Did Hugh Jackman's partial absence from X-Men Apocalypse made the ratings go down?

Hugh Jackman, one of the successful stars of Hollywood, whom we better know as “The Wolverine”. Jackman has portrayed the iconic fictional character for almost two decades now. Starting from early 2000 when the first film of X-Men franchise has been released, to several films following thereafter. Some solo hits of his character Wolverine had also been released to quite favourable reviews. In fact, he is the only recurring character in the X-Men film franchise who has appeared in almost every X-Men film. No doubt audience love his on screen persona. But, the recent release of the X-Men series, named as X-Men Apocalypse had only a matter of minutes of Hugh’s performance in it. Obviously, the audience wanted some more of Hugh in it but to their dismay, Hugh didn’t quite really share great length in this particular franchise. Leading several of the critics and the audience to believe that his absence was the main reason for the mixed commercial ratings of X-Men Apocalypse.

X-Men Apocalypse is a film that has its roots from the X-Men comic series of version “Fall Of The Mutants” and partly from “Apocalypse”. James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence reprise their respective roles as the young Magneto, Professor Xavier and Mystique. But the audience, as usual, was expecting Hugh’s iconic character "The Wolverine" to make his screen presence felt. But to the contrary, there was only a cameo made by him, just for a minute or two. Which made audience dissatisfied with several of the expectations remaining shattered. But the film did well at box office. Not that it was a huge hit but it grossed considerably $540 million worldwide and was the third highest grossing of X-Men series, although being behind "Days Of Future Past", which had Jackman in it. Nevertheless, Jackman’s portrayal of Wolverine is exceptional and we always crave for more, but the latest franchise was a different topic altogether. It tells the story of an ancient mutant Apocalypse who is much stronger than all the mutants together. Surely this part didn’t require Jackman’s character to get involved. As his character has a completely different storyline and in more focused to the X-Men group. Apocalypse being a villain or preferably a God to the world of mutants had a completely different track from the usual X-Men group. This is the reason director Bryan Singer who had also directed some of previous X-Men franchise had removed Jackman’s character substantially. But made justice by giving him a cameo.

Apocalypse did not have a dramatic loss of ratings as compared to its previous films. Although many can argue that it stands behind its previous franchise, but considering the changed plot, the audience didn’t really have an idea of Apocalypse before it got released. Even I never heard of this magnanimous villain until I saw the trailer. The audience always prefers things which they have previously thought of, as in the case of Wolverine. Going back to 2000 when the character was first launched, the audience too had mixed reaction for the character. But gradually the reactions became quite positive and the character became a huge hit. No doubt Apocalypse, if made a recurring character in future will surely entertain the audience as every other film in the X-Men franchise does. The audience has just been introduced to it, so no doubt there will be mixed reviews from them. As far as the critics opinions are considered, superhero films are hardly appreciated by them. Critics usually prefer realistic films. No doubt they are known as "critics" for the same. So overall the recent film of X-Men series was not a film that was disastrous or less than expectations. I would say that it was a new approach to a different character. Hugh Jackman’s absence is actually justified. No matter the plot would have taken a different turn if he would have been in the film for whole three long hours. Bryan Singer did make justice by making the role stick to a cameo.

As far as the true ratings are considered, it has a 7.2 rating at IMDB, versatile film site. Critics and users have equal votes on the site. Getting a 7.2 means it was considerably good. No doubt Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have a bit poor review of the film. But those are purely critic based. The audience did give the film appreciable reviews. Even Metacritic gave it 52%. That is not drastically bad, considering some films get less than 30% on this site. So no doubt Hugh Jackman’s absence did have our eyebrows raised, but that is not the reason for any kind of unfavourable reviews which the film garnered. Even if Jackman had a bigger part in the film, I don’t think the film would have got any better ratings. As far the box office is concerned, the earnings might have been improved. That's an obvious thing. Jackman is a bigger star, people want to see him more. But "Apocalypse" was justified with the right script and a perfect director taking the responsibility like Bryan Singer.

Good or bad, the final verdict is already given, but I request people to watch the film before judging Hugh Jackman’s partial absence from the film. And watching it in 3d was altogether a different experience. Personally, I liked the film and I consider the absence as a conventional approach to the newly introduced character of Apocalypse. And Hugh Jackman’s partial absence didn’t really hit the film's rating. The film has mix reviews and is considered as one of the highest grossing pictures of 2016. A big applaud to X-Men franchise and Bryan Singer!