How to use this Page

It’s just a puzzle to me with all the properties that Marvel owns, that they would close this one. Inhumans, Moon Knight, Powerman, and/or Iron Fist, Hawwkeye, the list goes on and on, but any of these would have been better choices.

When people see a tree in their backyard they think it’s neat. When they see a raccoon, they crow with delight. When they see and ant…they’re ambivalent.

I think this one will pick up more fans in the weeks following release. No, it’s not anything any of the standard fans have expected but there a lot more general movie fans who seem to really have enjoyed it. I’m betting that word of mouth will help boost tickets over the next two weeks.

Edgar Wright’s previous comic book movie, SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD, was a box-office flop (despite its good reviews and acclaim by fans and film buffs). His name obviously doesn’t sell tickets, at least not to a mainstream audience in the U.S. So I doubt an ANT-MAN directed by Wright would have done any better.

I can’t comment on ANT-MAN’s quality because I haven’t seen it yet, but I’m looking forward to it. At least it looks fun (and funny), and I’m all for fun superhero movies — as opposed to the dark and humorless DC movie style.

From what I’ve gathered, ANT-MAN has more in common with classic caper films (like RIFFIFI) and ’50s sci-fi (like THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN) than to modern superhero movies. As John S. said above, it may be more to the liking of general movie fans than to standard comic-book fans.

You know, we say Ant-Man should have legs, and perhaps it will…but I think the Adam Sandler-Kevin James starring Pixels may actually prove a roadblock for that happening. I know, it’s a horrible thing to think about, but I’m just throwing it out there.

Just saw the movie and loved it. Would I have preferred a Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne movie that was more in line with the classic comics but as far as the MCU goes it’s a nice fit. I think $58 million for a movie about Ant-Man is pretty good.

PIXELS looks like a bomb, with poor marketing. ANT-MAN was a fun caper film, with a charming star that works well for kids too. Hard to expect too much from a character that hasn’t sold well ever. I like that Marvel keeps mixing genres with these films–love to see a Hammer like version of Tomb of Dracula down the line!

It opened at #1, maintaining Marvel’s streak. It’s making money.

The bottom four MCU movies with the lowest openings are all solo Part Ones.

I would not be surprised if, in Phase Four, Marvel releases only Team movies, and uses them as backdoor pilots to introduce new characters (as seen with Falcon, Black Widow, Hawkeye).

This makes for better chemistry (as seen in Guardians of the Galaxy).
It also avoids the Internet minefield of producing a movie starring a strong female protagonist… you can place them in an ensemble, and give them a few moments on screen.

Single characters? Netflix. “TV”. More time (13 hours for Daredevil), less risk, better return on investment. (The Netflix deal? $200 Million budget for 60 episodes. $6 Million for two hours? (It’s about the same cost as Mad Men or Walking Dead.) Compared to… $130 Million for Ant-Man?!? (Yes, Ant-Man has lots of CGI, but it’s not much different than the Marvel Knights, it’s very grounded in gritty urban San Francisco.)

Like the Netflix deal working up to “The Defenders”, any other solo series can do the same (See: They Fight Crime! trope), or cameo the character in one of the Marvel movies.

If a story demands great special effects (Ant-Man, Dr. Strange) or action (Black Panther?), then push it through IMAX and Real 3D.

Also, Marvel can use the movies to springboard television series.
The credit cookie in Dr. Strange can tease Man-Thing and the Nexus of Realities. (Half of the episodes involve strange things in the Florida Everglades, half deal with alternate realities.)

Shawn Kane said: “I think $58 million for a movie about Ant-Man is pretty good.”

Right. I don’t think anyone expected ANT-MAN to do AVENGERS or X-MEN business. Some observers didn’t expect it to open at No. 1.

A lot of people were amazed by GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY’s success, but GUARDIANS tapped into the public’s desire for Star Wars-like space opera; it filled a need as we wait for the actual Star Wars movie in December. ANT-MAN is more of a left-field hit.

Interesting article: “How ANT-MAN highlights the sad state of Marvel’s female characters”:

http://screencrush.com/wasp-marvel-female-characters/

$58 million for an Ant-Man movie is just fine. $58 million for a Marvel superhero movie in a post-Avengers climate is a bit less so. That’s really what it boils down to, and it highlights that the Marvel brand won’t sell HUGE on its own. We didn’t know that up until now. We’ll see what effect that has on Doctor Strange (starring Benedict Cumberbatch, and should be an interesting test case for his popularity), Black Panther, and Captain Marvel. Does the expected threshold for a Marvel solo debut lower? Probably.