firmly in place... why did it do so bad compared to the first three that were connected?

I would say that if your numbers are correct, it is because the movie before it (the Last Stand) was critically panned, and a lot of people seemed to hate it. Also, the fact that there was a very large gap between the two movies may have been a big factor. Also, it may be a case of X-men fatigue. People are tired of these movies. Having an all new cast may have also been a factor.

Most people when they go see a movie, they don't know if it has a good story, or if it changes the canon/lore. They may have read reviews, but the reviews for First Class were generally positive, so that can't be it. I think people decide if they want to go see the next movie in a long running movie franchise, based on how they liked the previous movie, not based on the contents of the new movie.

 

[Imaro]

No one has claimed that eladrin didn't change. The claim is that the change preserves their essence - that's it's not the radical change that it is being portrayed as being by some in this thread.

As to whether or not making eladrin elves is a radical change - some Googling for 2nd ed AD&D monster info gave me all this:

The eladrins are the native race of Arborea, just as the baatezu are associated with Baator and the tanar’ri with the Abyss. They’re wild and free beings who exult in their own existence and live a life of song and celebration. The eladrins aid all people of good hearts against the forces of evil, but seek to do so with individual acts of kindness or heroism. . . .

The magical and mysterious heart of the eladrin lies in the Court of Stars, where the beautiful Queen Morwel reigns over her people. Morwel is sometimes called the Faerie Queen, the Lady of the Lake, or the Lady of Stars . . . The Court moves from place to place throughout Arborea, existing only where night falls over the realm. . . . In the elven realms, the eladrins feel free to show themselves for what they are.

The greatest of the eladrins are the tulani, or faerie lords

Ghaeles resemble tall, athletic high elves

It shouldn’t be any surprise that there are eladrins who devote themselves to art, music, and magic. The firres (pronounced feers) are creatures who live for beauty . . . In their natural form, firre eladrins resemble stocky elves with brilliant red hair and fiery red eyes

The shieres appear to be exceptionally tall high elves of some kind

The novieres appear to be aquatic elves or nixies

Coure eladrin resemble tiny, slender elves with long gossamer wings

Bralani in their natural form resemble short, stocky elves​

I don't think it's a radical departure from the above to assimilate eladrin to a type of elf that comes from a fey land of faerie courts!

Do these Eladrin have the same abilities, themes and goals as those in 4e? I mean we are discussing lore and you've basically cited appearance a the major factor deciding they are the same? Half-Elves and Elves have similar physical appearance but I would argue that the abilities, themes, stories, etc. of a half-elf are much different from those of a full-blooded elf in D&D. Would you agree?

 

[Imaro]

I would say that if your numbers are correct, it is because the movie before it (the Last Stand) was critically panned, and a lot of people seemed to hate it.

Here you go for where I'm getting my numbers... http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=marvelcomics.htm

The above would seem to point towards a reason for people wanting and embracing a re-boot though.

Also, the fact that there was a very large gap between the two movies may have been a big factor. Also, it may be a case of X-men fatigue. People are tired of these movies.

But it's a re-boot. Of course there was a really big gap. This didnt seem to have affected Star Trek in the same way even though there was a much larger gap and even more previous Star Trek movies pre-reboot. Of course numbers have greatly declined over the cours of the re-boot of Start Trek.

So there was X-Men fatigue and yet the second movie which featured the return of the old characters and some of the lore did magnitudes better

 

[Imaro]

Most people when they go see a movie, they don't know if it has a good story, or if it changes the canon/lore. They may have read reviews, but the reviews for First Class were generally positive, so that can't be it. I think people decide if they want to go see the next movie in a long running movie franchise, based on how they liked the previous movie, not based on the contents of the new movie.

I think it was pretty clear that X-Men First Class was a reboot from the advertising as well as the word of mouth.

And again let's look at Star Trek. The last Start Trek movie before the re-boot was Nemesis...
Star Trek: Nemesis Par. $43,254,409

This is the lowest revenue for any Star Trek movie and Nemesis is ranked the second worst movie in the entire franchise by Rotten Tomato and yet the Re-boot that came after it is #1 in both rankings and revenue. According to your reasoning above that shouldn't have happened.

 

[billd91]

I think it was pretty clear that X-Men First Class was a reboot from the advertising as well as the word of mouth.

And again let's look at Star Trek. The last Start Trek movie before the re-boot was Nemesis...
Star Trek: Nemesis Par. $43,254,409

This is the lowest revenue for any Star Trek movie and Nemesis is ranked the second worst movie in the entire franchise by Rotten Tomato and yet the Re-boot that came after it is #1 in both rankings and revenue. According to your reasoning above that shouldn't have happened.

Hmmm... could it be a complex mixture of the two factors that varies from case to case? I have no trouble believing the audience might have cooled for X-men: First Class because of the 3rd X-Men movie. And I have no trouble believing that people went to check out Star Trek because it was promoted as a reboot and were intrigued. They're different cases in which different factors may dominate.

 

[Imaculata]

But it's a re-boot. Of course there was a really big gap.

It doesn't seem to me like a 'big' gap is a requirement for a reboot.

This didnt seem to have affected Star Trek in the same way even though there was a much larger gap and even more previous Star Trek movies pre-reboot.

They are very different franchises. Star Trek has been rebooted many many times as a show, although it has always stayed true to the same rather dull approach. So when Star Trek got rebooted as a high octane, loud, noisy action flick, with a completely different tone, it may have appealed to a whole new (and much bigger) audience. And there was enough of a gap that many people welcomed a new take on the franchise. Star Trek was something that needed a reboot because it was beloved, but old. X-men didn't really need a reboot, it needed a better script, and a better director. After the Last Stand, they didn't do anything with the IP for quite a while, and then all of a sudden drop a whole new movie with a whole new cast.

So there was X-Men fatigue and yet the second movie which featured the return of the old characters and some of the lore did magnitudes better

I don't know why that movie did so much better. Maybe word of mouth got people excited for the movie. Maybe it was the inclusion of old characters and actors that drew people to the cinema. It could be a lot of things. But I don't think canon and lore have anything to do with it.

 

[Lanliss]

Yes but then X-Men:First Class was of much higher quality then the other X-Men movies with the possible exception of Days of Future Past... and it was the lowest grossing X-Men movie. Why is that if quality is the main determining factor?

I doubt that quality is the only separating or deciding factor. The tone, relative to previous ones and to the real world, the skill of the actors involved, the actual want for a new one, and probably any number of other things tie into it.

The MCU movies have all had very obvious and fun tones, laced with witty humor and fun characters. What do I remember from First Class? A lot of drama, not a whole lot of humor, relatively.

Another possibility, as others have mentioned, is the new cast. I am not a huge movie buff, but I didn't recognize most of the actors and actresses. I recognized Bacon, but didn't care much that he was in the movie, and knew the guy from Wanted, though his name escapes me.

Lastly, there is the chemistry. Just about everyone in the MCU plays well together, and they all feel like they are actually having conversations with each other when they talk. The cast of First Class was pretty bland, in my memory anyway, and IIRC, most of the lines were dramatic "we you shouldn't live this way" or "we/I/You deserve better". I cannot remember a single natural feeling line in that whole movie. Compared to Iron Man 1, where Tony Stark gets along quite well with a snarky man in a cave, and no one spouts Shakespearean prose at one another, First Class falls flat, to my ears anyway. Even the predictable shots between Cyclops and Wolverine were better than First Class.