- 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
1
Posted on 7/20/15 at 12:15 am to xenythx
quote:
If Doctor Strange also doesn't do well, Marvel will have to seriously start rethinking their plans for Captain Marvel, Black Panther, and Inhumans.
I don't think Doctor Strange and Black Panther will be a problem at all. Black Panther has a significant fan base and he will especially be ok since he will be in Civil War beforehand. As for Strange, I don't know why people wouldn't eat it up, especially with Cumberbatch. I think both will do better than Ant-Man, but won't be on the level of Iron Man, Winter solider etc.
I do worry about Captain Marvel though and the Inhumans. They already have a misfit group in Guardians of the Galaxy, so I could see Inhumans failing badly. And I like Captain Marvel a lot, but I see that being a tougher sell than BP or Dr. Strange
Posted on 7/20/15 at 12:17 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
I'm stunned that Guardians of the Galaxy had a smaller budget than Ant-Man. Guardians looked like a Star Wars sequel.
sorry, that bit was worded poorly. I was saying that Ant-Man cost $40 million less than Guardians.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 12:18 am to Fewer Kilometers
Comic book folks need to relax a bit. The movie is called "Ant-Man" for christ sake and I'd imagine a majority of the population hadn't heard of the character until the MCU really got going and brought in fans or until they saw the first preview. Hell I hadn't heard about Ant-man until a few years ago.
$60 million opening weekend for "Ant-man." Think about it. I think that's amazing
$60 million opening weekend for "Ant-man." Think about it. I think that's amazing
This post was edited on 7/20/15 at 12:19 am
Posted on 7/20/15 at 12:32 am to Teddy Ruxpin
I agree, I don't see the problem. This is a very good opening for a property that isn't all that well known.
If it can get anywhere near Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger for total worldwide numbers it should be considered a complete success.
If it can get anywhere near Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger for total worldwide numbers it should be considered a complete success.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 12:36 am to Dr RC
I agree. It's doing better than I anticipated.
I thought the movie was very well done. The whole idea of the character is ridiculous....but they still managed to make it pretty damn cool.
I also love Paul Rudd though so the movie gets an automatic rating bump from me.
I thought the movie was very well done. The whole idea of the character is ridiculous....but they still managed to make it pretty damn cool.
I also love Paul Rudd though so the movie gets an automatic rating bump from me.
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 2:56 am to xenythx
quote:
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.
Ya right!
If they really are only in 130 million for this film they will end up with a couple hundred million in profit when it is all said and done and that is a huge success.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 7:39 am to RonBurgundy
quote:
I plan on seeing it again, if for nothing else, Michael Pena's performance.
And those dang waffles. I was craving some after the film.
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 7/20/15 at 8:57 am to Dr RC
quote:
I'm stunned that Guardians of the Galaxy had a smaller budget than Ant-Man. Guardians looked like a Star Wars sequel.
quote:
sorry, that bit was worded poorly. I was saying that Ant-Man cost $40 million less than Guardians.
Hell, then they should've spent $40 Mill more and made it as good as Guardians. :)
Posted on 7/20/15 at 9:38 am to WicKed WayZ
quote:
I do worry about Captain Marvel though and the Inhumans. They already have a misfit group in Guardians of the Galaxy, so I could see Inhumans failing badly. And I like Captain Marvel a lot, but I see that being a tougher sell than BP or Dr. Strange
There is no way -- NONE -- that Marvel is dumb enough to cancel Captain Marvel as punishment for Ant-Man for "underperforming" by $7 million.
Marvel has been getting killed for its lack of diversity (which is partly unfair, the Avengers team now has two black members and two women, and 3 of the top 4 billed actors in Guardians were minorities). Also, the demographics of ComicCon showed that more women attended than men. Let's say that again: more women attended COMIC-CON, the traditional hobby for awkward teenage boys. Yet Marvel is yet to release a movie with a woman in the titular role.
We call that an underserved market. Marvel would love to get Captain Marvel out in the same summer as Wonder Woman and then have their lesser known character outsell the more established WW. Marvel, make no mistake, has tons invested in the success of Captain Marvel. That movie has a reacl chance to make ridiculous amounts of amount, if done right.
Also, don't piss off the Carol Corps. They are one of your most loyal constituencies, and they will burn down your other properties if you even hint that you are not supporting Captain Marvel.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 10:08 am to Baloo
quote:
Also, don't piss off the Carol Corps. They are one of your most loyal constituencies, and they will burn down your other properties if you even hint that you are not supporting Captain Marvel.
The biggest thing that she has going for her is that she has the co-opted name of Captain Marvel.
If Ant-Man's underperformance will lead to anything with Captain Carol, it would be for them to pay a bit more for a big box office draw of an actress.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 10:46 am to Freauxzen
quote:
I would agree with this however. Dr. Strange is going to be a tough sell. Although I think it can be super unique.
Maybe the story alone might be a tough sale, but Benedict Cumberbatch being the lead will get peoples (especially women) butts in the chairs.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 10:51 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
If Ant-Man's underperformance will lead to anything with Captain Carol, it would be for them to pay a bit more for a big box office draw of an actress.
Would be a good lesson to learn. The question is: Who? Top draw actresses aren't very common, and I would think most are a little too old.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 10:55 am to Freauxzen
Amy Schumer is hot right now.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 11:12 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Would be a good lesson to learn.
I'm not sure. I think Ant-Man was able to do the business it did because of Paul Rudd's charm. He's not a huge star, but I think he's the guy who put butts in the seats. I think Marvel needs to learn from that and find the right person for the role instead of just go fishing for a star.
Look, Katee Sackhoff is perfect for the role, but it is a question of whether she has the heft to carry a movie.
Posted on 7/20/15 at 11:41 am to Baloo
quote:
Look, Katee Sackhoff is perfect for the role, but it is a question of whether she has the heft to carry a movie.
Agreed. She's perfect but I don't think she has the star power.
I think I read that Emily Blunt has already turned them down. I wouldn't mind seeing Natalie Dormer in the role.
I could also get behind Yvonne Strahovski, but she has the same problem as Sackhoff. Ali Larter would also be a solid choice.
With the work Katheryn Winnick has been doing on Vikings, she would be my first choice.
This post was edited on 7/20/15 at 11:48 am
Posted on 7/20/15 at 12:08 pm to Green Chili Tiger
I think they desperately want Jessica Chastain. She's already done the military thing (Zero Dark Thirty), she has sci fi geek cred, and she's a bit of a draw who has two Oscar noms on her resume. She checks every box (she's also an American and they can get her to dye her hair blonde).
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News