Ant-Man Box Office Predictions - Part 1

[InCali]

MCU has the highest total.

Avengers has the highest average.

As much as I like MCU, it's really not a fair comparison. MCU isn't really a franchise in the same way that Harry Potter is. Avengers is a franchise in the same way Harry Potter is or Iron Man is, but you can't take 6 or 7 movies with different protagonists and call it a franchise in the same way as you do about a bunch of movies about 1 person. It's sort of like taking all the Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Batman, etc. movies, lumping them together, and calling it a franchise. Thems looks like apples and thems look like oranges.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

BoxOffice ‏@BoxOffice 4m4 minutes ago
ANT-MAN took in $1.093M on Monday. Domestic total stands at $148.61M. #AntMan

Might top $150 million domestic today, for sure by Wednesday.

 

[Mike Murdock]

MCU has the highest total.

Avengers has the highest average.

Highest average for a franchise, not movie. So take Harry Potter earnings divided by 8 and the MCU divided by 12.

 

[InCali]

Highest average for a franchise, not movie. So take Harry Potter earnings divided by 8 and the MCU divided by 12.

In my opinion, it's still not a valid comparison no matter how that turns out (don't care really). Harry Potter was a franchise. Superman is a franchise. Batman is a franchise. The Avengers is a franchise......and so on ad nauseam. t:

Is there some blurring? Sure. Batman vs Superman, Thor/IM/CA are all Avengers, etc., BUT Harry Potter was a standalone franchise and Marvel is playing a different game (and one I'm glad they're playing) with the breadth of characters. Let's give them both props, but "IF" MCU is a franchise (and I've read MCU fans, of whom I am one, argue that MCU is "not" a franchise), let us agree that it's a very different animal than Harry Potter and "should" make more money.

I think there are some parallels with comparing Gone with the Wind adjusted BO totals to Avatar. Those are 2 very different animals. GwtW didn't have the competition for the entertainment dollar that movies today have. Let's appreciate the groundbreaking work for what it is and not compare apples to oranges.

Now, I'm going to have a glass or apprange juice.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Well, I was just asking for clarification. I agree it should make more money, but for completely different reasons - there are more films.

 

[InCali]

Well, I was just asking for clarification. I agree it should make more money, but for completely different reasons - there are more films.

I getcha. My point was that there are more movies "because" there is a wider variety of characters and MCU, by my definition, isn't really a franchise in the same sense as HP.

I loved both HP and most of the MCU movies. This is primetime for Sci-Fi/Fantasy lovers.

Funny thing about HP. I thought the best movie of the bunch was Prisoner of Azkaban; which was the lowest grossing movie of the "Franchise". Shows ya what kind of taste I have.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Highest average for a franchise, not movie. So take Harry Potter earnings divided by 8 and the MCU divided by 12.

Not a fair comparison, Harry Potter is based on a very popular best selling kids novel and its sequels, while Marvel movies are mostly about obscure characters, sometimes scraped from the bottom of the Marvel barrel to be made out into movies

Marvel is a bigger success given how none of its character had a pre-built in fan base like Harry Potter or Hunger games or even Spider-man

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Early estimate for Tuesday is $1.55 million, which would just tip Ant-Man over the $150 million domestic mark. But that's an awful big jump, even for a discount Tuesday, so we'll see if it holds up.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Highest average for a franchise, not movie. So take Harry Potter earnings divided by 8 and the MCU divided by 12.

The Avengers franchise has the highest average.

For domestic, Avengers 1 and 2 have a 540 m average.

For worldwide, Avengers 1 and 2 have a 1.4 b average.

Though once the Avatar sequels are released Avatar will easily beat Avengers.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

In my opinion, it's still not a valid comparison no matter how that turns out (don't care really). Harry Potter was a franchise. Superman is a franchise. Batman is a franchise. The Avengers is a franchise......and so on ad nauseam. t:

Is there some blurring? Sure. Batman vs Superman, Thor/IM/CA are all Avengers, etc., BUT Harry Potter was a standalone franchise and Marvel is playing a different game (and one I'm glad they're playing) with the breadth of characters. Let's give them both props, but "IF" MCU is a franchise (and I've read MCU fans, of whom I am one, argue that MCU is "not" a franchise), let us agree that it's a very different animal than Harry Potter and "should" make more money.

I think there are some parallels with comparing Gone with the Wind adjusted BO totals to Avatar. Those are 2 very different animals. GwtW didn't have the competition for the entertainment dollar that movies today have. Let's appreciate the groundbreaking work for what it is and not compare apples to oranges.

Now, I'm going to have a glass or apprange juice.

But you do realize the Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them series will be considered part of the Harry Potter franchise and won't even have the same characters or actors.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

@BoxOffice: ANT-MAN surpassed the $150M domestic mark on Tuesday after grossing $1.519M for the day. #AntMan

Party time!

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Another time to celebrate will be when Ant-Man crosses 450 m WW, which is higher than Cap 1, Thor 1 and TIH.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

@BoxOffice: ANT-MAN surpassed the $150M domestic mark on Tuesday after grossing $1.519M for the day. #AntMan

Party time!

Whoop Whoop! This is great news

 

[OcStat]

I'll be seeing this again tomorrow with my sister, brother-in-law and mother who have yet to watch the movie. So there's another 20 bucks!

 

[Mike Murdock]

Not a fair comparison, Harry Potter is based on a very popular best selling kids novel and its sequels, while Marvel movies are mostly about obscure characters, sometimes scraped from the bottom of the Marvel barrel to be made out into movies

That's a strange argument. It's like saying it's not fair in saying Harry Potter is more popular because Marvel has the disadvantage of being less popular. Every other standard - outlier movie, sheer volume of movies, etc. confuse the issue with other issues. I love the MCU. But there's no shame in saying that Harry Potter was more successful (when controlled for other factors). It's one of the biggest franchises ever.*

* I'm also ignoring any discussion about what constitutes a franchise. Not only do I not agree with the idea that the MCU doesn't count, but it's very unhelpful to just focus on two movies in the MCU with some limited definition of "franchise."

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It's not debatable that MCU is a franchise.

The stories and characters are interconnected which is more than I can say for the upcoming Harry Potter spin off.

 

[marcvader]

Another time to celebrate will be when Ant-Man crosses 450 m WW, which is higher than Cap 1, Thor 1 and TIH.

It deserves it.

 

[InCali]

But you do realize the Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them series will be considered part of the Harry Potter franchise and won't even have the same characters or actors.

I don't consider that part of the HP franchise any more than I consider Batman and Superman to be part of the same.

MCU=Not a franchise
Avengers=Franchise
Captain America=Franchise
HP=Franchise with a big advantage in terms of $$$ because there were so many books.

Lotsa shades of gray going forwards as there is a mingling of movie characters.

 

[InCali]

It's not debatable that MCU is a franchise.

The stories and characters are interconnected which is more than I can say for the upcoming Harry Potter spin off.

Oh please. Just about anything is debatable. It all lies in your definition. You want to call MCU a franchise? Fine. If you do, you also have to recognize that it has SO many more characters/protagonists that comparing it to a standalone is apples and oranges. If the upcoming "Harry Potter spin off" has Harry, Hermione, Ron, etc. as the main protagonists, in my mind, it will be part of the franchise. Otherwise, no.

If there are 8 or so CA movies or Avenger movies that eclipse the HP franchise BO marks, that's fine. Right now HP has a big advantage as far as my definition of franchise goes. There were so many books made into movies that killed it at the BO, that no one, thus far, is within spitting distance. At some point, I'm sure some character will change that. Maybe Bond or some recurring character like that.

All I'm saying is that HP and MCU are two very different animals. Spin offs aren't, imo, part of a franchise.

 

[InCali]

It deserves it.

It certainly does. A very fine effort by Marvel....again.

 

[YJ1]

Marvel is a bigger success given how none of its character had a pre-built in fan base like Harry Potter or Hunger games or even Spider-man

You do know some people were actually born before 1980 right? Marvel has a larger "aging" fan base than Harry Potter and the Hunger Games combined.

 

[InCali]

You do know some people were actually born before 1980 right? Marvel has a larger "aging" fan base than Harry Potter and the Hunger Games combined.

True. I have comics from the 1960s. In terms of Box Office "stuff", we just have to realize that studios can take a different approach in how they handle their business and how they maximize their ability to draw people to theaters, sell BluRays, etc. This leads to standalone "franchises" like HP and spin off "franchises" like the Marvel world. They're different. Some would argue that Marvel is essentially a studio and not a franchise. Some say it's a franchise proper. MCU and HP are different approaches. You can try to encapsulate them with the same word if you want to. I don't really care. To me, they are slightly different, but wildly successful.

EDIT: Suppose Marvel came out with a movie that wasn't directly tied to the MCU, but was loosely tied. Is that part of the "franchise"? When you start getting into grey areas like that, you'll have different opinions. That's all this is. We're talking shades of grey WRT to what a franchise is.

 

[Lilbaz]

A franchise for me means that it's storyline is effected by the other films in the franchise. Whether they be sequels or spinoffs. This does put james bond in strange territory though.

 

[InCali]

A franchise for me means that it's storyline is effected by the other films in the franchise. Whether they be sequels or spinoffs. This does put james bond in strange territory though.

There is always going to be gray area. When I think of a franchise, I think of HP, Star Wars (though to be fair, there were different protagonists and I think this falls squarely into the niche you are talking about), and Hunger Games. I think of Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc. as production companies. Some have chosen to relate everything that comes out and some have not.

I don't think there's a right or wrong. It really depends on what you think a franchise is. I think The Avengers is a franchise and if the characters change, that's fine. If new HP type movies come out, I'd have to know what they were about before deciding whether or not they are part of the franchise. I can certainly see why someone would consider Ant-Man and Thor part of the same franchise, but I really don't. It's not black and white.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

A Boba Fett movie is part of the Star Wars franchise.

Black Panther is part of the MCU franchise. Why? Because he'll star in Civil War and Infinity War. How can you argue against him being part of the MCU franchise if he makes these appearences?

It's like saying a Yoda spin off isn't part of the Star Wars franchise. Of course it is.