Ant-Man Box Office Predictions

[JKKS085]

Where can I buy rose colored glasses ? I don't know why but I want those glasses ! I need those glasses.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

No, I don't expect every sequel to top its predecessor...but the industry seems to not look kindly on dips in success. By the way, the Dark Knight Rises made MORE than The Dark Knight worldwide. The Dark Knight made more than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises made more than The Dark Knight...because people were really enjoying the franchise and people who saw the first two on Blu-Ray were excited about a third movie. With ticket prices always going higher, a studio that is in the business of making money SHOULD be aiming for sequels to do better than the movies that precede them. When they don't, you end up with franchises that might be popular, but are deemed failures anyway.

So now you plug in the worldwide numbers to avoid the fact that TDKR fell off from the domestic box office of TDK. (and of course the expanding overseas markets were a huge factor in that) Let's test your resolve on that.

Ultron made over 300 million more than TDKR worldwide.

I don't recall typing that Marvel EXPECTED to make blockbuster money on Ant-Man. I said that they are DISAPPOINTED that they seem to be leaving money on the table as much of the market they have captured over the past few years did not turn out to see this on opening weekend. There is a difference between what you HOPE for and what you EXPECT. Marvel...being in touch with the market and thankfully NOT wearing rose colored glasses, prepared for the reduced interest by budgeting correctly.

They wouldn't be disappointed if budgeted it correctly and expected it to make what it made. "Hoping for more" isn't any different than any other movie. You can't "leave money on the table" unless you expected more than it made. Judging from the budget, that's not true.

I know, man...it's opening weekend and you feel the need to defend the movie from ANY perceived slight because all movies are perfect and their box office is perfect on opening weekend. That's how the rose colored glasses works around here.

I didn't say any of that stuff. This was about the odd logic in your first post.

 

[Heretic]

"Leaving money on the table"? What is this a poker thread?

Ant-Man performed in line with EXPECTATIONS. It will pull over $400 million WW on the lowest budget a Marvel film has had up to this point. Considering the pre-production fall-out this is a win for Marvel, especially with the way critics have loved it.

Quit railing on A:AOU. It's the 6th highest grossing film for cryin' out loud. I mean could you be anymore irrational.

Yes. Leaving money on the table. Age of Ultron made less money than the movie it is following up, and less money than other blockbusters this summer. That means that for whatever reason, it did not connect with the audience as much. Of course, the company is still making insane money off of the movie, but they are certainly aware that a few hundred million dollars seem to have not landed in their pockets. Marvel is smart enough to make adjustments for future movies.

Ant Man is not capturing the audience that came out to other Marvel movies. Yes, the budget was smaller etc, but the people who show up on opening weekend to see a Marvel brand movie did not come out this time. Again, Marvel is smart enough to use different strategies in the future.

NO ONE is calling this a disaster and the end of Marvel. NO ONE. We are simply noticing facts. That doesn't make us trolls.

 

[JKKS085]

Oh and just to add to the debate, I for one like the idea that Marvel runs its studio not with what they would HOPE a film can gross but with what they can actually EXPECT it to gross.
Just like I tend to find more credibility in comments that would adress box office EXPECTATIONS and not the vague idea of what we should HOPE for.

And I'm still really looking forward to a serious analyse explaining how and why this film should have grossed significantly more than it did on opening week end. And preferably not something using glasses metaphores or adressing the subject like they need to explain it to a five y.o.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Yes. Leaving money on the table. Age of Ultron made less money than the movie it is following up, and less money than other blockbusters this summer. That means that for whatever reason, it did not connect with the audience as much. Of course, the company is still making insane money off of the movie, but they are certainly aware that a few hundred million dollars seem to have not landed in their pockets. Marvel is smart enough to make adjustments for future movies.

You're splitting hairs and your expectations for every single team up movie are waaaaaay out of wack. I say it again, 6th highest grossing film of all time. But you want to make it sound like marvel followers scattered like cockroaches.

Ant Man is not capturing the audience that came out to other Marvel movies. Yes, the budget was smaller etc, but the people who show up on opening weekend to see a Marvel brand movie did not come out this time. Again, Marvel is smart enough to use different strategies in the future.

NO ONE is calling this a disaster and the end of Marvel. NO ONE. We are simply noticing facts. That doesn't make us trolls.

You have established no facts. Just interpretations. Ant-Man is a success for them considering the situation surrounding the movie, but it does show that it's not a bullet proof film studio. But then again we're talking about a movie about a guy who shrinks and talks to ants who will make minimum $400 million WW and $500 million max. Their "brand" is a little bit more respected than you're attesting. Could you imagine how little it would pulll if a similar film was put out by Universal? lol

You're also forgetting it had to go up against Minions and a movie in Trainwreck which has a loyal following when it comes to Judd Apatow.

 

[Mysteryman]

Ant Man Was never expected to do Guardian Numbers
It certainly isn't the end Of Marvel, because nothing bad happened .

 

[JeetKuneDo]

That is only an issue because people are desperate to defend a movie that is not being attacked by ANYONE.

Yes, of course the movie had a lower budget, and therefore requires less money to become a success.

Again...NO ONE is calling the movie a failure.

Since no one is claiming it is a blockbuster either I'm not sure what your complaint is. You appear to the only one using words like "disappointing" and "leaving money on the table".

What some of us are saying is that it was assumed by many that the Marvel brand was stronger than it apparently is...and that the smaller numbers for this means that the brand is not as strong as perceived. It ALREADY HAS resulted in industry articles saying that maybe the superhero bubble is bursting or that Marvel is going off track. That isn't an opinion that I share...it's just not a good thing to see.

You mean those same articles we've been seeing for years? Yeah...they are always funny. Meanwhile next year we'll get BvS and Civil War and those articles will go away for a while. I guess they think if they just keep writing them eventually they'll be right and they can claim they are great at reading the public. Sure guys...you know the market.

The movie will make money...no one is suggesting that it won't. But the reason why it won't be as big of a money maker as some others is not because of a smaller budget or a lower stakes plot...it's because the movie did not connect with as many people.

Something obviously Marvel was aware of. See the budget. It's pretty obvious they are not shocked by this.

To get in ahead of the curve...the Deadpool movie has a small budget too so they already know it's got a smaller audience.

 

[Heretic]

Ultron made over 300 million more than TDKR worldwide.

They wouldn't be disappointed if budgeted it correctly and expected it to make what it made. "Hoping for more" isn't any different than any other movie. You can't "leave money on the table" unless you expected more than it made. Judging from the budget, that's not true.

Leaving money on the table is when comparable movies make money that your movie didn't. It's why the Star Trek reboots are considered failures even though they are profitable. Other established brands seem to be doing better, and the company WANTS ACCESS TO THOSE DOLLARS. They are making changes to Star Trek in an attempt to capture the audience that isn't currently interested in their films.

Therefore, what "leaving money on the table" means is different for every film. The Marvel brand has been considered an unstoppable juggernaut. The headline now is that its not...its just like any other studio...and it needs to appeal to the market if it wants to have the blockbuster numbers. YES Ant-Man had a lower budget, YES it has lower expectations...but from a financial standpoint, no studio wants to release a movie that will not appeal to half of its core audience that can usually be trusted to show up on opening night.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Something obviously Marvel was aware of. See the budget. It's pretty obvious they are not shocked by this.

To get in ahead of the curve...the Deadpool movie has a small budget too so they already know it's got a smaller audience.

He doesn't want to acknowledge it. If Marvel put forward a budget like some of the other solo properties in Phase 2, then yes this would be a fail. They knew better though.

So much box office snobbery out there after some of the billion dollar money-makers we've seen. It's warped minds.

 

[Mysteryman]

Oh and just to add to the debate, I for one like the idea that Marvel runs its studio not with what they would HOPE a film can gross but with what they can actually EXPECT it to gross.
Just like I tend to find more credibility in comments that would adress box office EXPECTATIONS and not the vague idea of what we should HOPE for.

And I'm still really looking forward to a serious analyse explaining how and why this film should have grossed significantly more than it did on opening week end. And preferably not something using glasses metaphores or adressing the subject like they need to explain it to a five y.o.

Personally, I thought it was going to make about $56 million.
It did a little better than I thought that it would.
At the end of the day, there are two positive things that Marvel can say.
1.One of their movies has debuted at number 1 for the the 12th time .
2.The International numbers are pretty good .

 

[JKKS085]

I would also be interested to know the reasonning behind the idea that the people who show up on opening week end to see a Marvel film hasn't this time around.

Because with that in mind, if "the people who show up on opening week end to see a Marvel film" is some sort of fixed entity that has nothing to do with the property the studio decides to put on screen and all with the Marvel brand, then you can argue that CATWS ow should have been better (ie apparently not leaving any money on the table, whatever that means) and is a source of worry for Marvel Studios since more than half of the people who showed up for Avengers didn't for Cap. And you could apply the same reasonning to every film that has opened below the current ow record holder (Jurassic Word).

And if I may, I would also suggest that maybe we should wait to see how things unfold for Ant-Man before making any definitive statement regarding how Marvel should feel about the movie's numbers.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Leaving money on the table is when comparable movies make money that your movie didn't. It's why the Star Trek reboots are considered failures even though they are profitable. Other established brands seem to be doing better, and the company WANTS ACCESS TO THOSE DOLLARS. They are making changes to Star Trek in an attempt to capture the audience that isn't currently interested in their films.

Therefore, what "leaving money on the table" means is different for every film. The Marvel brand has been considered an unstoppable juggernaut. The headline now is that its not...its just like any other studio...and it needs to appeal to the market if it wants to have the blockbuster numbers. YES Ant-Man had a lower budget, YES it has lower expectations...but from a financial standpoint, no studio wants to release a movie that will not appeal to half of its core audience that can usually be trusted to show up on opening night.

I guess you aren't going to touch the fact that AoU made 300 million more than TDKR since you were trying to spin AoU as a disappointment and TDKR as a success.

Not sure what your point is. It's clear by the budget that Marvel had lower expectations for this. You are trying to mix in your speculation about what they REALLY wanted ("hoped for"?). The first thing we can actually see, the second thing you just made that up in your head based on speculation.

I think it's clear that characters matter or every Marvel movie would have a similar gross. The "brand" thing is probably exaggerated. Thor movies don't do Avengers numbers. That's why I wouldn't expect Capt America numbers for Dr Strange just because it's a Marvel movie.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Personally, I thought it was going to make about $56 million.
It did a little better than I thought that it would.
At the end of the day, there are two positive things that Marvel can say.
1.One of their movies has debuted at number 1 for the the 12th time .
2.The International numbers are pretty good .

The international numbers are going to look even better once it opens in the other half of the markets and finally gets a release date in China.

 

[Heretic]

He doesn't want to acknowledge it. If Marvel put forward a budget like some of the other solo properties in Phase 2, then yes this would be a fail. They knew better though.

So many box office snobs out there after some of the billion dollar money-makers. It's warped reality.

I've acknowledged it several times. Just scroll up. I acknowledged it. Thats the thing with rose colored glasses...they see what they want to see.

Because the budget was smaller, this movie does not have to make as much money as other Marvel movies. Profitability is closer to reach this way, and Marvel, being an intelligent company, made the right decision.

This movie is not a failure. It is not a failure. I will be accused of calling it that again, I am sure...because the way people here operate is just bash and bash and bash anyone who DARES to see anything other than perfection on opening weekend...and then newcomers to threads see nothing but arguments against things the person never said. This is an OLD trick people use here. Eventually a mod will step in and order me to stop calling the movie a failure, and I will inform the mod that I never called it a failure.

I don't care if a movie makes a billion dollars. Most of the movies I watch are direct to video. No one is saying that this is a failure...no one is saying that this is the end of Marvel. We are merely suggesting that maybe this shows the bottom level of interest in the Marvel brand and that some in the industry may use this as ammo against the studio. IF Marvel cares about maximizing profits and not risking burning out the audience, then it may be a good idea to rethink things in the future.

It is obvious that this movie had a chaotic, troubled production. I know...I'm a troll for saying that...but the end result of that is a movie that will make the studio a little bit of money and will be spun by their detractors as a failure...and will be a sign to many movie-goers that they do not need to follow Marvel as a brand.

 

[JtheDreamer]

It is obvious that this movie had a chaotic, troubled production. I know...I'm a troll for saying that...but the end result of that is a movie that will make the studio a little bit of money and will be spun by their detractors as a failure...and will be a sign to many movie-goers that they do not need to follow Marvel as a brand.

A sign to many movie-goers? You speak for the people?

 

[Mysteryman]

The international numbers are going to look even better once it opens in the other half of the markets and finally gets a release date in China.

I am still holding out hope we might hit $ 60 million domestic by the time the final numbers come out tomorrow.
Right now, its only a two million dollar difference .
The Opera isn't over until The Fat Lady Sings.
I have yet to hear her voice.

 

[Heretic]

I guess you aren't going to touch the fact that AoU made 300 million more than TDKR since you were trying to spin AoU as a disappointment and TDKR as a success.

Not sure what your point is. It's clear by the budget that Marvel had lower expectations for this. You are trying to mix in your speculation about what they REALLY wanted ("hoped for"?). The first thing we can actually see, the second thing you just made that up in your head based on speculation.

I think it's clear that characters matter or every Marvel movie would have a similar gross. The "brand" thing is probably exaggerated. Thor movies don't do Avengers numbers. That's why I wouldn't expect Capt America numbers for Dr Strange just because it's a Marvel movie.

Is The Dark Knight rises a disappointment? No. But does the studio probably wish it had beaten Avatar? HECK YES. WHY WOULDN'T THEY??? Sure...celebrate the success you have etc...but come on. It's only natural to want to capture and please the market you are going after. If I released a product for a specific niche market, and only a small part of that niche market was interested, that would disappoint me, even if I ended up making some money.

Yes, Marvel had lower expectations. EVERYONE AGREES WITH THIS POINT THAT YOU GUYS KEEP ARGUING. What myself and a few others are suggesting is merely that the INDUSTRY...who mostly don't even like superheroes...and often are COMPETING with Marvel for dollars...are going to write this off as a chink in their armor. NO ONE HERE is saying that Marvel is a failure. In fact, we are AGREEING WITH YOU that perhaps expectations need to be toned down in the future. WE ARE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING. But, for some reason the people not actively kissing Ant-Man's butt are being singled out as saying things we aren't actually saying.

 

[Heretic]

A sign to many movie-goers? You speak for the people?

No, the box office does. Many people who went on opening weekend to other Marvel movies didn't go see this one.

That is fact. I can't believe that you are arguing against it.

 

[JtheDreamer]

No, the box office does. Many people who went on opening weekend to other Marvel movies didn't go see this one.

That is fact. I can't believe that you are arguing against it.

By your logic if every MCU film didn't make the same at the BO that means there is less interest in their brand.

Each property is "unique". Some will continue to have more of a draw than others, but the influence of the Marvel brand itself is still unmistakeable.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I've acknowledged it several times. Just scroll up. I acknowledged it. Thats the thing with rose colored glasses...they see what they want to see.

Because the budget was smaller, this movie does not have to make as much money as other Marvel movies. Profitability is closer to reach this way, and Marvel, being an intelligent company, made the right decision.

This movie is not a failure. It is not a failure. I will be accused of calling it that again, I am sure...because the way people here operate is just bash and bash and bash anyone who DARES to see anything other than perfection on opening weekend...and then newcomers to threads see nothing but arguments against things the person never said. This is an OLD trick people use here. Eventually a mod will step in and order me to stop calling the movie a failure, and I will inform the mod that I never called it a failure.

Who is calling this "perfection"? (what does that mean?)

All I see is people saying it's not a failure and you appearing to take a different stance than that while also claiming you are saying what everyone else is saying. So I wonder what your beef is if you are agreeing with everyone.

As you rightly point out, the budget was in line with their expectations on this movie so the profit margin is fine....but then....

I don't care if a movie makes a billion dollars. Most of the movies I watch are direct to video. No one is saying that this is a failure...no one is saying that this is the end of Marvel. We are merely suggesting that maybe this shows the bottom level of interest in the Marvel brand and that some in the industry may use this as ammo against the studio. IF Marvel cares about maximizing profits and not risking burning out the audience, then it may be a good idea to rethink things in the future.

...You appear to be implying that Marvel did not do the right thing to maximize profit on this movie.

I don't think there is very much interest in the "brand" at all. If there was, Thor would make similar numbers to Avengers. Marvel just has put out a lot of movie which appeal to the public in varying degrees. I doubt a large number of people recognize it all as a "brand".

It is obvious that this movie had a chaotic, troubled production. I know...I'm a troll for saying that...but the end result of that is a movie that will make the studio a little bit of money and will be spun by their detractors as a failure...and will be a sign to many movie-goers that they do not need to follow Marvel as a brand.

If the "brand" is a thing at all. I would have expected Winter Soldier and GotG to have done much less if this was about a "brand" after Thor 2. Instead, they greatly increased from Thor 2.

 

[LucDisfilm19]

Hold up, guys. There's still hope that Ant-Man can cross $200+M domestically because of not just reviews and word of mouth, but also because of the fact that it's "A" on Cinemascore was a grade given to another Disney/Marvel film which opened to $56M and went on to gross $222M domestically: Big Hero 6. So, I'm seeing, hopefully, a similar pattern here where Ant-Man might gross $225M domestically because of its "A" on Cinemascore, which is higher than Incredible Hulk, Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor and on par with Iron Man 1 and Guardians of the Galaxy. Anyone else wanna comment on my theory?

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Is The Dark Knight rises a disappointment? No. But does the studio probably wish it had beaten Avatar? HECK YES. WHY WOULDN'T THEY??? Sure...celebrate the success you have etc...but come on. It's only natural to want to capture and please the market you are going after. If I released a product for a specific niche market, and only a small part of that niche market was interested, that would disappoint me, even if I ended up making some money.

You are claiming that no studio exec is ever truly happy with box office? (except for the guys who made Avatar)

Hollywood must be a miserable town if everyone is walking around fretting because their movie is "only the 6th highest grossing movie of all time".

Yes, Marvel had lower expectations. EVERYONE AGREES WITH THIS POINT THAT YOU GUYS KEEP ARGUING. What myself and a few others are suggesting is merely that the INDUSTRY...who mostly don't even like superheroes...and often are COMPETING with Marvel for dollars...are going to write this off as a chink in their armor. NO ONE HERE is saying that Marvel is a failure. In fact, we are AGREEING WITH YOU that perhaps expectations need to be toned down in the future. WE ARE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING. But, for some reason the people not actively kissing Ant-Man's butt are being singled out as saying things we aren't actually saying.

You are certainly debating hotly for someone who claims they agree with everyone. t:

So we can agree that this movie is not a failure, will make more money for Marvel, and this is what was expected. Sounds good to me.

 

[JtheDreamer]

So we can agree that this movie is not a failure, will make more money for Marvel, and this is what was expected. Sounds good to me.

Don't forget it got an origin out of the way to appease hardcore Avengers purists and now it doesn't have to waste time on "how" to introduce him in other films.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Do you really think they tried hard enough with Age of Ultron's theme, writing, direction and lenght alongside changing the Ant-Man script?

All i'm saying is, people clearly want more films like GOTG and Captain America 2, and those movies worked because the directors we're given freedom to tell their tale, it really shows in the end product.

And you think Whedon and Reed weren't given freedom?

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Hold up, guys. There's still hope that Ant-Man can cross $200+M domestically because of not just reviews and word of mouth, but also because of the fact that it's "A" on Cinemascore was a grade given to another Disney/Marvel film which opened to $56M and went on to gross $222M domestically: Big Hero 6. So, I'm seeing, hopefully, a similar pattern here where Ant-Man might gross $225M domestically because of its "A" on Cinemascore, which is higher than Incredible Hulk, Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor and on par with Iron Man 1 and Guardians of the Galaxy. Anyone else wanna comment on my theory?

That doesn't sound realistic to me. It should shoot for 150-160 domestic. Ant-Man isn't Capt America or Thor.