Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought about half of the money is made well after the theatrical release gets pulled? DVD sales etc...
Yup.
Ticket prices only represent a fraction of a movie's profitability these days. Besides ticket sales, there are DVD sales, cable rights, video games, clothing, novelizations, kids' books, toys, collectibles, and all the various licensing elements. I have no doubt that ANT-MAN will make Marvel/Disney a substantial profit.
That said, studio accountants are great at making movies as profitable as they want them to be. Look at a movie like Return of the Jedi, one of the most successful movies of all time. But according to Lucasfilm, the movie has yet to make a profit. Why? Because when it does, Lucasfilm has to pay a lot of people more money, and they don't want to do that. So the accountants and lawyers cook the books to make the movie "legally unprofitable."
Yeah, I didn't mean it had passed the break-even point. LOL.
Take the production and marketing, add them together and double it. That's breaking even. Studios get much less from the foreign market, too.
If it does well on DVD and Blu-ray, as I imagine it will, that's more revenue. Man of Steel grossed $668M worldwide (they expected more) but then it absolutely killed on DVD & Blu, going right to #1!
We often hear about the tremendous struggles that studios battle on a daily basis...just to stay alive. Yet Hollywood seems to find a way to place one heckuva lot of people into breathtaking lifestyles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
Yeah, I didn't mean it had passed the break-even point. LOL.
Take the production and marketing, add them together and double it. That's breaking even. Studios get much less from the foreign market, too.
If it does well on DVD and Blu-ray, as I imagine it will, that's more revenue. Man of Steel grossed $668M worldwide (they expected more) but then it absolutely killed on DVD & Blu, going right to #1!
Antman, Dr.Strange, and Black Panther should be Netflix movies. Alone those characters can't drive a movie.
Dr. Strange is a little too specially effecty for Netflix though it would work for the Defenders (as Strange was typically a leader of that group.) Black Panther could work as it is more of a straight-up action movie compared to other new Marvel heroes introduced in phase 3.
The only reason it is being suggested for Ant-Man is that the budget could be reigned in for its sequel as break-even wise, it is roughly hitting the production budget in just the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
The Ant-Man movie drove me just fine.
On the one hand, I would much prefer all the super heroes on TV rather than movies. TV series offer 10+ hours to develop character that you just can't do in a 2 - 3 hour movie.
On the other hand, TV just doesn't have the movies' budget for the big time special effects that super heroes need. Low effects heroes like Daredevil, the Punisher, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, etc. can work on TV. I think a creative director with a parkour expert could even pull off a great Spidey TV show. But for heroes like Iron Man, Ant-Man, the Fantastic Four ... eh, I'm not so sure.
I remember the days of low budget super heroes on TV. Not pretty.
Yeah like the campy 1970's Wonder Woman or 1960's Batman. By comparison, the 1990's Lois & Clark: Adventures of Superman was actually good. Then again that was 20 years later.
I remember having the argument with Spider-Man as I don't think it would look real enough to Spider-Man on Netflix under a lower budget and much reigned in effects (in particular for the Rogues.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoGuy
Antman has already pulled in 147 million. No shortage of "butts to the seats." Would have done much better if Antman already enjoyed a larger following....like Thor or The Hulk. It started with an anthill instead of a mountain. Did real well considering.
I am not denying that Ant-Man didn't have a pretty good box office, it just is straggling behind Captain America: The First Avenger to not even be in the top ten box office of MCU movies. That is an interesting thing to note as it is second to last of the six introductory movies (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man.) Not questioning its success, but it is an interesting analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
Ant-Man looks to be a break-even project, but the words "ANT-MAN WILL RETURN" at the beginning of the credits scroll, like "TONY STARK WILL RETURN," don't necessarily point to Ant-Man 2 being added to the slate anytime soon. First they want to see how Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Captain Marvel perform.
Yeah, that is how I took it though Ant-Man had a nice set of characters introduced through it. That is is mainly because Captain America and Thor are likely not continuning (at least as we know them right now) after Phase 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Ant-Man is going to be in Captain America 3: Civil War. Beyond that ... who knows?
Honestly, I'd much rather see five more Ant-Man movies than another Thor movie.
I read Ragnarok which the subtitle of the next Thor film is and honestly it could REALLY be good. I also hope they may bring in the new Thor in a way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoGuy
I thought about half of the money is made well after the theatrical release gets pulled? DVD sales etc...
It depends on how successful they are. The problem with that is that fewer and fewer buy dvds now.
I remember having the argument with Spider-Man as I don't think it would look real enough to Spider-Man on Netflix under a lower budget and much reigned in effects (in particular for the Rogues.)
That's definitely a just concern. Spider-Man is second only to Batman in having the best rogues' gallery, many of which would require some pretty intense special effects to pull off. Could it be done? Sure. Could it be done on a TV show's budget? Ehh... I dunno.
But Spidey has such a rich world, not only in terms of his enemies, but also his home front and Peter Parker's life, that none of the movies have yet been able to capture. I'd love to see that given the depth it is due in an 18 hour TV series. But yeah, having a typical TV series budget would be a big hurdle to leap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I read Ragnarok which the subtitle of the next Thor film is and honestly it could REALLY be good. I also hope they may bring in the new Thor in a way.
Granted, I am not and never have been a Thor fan. Even as a kid when I read pretty much everything Marvel published, I never got the appeal of Thor.
I liked the Thor movies in that I was surprised that I didn't hate them. They weren't bad. But neither were very memorable. I'm still having to struggle a little bit to remember what the second one was even about. I'm pretty sure a bad guy threatened Asgard and Thor whalloped him with his hammer. And Doctor Who was involved somehow. But other than that, I don't remember much about Thor 2 at all.
Haven't seen it yet. I'm not a fan of superhero/comic book movies, but I might get around to seeing this one just for the special effects. I've heard they're awesome. I would be interested to see what they could do effects-wise with a remake of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids or Innerspace (I'm a sucker for the terrible, cheesy 80s movies of my youth).
Ant-Man is getting a sequel in 2018 called Ant-Man and the Wasp. Marvel announced this at New York Comic Con.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.