Marvel Studios 2009 Films: Captain America & Avengers or Ant-Man

[Advanced Dark]

But unlike Spider-man and X-men, Ant-Man isn't incredibly popular.

Spider-men and X-men are first-tier characters. Ant-Man is 3rd-tier at best.

A character like that will be lucky to make it's budget back and that's if the movie is really good.

Spidey is an anomaly anyways. It doesn't matter what tier it's on. If they make a great fun movie that people love it'll make a load of dough. It will never make Spidey money nobody said it would. It won't matter if critics like it or not if the general audience enjoys it and it's marketing campaign is targeted at the right group. Ant-Man could really be made to suit a very wide audience and visually it could be something we've just not ever seen with the new film tech out there now. Don't focus on his popularity in the comic books.

 

[blind_fury]

Why the hell would you sacrifice an opportunity to introduce Thor in a bloackbuster origin movie for a movie about a shrinking scientist who talks to ants?

Ant-Man at the most will make 140 million worldwide. That's a 20 to 40 million profit at best. A well made Thor movie could make ten times that (200 million profit) and would introduce the character before Avengers comes out.

Marvel doesn't have the luxury of doing expensive movies that are risky and experimental. These next 3 years are crucial to Marvels success. Save Ant-Man for 2012 when you have 300 million worth of profit sitting in the bank and can afford to take chances

 

[Spider-Fan]

I say do Ant-Man, but at a Punisher esque budget. It would be profitable. On top of that, do Thor also. That would make the combining of IM, Cap, and Thor more hyped in an Avengers movie, making that a safer bet (being a three-way sequel).

 

[Dude_Love]

I agree, 2009 Have Cap as July 4th weekend release (when else!) and Thor possibly in May. Ant Man can be done pritty cheeply and released in october or something

 

[Advanced Dark]

Why the hell would you sacrifice an opportunity to introduce Thor in a bloackbuster origin movie for a movie about a shrinking scientist who talks to ants?

Ant-Man at the most will make 140 million worldwide. That's a 20 to 40 million profit at best. A well made Thor movie could make ten times that (200 million profit) and would introduce the character before Avengers comes out.

Marvel doesn't have the luxury of doing expensive movies that are risky and experimental. These next 3 years are crucial to Marvels success. Save Ant-Man for 2012 when you have 300 million worth of profit sitting in the bank and can afford to take chances

I hate explaining this over and over to people but I'll assume you didn't think about this. Marvel isnt' sacrificing one film for another. When a film is ready it'll be slotted into a timeframe and put into production. Thor is not ready. Captain America was not ready for 2007 or 2008, Ant-Man had a director who specifically wanted to do it and it was on the slate. It's further along than Thor. Also Thor is a HUGE undertaking and it will be done. It's gonna take time but Marvel is NOT sacrificing Thor or any other film for Ant-Man. Marvel has lots of projects in the works that's why they said Ant-Man "OR" Avengers. There will be 2 though.

 

[blind_fury]

I say do Ant-Man, but at a Punisher esque budget. It would be profitable. On top of that, do Thor also. That would make the combining of IM, Cap, and Thor more hyped in an Avengers movie, making that a safer bet (being a three-way sequel).

Yeah the prospect of a 3 way sequel is awesome. You have a built in audience and each cast member already proved they can carry their own movie individually.

I see a 3 way sequel/Avengers movie making well over 600 million worldwide not including dvd sales.

 

[Advanced Dark]

I agree, 2009 Have Cap as July 4th weekend release (when else!) and Thor possibly in May. Ant Man can be done pritty cheeply and released in october or something

What makes you think Ant-Man can be done cheaply? It can't be. It's a major F/X film. They have to go all out or forget it. Sony realized this a bit late on Ghost Rider but still managed to pull it off for the average moviegoer. Marvel Studios is going to make each and every property the best it can be because it means the most to them. They want a franchise that sells toys and merchandise...not just one film. You all will get your Thor, Cap, and Avengers films before you know it. Enjoy the stuff in between.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I understand it is either Ant-Man or Avengers, but I feel they are both the wrong projects for 2009. Ant-Man shouldn't be 100 mil, and the Avengers should wait till it is time for another Cap and IM movie and after Thor is out.

I say do Thor in 2009 or find another project for 2009.

 

[Advanced Dark]

"FIND" another project? LOL

They have a list of projects in various stages of productions. Many have to go through rewrites and the process sometimes takes a decade or longer from start to finish. Ant-Man has a director & writer. Thor is a bigger production and will take more time. There is no "other project" under Marvel studios that could be ready in time and they're going to release what is ready when it's ready. Now Wolverine will also come out in 2008 or 2009 but that's not Marvel studios...that's Fox.

 

[Spider-Fan]

What makes you think Ant-Man can be done cheaply? It can't be. It's a major F/X film. They have to go all out or forget it. Sony realized this a bit late on Ghost Rider but still managed to pull it off for the average moviegoer. Marvel Studios is going to make each and every property the best it can be because it means the most to them. They want a franchise that sells toys and merchandise...not just one film. You all will get your Thor, Cap, and Avengers films before you know it. Enjoy the stuff in between.

Honey I Shrunk the Kids...nough said.

Ant-Man doesn't need 100 mil to do. I have seen passible TV shrinking, so movie shrinking wouldn't cost that much. Plus, who would be the villain of an Ant-Man movie. He has like no marketable villains? This screams smaller production.

Ant-Man at 100 mil would be a mistake like Constantine at that price was.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Honey I Shrunk the Kids...nough said.

Ant-Man doesn't need 100 mil to do. I have seen passible TV shrinking, so movie shrinking wouldn't cost that much. Plus, who would be the villain of an Ant-Man movie. He has like no marketable villains? This screams smaller production

Ant-Man at 100 mil would be a mistake like Constantine at that price was.

First off Honey I Shrunk the kids was a commercial success and spawned a theatrical sequel and several dvd sequels or spin-offs. I think even a TV show. It was a good movie for kids. Constantine was an R rated horror film released in late Winter. Ant-Man is a PG-13 film with the Marvel brand name and it will be a "tentpole" event picture not some small pic. It's a heavy F/X type of picture. All of the shrinking films have been successful from Honey to Innerspace, Fantastic Voyage, Shrinking Man and even Shrinking Woman films were box office hits for their time. Ant-Man would have much more action and fantasy than all of those combined.

 

[blind_fury]

I hate explaining this over and over to people but I'll assume you didn't think about this. Marvel isnt' sacrificing one film for another. When a film is ready it'll be slotted into a timeframe and put into production. Thor is not ready. Captain America was not ready for 2007 or 2008, Ant-Man had a director who specifically wanted to do it and it was on the slate. It's further along than Thor. Also Thor is a HUGE undertaking and it will be done. It's gonna take time but Marvel is NOT sacrificing Thor or any other film for Ant-Man. Marvel has lots of projects in the works that's why they said Ant-Man "OR" Avengers. There will be 2 though.

Wait a minute. You say Thor is a huge undertaking but have no problem with Avengers being planned for 2009?

If they can do Avengers in 2009 why not Thor?

 

[Spider-Fan]

I was saying Honey I Shrunk the Kids was a shrinking movie that wasn't any 100 mil, and it made money.

This movie could be smaller and successful. It doesn't need, warrant, or DESERVE 100 mil to it.

Also, they could actively pursue that Nick Fury movie instead or on top of a smaller production (more Avengers tie-ins). They could also more actively pursue Thor instead of the constant waiting they seem to be doing. Start getting results, and it may be finished by 2009.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ That was a relatively small scale film but the budget needs to be adjusted for inflation to today's dollars to see what it cost. Ant-Man is on a bigger scale. Not in popularity but in action and F/X required.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Ant-Man is not going to be a groundbreaking F/X movie. It is a guy who shrinks. Not that expensive to do. Just do some nice occassional effects and large looking sets, and boom. No 100 mil required.

If this grosses 100 mil domestically, I would drop dead with shock. He does not have that kind of potential. Smaller Ant-Man movie would be a bigger success for them in the % of profit game. I would guarantee that.

 

[blind_fury]

First off Honey I Shrunk the kids was a commercial success and spawned a theatrical sequel and several dvd sequels or spin-offs. I think even a TV show. It was a good movie for kids. Constantine was an R rated horror film released in late Winter. Ant-Man is a PG-13 film with the Marvel brand name and it will be a "tentpole" event picture not some small pic. It's a heavy F/X type of picture. All of the shrinking films have been successful from Honey to Innerspace, Fantastic Voyage, Shrinking Man and even Shrinking Woman films were box office hits for their time. Ant-Man would have much more action and fantasy than all of those combined.

Ant-Man is not blockbuster material. The movie would have to be damn near perfect to even compete during the summer let alone make a decent profit.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Ant-Man is a PG-13 Summer release. There's no reason why it can't be blockbuster material on film if they make it right. I see no reason why it can't make 150-200 million with the right release date and with a good film of course. Just imagine the action, creatures, fight sequence, comedy, etc...

 

[Spider-Fan]

I am not impressed with what I am imagining.

I stand by my view. This is not a major blockbuster. Money could be better/safer spent.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ That's probably why you aren't directing Ant-Man.

You'll see.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Probably (that and the lack of a villain thing and lack of knowing how to film a movie), lol.

If they go with a 100 mil movie, I'll see why it doesn't get sequels.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Ok we disagree but the fact is Ant-Man is gonna be a Summer release, it's gonna be PG or PG-13 at the hardest, and it's gonna get a budget near 100 million. It's going to have video game and toy support as well. These things I know. If it makes it out in 2009 is another story.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I still say that would be the worst investment since Enron.

I hope they get a different thing going for 2009. I don't like the Avengers being done yet, or Ant-Man at that kind of price tag.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Avengers I think would be too early in 09 but maybe they could use it to spin-off the other films. They're probably deciding on that now.

BTW Hot Fuzz has made over 30 million in the UK alone. Yet to be released elsewhere.

 

[daywalker2007]

hellboy only cost 80 millions

so ant man with some green screen work should be roughly 50 million tops

get a del toro or someone to do it

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

Well this is going to be fun to see how these films compete against Superman: The Man of Steel.