View Single Post
Old 11-04-2009, 12:05 PM   #25
TheVileOne's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 53,555
Default Re: Did Marvel squash the Man in the Ant Hill?

Originally Posted by Captain Marvel View Post
I don't see why not. First let's take Edgar Wright's last film, Hot Fuzz. That made $80 million worldwide. Is there any reason to think that Ant-Man would make less money than Hot Fuzz? It'd certainly capture the Wright fans, and those who like comedic takeoffs of existing genres.
This is ridiculous logic. First of all, Hot Fuzz was a small budgeted action comedy from the makers of Shaun of the Dead. Yes there is plenty of reason. There's no reason to assume right now that Ant-Man could make more without some big names attached even then there's no guarantee.

Look at the Punisher movies. Look at Elektra.

Also you can't just make an Ant-man movie the same style as Hot Fuzz.

Second, let's take Watchmen, which is a completely unknown comic property. Despite no one ever having heard of Watchmen, that made $185 million, worldwide.
Watchmen was a gigantic disappointment. It was risky, but it was a huge budgeted movie. Not to mention it had a tremendously big tentpole ad campaign behind it from WB. Seriously, they marketed this movie like it was the sequel to The Dark Knight. There's no way an Ant-Man movie gets promoted like Watchmen. Invalid comparisons.

So what it made $185 million worldwide? Watchmen wasn't completely unknown. It was a highly celebrated and popular graphic novel story. It was talked about in major print magazines. No its not super-mainstream material, but it wasn't completely unknown.

In all probability, Ant-Man can probably turn a level of profit inbetween those two movies. You got the Edgar Wright fans, and people looking for a movie with a quirky comedic feel to it. You got people in the mood to see a super-hero movie, and if it's got a good trailer, then people will go see it. At least a chunk of the same people that gave Watchmen a chance despite never having heard of Dr. Manhattan, simply because it looked like a cool superhero movie. And to top it off, they can milk off of the momentum built up by the other Marvel movies. The advertising campaign letting people know that the Ant-Man movie is also a lead-up to Avengers (like a Nick Fury appearance) would certainly help it.
Again this is faulty logic. Edgar Wright's fanbase is more or less a niche, cult fanbase. Its foolish to assume because people will see a Watchmen movie they will see Ant-man as well. Look at the Punisher.

Obviously, people don't seem to see it your way since there is no Ant-man in the pipeline before Avengers.

As I said, I think it'd be a good idea for Marvel. Is it summer blockbuster material? Probably not. But film studios aren't built on half-a-billion dollar summer blockbusters, alone. They make smaller films with smaller profit margins, too, that're released in months other than the ones which fall in the summertime. And in this layman's opinion, I very much doubt that they'd lose money on Ant-Man. On the contrary, they'll probably end up making a fairly decent profit off it, and serve to further enhance the Avengers movie when it comes out. Layman's opinion, of course.
Since you are saying $100 million, you do think its blockbuster material. I really don't think you know what you're talking about.

"This is true. This is real. This . . . Is . . . Straight Edge."

- CM Punk
TheVileOne is offline   Reply With Quote