Paul Rudd is Ant-Man 1 1

[TheLiamSturgess]

Absolutely! My point was rather that (as I predicted), MI:5 is going to far outstrip the $40 million opening expectations.

 

And by that rubric, a reminder that Ant-Man's doing far worse than The Incredible Hulk.

 

Both movies are now tied at $109 domestic after 15 days (in equivalent 2008 dollars), but Hulk didn't have the 3-D ticket price bump. So many fewer folks have gone to see it.

 

If anything, you can't compare the international grosses of those two films (or frankly, any 2015 films to ones produced prior to 2010) because the number of international screens has increased a ton as new territories (particularly in Asia) have opened up to the US market.

 

 

 

 

ant-man down 50% this weekend. will end up doing a pretty typical 2.7x it's opening weekend in the US. it's no GOTG for legs but it's not Incredible Hulk bad either.

According to boxofficemojo.com the film is as nearly as bad because it will be second to last place in domestic money brought in and shows its a sign of bad things to come for MCU films domestically

 

I can't imagine how this could be a sign of bad things to come. As SO many people have pointed out, this is Ant Man, arguably one of the least popular characters in mainstream consciousness. He doesn't have the demographic-crossing appeal of GOTG or the sexiness of Iron Man, Thor or Cap, which limits the audience to die-hard MCU fans, Paul Rudd fans, decently educated comic fans and the odd curious movie goer (with some exceptions, of course).

 

Captain America: Civil War will dominate the box office once again, because it's Captain America, because it's the Russo brothers, because of the many, many appealing guest stars slated to appear and because it's arguably much more important to the progression of the MCU. I have a feeling Doctor Strange will be similar because of Benedict Cumberbatch and because it will be VERY attractive in previews visually and likely will be a solid story as well. Thor: Ragnarok will continue the trend, and GOTG2 will bring in repeat viewers...

 

I could go on literally until the end of the currently announced slate. (thumbs u

[gadzukes]

But so far it _is_ Incredible Hulk bad in terms of numbers.

 

The films are precisely tied for inflation-adjusted domestic grosses after 15 days of release.

 

Hulk had a harsher drop its second weekend but it also started higher, opening to $70 million in 2015 dollars vs. Ant-Man's $57 million.

 

I guess I'm looking at Antman as a success as far as profitability goes. It'll probably pull in $160mil domestically when it's done with it's run, which is 30mil over it's budget. That's not "blockbuster" great, but it's certainly profitable especially when you add in the foreign $.

 

Hulk came in at $15mil under it's budget. It doesn't matter if you "inflation-adjust" the numbers, Profit is profit. Antman is going to domestically outperform Hulk, Wolverine, and Xmen 1st class from a profit standpoint.

 

I guess if you're just talking "numbers of people in the seats" then yes, it's one of the smallest MCU movies. But as I've thought from the start.... I don't think even Marvel had super high expectations for this movie. But they certainly wanted it to be profitable.... and it is.

[zosocane]

I can't imagine how this could be a sign of bad things to come. As SO many people have pointed out, this is Ant Man, arguably one of the least popular characters in mainstream consciousness. He doesn't have the demographic-crossing appeal of GOTG or the sexiness of Iron Man, Thor or Cap, which limits the audience to die-hard MCU fans, Paul Rudd fans, decently educated comic fans and the odd curious movie goer (with some exceptions, of course).

 

Captain America: Civil War will dominate the box office once again, because it's Captain America, because it's the Russo brothers, because of the many, many appealing guest stars slated to appear and because it's arguably much more important to the progression of the MCU. I have a feeling Doctor Strange will be similar because of Benedict Cumberbatch and because it will be VERY attractive in previews visually and likely will be a solid story as well. Thor: Ragnarok will continue the trend, and GOTG2 will bring in repeat viewers...

 

I could go on literally until the end of the currently announced slate. (thumbs u

 

+1. I still scratch my head that Marvel Studios rolled out Ant-Man giving him his own film. But I think the other factor is that audiences are getting bombarded with CGI-doused super hero and adventure films, not just in the theatres but on TV. There is a ton of competition today that didn't exist in such quantity and visual quality even 5 years ago. Audiences are getting a bit tired, I think.

[TheLiamSturgess]

I can't imagine how this could be a sign of bad things to come. As SO many people have pointed out, this is Ant Man, arguably one of the least popular characters in mainstream consciousness. He doesn't have the demographic-crossing appeal of GOTG or the sexiness of Iron Man, Thor or Cap, which limits the audience to die-hard MCU fans, Paul Rudd fans, decently educated comic fans and the odd curious movie goer (with some exceptions, of course).

 

Captain America: Civil War will dominate the box office once again, because it's Captain America, because it's the Russo brothers, because of the many, many appealing guest stars slated to appear and because it's arguably much more important to the progression of the MCU. I have a feeling Doctor Strange will be similar because of Benedict Cumberbatch and because it will be VERY attractive in previews visually and likely will be a solid story as well. Thor: Ragnarok will continue the trend, and GOTG2 will bring in repeat viewers...

 

I could go on literally until the end of the currently announced slate. (thumbs u

 

+1. I still scratch my head that Marvel Studios rolled out Ant-Man giving him his own film. But I think the other factor is that audiences are getting bombarded with CGI-doused super hero and adventure films, not just in the theatres but on TV. There is a ton of competition today that didn't exist in such quantity and visual quality even 5 years ago. Audiences are getting a bit tired, I think.

 

That might make sense, but I'm still wondering if that's even close to true. Have numbers on superhero films and TV gone down? As far as I understand the stats posted, there is an overall positive upswing on box office take and in most recent cases, very positive reviews both critically and from general audiences.

 

Daredevil was a hit. GOTG was a hit. TWS was a hit. Even Ant-Man was well received. Nobody I talk to has so far expressed any fatigue in the genre, and still see the movies and enjoy them :shrug:

 

I'm just unsure as to why we have the assumption audiences are getting tired.

[Goldeneye]

I can't imagine how this could be a sign of bad things to come. As SO many people have pointed out, this is Ant Man, arguably one of the least popular characters in mainstream consciousness. He doesn't have the demographic-crossing appeal of GOTG or the sexiness of Iron Man, Thor or Cap, which limits the audience to die-hard MCU fans, Paul Rudd fans, decently educated comic fans and the odd curious movie goer (with some exceptions, of course).

 

Captain America: Civil War will dominate the box office once again, because it's Captain America, because it's the Russo brothers, because of the many, many appealing guest stars slated to appear and because it's arguably much more important to the progression of the MCU. I have a feeling Doctor Strange will be similar because of Benedict Cumberbatch and because it will be VERY attractive in previews visually and likely will be a solid story as well. Thor: Ragnarok will continue the trend, and GOTG2 will bring in repeat viewers...

 

I could go on literally until the end of the currently announced slate. (thumbs u

 

+1. I still scratch my head that Marvel Studios rolled out Ant-Man giving him his own film. But I think the other factor is that audiences are getting bombarded with CGI-doused super hero and adventure films, not just in the theatres but on TV. There is a ton of competition today that didn't exist in such quantity and visual quality even 5 years ago. Audiences are getting a bit tired, I think.

 

That might make sense, but I'm still wondering if that's even close to true. Have numbers on superhero films and TV gone down? As far as I understand the stats posted, there is an overall positive upswing on box office take and in most recent cases, very positive reviews both critically and from general audiences.

 

Daredevil was a hit. GOTG was a hit. TWS was a hit. Even Ant-Man was well received. Nobody I talk to has so far expressed any fatigue in the genre, and still see the movies and enjoy them :shrug:

 

I'm just unsure as to why we have the assumption audiences are getting tired.

 

Basing it off of money coming in domestically compared to previous MCU films and looking at. Base it off of you talk with the heads of some of the big comic shows they saw little to no increase in con attendance this year compared to previous years so they believe they hit the top of the bubble waiting for it to burst.Just like horror films of the 80's, action films of the 90's, and comic films of the 00's all good things come to an end.

[Gatsby77]

Yeah -- Hard to see how it's not a disappointment for Marvel.

 

Here's the box office mojo rankings for "Marvel, Phase 2" movies in terms of total (all-time domestic) 7-day gross:

 

Iron Man 3 -- # 9

Thor 2 -- # 66

Cap 2 -- # 60

Guardians -- # 48

 

Ant-Man -- # 148

 

The reality is, we minority of intense comic book fanboys don't count.

 

Example -- folks hated on Iron Man 3 for the Mandarin twist (which I, for one, _loved_) and yet it still made $175 million domestic on its opening weekend & went on to more than $400 million domestic.

 

That Ant-Man started with comparisons to Thor 2 and now has been downgraded to box office comparisons to the Incredible Hulk (sans 3-D) & The Wolverine is not good.

 

Yes, it's doing better than Green Lantern, having already passed GL's total gross, but my takeaway is these lesser-known hero flicks (i.e., Black Panther, Ms. Marvel) need to cost more like $90-110 million to do well.

[TheLiamSturgess]

I can't imagine how this could be a sign of bad things to come. As SO many people have pointed out, this is Ant Man, arguably one of the least popular characters in mainstream consciousness. He doesn't have the demographic-crossing appeal of GOTG or the sexiness of Iron Man, Thor or Cap, which limits the audience to die-hard MCU fans, Paul Rudd fans, decently educated comic fans and the odd curious movie goer (with some exceptions, of course).

 

Captain America: Civil War will dominate the box office once again, because it's Captain America, because it's the Russo brothers, because of the many, many appealing guest stars slated to appear and because it's arguably much more important to the progression of the MCU. I have a feeling Doctor Strange will be similar because of Benedict Cumberbatch and because it will be VERY attractive in previews visually and likely will be a solid story as well. Thor: Ragnarok will continue the trend, and GOTG2 will bring in repeat viewers...

 

I could go on literally until the end of the currently announced slate. (thumbs u

 

+1. I still scratch my head that Marvel Studios rolled out Ant-Man giving him his own film. But I think the other factor is that audiences are getting bombarded with CGI-doused super hero and adventure films, not just in the theatres but on TV. There is a ton of competition today that didn't exist in such quantity and visual quality even 5 years ago. Audiences are getting a bit tired, I think.

 

That might make sense, but I'm still wondering if that's even close to true. Have numbers on superhero films and TV gone down? As far as I understand the stats posted, there is an overall positive upswing on box office take and in most recent cases, very positive reviews both critically and from general audiences.

 

Daredevil was a hit. GOTG was a hit. TWS was a hit. Even Ant-Man was well received. Nobody I talk to has so far expressed any fatigue in the genre, and still see the movies and enjoy them :shrug:

 

I'm just unsure as to why we have the assumption audiences are getting tired.

 

Basing it off of money coming in domestically compared to previous MCU films and looking at. Base it off of you talk with the heads of some of the big comic shows they saw little to no increase in con attendance this year compared to previous years so they believe they hit the top of the bubble waiting for it to burst.Just like horror films of the 80's, action films of the 90's, and comic films of the 00's all good things come to an end.

 

I think we're arguing apples vs. oranges. I'm referring only to the comic movies, not their overall impact on the comic industry. I'm also not specifically referring to Ant-Man! Yes, it was a box office descent compared to the previous films, but that's in no way an accurate gage as to the overall interest and enthusiasm for superhero movies.

 

On the note of conventions, it's ridiculous to assume that a fan of the comic movies is also a fan of comic conventions. That's simply not how it works. They're two different demographics which happen to cross over significantly, but stagnating convention attendance is not directly correlated to comic book movie interest.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Liaton-9000

[jaeldubyoo]

The movie will make money because the production costs were lower. Marvel doesn't have to hit a homerun each and every time. Singles, doubles, and triples add up. You just don't want to strike out (lose money).

[Bosco685]

Just going by the numbers, it would appear the overall Marvel Cinematic Universe has had previous worse drop rates than Ant-Man is experiencing. And sure, there have been better box office rates previously.

 

 

So far, Ant-Man is holding its own. Though it needs to get those bigger box office markets to truly take off (China, Japan).

 

 

[marvelcollector]

These things really have to go in a spoiler tag to make this thread readable.

[TheLiamSturgess]

These things really have to go in a spoiler tag to make this thread readable.

 

The thread is still fine for me. What are your browser settings?

[gadzukes]

The movie will make money because the production costs were lower. Marvel doesn't have to hit a homerun each and every time. Singles, doubles, and triples add up. You just don't want to strike out (lose money).

 

+1 Well said.

[Chip Cataldo]

The domestic take eclipsed the budget of the film today.

 

Edit : I see Bosco already posted the updated numbers.

 

The movie will end its run as a profit-maker.

 

There's no fatigue.

 

Civil War will bring more money than AoU.

 

Everything is awesome.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Epic Peach

[gadzukes]

Notice the word "sequel" is used in this article...

 

BOX OFFICE: Marvel's ANT-MAN Closing In On An Impressive $300 Million Worldwide

 

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=123520

 

"Despite the fact that some fans have argued that Ant-Man would be Marvel's first flop, they've very much been proved wrong over the past few weeks. This weekend, it earned an estimated $12.6 million, a figure which puts it at #3 behind new releases Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation and Vacation. It was thought that Minions (which has taken a big chunk out of its box office haul) would beat it, but Ant-Man has remained in front. Its current domestic total stands at $132.15 million.

 

Overseas it has earned $159.5 million, giving it a global total of $291.648 million. That means it's just a day or two away from $300 million, and seeing as it only cost $130 million to make, Marvel surely have to be considering giving the character a sequel. Ant-Man still hasn't opened in a number of key territories, including China and Japan."

Edited August 3, 2015 by gadzukes

[rjrjr]

Here is what I find fascinating. Yes, these big budget movies make big money. But when you look at the investment versus the return in percentages, these movies are not necessarily the best ROI for studios. Not even close.

 

Paper Towns cost $12 million. It is already at $49 million worldwide or 4x budget in only it's second week and that is with a huge drop off. Pitch Perfect 2 cost $29 million. It made $282 million worldwide or close to 10x budget. Fifty Shades of Grey cost $40 million. It made $569 million or a whopping 14x budget and this was a movie that was derided.

 

I get it that the monetary return on the big budget movies is greater than these lower budget movies. But when you look at the risk involved, I wonder why a studio would be willing to lay out so much money? Disney has had its share of flops in the past (Lone Ranger and John Carter come to mind) and those have to hurt regardless of how well your other movies do. MGM went bankrupt due in no small part to expensive films. I know Lucas and Spielberg have both mentioned this current trend of ever bigger budgets is very risky and they are predicting an implosion.

 

I would hate to see these comic book movies be the catalyst for such an event.

 

Sorry, just realized this is not necessarily pertinent to the topic. Ant Man's budget of $120 million is huge compared to most movies, although modest when compared to other big budget movies (Avengers AOU cost $250 million.) It seems like with more practical effects and less special effects you could greatly reduce some of these movie budgets. Honestly, I'd love a superhero movie that gets you invested in the character emotionally. These current movies are all action but no heart. Is it impossible to deliver the action but also make the audience feel for the characters? I'm guessing a director is good at one or the other, but not both. And because of the nature of the source material, superhero movies are stuck with the action focused directors. GOTG delivered on both, but that movie is a standout in an otherwise paint by the numbers run of superhero movies.

 

Ant Man held up pretty well against Mission Impossible this weekend. Next up is Fantastic Four.

Edited August 3, 2015 by rjrjr

[ComicConnoisseur]

Here is what I find fascinating. Yes, these big budget movies make big money. But when you look at the investment versus the return in percentages, these movies are not necessarily the best ROI for studios. Not even close.

 

Paper Towns cost $12 million. It is already at $49 million worldwide or 4x budget in only it's second week and that is with a huge drop off. Pitch Perfect 2 cost $29 million. It made $282 million worldwide or close to 10x budget. Fifty Shades of Grey cost $40 million. It made $569 million or a whopping 14x budget and this was a movie that was derided.

 

I get it that the monetary return on the big budget movies is greater than these lower budget movies. But when you look at the risk involved, I wonder why a studio would be willing to lay out so much money? Disney has had its share of flops in the past (Lone Ranger and John Carter come to mind) and those have to hurt regardless of how well your other movies do. MGM went bankrupt due in no small part to expensive films. I know Lucas and Spielberg have both mentioned this current trend of ever bigger budgets is very risky and they are predicting an implosion.

 

I would hate to see these comic book movies be the catalyst for such an event.

 

Sorry, just realized this is not necessarily pertinent to the topic. Ant Man's budget of $120 million is huge compared to most movies, although modest when compared to other big budget movies (Avengers AOU cost $250 million.) It seems like with more practical effects and less special effects you could greatly reduce some of these movie budgets. Honestly, I'd love a superhero movie that gets you invested in the character emotionally. These current movies are all action but no heart. Is it impossible to deliver the action but also make the audience feel for the characters? I'm guessing a director is good at one or the other, but not both. And because of the nature of the source material, superhero movies are stuck with the action focused directors. GOTG delivered on both, but that movie is a standout in an otherwise paint by the numbers run of superhero movies.

 

Ant Man held up pretty well against Mission Impossible this weekend. Next up is Fantastic Four.

Merchandising is were these super hero movies make their money as well.

Ant-Man is a brand now which can be sold on anything, while Paper Towns only has going for is it`s box office.

Ant-Man will probably sell additional millions in merchandise over the years, while Paper Towns is a one trick pony.

[1Cool]

Here is what I find fascinating. Yes, these big budget movies make big money. But when you look at the investment versus the return in percentages, these movies are not necessarily the best ROI for studios. Not even close.

 

Paper Towns cost $12 million. It is already at $49 million worldwide or 4x budget in only it's second week and that is with a huge drop off. Pitch Perfect 2 cost $29 million. It made $282 million worldwide or close to 10x budget. Fifty Shades of Grey cost $40 million. It made $569 million or a whopping 14x budget and this was a movie that was derided.

 

I get it that the monetary return on the big budget movies is greater than these lower budget movies. But when you look at the risk involved, I wonder why a studio would be willing to lay out so much money? Disney has had its share of flops in the past (Lone Ranger and John Carter come to mind) and those have to hurt regardless of how well your other movies do. MGM went bankrupt due in no small part to expensive films. I know Lucas and Spielberg have both mentioned this current trend of ever bigger budgets is very risky and they are predicting an implosion.

 

I would hate to see these comic book movies be the catalyst for such an event.

 

Sorry, just realized this is not necessarily pertinent to the topic. Ant Man's budget of $120 million is huge compared to most movies, although modest when compared to other big budget movies (Avengers AOU cost $250 million.) It seems like with more practical effects and less special effects you could greatly reduce some of these movie budgets. Honestly, I'd love a superhero movie that gets you invested in the character emotionally. These current movies are all action but no heart. Is it impossible to deliver the action but also make the audience feel for the characters? I'm guessing a director is good at one or the other, but not both. And because of the nature of the source material, superhero movies are stuck with the action focused directors. GOTG delivered on both, but that movie is a standout in an otherwise paint by the numbers run of superhero movies.

 

Ant Man held up pretty well against Mission Impossible this weekend. Next up is Fantastic Four.

Merchandising is were these super hero movies make their money as well.

Ant-Man is a brand now which can be sold on anything, while Paper Towns only has going for is it`s box office.

Ant-Man will probably sell additional millions in merchandise over the years, while Paper Towns is a one trick pony.

 

I'd also say the number of indy low budget movies that do really well is very small compared to the number of movies being made. Its kind of like investing in penny stocks - you win big when they hit but you kind of expect most to be direct the Netflix flops.

[Mr 9.8]

I'd also say the number of indy low budget movies that do really well is very small compared to the number of movies being made. Its kind of like investing in penny stocks - you win big when they hit but you kind of expect most to be direct the Netflix flops.

Really now, we've gone from Direct to Video to now it's Direct to Netflix?

[Gatsby77]

Yup -- see Adam Sandler's career. Even before Pixels' flop, he'd contracted to have his next 4 movies (including the much-criticized "Ridiculous Six") to be Direct-to-Netflix.

 

Wesley Snipes had his Direct-to-Video period, but that was directly due to his tax evasion troubles. Stallone's the more interesting one, with three direct-to-video flicks in a row between "Driven" and "Spy Kids 3."

 

Both of these actors would have likely gone Direct-to-Netflix today, and we'll see such moves resuscitate the careers of more than a few flailing stars going forward.

[BettrFastrStrongr]

Once Ant-Man hits Video on On demand, it'll grow it's audience. A sequel,I would imagine, would have a bigger domestic B.O. just on that fact alone. I don't think thats in Marvel's plans though looking at it's future releases.