Quantumania BoX Office Thread $

[Evil Twin]

Lots of what ifs there.

The point is Ant-Man and the Fantastic 4 aren't in the same level, in the movies. Ant-Man was successful in 2015 and Fantastic 4 was bombing. Ant-Man got 3 films without a reboot. Fantastic 4 is getting another reboot after 3 films (4 if we count the 90s movie).

We could only say they are equal once Fantastic 4 gets a trilogy without any of the films underperforming.

As for Quantumania, it still opened over $100 million despite being front loaded.

We can say they're equal when FF has two successful films, as Quantummania only has opening weekend as good box office news. The first FF film finished 11th at the worldwide box office and spawned a sequel, despite being considered subpar critically.

And, we still don't know what the ceiling is on a good FF movie, albeit The Incredibles would suggest it's very high.

We do know that the floor is low on a bad FF movie. And potentially on a bad Ant-Man movie (we'll see where Quantummania finishes).

Your guess is as good as mine on Blade, but past performance suggests not to get too carried away. Maybe less because Blade and Blade II rocked an R-rating and I don't think Disney is going there.

X-Men ought to have high expectations.

 

[psylockolussus]

We can say they're equal when FF has two successful films, as Quantummania only has opening weekend as good box office news. The first FF film finished 11th at the worldwide box office and spawned a sequel, despite being considered subpar critically.

And, we still don't know what the ceiling is on a good FF movie, albeit The Incredibles would suggest it's very high.

We do know that the floor is low on a bad FF movie. And potentially on a bad Ant-Man movie (we'll see where Quantummania finishes).

Your guess is as good as mine on Blade, but past performance suggests not to get too carried away. Maybe less because Blade and Blade II rocked an R-rating and I don't think Disney is going there.

X-Men ought to have high expectations.

Again how is Rise of the Silver Surfer was successful? It had sophomore slump both in North America and Worldwide. It didn't even hit $300 million. And 20th Century foX didn't move forward with a sequel.

But okay fine if you want to say their equal. You might as well say Fantastic 4 is the same level as Thor, as the first film ranked 15th at the worldwide boX office of 2011 while the Dark World ranked 10th... like seriously really? Is this how you say they are in the same level?

And the ceiling for a f4 film is the current highest grossing f4 film to date... now you can speculate that 2025 f4 film would do so much more but we aren't in that time yet...

 

[Evil Twin]

Again how is Rise of the Silver Surfer was successful? It had sophomore slump both in North America and Worldwide. It didn't even hit $300 million. And 20th Century foX didn't move forward with a sequel.

But okay fine if you want to say their equal. You might as well say Fantastic 4 is the same level as Thor, as the first film ranked 15th at the worldwide boX office of 2011 while the Dark World ranked 10th... like seriously really? Is this how you say they are in the same level?

And the ceiling for a f4 film is the current highest grossing f4 film to date... now you can speculate that 2025 f4 film would do so much more but we aren't in that time yet...

I don't know what Rise of the Silver Surfer has to do with anything. I never claimed it was a success. The original FF, which was 11th in worldwide box office and spawned a sequel otoh can be characterized a success. A success on par with Ant-Man and the Wasp which was also 11th at the worldwide box office and the high water mark for the franchise.

I speculate that a good FF film, which we haven't seen yet, has a potential ceiling of at least 11th worldwide. I don't think that's unreasonable unless you just don't want to adjust for inflation and expansion of the overseas market.

X-Men ought to be a top ten hit in the world unless the franchise is just exhausted. If that doesn't hit, the expectations for the MCU going forward will need to be adjusted.

Also, it may be that the zeitgeist has just moved on. James Bond didn't stay the top franchise in the world forever since the 60s. The MCU just may be coming back to the pack. Or superheroes may have lost a little novelty as a genre. A 15 to 20 year run with lots of films is a long run in movie terms. Westerns and Musicals didn't have runs that long. Not without bumps and reinvention along the way anyhow.

 

[psylockolussus]

I don't know what Rise of the Silver Surfer has to do with anything. I never claimed it was a success. The original FF, which was 11th in worldwide box office and spawned a sequel otoh can be characterized a success. A success on par with Ant-Man and the Wasp which was also 11th at the worldwide box office and the high water mark for the franchise.

I speculate that a good FF film, which we haven't seen yet, has a potential ceiling of at least 11th worldwide. I don't think that's unreasonable unless you just don't want to adjust for inflation and expansion of the overseas market.

X-Men ought to be a top ten hit in the world unless the franchise is just exhausted. If that doesn't hit, the expectations for the MCU going forward will need to be adjusted.

Also, it may be that the zeitgeist has just moved on. James Bond didn't stay the top franchise in the world forever since the 60s. The MCU just may be coming back to the pack. Or superheroes may have lost a little novelty as a genre. A 15 to 20 year run with lots of films is a long run in movie terms. Westerns and Musicals didn't have runs that long. Not without bumps and reinvention along the way anyhow.

You clearly said there were TWO successful Fantastic 4 films. So which one is the 2nd ff film, as there's only 3. 4 if you count the 90s canned movie.

Also, lets go back to what you said in the first place. You said Fantastic 4 and Ant-Man are in the same level / "grouping", and based on boX office numbers that is just not true.

 

[Sithborg]

2nd Wednesday comparison:

AM&TW - 3.3M
Ant-Man - 3M
Eternals - 1.6M
Quantumania - 1.5M

The important comparison is that it fell behind Cocaine Bear. Looks like it may be a rough weekend, with strong chance of #3.

 

[HammerDown]

Yeh that 3rd weekend is lining up to be a black hole. For comparison the 2nd to 3rd weekends:

AM&TW - 29.0M to 16.5M
Ant-Man - 24.9M to 12.8M
Eternals - 26.8M to 11.0M

Quantumania - 31.9M to ???

A while back I thought maybe 16M, now looking at the comparison of the dailies I just can’t see it making that much… Maybe 14M…

 

[Evil Twin]

You clearly said there were TWO successful Fantastic 4 films. So which one is the 2nd ff film, as there's only 3. 4 if you count the 90s canned movie.

Also, lets go back to what you said in the first place. You said Fantastic 4 and Ant-Man are in the same level / "grouping", and based on boX office numbers that is just not true.

Reread what I wrote, I said when FF has a second successful movie it will have as many as Ant-Man. Which means that the first FF is the only successful FF movie. Unless Quantummania turns it around, I'm writing it off as a failure.

FF had a worldwide peak of 11th in its year of release. Rise of the Silver Surfer was around 20th. The let's hold on to the rights Josh Trank entry was obviously a disaster.

Ant-man was around 14th worldwide. Ant-Man and the Wasp was 11th.

That's the same basic tier to me, essentially the teens in worldwide gross, as I hold the Trank failure more against the studio than the property. Especially since the Ant-Man movies were largely perceived as good and the FF movies weren't. Marvel's budgeting will provide evidence of what they think is the potential box office.

I'll be surprised if Blade's budget isn't relatively small for a MCU movie, X-Men's isn't relatively large for a MCU franchise launch, and FF isn't somewhere in the middle.

 

[psylockolussus]

The worldwide rankings don't mean anything as you could have also brought up Thor, Dark World, Captain America: The First Avenger, Dr. Strange 2016, Black Widow, Wolverine and even the X-Men films that ranked somewhere 11 to 14.

That comparison doesn't make sense to me. The 11th highest grossing film in 2017 grossed over 800 million... so you're telling its equal to the 11th highest grossing film of 2005 which grossed less than 350 million.

 

[Evil Twin]

The important comparison is that it fell behind Cocaine Bear. Looks like it may be a rough weekend, with strong chance of #3.

I'd be a little surprised if Quantummania came in behind Cocaine Bear, but not shocked, for the weekend, although I expect Cocaine Bear to come in ahead Friday night. I expect family friendly matinees to play to Ant-Man's advantage on Saturday and Sunday.

 

[psylockolussus]

I'll be surprised if Blade's budget isn't relatively small for a MCU movie, X-Men's isn't relatively large for a MCU franchise launch, and FF isn't somewhere in the middle.

And we could have said that to Shang-Chi before seeing footage, yet according to reports, it coXt 150 to 200 million to make.

I'm not saying Blade should cost that much but none of Marvel Studios' movies had a budget of lower $100 million, and who knows if that has vampire galore and big set pieces. You're under the assumption they would budget it like New Line Cinema.

Anything above $100 million is already eXpensive. Though not so much when it comes to blockbuster movies.

 

[Evil Twin]

The worldwide rankings don't mean anything as you could have also brought up Thor, Dark World, Captain America: The First Avenger, Dr. Strange 2016, Black Widow, Wolverine and even the X-Men films that ranked somewhere 11 to 14.

That comparison doesn't make sense to me. The 11th highest grossing film in 2017 grossed over 800 million... so you're telling its equal to the 11th highest grossing film of 2005 which grossed less than 350 million.

Probably better in 2005 without premium screens and 3D. The original FF probably had more attendance than the Ant-Man films. Now, a lot has changed, but I don't see any point in a raw numbers comparison without trying to adjust for inflation. The Numbers says that the original FF has an adjusted for inflation domestic gross of approximately $225 million. That's directly comparable to Ant-Man and the Wasp.

 

[psylockolussus]

Probably better in 2005 without premium screens and 3D. The original FF probably had more attendance than the Ant-Man films. Now, a lot has changed, but I don't see any point in a raw numbers comparison without trying to adjust for inflation. The Numbers says that the original FF has an adjusted for inflation domestic gross of approximately $225 million. That's directly comparable to Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Probably better in 2005 without premium screens and 3D. The original FF probably had more attendance than the Ant-Man films. Now, a lot has changed, but I don't see any point in a raw numbers comparison without trying to adjust for inflation. The Numbers says that the original FF has an adjusted for inflation domestic gross of approximately $225 million. That's directly comparable to Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Okay, why do we need to constantly debate how an IP like Fantastic 4 which only had 1 successful film (that grossed less than 350 million worldwide) to Ant-Man which already had 2 successful films in the past, with a third movie that opened over $100 million last month? Also I keep mentioning boX office numbers not attendance. You might as well say Avengers and Gone with the Wind are in the same grouping because of attendance... I'm bringing up money it earned at the boX office.

Also not to mention, that a lot of people now associate Ant-Man to Avengers and the other MCU heroes. Fantastic 4 aren't in that playing field yet.

 

[Evil Twin]

And we could have said that to Shang-Chi before seeing footage, yet according to reports, it coXt 150 to 200 million to make.

I'm not saying Blade should cost that much but none of Marvel Studios' movies had a budget of lower $100 million, and who knows if that has vampire galore and big set pieces. You're under the assumption they would budget it like New Line Cinema.

Anything above $100 million is already eXpensive. Though not so much when it comes to blockbuster movies.

I think the lower end of Marvel these days is probably around $135 million. Which probably should be plenty for a Blade movie. Albeit, I could see a much more expensive Midnight Sons movie. Like you said still a lot of money. But I have a hard time seeing how you integrate Blade with Kang and the Multiverse. Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part or maybe, like Ant-Man, it will be more of a palate cleanser. The Midnight Sons would probably be the way to separate it from drawing direct comparison to the previous series. Avoiding direct comparison is probably the wise choice.

I'd expect FF to be right in the middle of Kang and the Multiverse, which probably demands a bigger budget. X-Men might not happen until after Secret Wars, but I expect them to be front and center.

We'll see if expectations match up with reality.

 

[Zyraquis]

Likely to make $200m though nothing to write home about. Already earned about $170m before weekend which could add $16m for $186m. No matter how bad it will get the other $14m before end of run. That said the ceiling gets lower by the week it won’t touch $500m WW now pretty clear.

 

[Evil Twin]

Okay, why do we need to constantly debate how an IP like Fantastic 4 which only had 1 successful film (that grossed less than 350 million worldwide) to Ant-Man which already had 2 successful films in the past, with a third movie that opened over $100 million last month? Also I keep mentioning boX office numbers not attendance. You might as well say Avengers and Gone with the Wind are in the same grouping because of attendance... I'm bringing up money it earned at the boX office.

Also not to mention, that a lot of people now associate Ant-Man to Avengers and the other MCU heroes. Fantastic 4 aren't in that playing field yet.

We adjust for inflation so that we do apples to apples comparisons. And don't call Gone With the Wind a moderate hit at approximately $390 million lifetime gross.

FF was a large hit in 2005. Now, it may have damaged its reputation and draw since via subpar films. But there's a reason it made it to the screen years before Ant-Man and spawned a sequel. Although the audience's "fool me once..." reaction is certainly pertinent.

 

[FunkMiller]

Likely to make $200m though nothing to write home about. Already earned about $170m before weekend which could add $16m for $186m. No matter how bad it will get the other $14m before end of run. That said the ceiling gets lower by the week it won’t touch $500m WW now pretty clear.

So, is this actually going to lose money? Because a budget of 200 million, with a marketing budget of what... 100 million? If it goes under 500 ww, Disney will only be taking about half, so that's a loss of 50 million.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Is someone in here really arguing you shouldn't adjust for inflation? LOL

Tickets cost a lot more now, so CLEARLY you have to factor it in especially if you're trying to gauge how many tickets were actually sold to see these films. I mean c'mon this isn't rocket science.

 

[Zyraquis]

So, is this actually going to lose money? Because a budget of 200 million, with a marketing budget of what... 100 million? If it goes under 500 ww, Disney will only be taking about half, so that's a loss of 50 million.

Most likely losing money, I would say. At least for theatrical run. A little consolation is that it will add a new content to D+ without much extra cost.

i am afraid the MCU movies are becoming too fans driven ie. those very eager to see will see it in the first weekend, after that interest from the casuals are tepid. D+ also prompts subscribers to wait a couple of months instead of 2nd viewing or a family outing to the cinema. With ticket prices so high it is only sensible to wait unless it is a “must see” especially for a whole family. I would expect MCU legs continue to be lacking except for movies with hype and buzz among general viewers too.

 

[HammerDown]

2nd Thursday comparison:

AM&TW - 2.9M
Ant-Man - 2.7M
Quantumania - 1.4M
Eternals - 1.3M

2nd Wednesday comparison:

AM&TW - 3.3M
Ant-Man - 3M
Eternals - 1.6M
Quantumania - 1.5M

2nd Tuesday comparison:

AM&TW - 5.5M
Ant-Man - 4.3M
Quantumania - 2.5M
Eternals - 2.1M

2nd Monday comparison:

AM&TW - 3.5M
Ant-Man - 3.3M
Quantunmania - 1.7M
Eternals- 1.7M

 

[HammerDown]

Maybe 480M Worldwide…

 

[Sithborg]

2nd Thursday comparison:

AM&TW - 2.9M
Ant-Man - 2.7M
Quantumania - 1.4M
Eternals - 1.3M

Also, came in second on Thur to Cocaine Bear.

Looking real likely to be #3 this weekend.

 

[Evil Twin]

Deadline is forecasting $13.3 million for Quantummania's 3rd weekend. We'll see if that holds, but ouch.

 

[HammerDown]

13!?… If it’s projected to dip that low then it could even struggle to surpass the 1st Ant-Man result.

3nd weekend comparison:

AM&TW - 16.5M
Quantumania - “13.3”
Ant-Man - 12.8M
Eternals - 11.0

 

[psylockolussus]

It is outgrossing Thor, Ant-Man and Black Widow in North America this weekend, so thats the positive side of things.

 

[psylockolussus]

We adjust for inflation so that we do apples to apples comparisons. And don't call Gone With the Wind a moderate hit at approximately $390 million lifetime gross.

FF was a large hit in 2005. Now, it may have damaged its reputation and draw since via subpar films. But there's a reason it made it to the screen years before Ant-Man and spawned a sequel. Although the audience's "fool me once..." reaction is certainly pertinent.

What even is this.

Fantastic 4 was successful in 2005, but my argument is Fantastic 4 in the movies is simply not in the same grouping as Ant-Man in the movies. FYI, Ant-Man also appeared in Civil War and Endgame. You keep arguing that they are in the same level, and they are simply not. Ant-Man didn't appear in a flopped movie like Fant4stic. Fantastic 4 have to appear in more successful movies first joining the ranks of Ant-Man.

Also I didn't call Gone of the Wind a moderate hit, you are putting words in my mouth...I'm just not gonna group it with the Avengers because of inflation. Different times.