Ant-Man Box Office Predictions

[CaptainWagner]

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.

Marvel breaks from their formula to let a director do a vastly different style of movie and yet we still complai about them not giving the directors freedom

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

What exactly do you consider a blockbuster, then?

 

[Heretic]

Well this is confusing.

First you use your mind reading power to tell us that Marvel expected Ant-Man to make more than it did....

...Then you use your mind reading power to tell us that Marvel wasn't that interested in it and really only made it because they had invested a lot of time in it.

Those two things don't seem to match up real well.

We also find out from this post that Marvel is in the profit business, that Ant-Man will be profitable, but that Marvel can't be truly happy if any other movie makes more any given year. There are a lot of unhappy studio execs in Hollywood if that is true.

And I suppose you are one of the defenders that must wear rose-colored glasses for a few weeks after every movie's release.

What I'm saying is that these companies want their movies to make as much as possible. It's ABSURD to suggest otherwise. Not only did Age of Ultron decrease the box office of its predecessor, it did not make as much money as other tentpole blockbusters this year. That IS leaving money on the table. But just because they WANT to maximize profits, that doesn't mean that they EXPECT to maximize profits. As the release of this film drew close, it became clear to everyone not wearing rose-colored glassed that the studio was preparing for a less than stellar box office run.

None of this was hard to figure out...it just takes looking at these situations realistically, and not denying obvious signs of weakness and pretending that everything is perfect...which I understand can be rare on these boards on opening weekend of ANY movie.

 

[Heretic]

What exactly do you consider a blockbuster, then?

Blockbuster can mean a lot of things, and changes over time. What might have been considered a blockbuster 20 years ago is not today. These days we are seeing more and more movies get close to the 1 billion mark. The industry didn't consider the first Captain America or Thor "blockbusters"...they were considered "hits." Ant-Man is ALREADY being written off by the industry as a disappointment at the box office. It will end up being a hit, but not a blockbuster.

 

[Pond]

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.

I find it hard to believe that the man that told Gunn to put more Gunn in his movie and less Thanos and had clear input in all of phase 2 movies had somewhat less freedom to make his own movie than the Russos or Gunn. Whedon had enough power to give his own notes to the writers and directors of those movies.

Its already a miracle that Ant Man is not a disaster after such a short notice change of creative team. As its stands, its getting good reviews and good box office. Its also getting a great WOM from people i know, so im curious to see how its legs are if its a more general situation. It could still surprise us.

 

[JKKS085]

That is just crazy. While of course Marvel could have hoped for another GotG scenario the simple fact that they spent 40M less to produce Ant-Man, that the movie is their lowest budget ever (even compared to phase one films), indicates that they had moderate expectations about it from the get go.
Any way you cut it, Ant-Man is a tougher sale than GotG. The two properties are just as obscure to the general audience and Ant-Man lacks the appeal of a space opera featuring a super powered team and two memorables CG characters. In the end it's a heist film starring a D-list character, featuring outlandish sci-fi concepts, produced on a relatively small budget (and scale). With that in mind, it did just fine on opening week end.
Viewers and critics have enjoyed the film, wom is going to be good and it's likely to play well trough the summer, both domestically and internationally. I'm sorry for all those expecting loudely for a Marvel movie to flat out fail, but ... next time baby !

Not every film is about maximizing short term profits. In this case it's more about expanding the universe and introducing characters (and concepts) who are going to be key players during phase 3. And of course making some profit in the process.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

That is just crazy. While of course Marvel could have hoped for another GotG scenario the simple fact that they spent 40M less to produce Ant-Man, that the movie is their lowest budget ever (even compared to phase one films), indicates that they had moderate expectations about it.
Any way you cut it, Ant-Man is a tougher sale than GotG. The two properties are just as obscure to the general audience and Ant-Man lacks the appeal of a space opera featuring a super powered team and two memorables CG characters. In the end it's a heist film starring a D-list character, outlandish sci-fi concepts, produced on a relatively small budget (and scale). With that in mind, it did just fine on opening week end.
Viewers and critics have enjoyed the film, wom is going to be good and it's likely to play well trough the summer, both domestically and internationally. I'm sorry for all those expecting loudely for a Marvel movie to flat out fail, but ... next time baby !

This has been my reaction to much of the conversation that's been going on today:

 

[Heretic]

Who called this a failure?

You guys are reading what you want to read because of those opening weekend rose colored glasses.

In the end, this is a Marvel movie that has had the worst opening weekend for the studio since their lowest box office point. No one was having to say "well, The Winter Soldier was a throwback to political thrillers and that's why it didn't do blockbuster business." That's because the movie did well enough to not be considered leaving money on the table (which is all that matters to the money counters in Hollywood). Prior to the trailer, everyone thought Guardians would be a money loser...and after the trailer everyone thought that it had blockbuster potential. Before the trailer for Ant-Man everyone thought that Marvel had a money-loser...and after the trailer much of the target audience yawned and forgot about it.

Marvel is pleased that this movie will not lose money. They are not thrilled today.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Apparently you have watched Xmen Apocalypse. Cool I wanna watch it too.

Way to miss my point. Thanks for playing. Try again.

 

[dalonewolf]

If that were a "fact", shouldn't it have shown with Ultron instead of this one? There wasn't anything to indicate Ultron had bad word of mouth (legs).

This is more like what happens when a character doesn't interest the public that much. (although 60m OW is pretty good for other movies) You would see something similar (or lower) if DC tried a Hawkman movie.

It did show that's why the flim made 460 domestic instead of making 500+ like it should have had with a 191 opening

 

[kevork89]

Hmmmm I can see Ant-Man doing between 300-400 million. Based off of the numbers from domestic and international so far.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

And I suppose you are one of the defenders that must wear rose-colored glasses for a few weeks after every movie's release.

That does sound like something a person would need to "suppose" in the absence of proof.

What I'm saying is that these companies want their movies to make as much as possible. It's ABSURD to suggest otherwise.

Agreed. That's why I didn't suggest that.

Not only did Age of Ultron decrease the box office of its predecessor, it did not make as much money as other tentpole blockbusters this year. That IS leaving money on the table.

Ooooh....you're one of those who thinks every box office behemoth blockbuster should have a sequel that matches its box office. That's why TDKR and AoU fans were kinda shocked when the sequels failed to match the predessors and why Avatar fans are going to be shocked when Avatar 2 doesn't match Avatar.

But just because they WANT to maximize profits, that doesn't mean that they EXPECT to maximize profits. As the release of this film drew close, it became clear to everyone not wearing rose-colored glassed that the studio was preparing for a less than stellar box office run.

So now Marvel expected it to make what it's making. You said they were expecting more earlier. As someone else pointed out, they did spend a lot less on Ant-Man so they had to be expecting less than what the other films made.

None of this was hard to figure out...it just takes looking at these situations realistically, and not denying obvious signs of weakness and pretending that everything is perfect...which I understand can be rare on these boards on opening weekend of ANY movie.

Seems pretty normal for a character like Ant-Man to me. I would expect the same for a Hawkman movie. Looking ahead for Marvel, I'm not expecting Dr Strange to do a lot more either.

 

[JKKS085]

This has been my reaction to much of the conversation that's been going on today:

I'm not sure if people are stupid or just driven by their own agenda.
Every BO outlet agrees that the films' ow is solid and mostly in line with pre-release expectations but I guess some people like to put on black glasses just to stand out from the crowd (or so they think).
No one's seriously saying that Ant-Man did gangbuster numbers on ow but there's just no limit or support behind the dubious reasonning that it MUST have done more than it did ... just because.

 

[JKKS085]

Hmmmm I can see Ant-Man doing between 300-400 million. Based off of the numbers from domestic and international so far.

The chinese release date is going to be crucial but so far it's running well ahead of Thor and the first Captain America film on similar markets. Depending on holds I think it has a shot at 350M ww without China.

 

[kevork89]

Ant-Man doesn't need to make 600 million + to be a success. I think 300-400 million is a fantastic number for the film at the end. Just like Thor and Captain America. Because it was an introduction the character. What's lucky is the timing for them. It doesn't need to make a **** load of money because they've introduced the character to their universe and now he can be put in with Captain America: Civil War and the next Avengers and the audience will know him and know how he fits in. Of course making more money would be extra for them but I'm sure Marvel are just fine.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Who called this a failure?

You guys are reading what you want to read because of those opening weekend rose colored glasses.

In the end, this is a Marvel movie that has had the worst opening weekend for the studio since their lowest box office point. No one was having to say "well, The Winter Soldier was a throwback to political thrillers and that's why it didn't do blockbuster business." That's because the movie did well enough to not be considered leaving money on the table (which is all that matters to the money counters in Hollywood). Prior to the trailer, everyone thought Guardians would be a money loser...and after the trailer everyone thought that it had blockbuster potential. Before the trailer for Ant-Man everyone thought that Marvel had a money-loser...and after the trailer much of the target audience yawned and forgot about it.

Marvel is pleased that this movie will not lose money. They are not thrilled today.

You keep bringing up profit but keep neglecting to point out that this is Marvel's lowest budgeted movie. Is there a reason you are leaving that out of your posts? Your posts are constructed in a way that makes it look like every opening weekend is the same when in fact the success of a movie depends upon its budget. When you spend 40 million less, then making 40 million less on OW is pretty much the same thing.

It did show that's why the flim made 460 domestic instead of making 500+ like it should have had with a 191 opening

That seems like average legs to me. Not great, not bad.

 

[JtheDreamer]

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

Nobody is spinning this film as a blockbuster. It's a profitable movie with a great reception amongst audiences and critics alike. There was a time when there was nothing but doom and gloom cast over it, so all-in-all it's a success imo. Especially considering what an odd property it really is.

 

[kevork89]

The chinese release date is going to be crucial but so far it's running well ahead of Thor and the first Captain America film on similar markets. Depending on holds I think it has a shot at 350M ww without China.

Agreed.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Who called this a failure?

You guys are reading what you want to read because of those opening weekend rose colored glasses.

In the end, this is a Marvel movie that has had the worst opening weekend for the studio since their lowest box office point. No one was having to say "well, The Winter Soldier was a throwback to political thrillers and that's why it didn't do blockbuster business." That's because the movie did well enough to not be considered leaving money on the table (which is all that matters to the money counters in Hollywood). Prior to the trailer, everyone thought Guardians would be a money loser...and after the trailer everyone thought that it had blockbuster potential. Before the trailer for Ant-Man everyone thought that Marvel had a money-loser...and after the trailer much of the target audience yawned and forgot about it.

Marvel is pleased that this movie will not lose money. They are not thrilled today.

I swear. Some of you must be working in "shifts". DaloneWolf had that afternoon and now here comes the night guy.

 

[JtheDreamer]

I'm not sure if people are stupid or just driven by their own agenda.
Every BO outlet agrees that the films' ow is solid and mostly in line with pre-release expectations but I guess some people like to put on black glasses just to stand out from the crowd (or so they think).
No one's seriously saying that Ant-Man did gangbuster numbers on ow but there's just no limit or support behind the dubious reasonning that it MUST have done more than it did ... just because.

It's because there are ding-a-lings out there who think every CBM has to be a mega money maker to constitute its existence. Profit is profit.

 

[Heretic]

Ooooh....you're one of those who thinks every box office behemoth blockbuster should have a sequel that matches its box office. That's why TDKR and AoU fans were kinda shocked when the sequels failed to match the predessors and why Avatar fans are going to be shocked when Avatar 2 doesn't match Avatar.

So now Marvel expected it to make what it's making. You said they were expecting more earlier. As someone else pointed out, they did spend a lot less on Ant-Man so they had to be expecting less than what the other films made.
.

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.

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.

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.

 

[JtheDreamer]

You keep bringing up profit but keep neglecting to point out that this is Marvel's lowest budgeted movie. Is there a reason you are leaving that out of your posts? Your posts are constructed in a way that makes it look like every opening weekend is the same when in fact the success of a movie depends upon its budget. When you spend 40 million less, then making 40 million less on OW is pretty much the same thing.


That seems like average legs to me. Not great, not bad.

Ya, seriously. Dude is talking like this was budgeted for 180-200million. LOL

 

[Heretic]

Nobody is spinning this film as a blockbuster. It's a profitable movie with a great reception amongst audiences and critics alike. There was a time when there was nothing but doom and gloom cast over it, so all-in-all it's a success imo. Especially considering what an odd property it really is.

Then why is everyone who is pointing out that its not a blockbuster getting attacked and being answered by palm-faced memes? Because we're not allowed to ADMIT the truth. It must always be spun to whatever appears the best.

 

[JtheDreamer]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Then why is everyone who is pointing out that its not a blockbuster getting attacked and being answered by palm-faced memes? Because we're not allowed to ADMIT the truth. It must always be spun to whatever appears the best.

Because most of the people pointing out that it's not a blockbuster are taking the other side of the extreme calling it a disappointment claiming that Marvel suddenly had to worry they're losing their audience. The last 5 pages or so are freakin' ridiculous.

 

[Heretic]

You keep bringing up profit but keep neglecting to point out that this is Marvel's lowest budgeted movie. Is there a reason you are leaving that out of your posts? Your posts are constructed in a way that makes it look like every opening weekend is the same when in fact the success of a movie depends upon its budget. When you spend 40 million less, then making 40 million less on OW is pretty much the same thing.

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. 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.

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.