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

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

Marvel Cinematic Universe Ant-Man 4

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

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 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 to make about $58 million. Save for 2008's The Incredible Hulk, no other feature film in the 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: Comic Book Resources

Permalink

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.

Cowabungaa:
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.

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.

StewShearer:

Cowabungaa:
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.

Cowabungaa:

StewShearer:

Cowabungaa:
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? :)

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.

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.

It

Cowabungaa:
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.

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.

StewShearer:

Cowabungaa:
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.

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.

....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.

MarsAtlas:
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.

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

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
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.

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!

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
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.

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
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.

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.

Relative failure is relative is all that needs be said, frankly. I gather the numbers it's doing are just below what was expected, but we'll see how it goes in the next week or so.

Marvel Studios/Disney can easily and effortlessly absorb this. Hell, Ant-Man and the current numbers could be seen by them as a 'save', given how bad a lot of people were saying Ant-Man could turn out (though much of that was just clickbait white noise, or/and people waiting to pounce on a 'disaster' by Marvel for the MCU. the MCU's already had Iron Man 2 and frikkin' Thor 2 - I'd say Ant-Man's a superior film to both by a long shot).

Besides, Civil War's up next, and that'll quickly make everyone forget the modest performance of Lang's hijinks.

Ant Man was also horribly marketed. I think GotG got better marketing.

Also laughing at DC comics. Batman's been their best property by and large because he's the easiest to give depth to. He has motivation. Flash follows ironically in a close second, Barry being relatable as someone who was human and (until recently) unmarked by tragedy. Green Lantern got a decent personality upgrade post-Crisis, but Geoff Johns really rounded out the character and the other people who also carried the title like Stewart and Rayner.

Superman's a blank slate. He's supposed to represent All American Values and the Boy Scout. He's not allowed to have opinions and values that might be controversial (and considering that he was raised by two Kansas farmers, what would his values be?) Which is why it generally seemed uncharacteristic of him to kill someone. Ironically, he won't be on trial for that (tho I guess who could blame him), just all the other stuff that wasn't his fault directly. Tho movies and film like to make it like he's an alien first and Clark Kent second, when the character probably had the best runs when he was Clark and not Kal El.

Wonder Woman's anachronistic. Her conception was for a "strong, independent woman" in a time that it was out of the ordinary. That reflected up through her first post-Crisis run. Sadly, her characterization has always been inconsistent. At times, she's portrayed as aggressive and overly militant, which interestingly conflicts with her "bring peace to man's world" ambassadorial mission, or treated as some sort of soothsayer.

More modern depictions of her have played up the aggressive, almost war-mongering side of her. For instance, in the JLA Tower of Babel arc, her weakness was her drive and in a virtual reality where she couldn't beat her opponent, she would keep fighting until her heart gave out. Cutting Superman's throat when he was under Max Lord's mind control and kicking the crap out of her and then snapping Max Lord's neck to free Superman from his mind control. Or Kingdom Come, where she overcompensates (as Batman observes) for being banished from Paradise Island for failing to "bring peace to man's world" by enforcing peace militantly, even killing those who aren't stepping in line. At war with Atlantis (taking over Europe IIRC) in Flashpoint. Or the Injustice comic where she saddles up to Superman post-Lois-killed-by-Joker and encourages his authoritarian takeover.

Also remember the entire point of her choice as ambassador (in the versions where she doesn't just run away with Amazonian bracelets) is not because she any special qualities to her character, but because she beat the asses of every other person looking to become the pick to go represent the Amazons.

medv4380:

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
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.

MarsAtlas:

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
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).

Jadak:

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
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.

crimson5pheonix:
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.

medv4380:

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
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...

MarsAtlas:

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

vallorn:
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.

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!

MarsAtlas:

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?

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...

image

image

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?

Mazinger-Z:

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...

image

image

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

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.

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.

Mazinger-Z:

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.

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.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here