Ant-Man's Opening Weekend Second Worst in MCU History

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
Ant-Man's Opening Weekend Second Worst in MCU History


Marvel's Ant-Man claimed the top spot at the box office this past weekend but fell short of industry projections.

<a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/reviews/cinemarter/14325-Ant-Man-Review>Ant-Man is a movie that some had doubts about. The character, after all, isn't one of Marvel's more recognizable heroes. Add in the fact that it was the launch of a new film franchise and you had some grounds for people to be concerned about the movie's box office fate. According to recent reports, those worries may have been warranted.

While <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/14329-Celebrate-Ant-Man-With-Ant-Tastic-Fan-Art>Ant-Man still came out on top during its opening weekend, independent ticket tallies have found that the film failed to meet pre-release industry projections. Predictions had pegged the movie as most likely earning between $60-65 million during its first weekend. In actuality, it only managed <a href=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2015&wknd=29&p=.htm>to make about $58 million. Save for 2008's The Incredible Hulk, no other feature film in the <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/marvel%20cinematic%20universe?os=marvel+cinematic+universe>Marvel Cinematic Universe has performed more poorly.

Which isn't to say, of course, that Ant-Man's a failure. Despite missing projections, it was still the highest grossing film this past weekend. More important than that however is the fact that, when compared to other MCU films, Ant-Man was produced on something of a budget. The film only cost $130 million to make. In other words, even with its lower earnings it's already on track to make a hefty profit. All of that said, it still has to be something of a disappointment for Marvel, especially considering how well the also previously unknown Guardians of the Galaxy wound up doing.

Source: <a href=http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/ant-man-opens-slightly-below-projections-still-hits-no-1>Comic Book Resources


Permalink
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
Despite at what one would think after reading this article's title, I'd say that Marvel Studios still knows what it's doing and doesn't have much reason to be disappointed in this film.

And all in all, at least I had fun with it. The smaller scale felt good, the humour connected with me and the action was creatively enough designed to not make Ant Man feel like a pointless super hero, if still silly. But at least it was aware of that silliness. It also didn't feel so bloody bloated like Avengers 2 did. I'm still looking forward to seeing the unholy long uncut version, but Christ the theater version was wonky.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
Significantly short? I wouldn't call 2 million compared to the lower end of the expectations on a scale of tens of millions of dollars significantly. I'd say they were pretty close on point, making a cheaper movie and expecting less return thus still guaranteeing decent profit margins.

In other words; despite at what one would think after reading this article's title, I'd say that Marvel Studios still knows what it's doing and doesn't have much reason to be disappointed in this film.

And all in all, at least I had fun with it. The smaller scale felt good, the humour connected with me and the action was creatively enough designed to not make Ant Man feel like a pointless super hero, if still silly. But at least it was aware of that silliness. It also didn't feel so bloody bloated like Avengers 2 did. I'm still looking forward to seeing the unholy long uncut version, but Christ the theater version was wonky.
Honestly, I wasn't sure if "significantly" was fair considering the the fact that the lower end of that range was, as you said, only $2 million more than what the movie earned. I think I'm going to take it out.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
Falling 3% short of expectations really isn't what I'd consider "significantly short". Given that this is budget-MCU, it doesn't come off like Ant-Man is some sort of weakness, failure or otherwise a disappointment. I don't know how anybody would expect Ant-Man to be a runaway hit - its a deliberately smaller scale film with fixed expectations. Hulk, on the other hand, was a movie that they invested much more in. Proportion, no quantity decides whether its a profit or not. Green Lantern made over 200 million, but still was a failure because it made barely more than that back.

Anywho, I'm kind of wonder why they chose to do Ant-Man. Maybe to see if they could pull off a budget-MCU film. It makes more sense to put other characters further ahead of him, yet they haven't. Captain Marvel and Black Panther both got moved back an entire year because of Spider-Man when if anything they should've been planned sooner, especially Captain Marvel. All of the (admittedly minor) backlash about Black Widow is only magnified by the fact that they decided to put Ant-Man ahead of her and then delayed her a year for Spider-Man. Since Wonder Woman is coming out in 2017, its probably going to hurt the MCU's potential earnings by striking first with a Superhero thats a woman.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
StewShearer said:
Cowabungaa said:
Significantly short? I wouldn't call 2 million compared to the lower end of the expectations on a scale of tens of millions of dollars significantly. I'd say they were pretty close on point, making a cheaper movie and expecting less return thus still guaranteeing decent profit margins.

In other words; despite at what one would think after reading this article's title, I'd say that Marvel Studios still knows what it's doing and doesn't have much reason to be disappointed in this film.

And all in all, at least I had fun with it. The smaller scale felt good, the humour connected with me and the action was creatively enough designed to not make Ant Man feel like a pointless super hero, if still silly. But at least it was aware of that silliness. It also didn't feel so bloody bloated like Avengers 2 did. I'm still looking forward to seeing the unholy long uncut version, but Christ the theater version was wonky.
Honestly, I wasn't sure if "significantly" was fair considering the the fact that the lower end of that range was, as you said, only $2 million more than what the movie earned. I think I'm going to take it out.
In which case I'll edit my own post. Nice one, kudos.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
StewShearer said:
Cowabungaa said:
Significantly short? I wouldn't call 2 million compared to the lower end of the expectations on a scale of tens of millions of dollars significantly. I'd say they were pretty close on point, making a cheaper movie and expecting less return thus still guaranteeing decent profit margins.

In other words; despite at what one would think after reading this article's title, I'd say that Marvel Studios still knows what it's doing and doesn't have much reason to be disappointed in this film.

And all in all, at least I had fun with it. The smaller scale felt good, the humour connected with me and the action was creatively enough designed to not make Ant Man feel like a pointless super hero, if still silly. But at least it was aware of that silliness. It also didn't feel so bloody bloated like Avengers 2 did. I'm still looking forward to seeing the unholy long uncut version, but Christ the theater version was wonky.
Honestly, I wasn't sure if "significantly" was fair considering the the fact that the lower end of that range was, as you said, only $2 million more than what the movie earned. I think I'm going to take it out.
In which case I'll edit my own post. Nice one, kudos.
Fair's fair, y'know? :)
 

J-Dig

New member
Oct 25, 2011
25
0
0
So many articles comparing Ant-Man's takings to The Incredible Hulk, yet that movie cost more to make despite being released seven years ago. So, in real terms, Ant-Man is doing much better.
 

SilverHunter

New member
Sep 22, 2014
47
0
0
A reason it's performance may of been deflated is that, After Ultron, what major thing will he serve as...? Considering he was the comic 's creator of Ultron and the budget for the film likely knew that too, his role overall has yet to really see much. Of course, I haven't seen the movie yet and have been avoiding spoilers, but that's likely how lots of big marvel fans see it as. He ain't "Major Villain Creator, will see later". I expect box office sales will actually stay pretty darn strong for the movie...

As for Guardians success...? Part Marvel, Part James Gunn following, stronger marketing overall with more varied and interesting characters, and people knew that they were likely leading into something much bigger overall.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
It
Cowabungaa said:
Significantly short? I wouldn't call 2 million compared to the lower end of the expectations on a scale of tens of millions of dollars significantly. I'd say they were pretty close on point, making a cheaper movie and expecting less return thus still guaranteeing decent profit margins.

In other words; despite at what one would think after reading this article's title, I'd say that Marvel Studios still knows what it's doing and doesn't have much reason to be disappointed in this film.

And all in all, at least I had fun with it. The smaller scale felt good, the humour connected with me and the action was creatively enough designed to not make Ant Man feel like a pointless super hero, if still silly. But at least it was aware of that silliness. It also didn't feel so bloody bloated like Avengers 2 did. I'm still looking forward to seeing the unholy long uncut version, but Christ the theater version was wonky.
But it only made back 87% of it's production budget it's opening weekend. CATASTROPHIC!!!

Seriously though, I liked the scale and humor. I liked that it ended up being a heist movie too. For all the production troubles that apparently plagued the movie, it came out remarkably well.
 

zinho73

New member
Feb 3, 2011
554
0
0
If you cannot consider the movie a failure, why on earth make a headline that implies it is?

_ Oh, well. It is a rhetoric question as I already know the answer. It is sad, nonetheless, as this site was once much less sensationalist.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,307
0
0
StewShearer said:
Cowabungaa said:
Significantly short? I wouldn't call 2 million compared to the lower end of the expectations on a scale of tens of millions of dollars significantly. I'd say they were pretty close on point, making a cheaper movie and expecting less return thus still guaranteeing decent profit margins.

In other words; despite at what one would think after reading this article's title, I'd say that Marvel Studios still knows what it's doing and doesn't have much reason to be disappointed in this film.

And all in all, at least I had fun with it. The smaller scale felt good, the humour connected with me and the action was creatively enough designed to not make Ant Man feel like a pointless super hero, if still silly. But at least it was aware of that silliness. It also didn't feel so bloody bloated like Avengers 2 did. I'm still looking forward to seeing the unholy long uncut version, but Christ the theater version was wonky.
Honestly, I wasn't sure if "significantly" was fair considering the the fact that the lower end of that range was, as you said, only $2 million more than what the movie earned. I think I'm going to take it out.
Yeah, a bit of "back of the envelope" calculating says that this is a 3.3% error which is well within the margin of uncertainty that comes with predictions around people's habits. I wouldn't call this Significant, nor Statistically Significant without clearer knowledge of the prediction process and the previously established uncertainty in said process.

Still, thanks for the update, and the film is something I am planning to probably go and see anyway.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
669
0
21
It's still an estimate, and not the final weekend take. That'll be a little bit longer to see, and it would be interesting to see if the estimate is revised down or up.

I'm not too shocked by the turn out. The initial critics were jumping on the bash ant-man band wagon because of the slight against edger. That started its RT score at near 60%, and in a rare turn it got revised up to 79% instead of continued to be revised down as with most movies. It's actually rare that people who want to hate a film go to it first.

The initial negative reviews had to dissuade many from going along with the Edgar drama over the last year, but we'll know how well it is with this next weekend since if it has good word of mouth the second weekend won't tank like how an over hyped movie like Green Lantern takes a swan dive after it's opening.
 

Josh123914

They'll fix it by "Monday"
Nov 17, 2009
2,048
0
0
....Ant Man is out?

Nobody irl has been discussing it, and I haven't seen a single advertisement for it. I thought it was several months away.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,640
1,260
118
MarsAtlas said:
snip

Since Wonder Woman is coming out in 2017, its probably going to hurt the MCU's potential earnings by striking first with a Superhero thats a woman.
That depends entirely on if WW is a good movie. This hinges on DC making a good superhero movie that isn't Batman.
 

totheendofsin

some asshole made me set this up
Jul 31, 2009
417
0
0
I had a feeling it would fall short, I mean lets face it Antman was always going to be a hard sell to the general movie going population
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
669
0
21
crimson5pheonix said:
MarsAtlas said:
snip

Since Wonder Woman is coming out in 2017, its probably going to hurt the MCU's potential earnings by striking first with a Superhero thats a woman.
That depends entirely on if WW is a good movie. This hinges on DC making a good superhero movie that isn't Batman.
It can still hurt Marvel. If DC solidifies the belief that a good female superhero is impossible then that'll undermine Captain Marvels profit potential. I'm not sure if I have a lot of faith in Wonder Woman. This is the studio that failed to get the property off the ground several times, and gave us Catwoman among others.
 

K12

New member
Dec 28, 2012
943
0
0
I think it says a lot about the power of the MCU at the moment that it's worth mentioning when a smaller film with a troubled development misses its target by 3%.

I think a lot of people seem to be looking forward to Marvel having their first critical or commercial flop... keep waiting!
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
MarsAtlas said:
snip

Since Wonder Woman is coming out in 2017, its probably going to hurt the MCU's potential earnings by striking first with a Superhero thats a woman.
That depends entirely on if WW is a good movie. This hinges on DC making a good superhero movie that isn't Batman.
Whether WW is good or not, they do strike first by putting out a female superhero first. We don't know how much that would amount to, but I don't think its a stretch to say that people will go out and see it because its something that they haven't seen from a superhero movie in recent memory. Its going to influence some people's decision to see the movie. A lot of people don't wait for or disregard reviews of movies if they're already interested in the film, and leading a superhero movie with a woman will certainly pique interest. That interest won't be present to the same extent by the second female-led superhero movie. Lets not delude ourselves into thinking that quality is what makes people decide to go see a movie.
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
MarsAtlas said:
snip

Since Wonder Woman is coming out in 2017, its probably going to hurt the MCU's potential earnings by striking first with a Superhero thats a woman.
That depends entirely on if WW is a good movie. This hinges on DC making a good superhero movie that isn't Batman.
And based on that, what would be the outcome of WW being good/bad?

It's not a boxing match where they're against eachother, 'striking first' doesn't mean if you do well than all of a sudden the population has now met it's quota for interest in female superhero movies and will never see a second.

It's just as possible that even if Wonder Woman is great, it'll do poorly because people aren't sure about it, leaving a future movie better off a year later now that they've been warmed up a little. Or it'll suck, having a negative impact for any followers, or that might also not matter. Or it'll be great, do great, and make no difference to anything.

Point being, who knows. Being first doesn't make a hell of a lot of predictable difference.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
18,159
1
3
Country
UK
Kinda not suprising per say (I was expecting the total money taking would be low especially when compared to the Avengers). I mean he's the only second characters (first is Guardian of the Galaxy) who isn't part of the Avengers (yet). Even my mate who is a comicbook fan wasn't too bother seeing the movie straight away even when I told him it was great.