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

[crimson5pheonix]

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.

Possibly true, but I feel like Marvel wouldn't sink a property over DC failing to make a movie. That and Marvel can make anything (up to and including a talking raccoon) sell to the people. This thread is here saying that their idea of "poor performance" is to have a movie merely get the top spot in it's opening weekend.

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.

Catwoman. Which was terrible despite being based on a Batman property :\

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.

I see movies for quality. There's an industry built around gauging the quality of movies. Being a woman led superhero movie won't necessarily bring in very many viewers if the movie isn't worth watching. Being WW might just out of being one of the big 3 of DC. But like medv said, WW tanking might cool studios off of using female heroes (apart from Marvel because they know what they're doing).

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.

The idea being that they'll trumpet up "first (good) female superhero movie" and get a few extra sales that way. I don't buy into it much, but there might be some people who watch movies for landmark diversity sake or whatever.

 

[Mazinger-Z]

The idea being that they'll trumpet up "first (good) female superhero movie" and get a few extra sales that way. I don't buy into it much, but there might be some people who watch movies for landmark diversity sake or whatever.

Femsploitation is the word.

 

[vallorn]

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.

They also tried to ruin anything to do with space based superheores with Green Lantern which failed thanks to Guardians of the Galaxy and, by this point, I think pretty much all consumers know that anything DC makes which isn't Batman is going to be complete and utter bilgewater...

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.

I honestly don't think that people care if a superhero is a guy or girl by this point, We've seen enough good, female superheroes and main characters in Marvel's lineup so far that the idea isn't exactly new to us. That is to say, Black Widow, Gamora, Pepper (Iron Man Three she DOES get superpowers and ends up beating the bad guy so I'm counting her.), Agent Carter and Sky (For all her Mary Sue tendencies she's been a really good character for the last few seasons).

With this in mind, I don't think anyone is going to be seeing this as a "First woman superhero" movie. We've all seen women as comic book heroes of various flavors by now and so the idea has no novelty to it.

 

[Mazinger-Z]

I honestly don't think that people care if a superhero is a guy or girl by this point, We've seen enough good, female superheroes and main characters in Marvel's lineup so far that the idea isn't exactly new to us. That is to say, Black Widow, Gamora, Pepper (Iron Man Three she DOES get superpowers and ends up beating the bad guy so I'm counting her.), Agent Carter and Sky (For all her Mary Sue tendencies she's been a really good character for the last few seasons).

With this in mind, I don't think anyone is going to be seeing this as a "First woman superhero" movie. We've all seen women as comic book heroes of various flavors by now and so the idea has no novelty to it.

A Captain Marvel featuring Carol Danvers movie would probably go over better. She had way more depth, though I dislike her current run.

 

[pilouuuu]

Well, they still have some time to keep on making money. Word of mouth will help people go watch it. Also maybe some people were somewhat disappointed by Ultron and decided not to watch Ant-Man at the cinemas?

Whatever the case, just imagine if DC decided to make a movie about, let's say, Blue Beetle. It would be a massive flop! Marvel can release a third tier superhero movie and still be fine, even if it's not a big success like The Avengers. Anyway these movies are helping add more characters to the MCU and The Avengers 3, so it's always a win for them. Heck, they could make a movie about Squirrel Girl and it would still be a success!

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Catwoman. Which was terrible despite being based on a Batman property :\

You're really going to drag out a movie from elevent years ago when the relation to comic book superheroes and popular entertainment was completely different? When production values were completely different? When expectations were completely different? That was before Batman Begins, The Dark Knight Rises, Watchmen, Avengers and all of the fairly successful superhero television shows. I might as well drag out the 1990 Captain America movie and using that films hysterically poor box office gross (.1% of its budget) and use that as a point.

Does it not count as a female led comic book movie? WW won't be the first female comic book movie.

I see movies for quality.

Well good for you, but many people impulsively go out and see a movie with disregard to reviews because they're interested in the ideas or intellectual property. Your stanards = everybody's standards, and you can't reasonably try to apply them in such a manner. I only go see what I call "movie theater movies" in the theaters - movies that are heavy on action, visual effects, audio and large-scale sets, stuff like Pacific Rim. Ex Machina looks great but its not one of those types of movies so I didn't go see it. Thats my personal standard, and its a laughable notion that its the same standard person going to the movies.

No, but that's why I paired it up with my next statement, that's there's an industry built around reviews. Clearly somebody is reading these things.

There's an industry built around gauging the quality of movies. Being a woman led superhero movie won't necessarily bring in very many viewers if the movie isn't worth watching.

Colonial Marines sold over a million copies in a month. People buy shit based on hype, intellectual property and ideas. It happens. Bad movies are sometimes finacially successful. How do you think Adam Sandler is still around?

The studio that developed Colonial Marines went under because a million copies ain't shit. Context matters. Movies with better reviews tend to make more money. Marvel movies make more money than DC movies despite filling the same niche primarily on the fact that Marvel movies are better. Batman movies from DC tend to make more money than any other DC movie because they're the only ones DC does well.

Being WW might just out of being one of the big 3 of DC. But like medv said, WW tanking might cool studios off of using female heroes (apart from Marvel because they know what they're doing).

Or if being bad could increase the demand, people wanting a good female-led superhero movie. When Colonial Marines bombed everybody averted their eyes to Creative Assembly, who was busy toiling away on their own Alien game.

The demand is always there, the question is supply. Who wants to make a female comic book movie if they tend to do poorly no matter what the public says they want?

 

[Mazinger-Z]

Does it not count as a female led comic book movie? WW won't be the first female comic book movie.

Not even Catwoman was...

[http://imgur.com/8ZfnGXo]

Also, going by the logic that hype is what sells, does that mean even if a WW movie is a blockbuster success, it'll because it was hyped well and not for the quality of its content?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Does it not count as a female led comic book movie? WW won't be the first female comic book movie.

Not even Catwoman was...

[http://imgur.com/8ZfnGXo]

If I remember correctly, Elektra came out a year after Catwoman. Though yes, Supergirl exists. But that's well before modern movie making.

 

[Mazinger-Z]

If I remember correctly, Elektra came out a year after Catwoman. Though yes, Supergirl exists. But that's well before modern movie making.

You could quibble and throw in the Tomb Raider films as well, because at the end of the day, super hero films are action films with lots of special effects and CGI and Tomb Raider is a franchise with strong nerd roots.

 

[P-89 Scorpion]

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.

It hasn't made 87% of it's production budget.

First $58 million is not 87% of $130 million.

Second of that $58 million the studios see at most half the cinema chains take there cut too remember.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If I remember correctly, Elektra came out a year after Catwoman. Though yes, Supergirl exists. But that's well before modern movie making.

You could quibble and throw in the Tomb Raider films as well, because at the end of the day, super hero films are action films with lots of special effects and CGI and Tomb Raider is a franchise with strong nerd roots.

If we're doing that I could point to Lucy as a pretty good super heroine movie.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

My reaction to this in a nutshell


this is a marvel movie, they're going to make the money back. people are just freaked out that it didn't do mine blowing good like guardians of the galaxy

Seriously this is the movie equivalent of first world problems.

 

[Kargathia]

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.

I'd say this is not as much about Escapist sensationalism, as it is about Marvel suffering Pixar syndrome. The moment anything they make doesn't knock it so far out of the park it reaches geostationary orbit, it's a failure.

 

[Redd the Sock]

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.

Ant-Man was in and out of development since phase 1. It wasn't the most logical move, but he was a founding avenger so it was felt he had to be there, and afterwards they just didn't give up on the project.

As for the woman thing, while times have changed some, there have been some leaked e-mails that have Marvel pointing to those 3 movies people have brought up already as to why there's hesitation

http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/marvel-ceo-doesnt-believe-in-female-superheroes-20150504

and I can't imagine the kerfuffle with Black Widow has helped the folks at Marvel to think a female lead isn't a minefield they'd prefer to avoid waltzing through. I don't know if it's sexism or just the reality that they won't do anyone any favors by putting out shit just to have diversity. It could set back female leads even further back if the studio that can't fail, fails first on Captain Marvel or Black Widow, giving the impression that all the demand for such things is just online bitching for equal time, not a legitimate cash cow.

 

[Zontar]

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.

I'd say this is not as much about Escapist sensationalism, as it is about Marvel suffering Pixar syndrome. The moment anything they make doesn't knock it so far out of the park it reaches geostationary orbit, it's a failure.

I don't think Marvel has gone Pixar syndrome yet, since the worst movie they've made was a boring, disjointed but still above average blockbuster (Iron Man 2) while Pixar has had two outright critical failures, as well as two which are 100% reliant on nostalgia that would fall under the "critical failure" category if one did not have them.

Speaking of Pixar, I miss Pixar, they made good animated movies. What happened to them men? Dreamworks is putting out better stuff now, that just isn't right.

OT: I honestly have to say that given everything this movie had going against it, coupled with an abismul ad campaign, the numbers turned out pretty well. I mean it's almost grossed as much as its budget in its first weekend alone, which is pretty good for a blockbuster, even if not the norm for a Marvel movie.

 

[Ukomba]

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.

It hasn't made 87% of it's production budget.

First $58 million is not 87% of $130 million.

Second of that $58 million the studios see at most half the cinema chains take there cut too remember.

God I hate when people argue with me about math. Especially simple math like this.
e_e clearly I'm talking about Worldwide total.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=antman.htm

Domestic: $57,225,526
+ Foreign: $56,400,000
------------------------------
Worldwide: $113,625,526

113,625,526 / 130,000,000 = 87.4 %

Though you are right that the theater takes some of that, you're wrong on the amount. The first couple of weeks, the theater takes around 20% ? 25% on average, and some times all the way down to 0%, like with Star Wars. Only around week 2/3 does it go up to ~50%.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Does it not count as a female led comic book movie?

For all intents and purposes, yes. Our culture has changed a lot in eleven years, and its intellectually dishonest to recognize that how the general public responds to comic book superheroes is one of them.

I'm fairly certain it doesn't work that way. For sure anybody saying that WW will be the first female led comic book movie would be dishonest.

WW won't be the first female comic book movie.

The first one in our current cultural space, which is what people mean when they talk about superhero movies. Again, bringing up Catwoman would be like bringing up 1990 Captain America. Superhero movies have been around, but they've absoluted dominated our culture since Batman Begins was released and brought the raised the quality of superhero films to a new level.

I believe similar words were used to describe 1989 Batman as well.

No, but that's why I paired it up with my next statement, that's there's an industry built around reviews. Clearly somebody is reading these things.

Yeah, some people, particularly the kind of folks who don't go out and see movies inpulsively. Green Lantern was a complete critical flop and made 52 million in its first weekend. Meanwhile, films like Mad Max: Fury Road, which had a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes and is still up there as the best received film of the year, can open for less than Ant-Man while spending more. Its broken even but its still has earned less than Jurassic World, Age of Ultron, Furious 7 even though it rated higher than each of them. Its made less than Fifty Shades of Grey, which was absolutely panned. Clearly plenty of people disregard movie reviews when deciding what they want to see. Hell, some people just go to the movies to get out of the summer heat. Critical reception is not the be-all end-all of a film's financial success. Look at most controversial summer blockbuster in recent memory, Man of Steel - many fans were absolutely furious with the film, and it didn't get a great critical reception, but it was a successful film, making 115 million domestically on its opening weekend. Why did people flock to it despite a very mixed critical reception? Some people just want to watch Superman on the big screen. Its the same reason over a million people bought Colonial Marines even after details and even footage about how awful the game was started appearing the week befores its release. You don't have to be one of those people, but you cannot disregard the fact that people can just go watch a movie or buy a game for a flippant reason.

All you have to do is look at statistics.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/28/marvel-vs-dc-can-you-guess-which-is-the-better-bus.aspx

There are outliers and summer popcorn movies always do well, but better movies make more money on average. Banking on a statistical anomaly isn't a smart move.

The studio that developed Colonial Marines went under because a million copies ain't shit.

The studio that was contracted to make Colonial Marines was Gearbox. SEGA contracted Gearbox to make Colonial Marines. Who do you think saw all the money from sales? It ain't Timegate, they had a shady deal to be funded by Gearbox. We haven't even seen the aftermath of Colonial Marines yet. Hypothetically SEGA could still file multiple winning lawsuits against Gearbox, which would devastate the studio, possibily kill it off even despite the success of the Borderlands IP.

And the game was a flop. It flopped so hard that they've already had to pay damages in a lawsuit against how hard it sucked.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/11/5993509/aliens-colonial-marines-class-action-settlement

This doesn't seem like a financial success story to me.

Context matters. Movies with better reviews tend to make more money.

Tend. Tend. Mathematically more likely. All that means is that 50.1% of films that have good reviews are considered financially sucessful. Remember this bit from 2013 about movies that passed the Bechdel Test making more money than those that didn't? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130983-Movies-Passing-the-Bechdel-Test-for-Sexism-Earned-More-in-2013] Should we start using this as a definitive measure for a film's success? Fuck no, because The Avengers clearly didn't pass the Bechdel Test and it set box office records.

But that's exactly what you're arguing. Marvel's passing up on a financial opportunity to release a female centric comic book movie before DC does (even though DC has already released female centric comic book movies before, but they don't count for reasons), right?

Marvel movies make more money than DC movies despite filling the same niche primarily on the fact that Marvel movies are better. Batman movies from DC tend to make more money than any other DC movie because they're the only ones DC does well.

Man of Steel earned more than Iron-Man 2, Captain America: The First Avenger, both Thor films and The Incredible Hulk. All of those films met a better critical reception. Quality is absolutely not a positive indicator of financial. Mad Max: Fury Road met a better critical and audience reception than Jurassic World on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and imdb, yet Jurassic World earned five times as much as Fury Road. Why? Because dinosaurs, thats why. That and the fact that "Jurassic" is in the title. You can't mathematically predict what audiences will go see. If you could, the suits in Hollywood could and there'd never be a flop released.

But it did not make as much as The Avengers, Iron Man 3, Spider-Man (which wasn't even by Marvel studios), Guardians, or The Winter Soldier. Because these movies are generally better, so they make more money.

#statistics

The demand is always there, the question is supply. Who wants to make a female comic book movie if they tend to do poorly no matter what the public says they want?

People can attribute various measures of success and failure to different reasons. One of my favourite movies, considered a horror classic and a foundational store for a generation of horror directions, The Thing, was a flop. Why? Because it opened again E.T. Don't you think people might possibly rightfully attribute a flop of a Wonder Woman to various factors other than quality? Maybe it could be attributed to how she's received in Batman V Superman, maybe people don't want to see that Wonder Woman? Or maybe because it has a grim dark NO PARENTS tone? Or maybe because peopel catch on to the fact that WB suck at anybody not named Batman? Or maybe its superhero fatigure? Or maybe its successful because of its grim dark NO PARENTS tone? Man of Steel did pretty well even with a dark tone, whats not to say it would've done better or worse without it? If Wonder Woman fails people will of course speculate that nobody wants a female superhero and if it is a success people will speculate the opposite. Thats all speculation, however. An audience member may go see a movie for one singular reason, people certainly already vote that way, but it would be nonsense to measure the success or failure of a movie on one singular factor. People will most certainly attribute success and failure to different factors, especially if they have some sort of personal investment in the outcome.

Besides, its a moot point altogether because Captain Marvel will already be in post-production, if not outright finished by the time Wonder Woman is released. Marvel Studios isn't going to withhold a movie that will have a budget of at least a hundred million even if Wonder Woman flops spectacularly.

I don't disagree with this, and I don't agree with the opinion that female led movies fail because they're female led, but that's executive opinion (no matter how poor).

 

[HardkorSB]

Ant-Man is also the cheapest movie from the MCU (even Ang Lee's Hulk was more expensive).
I think that makes a bit of a difference.

 

[Kargathia]

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.

I'd say this is not as much about Escapist sensationalism, as it is about Marvel suffering Pixar syndrome. The moment anything they make doesn't knock it so far out of the park it reaches geostationary orbit, it's a failure.

I don't think Marvel has gone Pixar syndrome yet, since the worst movie they've made was a boring, disjointed but still above average blockbuster (Iron Man 2) while Pixar has had two outright critical failures, as well as two which are 100% reliant on nostalgia that would fall under the "critical failure" category if one did not have them.

Speaking of Pixar, I miss Pixar, they made good animated movies. What happened to them men? Dreamworks is putting out better stuff now, that just isn't right.

OT: I honestly have to say that given everything this movie had going against it, coupled with an abismul ad campaign, the numbers turned out pretty well. I mean it's almost grossed as much as its budget in its first weekend alone, which is pretty good for a blockbuster, even if not the norm for a Marvel movie.

I might need to update my terminology a bit, as Pixar indeed dropped off quite a bit by now, and produced genuine shite (Monsters Academy). The thing I was referring to was that as soon as they released a merely-pretty-decent-movie (Brave), it was treated as a dud.

For almost any other studio, Ant Man would probably be a resounding success, both critically and financially.

 

[Platypus540]

I'm surprised, I and everyone I know who saw it thought this was one of the better Marvel movies