Prince Namor Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 If you throw away the opening weekend, Antman has domestically actually outgained the 1st Captain America movie by about $1.5mil. thru the 5th Wednesday of release, and seems to be gaining ground on it's overall numbers every day. I wonder if Antman has a chance to reach Cap 1 overall numbers? In the same time period it has equaled ASM 2 money. In the same time period it has outgained Wolverine by $16mil. This is Antman I'm talking about compared to 3 Marvel giants. Not that I am taking anything away from Marvel, but there are contributors here other than Marvel just throwing a relatively unknown character out there to see how it would do in a movie. - Included stars that are already widely known, and quite popular. But other movies have done that and haven't been successful... Green Lantern had Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Angela Basset, Tim Robbins.... didn't help. Ghost Rider has had Nick Cage, Idris Elba, Eva Mendes, Sam Elliot, Wes Bentley, Peter Fonda... didn't help. Daredevil had Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jon Favreau...didn't help. Takes more than a great cast to make a good movie. - Had this led by a very seasoned director who replaced another popular and seasoned director. But Green Lantern had Martin Campbell, a 20+ year veteran movie director (with another 10+ years in TV direction) who'd directed a couple of Bond movies, the Mask of Zorro... didn't help. - Heavily advertised this was part of the Marvel Universe from the same studio that brought you Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the combined Avengers. I don't remember that. I just typed in 'Ant-Man trailer' on you-tube and none of them I watched (the first three) said anything about 'Marvel Universe' or 'same studio that brought you Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the combined Avengers'... in fact, other than the MARVEL logo for 2 seconds near the beginning, there was nothing to tie this to the other movies. In fact they went out of their way to NOT show the Falcon who makes an appearance in the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 But other movies have done that and haven't been successful... But are they the ones assuming a studio just dropped a movie out there in theaters without thorough planning? It would appear like some truly believe Marvel just threw some actors together, tossed a -script together, and WHAM! Instant hit. Marvel Studios has been much wiser than that. And they learned some lessons early on from The Incredible Hulk (don't deviate from the creative roadmap) and Captain America: The First Avengers (don't go overboard with the advanced Hydra technology that would have won WW II). That in itself is a wise move as opposed to writing off such valuable pearls of learning. Green Lantern had Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Angela Basset, Tim Robbins.... didn't help. Ghost Rider has had Nick Cage, Idris Elba, Eva Mendes, Sam Elliot, Wes Bentley, Peter Fonda... didn't help. Daredevil had Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jon Favreau...didn't help. Takes more than a great cast to make a good movie. You missed a point. Seasoned director and actors. - Daredevil (2003): Mark Steven Johnson's 2nd movie he ever directed. - Ghost Rider (2007): Mark Steven Johnson's 3rd movie he ever directed. But Green Lantern had Martin Campbell, a 20+ year veteran movie director (with another 10+ years in TV direction) who'd directed a couple of Bond movies, the Mask of Zorro... didn't help. That was just horrible delivery. So I agree, his seasoned directing had no help for that film. I don't remember that. I just typed in 'Ant-Man trailer' on you-tube and none of them I watched (the first three) said anything about 'Marvel Universe' or 'same studio that brought you Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the combined Avengers'... in fact, other than the MARVEL logo for 2 seconds near the beginning, there was nothing to tie this to the other movies. In fact they went out of their way to NOT show the Falcon who makes an appearance in the movie. You missed these, which were expertly delivered linking Ant-Man to the Marvel Universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 But other movies have done that and haven't been successful... But are they the ones assuming a studio just dropped a movie out there in theaters without thorough planning? Who said that??? I think the whole point has been that Marvel DOES plan well and thats why they've been successful. No one here thinks Marvel just threw Ant-Man out there and it was successful. Green Lantern had Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Angela Basset, Tim Robbins.... didn't help. Ghost Rider has had Nick Cage, Idris Elba, Eva Mendes, Sam Elliot, Wes Bentley, Peter Fonda... didn't help. Daredevil had Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jon Favreau...didn't help. Takes more than a great cast to make a good movie. You missed a point. Seasoned director and actors. - Daredevil (2003): Mark Steven Johnson's 2nd movie he ever directed. - Ghost Rider (2007): Mark Steven Johnson's 3rd movie he ever directed. Actually, you listed it as an individual point unto itself. But Green Lantern had Martin Campbell, a 20+ year veteran movie director (with another 10+ years in TV direction) who'd directed a couple of Bond movies, the Mask of Zorro... didn't help. That was just horrible delivery. So I agree, his seasoned directing had no help for that film. And I'll agree that, generally, it would seem having a quality seasoned director and a great cast will give a movie a better chance of succeeding. But... that pretty much goes for most films. I don't remember that. I just typed in 'Ant-Man trailer' on you-tube and none of them I watched (the first three) said anything about 'Marvel Universe' or 'same studio that brought you Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the combined Avengers'... in fact, other than the MARVEL logo for 2 seconds near the beginning, there was nothing to tie this to the other movies. In fact they went out of their way to NOT show the Falcon who makes an appearance in the movie. You missed these, which were expertly delivered linking Ant-Man to the Marvel Universe. Print's dead. I know of no one who pays attention, especially who reads movie poster's... if they wanted to emphasize it all that much they would've put it in the commercials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiamSturgess Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 But other movies have done that and haven't been successful... But are they the ones assuming a studio just dropped a movie out there in theaters without thorough planning? Who said that??? I think the whole point has been that Marvel DOES plan well and thats why they've been successful. No one here thinks Marvel just threw Ant-Man out there and it was successful. Green Lantern had Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Angela Basset, Tim Robbins.... didn't help. Ghost Rider has had Nick Cage, Idris Elba, Eva Mendes, Sam Elliot, Wes Bentley, Peter Fonda... didn't help. Daredevil had Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jon Favreau...didn't help. Takes more than a great cast to make a good movie. You missed a point. Seasoned director and actors. - Daredevil (2003): Mark Steven Johnson's 2nd movie he ever directed. - Ghost Rider (2007): Mark Steven Johnson's 3rd movie he ever directed. Actually, you listed it as an individual point unto itself. But Green Lantern had Martin Campbell, a 20+ year veteran movie director (with another 10+ years in TV direction) who'd directed a couple of Bond movies, the Mask of Zorro... didn't help. That was just horrible delivery. So I agree, his seasoned directing had no help for that film. And I'll agree that, generally, it would seem having a quality seasoned director and a great cast will give a movie a better chance of succeeding. But... that pretty much goes for most films. I don't remember that. I just typed in 'Ant-Man trailer' on you-tube and none of them I watched (the first three) said anything about 'Marvel Universe' or 'same studio that brought you Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the combined Avengers'... in fact, other than the MARVEL logo for 2 seconds near the beginning, there was nothing to tie this to the other movies. In fact they went out of their way to NOT show the Falcon who makes an appearance in the movie. You missed these, which were expertly delivered linking Ant-Man to the Marvel Universe. Print's dead. I know of no one who pays attention, especially who reads movie poster's... if they wanted to emphasize it all that much they would've put it in the commercials. I'm not sure you know enough people then - I personally do pay attention to movie posters, and I've got several friends who show an interest in the details, at a minimum (thumbs u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud cloddie Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Yeah, those posters were all over the place online leading up to the movie coming out. I never read print, and I still saw them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Actually, you listed it as an individual point unto itself. Did I? I think you are confused, as I packaged the actors and director selected as part of the success equation, along with the extensive and effective marketing. I definitely have no concerns with Ant-Man's success. But I wouldn't just assume Marvel could throw anyone into the suit and it would have been gold, or put anyone behind the camera and it would have worked. Marvel's ability to pick successful production teams, cast the right actors (though now the past few years actors are throwing themselves at Marvel) and then linking the stories in a way it feels like an on-going tale is part of the magic they have been able to achieve repeatedly. - Michael Douglas: Let's not make light of his Hollywood legacy and box office draw. He usually associates himself with films that have the strength of story to pull people into seats. Even his delivery in 'Behind the Candelabra' was so rock-solid, you didn't question him much being Liberace. And I thought that was going to be horrible, and watched it just to see for myself. He nailed it! - Paul Rudd: He may have starred in some movies that were far from successful. But he has also delivered better than average performances in productions as a voice actor (Monsters vs. Aliens; The Simpsons), comedies (Anchorman 1 & 2; The 40-Year-Old Virgin), and even oddball comedy-dramas (Wanderlust). At least he is consistent, and his name is well recognized though before now not a superstar. - Evangeline Lilly: Lost made her a recognized name. But her work in 'Real Steel' proved she could perform outside of this show, though the movie was not a massive success. Even her work on 'The Hobbit' franchise helped her stand out in a massive casting that otherwise an actress could get easily lost in the noise. - Peyton Reed: I had never heard of him before Ant-Man as a director. But once his name came out and I looked him up on IMDb, it was clear he had extensive experience as a director. So unlike F4 where they threw a one-time movie director at a franchise to relaunch the entire universe, Marvel went with a seasoned pro to replace the original director at a point that could have massively disrupted this movie's end product. Add to this the wise Disney/Marvel marketing strategy to attract attention to this movie (mini billboards; linking it right up front with the bigger franchise) and it is no surprise this is at least a good success. And it will surpass the Revenue Ratio of 'Captain America: The First Avenger' (2.6X) this weekend. Though with Cap2, it is the second lowest Marvel movie to date with a much larger budget ($140 MM back in 2011 - $148 MM in 2015 compared to Ant-Man's $130 MM). So it should be passing that movie up by default. Speaking of the marketing... You missed these, which were expertly delivered linking Ant-Man to the Marvel Universe. Print's dead. I know of no one who pays attention, especially who reads movie poster's... if they wanted to emphasize it all that much they would've put it in the commercials. I'm not sure you know enough people then - I personally do pay attention to movie posters, and I've got several friends who show an interest in the details, at a minimum (thumbs u Yeah, those posters were all over the place online leading up to the movie coming out. I never read print, and I still saw them. You were saying? And let's not forget, these are used digitally at ticket purchase and movie review sites too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 By the way, Ant-Man's weekly dropoff rate this past week is closer to Winter Soldier than any other movie. And revenue keeps on growing. Pending box office: Austria (27 August 2015) Greece (17 September 2015) China (18 September 2015) Japan (19 September 2015) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BettrFastrStrongr Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 AWESOME!!! CHARTS!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb8 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 AWESOME!!! CHARTS!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Actually, you listed it as an individual point unto itself. Did I? I think you are confused, as I packaged the actors and director selected as part of the success equation, along with the extensive and effective marketing. I definitely have no concerns with Ant-Man's success. But I wouldn't just assume Marvel could throw anyone into the suit and it would have been gold, or put anyone behind the camera and it would have worked. Marvel's ability to pick successful production teams, cast the right actors (though now the past few years actors are throwing themselves at Marvel) and then linking the stories in a way it feels like an on-going tale is part of the magic they have been able to achieve repeatedly. - Michael Douglas: Let's not make light of his Hollywood legacy and box office draw. He usually associates himself with films that have the strength of story to pull people into seats. Even his delivery in 'Behind the Candelabra' was so rock-solid, you didn't question him much being Liberace. And I thought that was going to be horrible, and watched it just to see for myself. He nailed it! - Paul Rudd: He may have starred in some movies that were far from successful. But he has also delivered better than average performances in productions as a voice actor (Monsters vs. Aliens; The Simpsons), comedies (Anchorman 1 & 2; The 40-Year-Old Virgin), and even oddball comedy-dramas (Wanderlust). At least he is consistent, and his name is well recognized though before now not a superstar. - Evangeline Lilly: Lost made her a recognized name. But her work in 'Real Steel' proved she could perform outside of this show, though the movie was not a massive success. Even her work on 'The Hobbit' franchise helped her stand out in a massive casting that otherwise an actress could get easily lost in the noise. - Peyton Reed: I had never heard of him before Ant-Man as a director. But once his name came out and I looked him up on IMDb, it was clear he had extensive experience as a director. So unlike F4 where they threw a one-time movie director at a franchise to relaunch the entire universe, Marvel went with a seasoned pro to replace the original director at a point that could have massively disrupted this movie's end product. Add to this the wise Disney/Marvel marketing strategy to attract attention to this movie (mini billboards; linking it right up front with the bigger franchise) and it is no surprise this is at least a good success. And it will surpass the Revenue Ratio of 'Captain America: The First Avenger' (2.6X) this weekend. Though with Cap2, it is the second lowest Marvel movie to date with a much larger budget ($140 MM back in 2011 - $148 MM in 2015 compared to Ant-Man's $130 MM). So it should be passing that movie up by default. You missed this: - Included stars that are already widely known, and quite popular. - Had this led by a very seasoned director who replaced another popular and seasoned director. - Heavily advertised this was part of the Marvel Universe from the same studio that brought you Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the combined Avengers. That's clearly listing it as it's own point. Speaking of the marketing... You missed these, which were expertly delivered linking Ant-Man to the Marvel Universe. Print's dead. I know of no one who pays attention, especially who reads movie poster's... if they wanted to emphasize it all that much they would've put it in the commercials. I'm not sure you know enough people then - I personally do pay attention to movie posters, and I've got several friends who show an interest in the details, at a minimum (thumbs u Yeah, those posters were all over the place online leading up to the movie coming out. I never read print, and I still saw them. You were saying? And let's not forget, these are used digitally at ticket purchase and movie review sites too. If you want to believe that a large number of people read those print ads in a comparable number to how many relied solely upon the trailers for information, well... have at it. Of some ten billion videos watched online annually, film trailers rank third, after news and user-created video. Movie POSTERS have no such statistic. They are generally browsed, not read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 - Included stars that are already widely known, and quite popular. - Had this led by a very seasoned director who replaced another popular and seasoned director. - Heavily advertised this was part of the Marvel Universe from the same studio that brought you Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the combined Avengers. That's clearly listing it as it's own point. Those are three points why Marvel's Ant-Man worked. Not individual items that by themselves would make a movie successful. Like advertising in itself makes a movie successful, and nothing else? That makes no sense. You got confused. It's okay. If you want to believe that a large number of people read those print ads in a comparable number to how many relied solely upon the trailers for information, well... have at it. Of some ten billion videos watched online annually, film trailers rank third, after news and user-created video. Movie POSTERS have no such statistic. They are generally browsed, not read. Believe what you want. Marvel/Disney wouldn't spend so much time on such posters and their messaging if it was not proven they are read by potential cinema patrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 AWESOME!!! CHARTS!!!! Why thanks! Coming from you, that means... Well, nothing really, since you are just posting to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud cloddie Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I always like the charts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I always like the charts Some will appreciate them, and some won't. No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BettrFastrStrongr Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 AWESOME!!! CHARTS!!!! Why thanks! Coming from you, that means... Well, nothing really, since you are just posting to post. Not true. I would rather talk about the movie but instead we have pages and pages of useless (IMHO) charts, people quoting said charts, and others posting more charts to prove the posted charts wrong. I like charts, just not when I would rather talk about a film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadzukes Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I like seeing the charts myself, but they're usually so big that maybe they should be put in a spoiler tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 AWESOME!!! CHARTS!!!! Why thanks! Coming from you, that means... Well, nothing really, since you are just posting to post. Not true. I would rather talk about the movie but instead we have pages and pages of useless (IMHO) charts, people quoting said charts, and others posting more charts to prove the posted charts wrong. I like charts, just not when I would rather talk about a film. So better to pop into a thread and post about someone squeezing Margot Robbie's boob? Is that the deep, engaging discussion points you desire? Yeah. I'll keep posting those charts. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I like seeing the charts myself, but they're usually so big that maybe they should be put in a spoiler tag. Let me see if I reduce them down how it impacts readability. Great idea of worst-case inserting them in spoiler tags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdoginohio Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Anybody else prefer the older Agent Carter at the beginning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calcnerd Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Finally got to see this movie yesterday. I really enjoyed it and left wanting more. Can't wait for the dvd release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
