Ant-Man Box Office Predictions

[JeetKuneDo]

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.

That's true. He can just be plugged in to future movies now. That was something I felt was rushed in AoU personally...the origin of Vision.

 

[Spiderdevil]

It seems they don't get it if people want to see a movie they will go and see a movie it doesn't matter the release date you have 140mil openers in march
And a 700mil domestic gainer in Dec
It's clear that antman failed to catch movie goers eyes domesticly
If the nation was interested the weekend would have been much higher
Kids aren't in school as well

Please go back to the BvS boards, you will be doing us all a favor, its clear you are just a troll trying to ignite hate, we are all happy with the box office returns and the critical receptions in general,if you are worried then worry within urself, you go wank over your 50 product placements just because they pay for your mess of a movie

 

[JtheDreamer]

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

Wow, I had never even looked at BH6's box office take. What an impressive hold they had for the first 3-4 weeks.

If the money from the younger audience flows from Minions to Ant-Man, there's a slight chance it's possible. "Slight" being the operative word.

 

[Pond]

Brand? With cinephiles and fans, perhaps, but most people i know wich are neither think X-Men, Spiderman and The Avengers are under the same brand...

 

[Heretic]

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

I'm debating because the usual forum thing has occurred...people accused me of saying something that I did not say...so I correct them...then they accuse me of the same thing again...and again...and again...all because I dared to say one TINY less than glowing thing about a movie's box office performance.

Every debate I've ever been in on this forum has been me repeatedly telling people over and over and over again that they are misrepresenting my stance...followed by them misrepresenting my stance again. As a result, nothing really ever gets said.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Brand? With cinephiles and fans, perhaps, but most people i know wich are neither think X-Men, Spiderman and The Avengers are under the same brand...

When you situate three movies among the billion dollar club and in the Top Ten of highest grossers of all time, you have a brand regardless of some of the confusion amongst the laymen. Marvel Studios itself has blossomed. There is no denying it.

 

[Mike Murdock]

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

I need them because, without them, optic blasts shoot uncontrollably from my eyes.

 

[Heretic]

Marvel is ABSOLUTELY a Brand!!

HOWEVER...some movies will do huge numbers, while others will do smaller numbers. People look forward more to the team-up movies...and if they like a character and the previous movie in its own franchise, they are more likely to give the next film a shot.

Guardians showed that when you exceed people's expectations and give them something that excites them, you can have a new break-out hit within the brand.

Ant-Man shows that the Marvel brand has a bottom that, if the budget is kept in check, can STILL be profitable.

The question then is...is Marvel confident enough in their brand to continue releasing small budgeted films with lower expectations in addition to the movies they expect more out of. This MIGHT have been a test to see if they should move forward with a small budgeted Black Widow movie, for instance. But I tend to think that they are already crowding the market enough.

 

[Pond]

When you situate three movies among the billion dollar club and in the Top Ten of highest grossers of all time, you have a brand regardless of some of the confusion amongst the laymen. Marvel Studios itself has blossomed. There is no denying it.

With layman they are part of a brand, but they dont have it.

 

[JtheDreamer]

With layman they are part of a brand, but they dont have it.

You're having a lot of difficulty with this. Each studio is it's own brand. Warner Brothers - is a brand. Fox - is a Brand. Marvel Studios - is a brand.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Marvel is ABSOLUTELY a Brand!!

HOWEVER...some movies will do huge numbers, while others will do smaller numbers. People look forward more to the team-up movies...and if they like a character and the previous movie in its own franchise, they are more likely to give the next film a shot.

Guardians showed that when you exceed people's expectations and give them something that excites them, you can have a new break-out hit within the brand.

Ant-Man shows that the Marvel brand has a bottom that, if the budget is kept in check, can STILL be profitable.

The question then is...is Marvel confident enough in their brand to continue releasing small budgeted films with lower expectations in addition to the movies they expect more out of. This MIGHT have been a test to see if they should move forward with a small budgeted Black Widow movie, for instance. But I tend to think that they are already crowding the market enough.

This is one of your better posts.

Not every movies can have a massive rake at the BO, but it has to be profitable. They have a lot of more obscure properties coming out (Strange, Ms. Marvel, Inhumans, Black Panther) so clearly they're fine with the idea that not every film will be a goliath at the BO.

Black Widow on the other hand is a utility player in the MCU. The likelihood of her getting her own flick isn't there. Scarlet isn't a draw on her own, especially in action films - did you see Lucy? Even with Marvel at the helm it would be a waste of production dollars.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I'm debating because the usual forum thing has occurred...people accused me of saying something that I did not say...so I correct them...then they accuse me of the same thing again...and again...and again...all because I dared to say one TINY less than glowing thing about a movie's box office performance.

Every debate I've ever been in on this forum has been me repeatedly telling people over and over and over again that they are misrepresenting my stance...followed by them misrepresenting my stance again. As a result, nothing really ever gets said.

So you are claiming you really agree with everyone but somehow everyone picked you out of the lineup to debate with and started saying you said things you did not say.

Let's rewind. Did you say the box office for Ant-Man is a disappointment? Well..yeah...you did. That doesn't really sound like you are being misrepresented and it certainly doesn't sound like you are agreeing with everyone.

This is kind of silly. OF COURSE the box office for Ant Man is a disappointment. Heck, the box office for Age of Ultron is a disappointment, because we are seeing other blockbusters this year make more money...meaning that money is being left on the table. Marvel/Disney is in the profit business.

Guardians was seen as proof that the Marvel name can make any movie a blockbuster. Ant-Man is proof that this was not true, and that Guardians just really, REALLY connected with the public.

Ant-Man always seemed to be a movie that Marvel was making because they had already spent so much time making it. Instead of being promoted as the start of Phase 3 (which it actually kind of feels like), it instead came off like an afterthought at the end of Phase 2. The trailers did not generate the excitement that the trailers for Guardians did.

The movie will be profitable, but not a blockbuster. There is no spin needed on that unless you work for Marvel/Disney.

Plus you had the confusing, "Marvel wasn't really interested/Marvel wanted it to make more" logic.

Marvel is ABSOLUTELY a Brand!!

HOWEVER...some movies will do huge numbers, while others will do smaller numbers. People look forward more to the team-up movies...and if they like a character and the previous movie in its own franchise, they are more likely to give the next film a shot.

Guardians showed that when you exceed people's expectations and give them something that excites them, you can have a new break-out hit within the brand.

Ant-Man shows that the Marvel brand has a bottom that, if the budget is kept in check, can STILL be profitable.

The question then is...is Marvel confident enough in their brand to continue releasing small budgeted films with lower expectations in addition to the movies they expect more out of. This MIGHT have been a test to see if they should move forward with a small budgeted Black Widow movie, for instance. But I tend to think that they are already crowding the market enough.

If Marvel is a brand then Warner Brothers is a brand. They both release various movies which do various box office. Kinda...sounds like Marvel is a regular studio to me. *shrug*

Seeing Marvel's upcoming slate, they appear to be very confident in smaller properties. Doesn't look like they expect every movie to do Avengers numbers.

 

[Heretic]

This is one of your better posts.

Not every movies can big a massive rake at the BO, but it has to be profitable. They have a lot of more obscure properties coming out (Strange, Ms. Marvel, Inhumans, Black Panther) so clearly they're fine with the idea that not every film will be a goliath at the BO.

Black Widow on the other hand is a utility player in the MCU. The likelihood of her getting her own flick isn't there. Scarlet isn't a draw on her own, especially in action films - did you see Lucy? Even with Marvel at the helm it would be a waste of production dollars.

Lucy was a hit ($458,863,600 worldwide on a $40 million budget) and is getting a sequel. But no...I did not see it. I'm not a Scar-Jo fan...I'm a Marvel fan. I don't care who they cast. I'm weird though, as most of the actors/actresses that will get me to see a movie are people most people have never heard of.

I wonder what the budget is for Black Panther etc. It seems like Dr Strange needs a fairly large budget, as well as Captain Marvel. Again, it is POSSIBLE that Marvel is thinking forward here...knowing that eventually their movies would fall to earth and making plans for what would happen after that...which would be smaller movies that required less at the box office, but maybe an extra movie per year (they are moving up to 3 from 2, I think).

 

[JtheDreamer]

Lucy was a hit ($458,863,600 worldwide on a $40 million budget) and is getting a sequel. But no...I did not see it. I'm not a Scar-Jo fan...I'm a Marvel fan. I don't care who they cast. I'm weird though, as most of the actors/actresses that will get me to see a movie are people most people have never heard of.

I wonder what the budget is for Black Panther etc. It seems like Dr Strange needs a fairly large budget, as well as Captain Marvel. Again, it is POSSIBLE that Marvel is thinking forward here...knowing that eventually their movies would fall to earth and making plans for what would happen after that...which would be smaller movies that required less at the box office, but maybe an extra movie per year (they are moving up to 3 from 2, I think).

I stand corrected. I didn't realize Lucy's BO was $458mil. The movie was dreadful.

Regardless I stand by the fact that there is no need for a stand-alone BW movie.

 

[dalonewolf]

Please go back to the BvS boards, you will be doing us all a favor, its clear you are just a troll trying to ignite hate, we are all happy with the box office returns and the critical receptions in general,if you are worried then worry within urself, you go wank over your 50 product placements just because they pay for your mess of a movie

I think your so busy being bias you don't realize I never called the movie a failure.it just will be a dissapointment domestically
I serious doubt marvel made a movie just to make its budget back domesticlly
And if you believe that they did then you are truly brainwashed
With the rest of of the dulsional fans in this thread
You dont pump 100 mil into marketing for a 58 or a 60mil dollar opening then there's no chance of getting what you spent on your overall budget
You have to look at it as a buissness and not the typical fan boy view

 

[Heretic]

So you are claiming you really agree with everyone but somehow everyone picked you out of the lineup to debate with and started saying you said things you did not say.

Let's rewind. Did you say the box office for Ant-Man is a disappointment? Well..yeah...you did. That doesn't really sound like you are being misrepresented and it certainly doesn't sound like you are agreeing with everyone.


Plus you had the confusing, "Marvel wasn't really interested/Marvel wanted it to make more" logic.


If Marvel is a brand then Warner Brothers is a brand. They both release various movies which do various box office. Kinda...sounds like Marvel is a regular studio to me. *shrug*

Seeing Marvel's upcoming slate, they appear to be very confident in smaller properties. Doesn't look like they expect every movie to do Avengers numbers.

1. Ant-Man is a disappointment because it failed to capture the audience that normally comes out for Marvel movies. What people are CLAIMING that I said is that Ant-Man is a failure. There is a difference between those two things.
2. My post wasn't confusing. A business always wants to maximize its profits...but realizes that it wont always do so with every project. Given the troubled history of this project, it would have been dumb of Marvel to plan for this movie to make a billion dollars. But boy, they sure would have loved it if it did! As I have clarified once I escaped the constant bashing and misrepresentation...it is POSSIBLE that this is part of a plan from Marvel for the future...but...you know...you'd rather argue than have any sort of actual discussion.
3. Marvel Studios is a brand. They held a press conference with a very short announcement window and sold out the venue with fans on a Tuesday afternoon. There are probably a million people in the US who would happily buy a ticket to UNNAMED MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE MOVIE. I know I would! How many would buy a ticket to UNNAMED 21ST CENTURY FOX movie??? Is it a romantic comedy? A Horror? A superhero movie? A period drama??? I have no clue AT ALL what to expect from that.

 

[JtheDreamer]

I think your so busy being bias you don't realize I never called the movie a failure.it just will be a dissapointment domestically
I serious doubt marvel made a movie just to make its budget back domesticlly
And if you believe that they did then you are truly brainwashed
With the rest of of the dulsional fans in this thread
You dont pump 100 mil into marketing for a 58 or a 60mil dollar opening then there's no chance of getting what you spent on your overall budget
You have to look at it as a buissness and not the typical fan boy view

You can't even spell business, let alone tell us how one should be run.

How can a film be a "domestic disappointment" when it performed in-line with expectations? Do you even understand what "in-line" means?

 

[JtheDreamer]

1. Ant-Man is a disappointment because it failed to capture the audience that normally comes out for Marvel movies. What people are CLAIMING that I said is that Ant-Man is a failure. There is a difference between those two things.

We've already established each property is it's own thing. We also already know they budgeted based on projections at the box office. That's why they went with $130 mil.

Calling it a disappointment when comparing it to other Marvel movies with other budgets and already established tentpoles is comparing apples-to-oranges. GOTG was the outlier film. It doesn't stand as the reigning litmus test.

 

[GL's Light]

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?

Animated movies tend to have longer legs than live action superhero movies, and November releases tend to have longer legs than summer releases, so Big Hero 6 isn't a good comparison.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

1. Ant-Man is a disappointment because it failed to capture the audience that normally comes out for Marvel movies. What people are CLAIMING that I said is that Ant-Man is a failure. There is a difference between those two things.

Did I miss something? I didn't see anyone claiming you said Ant-Man is a failure.

Not sure who you think expected Ant-Man to capture the same audience as "Marvel movies" since it was tracking to do about what it did. And since Marvel made it their lowest budget ever, they didn't think that either. Your claim doesn't really hold up. That's not even getting into what "Marvel movies" means. Is that the opening weekend for Avengers or Incredible Hulk?

2. My post wasn't confusing. A business always wants to maximize its profits...but realizes that it wont always do so with every project. Given the troubled history of this project, it would have been dumb of Marvel to plan for this movie to make a billion dollars. But boy, they sure would have loved it if it did! As I have clarified once I escaped the constant bashing and misrepresentation...it is POSSIBLE that this is part of a plan from Marvel for the future...but...you know...you'd rather argue than have any sort of actual discussion.

So every movie ever made is a "disappointment" since every studio would love it if every movie they ever made makes a billion. That doesn't make sense either.

Your post was confusing because you first claimed Marvel wanted this to make more money (ignoring the budget) and then implying that Marvel really wasn't that interested in making it at all.

3. Marvel Studios is a brand. They held a press conference with a very short announcement window and sold out the venue with fans on a Tuesday afternoon. There are probably a million people in the US who would happily buy a ticket to UNNAMED MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE MOVIE. I know I would! How many would buy a ticket to UNNAMED 21ST CENTURY FOX movie??? Is it a romantic comedy? A Horror? A superhero movie? A period drama??? I have no clue AT ALL what to expect from that.

Not sure where you got that number from, but any big studio would get a certain number of people to come see any movie they make. Marvel is no different there.

 

[Heretic]

No, any studio would NOT.

When 21st Century Fox makes a Horror movie, it will get a different base audience than when 21st Century Fox makes a romantic comedy. A fan of romantic comedies is not going to go to a Horror movie just because 21st Century Fox made it. Marvel Studios has ONE base audience. Ant-Man is not performing as well as most of their other films.

 

[dalonewolf]

You can't even spell business, let alone tell us how one should be run.

How can a film be a "domestic disappointment" when it performed in-line with expectations? Do you even understand what "in-line" means?

It preformed in line to what analyst projected not what marvel projected that's a differenve marvel never came out and said hey fans were looking foword to a 58mil o.w
And just because the movie have a smaller budget don't mean the studio was hoping for it to open so small
If it had opend to more everyone would be flapping thier mouths abut how big it opened to but just because it's a marvel title it's ok to open small lmao

 

[JtheDreamer]

Ant-Man is not performing as well as most of their other films.

It wasn't budgeted to do "as well" as those other Marvel films. It wasn't a fluke it was the least expensive movie they've put out.

 

[JtheDreamer]

It preformed in line to what analyst projected not what marvel projected that's a differenve marvel never came out and said hey fans were looking foword to a 58mil o.w
And just because the movie have a smaller budget don't mean the studio was hoping for it to open so small
If it had opend to more everyone would be flapping thier mouths abut how big it opened to but just because it's a marvel title it's ok to open small lmao

Please enlighten us as to what Marvel set their goals for.

You're right, they made this the least expensive Marvel movie ever because they expected MASSIVE, GARGANTUOUS returns. Makes complete sense. Please tell me more.

 

[Heretic]

It wasn't budgeted to do "as well" as those other Marvel films. It wasn't a fluke it was the least expensive movie they've put out.

Right. They did not expect to do as well.

But, it would be idiotic to suggest that they didn't hope for a break-out hit that connected with a larger portion of the superhero audience.