Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
July 21, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Ben Gruchow: The relevant Marvel comparisons as far as opening are, I think, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. Summer of 2011 was really the only time that the MCU was sort of an unknown quantity as far as whether the whole thing could pay off. (Iron Man exploded in 2008, the sequel had advance goodwill because of it; The Avengers exploded and gave Iron Man 3 a halo; Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy had the dual benefit of anticipation for the Avengers sequel and very good critical reception.) These two provide the fairest comparison: they were both tests of the brand, reviews were good but not spectacular, and the lead actors were familiar but not household names.
Grading on this curve, Ant-Man’s $57 million is okay. It shows a decent amount of audience attrition (7.1 million tickets versus 8.1 million for both of the first two), which is expected because the concept is sillier than the other Marvel brands while also looking (from the trailers) sort of bland and middle-of-the-road. I remember seeing the trailers multiple times in front of other movies, and the final gag with the train set (which does work better in the film itself) garnered a few sporadic chuckles but not much else. It was perceived as a lightweight relative to the Marvel stable, and this opening is in line with that.
Edwin Davies: This strikes me as a decent result for a character that people aren't familiar with and a concept that looked a little silly. Paul Rudd is a well-liked actor who isn't a draw, and reviews were respectful rather than enthusiastic. Plus, it had to overcome its much-discussed production history, which probably won't matter to most audiences but could have shaved off a few millions from fans who decided to see what the response was like.
Now, the rejoinder to that is the question of why did Ant-Man do sub-Thor numbers where Guardians of the Galaxy opened to $90 million, and I think the answer might be Avengers fatigue. Guardians was more or less separate from the main MCU storyline, and while Ant-Man is somewhat standalone, it resembles the other Avengers movies just enough that there isn't the sense of novelty there. It also probably wasn't helped by opening in the immediate wake of Age of Ultron, which maybe sucked all the air out of the room when it comes to superhero movies, and made Ant-Man looked a little small by comparison.
Felix Quinonez: I think it did just fine. It might have been too silly looking to really draw audiences outside of the already converted who would watch anything with the Marvel name. But the people who did see it seemed to enjoy it, based on its A Cinemascore, so legs are not out of the questions. That being said, it should still see a profit. And it will also score Marvel some cred points among the hardcore fans who want more than just the big names.
Max Braden: I think that's a solid opening everyone should be happy with. Not every MCU movie is going to open as big as your big hitters like Iron Man, Cap, or The Avengers just because it's a Marvel property. I think by all rights anything outside the handful of iconic comic book characters should open in the mid-20s. Plus, consider that Paul Rudd has been acting for 20 years now (Clueless was released July 21, 1995) and for most of that time he's been stuck in the “nice guy but not leading man” category. As a co-lead his best opening was in 2010 with $23 million for playing the straight man to Steve Carrell in Dinner for Schmucks. Obviously, the Marvel factor was key to a large opening, but everything I'm reading about the movie is saying Rudd was the right casting for the movie. I think this is a win-win all around.
Jason Barney: It isn't a sizzling start....but it was never supposed to be. Ant-Man doing well enough this weekend is another nod to the product line Marvel is saturating the market with. Ant-Man, a totally unknown comic book character with no sparkle, history, or pedigree just won the weekend with a good opening.
John Hamann's global $400 million number is pretty close to the mark with respect to what Ant-Man will need to do to make a profit, and it is already 25% of the way there. Admittedly the easiest money is in the first couple of weekends, but I would imagine the expansion overseas will take some time. The point is, Marvel just opened a total unknown property and when all is said and done they will make another profit from it.
Ryan Kyle: This is a fine start. It opened within spitting distance of the first Thor and Captain America, which is quite remarkable given that Ant-Man definitely doesn't come close to the name level recognition those two iconic heroes do, even before the whole Avengers line-up happened. Ant-Man didn't hit Guardians levels, because let's be honest, it never looked like that hot of a film as the more zany-Guardians did. Also, Guardians was bridging the gap between the first and second Avengers movie. Now that we've all seen Ultron rise, the fever pitch is gone. Assuming the film has normal legs, $175 million should be the total cume, which ranks fairly well within the Marvel film properties.
David Mumpower: I believe Ant-Man represents the purest demonstration of the Marvel brand. It's a laughable concept that BOP's been mocking for at least a decade. That's how long the Ant-Man rumors have existed, and it's stood as an absurd concept the whole time. Edgar Wright was the perfect choice as director, and it broke my heart that Marvel dumped him in order to make the film straight rather than silly.
Despite all the knocks on it, Ant-Man opened strong on Thursday and held relatively well through the weekend. I disagree with the notion that it'll have great legs, as its numbers since Friday indicate some frontloading. Simply because it's Marvel and they skew young isn't enough to expect legs. While the reviews and Cinemascore are also positives, I suspect that Disney has enticed all the loyalists already. From now on, it's going to be trickier to get people to look past the concept.
Keeping all the above in mind, I think this opening is spectacular. Occam's Razor applies here. FREAKING ANT-MAN just opened north of $50 million. It opened higher than The Incredible Hulk, a known character with a more action-packed concept. No, it's not as good as other Marvel properties since the MCU's debut, but relative to what they had to work with, this is an amazing achievement.
Kim Hollis: Is Ant-Man the silliest concept ever to open over $50 million? If not, what is - and why?
Ben Gruchow: It's not the silliest concept I've heard of...but then, if you'd pitched me *any* of the Marvel projects back in the day when a $50 million opening was a bigger milestone, I'd have thought them all improbable.
What's the silliest concept I can think of that opened over $50 million, on the basis of pitch? Honestly, Ted. “A boy wishes for his teddy bear to come to life, and it does so as a profane, sex-obsessed, misogynistic stuffed animal. It'll star the guy from The Happening and Max Payne and the voice of Peter Griffin.” Silly, not incredibly original, cynical. The movie itself was more than the sum of its parts.
What's the silliest concept I can think of that opened over $50 million, based on how ridiculous the finished product looked? Van Helsing. I have trouble understanding how that one could've gotten to a $50 million total. I was a far less demanding moviegoer in 2004, and even I got the Forest Whitaker eye when I looked at those special effects and that dialogue.
Edwin Davies: Jackass 3D is the one that immediately springs to mind. The idea that people would be clamoring to see the third cinematic version of a very silly and gross TV show that at the time had been off the air for eight years remains kind of crazy to me.
Max Braden: To start with, my brain has trouble seeing the silliness that other people are seeing (I'm not judging, I just don't see it), so I'm going to have trouble coming up with a comparison. Comic book characters have always been silly or unrealistic. A guy gets bitten by a spider and can all of a sudden swing from buildings on his own...stuff? Batman is just a vigilante in a weird Halloween costume. Maybe the ant isn't as noble as something like Lion Man (does he exist?) but at least we're not talking about Aquaman. Plus there's a precedent for shrink movies that owe inspiration to the likes of Jules Verne: Isaac Asimov was approached to write the screenplay for 1966's Fantastic Voyage. 1957's The Incredible Shrinking Man won a Hugo Award and is listed in the U.S.'s National Film Registry. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids earned total box office equivalent to $265 million today. And I still enjoy Innerspace. I don't know how to judge silly. How about talking or singing animals, like Finding Nemo or Shrek? How about crossdressing shenanigans, like Tootsie or Mrs. Doubtfire? The Waterboy opened to $40 million in 1998 and I don't know how to answer that, except that Crocodile Dundee grossed as much as The Waterboy did over a decade earlier. It's Ted. The answer is Ted.
Jason Barney: I think the question ignores years of box office history.
How many films have opened over $50 million dollars? From wizards to talking trolls to vampires to time traveling machines?
Is Ant-Man the most unlikely superhero to gain this sort of traction? Probably. I was an avid reader of comics and I can't even tell you who Ant-Man was. Is he the silliest? No.
Ryan Kyle: In the context of the opening, I wouldn't call this "silly" since the hype around anything Marvel pointed to this opening for months now.
If I had to single out one film, I'd point my finger at Paranormal Activity 3 for suckering in nearly $52.5 million in one weekend for people to watch "found footage.”
Michael Lynderey: Well, Fifty Shades of Grey opened well over that. And what of Twilight (all five times), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and The LEGO Movie? I'm not so sure that Ant-Man is all that ridiculous to begin with, since it plays into the old Honey, I Shrunk the Kids-The Incredible Shrinking Man/Woman tropes (in fact, they should have played that up in the marketing, as well as in the movie itself, which spends most of its running time disappointingly human-sized). And PS, I liked Van Helsing. How can anyone not?
David Mumpower: I'm firmly ensconced in the camp that Ant-Man is the most ridiculous concept ever to open over $50 million, Max's solid point notwithstanding. When I look at other contenders, here are a few that stand out. The Village is a good one now that everyone knows the conceit, but it was sold as a mystery at the time. Green Lantern is a rival comic premise, because I fail to see how jewelry will stop the forces of evil. And 8 Mile is basically ridiculous as a concept, even though it works as a film. Ant-Man is exponentially stupider than all of them in combination, though. A dude has the "power" of ants. His mortal enemy should be Magnifying Lens Man.