- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Was Antman a failure?
Posted on 7/19/15 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 7/19/15 at 9:27 pm
I've seen articles that depict this a blow for Marvel. The seemingly "cant do anything wrong" studio,finally did something wrong.
They compared the opening weekend with the likes of Thor and Captain America. Antman cam in roughly $7 million short of those two films.
I think they did pretty well. I'm not too fluent in comics, but I know who Captain America and Thor are, and I'm sure most of the public does too.
How many were well versed in the realm of Antman? I'm not.
Or am I off here?
They compared the opening weekend with the likes of Thor and Captain America. Antman cam in roughly $7 million short of those two films.
I think they did pretty well. I'm not too fluent in comics, but I know who Captain America and Thor are, and I'm sure most of the public does too.
How many were well versed in the realm of Antman? I'm not.
Or am I off here?
21
Posted on 7/19/15 at 9:29 pm to tigerman03
Eventually people are going to get tired of all these comic book movies. They are all the fricking same.
Posted on 7/19/15 at 9:30 pm to tigerman03
60 million domestic and 100 million worldwide.
Low by Marvel standards, but a failure? Far from it.
Marvel is still 12 for 12 on the Tomatoemeter.
Low by Marvel standards, but a failure? Far from it.
Marvel is still 12 for 12 on the Tomatoemeter.
This post was edited on 7/19/15 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 7/19/15 at 9:32 pm to tigerman03
They did a couple of million short of their low projection. We'll have to see how it does for the remainder of its run and worldwide. It's not a failure. It's just not a big success like Winter Soldier or a surprise home run like Guardians of the Galaxy.
This wasn't a tent pole franchise for them. They were filling a date with a film that had been greenlit prior to the conception of the Marvel Studios universe. There were no immediate plans for an Ant-Man II.
This wasn't a tent pole franchise for them. They were filling a date with a film that had been greenlit prior to the conception of the Marvel Studios universe. There were no immediate plans for an Ant-Man II.
Posted on 7/19/15 at 9:33 pm to tigerman03
A better comparison would be to Guardians of the Galaxy's opening weekend. I knew absolutely nothing about Guardians of the Galaxy going in
Posted on 7/19/15 at 9:34 pm to tigerman03
Way too early to tell. Audiences seem to like it so it could have some legs.
Posted on 7/19/15 at 9:45 pm to tigerman03
7 whole million? Yea, fricking disaster.
Posted on 7/19/15 at 9:50 pm to tigerman03
quote:
Was Antman a failure?
I would say no. It is an unknown comic that is a filler movie to move pieces around the board and it still beat an established animated movie in Minions.
It opened at 60 millionish and will probably continue to do well but not kill it at the box office. It lacks a power star and/or a big title. If you compare it to Guardians, Rudd would be 3rd to 5th billed in that cast behind at least Diesel and Cooper when cast and behind Pratt now.
Posted on 7/19/15 at 10:05 pm to tigerman03
It had a budget of 130 million and it is close to generating that witin its second week. It has done better for the harder the reach demograph that other Marvel movies. So not the homerun for Marvel that ive seen some people pretend it is, but it certainly is not a lose either.
I will say this movie has been oddly polarizing for being a fill-in movie on their schedule and not having any major shake-ups in the movie itself.
I will say this movie has been oddly polarizing for being a fill-in movie on their schedule and not having any major shake-ups in the movie itself.
Posted on 7/19/15 at 11:32 pm to tigerman03
I think it depends on the word of mouth for Pixels next weekend. It's going to be #1 this weekend, and if Pixels gets terrible press, or close to it, it might not lose too much in the second weekend.
It isn't a failure, but I would hope with the different focus and cast, that it would draw some more interest.
It isn't a failure, but I would hope with the different focus and cast, that it would draw some more interest.
Posted on 7/19/15 at 11:44 pm to tigerman03
It's not a failure but it'll definitely start making Marvel second guess about investing 100+ million dollars into some of these lesser known properties.
If Doctor Strange also doesn't do well, Marvel will have to seriously start rethinking their plans for Captain Marvel, Black Panther, and Inhumans.
If Doctor Strange also doesn't do well, Marvel will have to seriously start rethinking their plans for Captain Marvel, Black Panther, and Inhumans.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 12:08 am to tigerman03
Shouldn't have had such a big arse budget, but I don't see a film as a success or a failure based on box office results unless it doesnt even make its budget back.
It's 79-80% on RT and it's a very solid Marvel film, a lot better than some but not great like some others. However, if the box office doesn't take off, they might need to pump the brakes on a sequel unless he grows a significant fan base.
It's 79-80% on RT and it's a very solid Marvel film, a lot better than some but not great like some others. However, if the box office doesn't take off, they might need to pump the brakes on a sequel unless he grows a significant fan base.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 2:11 am to tigerman03
The whole summer projections have been off. Ant-Man was expected "Phase One" numbers...so comparisons to Thor and Cap:The First Avenger were pretty spot on.
This is a smaller film by design.
The movie will probably cross the 250 mill mark worldwide.
Word of mouth on this movie will be pretty strong as well.
I plan on seeing it again, if for nothing else, Michael Pena's performance.
This is a smaller film by design.
The movie will probably cross the 250 mill mark worldwide.
Word of mouth on this movie will be pretty strong as well.
I plan on seeing it again, if for nothing else, Michael Pena's performance.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 7:55 am to tigerman03
I think it did pretty good considering the movie is called Ant-Man. I really liked it and may see it again with my Godchild this weekend. It will face some tough competition from Pixels, who will likely be a big draw for children and families despite if it gets bad reviews or not.. But that said, I found Ant-Man to be a fine addition to the MCU.
This post was edited on 7/20/15 at 7:56 am
Posted on 7/20/15 at 8:50 am to tigerman03
Of course the box office numbers are important... But honestly, they are just as concerned with merchandising as they are with the actual box office.
Toys, costumes for halloween, lunchboxes etc. cost nothing to make. The movies is supposed to make money but if not the merchandise covers the cost.
Toys, costumes for halloween, lunchboxes etc. cost nothing to make. The movies is supposed to make money but if not the merchandise covers the cost.
Posted on 7/21/15 at 2:05 am to tigerman03
58 Million dollars says no.
Posted on 8/1/15 at 1:08 pm to tigerman03
So let's revisit this one:
LINK
Not great news, but wait...
LINK
quote:
Box Office: 'Ant-Man' Has Topped 'Green Lantern'
Not great news, but wait...
quote:
Yet like many movies that find themselves on the defensive after opening weekend, Ant-Man did not wither and die after its first three days. At $234m and counting, it will soon surpass the $263m worldwide cume of The Incredible Hulk. It will eventually surpass the $353m cume of X-Men: First Class and the various totals of the first two Fantastic Four movies. Heck, inflation and 3D bump aside, it will likely surpass the $374m total of Batman Begins, the $391m total of Superman Returns, and the $385m cume of the first Star Trek. All of this, by the way, on a mere $130m budget, making it one of the cheaper “big” comic book superhero movies of the last fifteen years. And it’s not quite done yet. Domestically, it’s heading towards a $150m-$175m total, and worldwide is a frustratingly open question since it doesn’t open in Greece, China, and Japan until September. And this will be among the lower-grossing Marvel Studios films thus far. So much for superhero fatigue.
quote:
For the moment, one of the lowest-grossing Marvel Studios movies is set to out-gross several X-Men films, and nearly every non-MCU comic book superhero movie not based around Batman, Superman, Wolverine, or Spider-Man on a budget about the size of what Sam Raimi spent on Spider-Man back in 2002. And they are doing that on an opening weekend that was all-too-similar to a number of lower-profile or outright lower-grossing comic book superhero movies from the last decade. Marvel’s alleged failures are still the envy of everyone else.
Posted on 8/1/15 at 2:01 pm to tigerman03
There are way too many hero/comic movies being made. What the frick is going on?
Posted on 8/1/15 at 8:10 pm to tigerman03
I loved the movie..I had no clue what I was going watch nor what antman was...Left very pleased.
Posted on 8/3/15 at 6:41 pm to tigerman03
quote:
Was Antman a failure?
I'll let you know when I see it.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News