Ah, one of these... Like this page needs another. Alright, let’s do this.
That last sentence in particular though...
... sure, after Black Panther and Infinity War shattered all kinds of records, became the most buzzed about movies, and the latter ended up becoming the highest grossing superhero/CBM of all time. (Extremely doubtful any upcoming movie this year shall come close to IW’s success.) Now Ant-Man, a character who even now can be considered obscure, is small in scale for Marvel and yet... it is performing pretty damn well all things considered. Moreover, this movie didn’t have ANYWHERE NEAR the large budget of Justice League, so it’ll likely to turn in a nice profit unlike, that’s right, Justice League. This was perhaps the MCU’s first movie to open below 100+ million in almost two years. So? Not reaching the same heights of the previous movies starring bigger and more impactful Marvel heroes, doesn’t prove this fatigue anti-Marvel/anti-Disney critics love to claim is already here.
Although Ant-Man is something of a household compared to when the first movie came out, hardly anyone expected the character to compete with the big dogs just yet. This sequel had a bigger opening weekend than the original and it has already made more than what it cost to make. If there is the slightest chance the sequel falls short of the original, I bet you it’ll nevertheless manage to make a profit unlike the “monster” that was supposed to be Justice League. I know someone like you isn’t going to look at the bigger picture and understand why this latest MCU film isn’t a sign of your wishes coming true, but Ant-Man and The Wasp is doing quite well. Yeah, analysts had higher expectations for its opening weekend, but guess what, it did better than Disney themselves anticipated. And any way you slice it, its opening and the way it’s been holding up is no sign of a failure. Far from it.
Marvel fatigue? Yeah, as if that hasn’t been said repeatedly for the last 7 years or so. My god, this new Marvel movie starring a relative newcomer to the MCU and big screen (who non-comic fans never even heard of) isn’t making close to a billion or more... automatical failure! Nice try. 10 years of this film franchise (the highest grossing in film history) and it broke record after record this year. Did I forget to mention the movies were worldwide phenomenons? Oh yeah, that fatigue is making its way. 🙄 If/when that day ever comes, I see the MCU remaining the most profitable film franchise for years to come. Their success was unprecedented and what they accomplished is going to be applauded for a long time. At the moment, Marvel only continues to exceed expectations. Nuff said.
reply
share
AP (5258)
6 years ago
The first Ant Man opened below 100 million as did Incredible Hulk, Thor, and I think Captain America First Avenger. It is doing better than the first AM movie, which is always a success for any sequel. The estimate is that it will end up at about 600 million, meaning DCEUfanticarmy loses his bet.
Also, it's hilarious that one of the smallest MCU films is apparently doing better commercially and critically than Justice League which was DC's big tentpole movie.
reply
share
DracTarashV2 (4475)
6 years ago
Yup. Almost every entry in the MCU did much better both critically and commercially (certainly critically) than Justice League and any of the DCEU movies that weren’t WW did. Even the MCU movies that technically grossed less money, didn’t actually LOSE money like Justice League. And other than WW, every single DCEU movies received mixed reviews at best; on the mighty Rotten Tomatoes, not one MCU movie is rotten.
You can’t really argue against this, but obviously those DCEU fanatics love to make outrageous claims. And, yeah, the fact that Ant-Man has already proven to be a successful property for Marvel, whereas a movie featuring DC’s biggest names failed, tells you everything you need to know.
reply
share
Twentyfourk (44)
6 years ago
The critical reception for the marvel films are dubious at best. Disney has been known to pay critics off to either praise its films or pan others. That's why these dc films have a bad reputation.
Jurassic world 2, thank god, is performing extremely well despite disney coordinating a pr attack with paid critics against universal.
The people I talked to preferred batman v superman over civil war. The people that saw the snyder cut of justice league says it blows infinity war out of the water
reply
share
AP (5258)
6 years ago
There is zero proof Disney ever paid critics for good reviews. This is why multiple Disney films/TV shows have had poor critical reception. If Disney did the things you accuse it of, that would be fraud and there would be major legal repercussions.
reply
share
Twentyfourk (44)
6 years ago
So why is every marvel film at fresh? Even james bond and other popular franchises with this many films dips into rotten.
reply
share
AP (5258)
6 years ago
The Marvel franchise has two rotten tv shows: Inhumans and Iron Fist. The Punisher TV show was barely fresh. Meanwhile, on the movie side, Incredible Hulk and Thor 2 only had about 70% on RT, which is not THAT fresh. I think Captain America First Avenger and Age of Ultron were only in the mid-late 70's. Being fresh and having all critics love the movies are two entirely different things. The RT algorithm is pretty crappy as well. A movie can get a 3 out of 5 stars and it's considered a fresh rating even if the review itself says it's an average film. So if a little over half the critics claim a movie is average, it will be fresh on the site.
That's before we get into Disney having multiple live action flops over the years such as John Carter, Tomorrowland, Solo, the last Pirates of the Carribean movie, etc. If Disney pays its critics, why would they only do that for Marvel and not for their main films.
Meanwhile, some franchises are more popular than others. Pixar is another franchise with almost all fresh movies if I remember. And sure, James Bond doesn't have all fresh movies but that franchise is 50 years old and has about 30 movies under its belt with multiple actors for Bond. Of course it's going to have one or two rotten films.
So, outside of the Marvel movies being popular, what evidence do you have of Disney paying off critics? Keep in mind that a situation like this could destroy the company. It would be illegal for them to do this.
reply
share
Twentyfourk (44)
6 years ago
Marvel TV isn't marvel studios.
If we bring in other marvel stuff, why aren't you bringing in fantastic fail 2015 and x men origins wolverine.
Also, disney tends to leave their own live action films alone and pays for the animated films, star wars, and marvel films.
reply
share
AP (5258)
6 years ago
Marvel TV is Marvel Studios. Not only are they a part of the same universe and have had movie characters crossover onto SHIELD and Agent Carter, but the TV side is owned by ABC which is owned by Disney.
And why would Disney not pay for their live action movies if they are willing to pay for Marvel or Star Wars? And again, I need actual proof of Disney paying off critics. Simply saying "the movies are somewhat popular" does not cut it, especially when there are still several critics out there who give Marvel bad reviews.
reply
share
Twentyfourk (44)
6 years ago
Marvel TV is part of marvel entertainment. Marvel studios is now part of disney.
And the tv shows may as well be not canonical. The latest season of agents of shield contradicted events of season 6.
It would be too easy if disney paid every single critic all the time. That's why they exclude certain critics and exclude their own live action films.
Tell me one time a star wars, animated, or marvel film that got mostly negative reviews since 2010.
reply
share
AP (5258)
6 years ago
Margel Entertainment is owned entirely by Disney. The TV shows are included which is why they are attatched to the movies. They are owned by Disney. Daredevil, Agents if SHIELD, all of it.
And again, why would Disney protect subsidiaries and not themselves. Also, how is it that MCU movies still get some bad reviews? And again, if Disney paied off critics theb it would have been exposed a long time ago as it would involve way too many people. Particularly people who would benefit from exposing them.
reply
share
Twentyfourk (44)
6 years ago
I just explained to you why. No need to repeat myself
reply
share
AP (5258)
6 years ago
You haven’t explained anything beyond “movies are popular and I don’t like it so ... conspiracy theories!” Bring some solid evidence and I will start taking it seriously.
reply
share
Twentyfourk (44)
6 years ago
Antman 2 didnt even open as well as thor 2 and doctor strange despite the marvel studios brand being a lot bigger since then. This is starting to indeed show the marvel fatigue.
reply
share
AP (5258)
6 years ago
A&W is already doing better than the previous Ant-Man movie. Also, the last two Marvel movies broke BO records. I'm not sure there is much fatigue there.
reply
share
Twentyfourk (44)
6 years ago
Actually it's starting to look doubtful it will even finish ahead of the first antman.
reply
share
AP (5258)
6 years ago
It's estimated to make 600 million at the BO. That's more than the first movie. All estimates say it's doing better than the first considering it opened better and isn't in every country yet.
reply
share
Twentyfourk (44)
6 years ago
Doesnt look like it will make it to 600 million.
reply
share
AP (5258)
6 years ago
Why not? So far, it has met its estimates. All articles written on the matter believe it to end up in the 600 mil range. You need to start naming your sources.
reply
share
Twentyfourk (44)
6 years ago
You mean falling short?
Plus box office predictions dont mean jack. Solo fell short and skyscraper is well behind.
reply
share
AP (5258)
6 years ago
It was estimated to make a certain amount in the first weekend and made that amount.
reply
share
NorrinRad (5018)
6 years ago
Actually it's starting to look doubtful it will even finish ahead of the first antman.
Domestic gross comparison? That is very possible as Ant Man had little competition and AM&TW is facing quite a bit of competition. With that said it will still turn a tidy profit.
Methinks your posting is what you desire to see happen and not an analysis based on anything happening in the marketplace.
I haven't seen the sequel but will admit that Infinity War was so large in scale that it made this film less urgent to want to run out and see in theaters. Marvel had two event films in a row.
Still AM&TW is smaller (no pun) and was never expected to be a huge phenomena of a film. It will do fine. $190 Mil domestic as a minimum.
reply
share