Ant-Man Box Office Predictions

[Spiderdevil]

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

1. There is no source saying they pumped 100m in the marketing, once again you are talking rubbish and claim they are facts

2. I am not saying it is a huge success either, but the fact remains that you don't expect a 130m movie to open as big as a 200m movie, and if you feel so then we all know who is delusional, and I will quote you when Suicide Squad doesn't open as big as BvS

3. I have already given you the ratios and numbers which you chose to ignore just like everything else that proves you wrong, opening weekend/budget ratio GoTG is at 0.47 and Ant-man is at 0.45 meaning both made a little less than half their budget on domestic opening weekend yet you keep harping on how GoTG was a huge success while Ant-man is a disappointment

4. Animated movies always win, always, irrespective of quality, Madagascar 3 beat TASM in its second weekend and Monster's Univeristy beat MOS, no one claimed either of them a failed to attract children because it was already a given, children will watch an animated movie even if you open an Avengers movie with it

5. Go take a break and chill away from this thread, if it does less than 400m WW then you can call say it underperformed and I will agree with you then

Ant-man's situation is similar to FFINO, both of them had a troubled production and in the end the studios just went ahead because they had already invested a lot of time in it to drop the project, and to keep the rights in FFINO's case, they budgeted it pretty low for a superhero tentpole (130m and 125m respectively) , that alone shows that they are being conservative about it and don't expect it to break bank, and both of the two studios will take a 400m WW and run

 

[JtheDreamer]

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.

Who doesn't "hope" for a breakout hit? All studios silently wish that. However, when it comes time to budget for production they have their projections to keep them rational. They're not the kind of studio to put out a John Carter or Lone Ranger. Feige is much to wise with the money.

 

[JtheDreamer]

1. There is no source saying they pumped 100m in the marketing, once again you are talking rubbish and claim they are facts

As I stated earlier today, the whole marketing game has changed for Marvel Studios since they're under the Disney umbrella. So much of it happens within the confines of familial entities such as ABC, ESPN, etc etc. This isn't like when the films were being put out by Paramount.

5. Go take a break and chill away from this thread, if it does less than 400m WW then you can call say it underperformed and I will agree with you then

Anything less than $400 WW is definitely a failure imo.

 

[Heretic]

Who doesn't "hope" for a breakout hit? All studios silently wish that. However, when it comes time to budget for production they have their projections to keep them rational. They're not the kind of studio to put out a John Carter or Lone Ranger. Feige is much to wise with the money.

And not a single person here argued otherwise.

Each genre has a general potential market. The goal is to be smart with your budget and hope to capture as much of your target audience as possible to maximize profits. Ant-Man was budgeted wisely, and will make a profit, but does not appear to be maximizing its sales to the potential market. That's all anyone is saying...and its not something that deserved one page of debate, let alone the hijacking of this subject.

 

[JtheDreamer]

And not a single person here argued otherwise.

Each genre has a general potential market. The goal is to be smart with your budget and hope to capture as much of your target audience as possible to maximize profits. Ant-Man was budgeted wisely, and will make a profit, but does not appear to be maximizing its sales to the potential market. That's all anyone is saying...and its not something that deserved one page of debate, let alone the hijacking of this subject.

You keep hitting me with sweeping generalities though. What exactly is the "potential market" for a movie about a guy who shrinks and talks to Ants? Would you agree that if Universal Studios or Paramount put this film out the draw would be even less?

 

[GL's Light]

1. There is no source saying they pumped 100m in the marketing, once again you are talking rubbish and claim they are facts.

$100 million for worldwide prints and advertising is about the minimum for a big summer release, and by that I include a film of this size. The biggest of the big have worldwide P&A costs of $175-200 million. Some of that is one part of a muti-national corporation paying money to another part, so it's not necessarily all held against a film on the ledger books, but soaring P&A costs are one of the industry's biggest concerns.

 

[Tony Stark]

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 provide a link to Marvel's projections for the film. Otherwise quit trolling.

 

[Tony Stark]

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.

They are already planning future events for the character and for Wasp. It accomplished what it needed to.

At the end of the day this will still be somewhere in the neighborhood of what Cap 1 and Thor 1 did in world wide market.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

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.

I think you are fooled by the fact that Marvel studios only make one type of movie. It's the type that typically make more than horror movies. If Marvel made a horror movie it would also perform in the typical range for horror movies.

What is the base audience you speak of? I'm not seeing it. AoU just had the 3rd biggest OW of all time and Ant-Man is going to open to 60m two months later? I think you are exaggerating this "Brand" thing.

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

You're right. Marvel wasn't hoping for a 60m opening. But that was the expectation by tracking and going by the budget. You are also right that it would have been impressive it it exceeded expectations instead of matching them.

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.

That's probably why no one is saying that. That describes every studio ever.

Ant-Man was budgeted wisely, and will make a profit, but does not appear to be maximizing its sales to the potential market. That's all anyone is saying...and its not something that deserved one page of debate, let alone the hijacking of this subject.

What do you think the potential market is for an Ant-Man movie? The problem here might be your outsized expectations. It's no sin to miss your projections. People do that all the time. But blaming the movie when you miss your projections is kinda petty.

While I'm at it, can you tell me what the potential market is for a Hawkman, Aquaman, and Black Panther movie? Do they all have to match the movies of more well known characters?

You keep hitting me with sweeping generalities though. What exactly is the "potential market" for a movie about a guy who shrinks and talks to Ants? Would you agree that if Universal Studios or Paramount put this film out the draw would be even less?

Good question. Beat me to it. I guess the "Marvel brand" turned this from a 30m opening to a 60m opening? t:

 

[Heretic]

You keep hitting me with sweeping generalities though. What exactly is the "potential market" for a movie about a guy who shrinks and talks to Ants? Would you agree that if Universal Studios or Paramount put this film out the draw would be even less?

Yes, I would agree to that...because Marvel Studios is a brand that draws a certain number of people. There were assumptions made in the industry that this certain number was very, very large. SNL even had a skit about Marvel being able to make a blockbuster movie about rolling desk chairs. With Ant-Man, we know that this number of people with automatic brand loyalty is still large, but the number has adjusted down in many people's eyes from what it was a year ago.

Universal Studios and Paramount have no built-in brand loyalty, so Ant-Man would have done worse for them.

Here's an example of what I'm saying...
Headline:
UNIVERSAL ANNOUNCES A NEW MOVIE
Um...is it a comedy? A courtroom drama??? Why do I care??? I don't...moving on...

Headline:
UNIVERSAL MONSTERS ANNOUNCES A NEW MOVIE
Okay...NOW I care...because I know the Universal Monster brand...I love the classic films...I am automatically invested in this. Of course, if the idea of Universal Monsters does not appeal to you, you are likely outside of their target audience.

So...what is Ant-Man's general target audience??

In general, I'd say that it's the action adventure type movie audience. I tend to doubt that a superhero movie would want to open on the same weekend as Furious 8 out of concern that there is too much overlap in the general target audience. They probably wouldn't bat an eyelash at opening on the same weekend as The Second Best Marigold Hotel, because the crossover there is minimal. Also, I doubt the size of the audience who loves watching CGI ants running around is worth mentioning, so there is no need to be SO specific.

But more specifically, Marvel can eliminate the noise data and focus solely on their own brand. They have 3 movies out of 11 in their cinematic universe that have topped a billion dollars. They can assume that Avengers "maximized" their potential audience. In general, the solo films are doing hundreds of millions less than that...though Iron Man has proven to be about as solid as their peak allows. They are attempting to bring Captain America to that level with Civil War. Therefore, in GENERAL, they want to maximize their sales to their target audience.

What Ant-Man's performance has shown is that the base...the bottom of the target audience..is still at the same level it was on Phase 1. The top of the target is astronomically high...but the bottom is basically unchanged.

This is very helpful because it helps Marvel determine budgets for future movies that they want to do but think might be risky financial decisions.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Yes, I would agree to that...because Marvel Studios is a brand that draws a certain number of people. There were assumptions made in the industry that this certain number was very, very large. SNL even had a skit about Marvel being able to make a blockbuster movie about rolling desk chairs. With Ant-Man, we know that this number of people with automatic brand loyalty is still large, but the number has adjusted down in many people's eyes from what it was a year ago.

Lots of vague language here. What is "a certain number of people"? What is "There were assumptions made"? What is "many people's eyes"?

No offense to SNL, but I don't really rely on them for box office wisdom like you do. Hey...I guess we all have our methods. But yours apparently put your Ant-Man prediction way off so you may want to adjust your methods.

What Ant-Man's performance has shown is that the base...the bottom of the target audience..is still at the same level it was on Phase 1. The top of the target is astronomically high...but the bottom is basically unchanged.

This sounds like another way of saying "There really isn't a Marvel brand"...it's about the movies and characters.

Because nothing is going to change between now and Civil War and are you going to claim the base has grown when that opens to much bigger numbers?

 

[Tony Stark]

It's rediculous to think that their brand is somehow effected by this. Look at Pixar, they've had hits and misses. Cars 2 was a major disappointment. Brave did so/so, but after a year off, they hit one out of the park with Inside Out. No one has a perfect track record.

After TDW, people were starting to question the Marvel Brand, until Winter Soldier and Guardians came out.

Not every character is going to have maximum market potential. Warner DC is going to find out if they try to do a Blue Beetle or Booster Gold movie, and they may have problems with Cyborg and possibly Aquaman who is the but of all the jokes on Robot Chicken and Big Bang Theory.

 

[Heretic]

Lots of vague language here. What is "a certain number of people"? What is "There were assumptions made"? What is "many people's eyes"?

No offense to SNL, but I don't really rely on them for box office wisdom like you do. Hey...I guess we all have our methods. But yours apparently put your Ant-Man prediction way off so you may want to adjust your methods.

This sounds like another way of saying "There really isn't a Marvel brand"...it's about the movies and characters.

Because nothing is going to change between now and Civil War and are you going to claim the base has grown when that opens to much bigger numbers?

I made NO guess on Ant-Man's opening weekend. You are at least the second person to make that lie about me. During the entire build-up to the release of this film, I have been curious as to what the bottom of Marvel's brand currently is, and assumed Ant-Man would be a decent barometer, because it didn't seem to be generating much excitement, and Marvel has reasonable expectations for it.

When my friend announced a few new movies, it got 4 Likes on Facebook. When Marvel Studios announced new movies, they packed a theater on a Tuesday afternoon with people who wanted to hear the announcement.

Why? Because millions of people care about the Marvel brand. Yes, I was vague with my numbers...because WE DIDNT KNOW what the current bottom was.

But no...if Civil War does good numbers, then they will have maximized sales to their target audience. If it does better than Avengers, then they will have grown their potential into a new realm.

 

[Heretic]

It's rediculous to think that their brand is somehow effected by this. Look at Pixar, they've had hits and misses. Cars 2 was a major disappointment. Brave did so/so, but after a year off, they hit one out of the park with Inside Out. No one has a perfect track record.

After TDW, people were starting to question the Marvel Brand, until Winter Soldier and Guardians came out.

Not every character is going to have maximum market potential. Warner DC is going to find out if they try to do a Blue Beetle or Booster Gold movie, and they may have problems with Cyborg and possibly Aquaman who is the but of all the jokes on Robot Chicken and Big Bang Theory.

No one is arguing that Marvel's brand has been affected. People are actually arguing that there is no such thing as a Marvel brand.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I made NO guess on Ant-Man's opening weekend. You are at least the second person to make that lie about me. During the entire build-up to the release of this film, I have been curious as to what the bottom of Marvel's brand currently is, and assumed Ant-Man would be a decent barometer, because it didn't seem to be generating much excitement, and Marvel has reasonable expectations for it.

Not sure what you are basing "disappointing" on then if you made no prediction. It opened about right where it was expected to open so that's not disappointing anyone there. Marvel gave it their lowest budget ever so they clearly weren't expecting GotG type numbers.

Your "disappointing" thing doesn't appear to be disappointing anyone then if you didn't have a higher prediction for it. So this is all much ado about nothing.

When my friend announced a few new movies, it got 4 Likes on Facebook. When Marvel Studios announced new movies, they packed a theater on a Tuesday afternoon with people who wanted to hear the announcement.

Why? Because millions of people care about the Marvel brand. Yes, I was vague with my numbers...because WE DIDNT KNOW what the current bottom was.

But no...if Civil War does good numbers, then they will have maximized sales to their target audience. If it does better than Avengers, then they will have grown their potential into a new realm.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't actually prove anything. I'm sure your circle of friends on FB means something to you, but not really helpful in projecting box office. (that may be another flaw in your method for your expectations for movies)

So you are still supporting my idea that there is no "Marvel brand" and it's really just about each individual movie. I don't think Civil War will look anything like the box office for Ant-Man. I could be wrong I guess. If Civil War opens to 60m I'll buy into your "Marvel Brand" thing.

 

[GL's Light]

There is a Marvel brand. Bob Iger certainly speaks of it as a brand, as does the entertainment press. Brands don't always achieve the same level of success with all of their products. It doesn't mean they're not brands.

 

[Heretic]

Not sure what you are basing "disappointing" on then if you made no prediction. It opened about right where it was expected to open so that's not disappointing anyone there. Marvel gave it their lowest budget ever so they clearly weren't expecting GotG type numbers.

Your "disappointing" thing doesn't appear to be disappointing anyone then if you didn't have a higher prediction for it. So this is all much ado about nothing.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't actually prove anything. I'm sure your circle of friends on FB means something to you, but not really helpful in projecting box office. (that may be another flaw in your method for your expectations for movies)

So you are still supporting my idea that there is no "Marvel brand" and it's really just about each individual movie. I don't think Civil War will look anything like the box office for Ant-Man. I could be wrong I guess. If Civil War opens to 60m I'll buy into your "Marvel Brand" thing.

This is very, very basic stuff that anyone with experience in making and selling products understands...and a few you cant seem to grasp it. I'm frankly sick of explaining it.

Please stop lying about me. I NEVER said that Marvel EXPECTED more money. NEVER. STOP LYING ABOUT MY CLAIMS. There is a difference in what they EXPECT and what they HOPE for, given their previous market penetration.

My circle of friends hardly matters...the box office shows that the public at large was less interested in this movie than they have been of other movies associated with the Marvel Studios brand. Turns out, not only did my circle of friends not really care, neither did half of the audience for Marvel's last new property. So, my expectations that this would be a barometer for a current low for Marvel worked out!

There IS a Marvel brand...but that doesn't mean that every product they release will make the same amount of money. This is VERY BASIC STUFF, man. I can not believe that I am on a superhero board and people are actually arguing that Marvel has no brand. The very concept of "Marvel vs DC" in fandom exists because both have brands.

But you guys aren't that out of touch. You are having to argue a ridiculous point in order to declare that Ant-Man somehow reached the maximum possible market penetration...compared to other action adventure movies about guys who shrink and talk to ants...as if that is even a genre.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

This has got to be one of the most circular, pointless arguments I've seen in quite some time. People are just continually writing the same thing over and over, knowing full well that opinions aren't going to change. Can we just move on already?

 

[Frodo]

I'd say there is a Marvel brand , though as someone said , not every product will have the equal amount of appeal or interest.

With the massive wave of big and smaller properties coming up over the next several years in TV , Movies , and across different studios, Some projects will hit the mark more then others, some will stumble, some will appeal to a smaller audience.

In Ant-man case, I personally think its opening numbers are nothing to be ashamed of given that its unknown to the GA. For me the question is which products will have legs and which won't. Going forward, the other question I have is how much power having the Marvel label or being part of the Marvel Brand sort guarantees bums in seats, and will that carry over to properties like Dr Strange, Black Panther , and Inhumans.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

There is a Marvel brand. Bob Iger certainly speaks of it as a brand, as does the entertainment press. Brands don't always achieve the same level of success with all of their products. It doesn't mean they're not brands.

So this "Marvel brand" acts exactly like any other movie. I agree. There isn't any difference. It's still about the characters and the individual movies. If you feel the need to label this normal behavior as a "brand", so be it. I'm seeing a "brand" that just put out one movie that made 1.4 billion and two months later opened a movie to 60 million. Not seeing any "brand" effect unless you believe any other studio would have opened Ant-Man to much less than 60 million. If you want to give Marvel the credit for that, ok.

Please stop lying about me. I NEVER said that Marvel EXPECTED more money. NEVER. STOP LYING ABOUT MY CLAIMS. There is a difference in what they EXPECT and what they HOPE for, given their previous market penetration.

You used the word "disappointing" which says someone expected it to make more than it did. We know Marvel gave this movie the smallest budget ever so it wasn't them. We know the opening weekend falls right in line with tracking so it wasn't them. You said you didn't predict a higher opening so it wasn't you. Exactly who did this disappoint? Who were you claiming expected it to make more than it did?

Your "hoping" thing is silly because every studio hopes for the best. That would mean every movie is "disappointing".

My circle of friends hardly matters...the box office shows that the public at large was less interested in this movie than they have been of other movies associated with the Marvel Studios brand. Turns out, not only did my circle of friends not really care, neither did half of the audience for Marvel's last new property. So, my expectations that this would be a barometer for a current low for Marvel worked out!

Ok...so where is this "brand" you are talking about? What actually happened....and has been happening all along...is that there is varying degrees of interest in various Marvel movies depending upon the character and the movie itself. This "brand" you claim exists just featured a movie making 1.4 billion just two months ago. Where did the "brand" go?

Your "barometer" is changing with each Marvel movie...which means each movie is different and your "brand" claim isn't supported by anything. The "brand" will change again when Civil War comes out. What a coincidence, eh?

There IS a Marvel brand...but that doesn't mean that every product they release will make the same amount of money. This is VERY BASIC STUFF, man.

So they act just like every other movie but you want to put a label of "brand" on them. Hey...if that makes you feel better.

I can not believe that I am on a superhero board and people are actually arguing that Marvel has no brand. The very concept of "Marvel vs DC" in fandom exists because both have brands.

Excellent point. It does exist in small enclaves like this message board where fanboys know what all this stuff is. But of course that's not representative of the general public. Most people don't know that Superman and Spider-man aren't the same "brand". And most people DEFINITELY don't know that "Marvel" doesn't make Spider-Man, FF, and X-men movies. There are people on this very board who put all those under the "Marvel brand" so that tells you what that means.

But you guys aren't that out of touch. You are having to argue a ridiculous point in order to declare that Ant-Man somehow reached the maximum possible market penetration

Who are you talking about here? Did someone make that claim?

No one knows what "maximum market penetration" is since every Marvel movie performs differently...that's the first problem with your claim. And it's even more impossible to speculate on what that could be since there has never been an Ant-man movie before.

The second problem is that people are claiming it performed as expected....not that it "reached maximum penetration". There is nothing "disappointing" here.

I'm getting a definite sense that you wish to claim this "Marvel brand" is failing somehow. If that's your goal then Civil War OW is going to be a rough weekend for your theory.

 

[KangConquers]

If this movie has usual Marvel legs, I'm going to guess we'll see:

Domestic: $158 M
International: $365 M ($73 M China)
Worldwide: $523 M

Definitely sequel worthy under normal circumstances. It has a lot of internal competition though.

 

[Heretic]

Out of respect for others and in the interest of putting this thread back on track, I will not respond to Jeet...aside from saying that if you are at all interested in branding and how to market products to relevant consumer bases, read some books or take a class or something. It's pretty fascinating stuff (not that I'm an expert, but my line of work does involve a measure of it)!

Also, I have seen EVERY Marvel Cinematic Universe movie on opening weekend. I have the tie-in comics, even though I don't generally buy comics anymore. It's because I love the MCU BRAND. If I wanted it to fail, I doubt I'd be giving them my money. There is no need to attempt to label me a troll here.

 

[jmc]

Well, this thread went.....weird.

 

[flickchick85]

If this movie has usual Marvel legs, I'm going to guess we'll see:

Domestic: $158 M
International: $365 M ($73 M China)
Worldwide: $523 M

Definitely sequel worthy under normal circumstances. It has a lot of internal competition though.

Yeah I think its sequel prospects will depend largely on how well the other newbies in Phase 3 do. Unlike Phase 2, this Phase is comprised of more new solo IPs (Doc Strange, Black Panther, Cap Marvel, Inhumans and you could kinda count Spidey since that's a re-launch) than solo sequels (Cap, Thor, GotG) so they will all kind of be competing against each other (AND an inevitable 3rd GotG film) for priority sequel slots in Phase 4. If they all perform better than Ant-Man, which I think each one of 'em has a pretty good shot at doing, then Phase 4 might prove to be too sequel-crowded for Ant-Man to get one.

 

[TeeKay]