Well, I wanted to see Terminator 5. But its poor performance overall has led theaters in my area to have very limited showtimes for it.
So... I went to see Ant Man, even though I had no plans to. It was OK. I probably shouldn't have watched it. Don't know anything about the comic, didn't expect that much bug action. I don't like bugs.
Anyway, I think its safe to say that the villain is truly terrible. He goes crazy for.... what reason? Evagiline Lilly says at the end "the chemicals are destroying your brain" or whatever, but we never saw him use the chemicals.... until the very end when he goes all super villainy. We never saw them get used on any human until then.
Not a complaint, but something that amused me. A certain other superhero movie that shall remain nameless, I feel like I've heard nothing but complaints about the product placement of a restarant. For years I've heard this over and over. Ant-Man features three minutes with Baskin Robbins, saying the name 8-10 times and discussing their menu items.... haven't heard a single thing about it. Hmmmmm.... I wonder.
Should we assume that the “accords” Cap refers to in the post-credits scene are the MCU’s version of the Registration Act? That would explain why Steve and Tony aren’t really on good terms at the moment of that scene. Obviously that scene the prelude to bringing Ant-Man into Civil War movie next year.
Also, fun Easter egg mentioned in the CGS episode. During Scott's first outing in the suit in the movie, (follows the bathtub scene) - Ant-Man lands on the roof of a cab on his back. That cabbie is Garret Morris, the comedian who played Ant-Man in a late 70's SNL superhero sketch seen below.
With seemingly everyone appearing in Cap 3, it kinda makes it Avengers 2.5. Smart for Marvel, but I'm kinda curious how they can be putting the movie out so fast. Principle photography only began April of this year, but its coming out in less than a year? Seems awful quick to me. For comparison, BvsS started principle filming in May of 2014 and finished in September of 2014, so about 18 months before release.
Obviously films used to be released much quicker after filming, but that was also the days before these monster $200 million CGI epics. I'm a little worried Cap 3 is being rushed just to grab that May slot.
What was cross' intentions ultimately? What was he thinking? Today I'm giving up everything to be a criminal and go on the lamb with a suitcase full of $$? How was he going continue making the formula? Wasn't he already rich and in charge and in the clear? Was he going to work WITH hydra? Either way, none of it really made sense. I get he was somehow / some reason unstable, but still wasn't clear.
And maybe I'm mis-remembering, but wasn't Hope's line about "This isn't you! It's the Pym Particles making you unstable!" delivered when she was off-camera? I had the feeling that the creators involved found it all a bit much as well, and thought looping that line in might help things a little. It didn't, if anything it called more attention to the fact that his plan was totally off the rails.
I could buy him putting on the suit and attacking Scott, since he'd just seen his entire company destroyed, both figuratively and literally. And I just might buy him threatening his family. But prior to that, I'd have preferred him staying a ruthless businessman out looking for acclaim and money. Regardless of what Hydra offered him, I'd imagine a legitimate long-term deal would pay off better in the end. And it wouldn't involve going on the lam.
He did kill a guy within 10 minutes of the audience seeing him on screen for slightly raising an objection to his plan. So it wasn't totally out of place that he would go crazy later in the film. What they could have done was tie Hank's erratic behavior with his use of the suit.
That's what I totally expected to happen. I thought that would be the explanation for why hank can't/wont wear the suit, his estrangement from his daughter and her resentment towards him. Because it made him aggressive and he ultimately became abusive towards Janet (pun intended).
Another nitpick... Can't say for sure w/o seeing it again, but I could've sworn cross was holding a glock when the ants stopped him from shooting by holding back the hammer on his gun. I also found it ridiculous the hispanic friend supposedly knocked out the guard with one punch. Then if I recal, he was a virtual wimp from then on?
It also bugged me (another intentional pun) when antman jumped on the barrel of the firing pistol in close up and there was barely a flash or reaction. Missed opportunity imo for a cool effect / moment.
Totally agree. I know, I know, the general audience doesn't care and aren't gun nuts, but attention to details matter. Glocks don't have hammers, so what were the ants holding back? Were they holding the trigger in place? It was unclear.
And ditto on him running on the gun. barely any flash, no recoil, etc.
Should we assume that the “accords” Cap refers to in the post-credits scene are the MCU’s version of the Registration Act? That would explain why Steve and Tony aren’t really on good terms at the moment of that scene. Obviously that scene the prelude to bringing Ant-Man into Civil War movie next year.
Also, fun Easter egg mentioned in the CGS episode. During Scott's first outing in the suit in the movie, (follows the bathtub scene) - Ant-Man lands on the roof of a cab on his back. That cabbie is Garret Morris, the comedian who played Ant-Man in a late 70's SNL superhero sketch seen below.
With seemingly everyone appearing in Cap 3, it kinda makes it Avengers 2.5. Smart for Marvel, but I'm kinda curious how they can be putting the movie out so fast. Principle photography only began April of this year, but its coming out in less than a year? Seems awful quick to me. For comparison, BvsS started principle filming in May of 2014 and finished in September of 2014, so about 18 months before release.
Obviously films used to be released much quicker after filming, but that was also the days before these monster $200 million CGI epics. I'm a little worried Cap 3 is being rushed just to grab that May slot.
Or that BvS was to be held for after this year. Perhaps staying close to Suicide Squad to help give that a boost.
At this point, Marvel has a well oiled machine. Aside from the new characters introduced recently, the bulk of the primary cast know their characters. Plus how much CGI will really be used? I believe the last 2 Caps used more practical methods then CGI.
The Russo Brothers are behind this and the next 2 Avengers (or 1 super sized movie.) I can't imagine they'd rush this. Especially if it's a crucial lead into Infinity War.
Should we assume that the “accords” Cap refers to in the post-credits scene are the MCU’s version of the Registration Act? That would explain why Steve and Tony aren’t really on good terms at the moment of that scene. Obviously that scene the prelude to bringing Ant-Man into Civil War movie next year.
Also, fun Easter egg mentioned in the CGS episode. During Scott's first outing in the suit in the movie, (follows the bathtub scene) - Ant-Man lands on the roof of a cab on his back. That cabbie is Garret Morris, the comedian who played Ant-Man in a late 70's SNL superhero sketch seen below.
With seemingly everyone appearing in Cap 3, it kinda makes it Avengers 2.5. Smart for Marvel, but I'm kinda curious how they can be putting the movie out so fast. Principle photography only began April of this year, but its coming out in less than a year? Seems awful quick to me. For comparison, BvsS started principle filming in May of 2014 and finished in September of 2014, so about 18 months before release.
Obviously films used to be released much quicker after filming, but that was also the days before these monster $200 million CGI epics. I'm a little worried Cap 3 is being rushed just to grab that May slot.
Or that BvS was to be held for after this year. Perhaps staying close to Suicide Squad to help give that a boost.
At this point, Marvel has a well oiled machine. Aside from the new characters introduced recently, the bulk of the primary cast know their characters. Plus how much CGI will really be used? I believe the last 2 Caps used more practical methods then CGI.
The Russo Brothers are behind this and the next 2 Avengers (or 1 super sized movie.) I can't imagine they'd rush this. Especially if it's a crucial lead into Infinity War.
M
Pretty sure Falcon, multiple Hellicarriors, the Shield HQ, the Hydra HQ used quite a bit of CGI. Plus Cap 3 is gonna have Iron Man, Ant Man, Falcon, War Machine, Spider Man etc etc etc
What was cross' intentions ultimately? What was he thinking? Today I'm giving up everything to be a criminal and go on the lamb with a suitcase full of $$? How was he going continue making the formula? Wasn't he already rich and in charge and in the clear? Was he going to work WITH hydra? Either way, none of it really made sense. I get he was somehow / some reason unstable, but still wasn't clear.
And maybe I'm mis-remembering, but wasn't Hope's line about "This isn't you! It's the Pym Particles making you unstable!" delivered when she was off-camera? I had the feeling that the creators involved found it all a bit much as well, and thought looping that line in might help things a little. It didn't, if anything it called more attention to the fact that his plan was totally off the rails.
I could buy him putting on the suit and attacking Scott, since he'd just seen his entire company destroyed, both figuratively and literally. And I just might buy him threatening his family. But prior to that, I'd have preferred him staying a ruthless businessman out looking for acclaim and money. Regardless of what Hydra offered him, I'd imagine a legitimate long-term deal would pay off better in the end. And it wouldn't involve going on the lam.
He did kill a guy within 10 minutes of the audience seeing him on screen for slightly raising an objection to his plan. So it wasn't totally out of place that he would go crazy later in the film. What they could have done was tie Hank's erratic behavior with his use of the suit.
That's what I totally expected to happen. I thought that would be the explanation for why hank can't/wont wear the suit, his estrangement from his daughter and her resentment towards him. Because it made him aggressive and he ultimately became abusive towards Janet (pun intended).
Another nitpick... Can't say for sure w/o seeing it again, but I could've sworn cross was holding a glock when the ants stopped him from shooting by holding back the hammer on his gun. I also found it ridiculous the hispanic friend supposedly knocked out the guard with one punch. Then if I recal, he was a virtual wimp from then on?
It also bugged me (another intentional pun) when antman jumped on the barrel of the firing pistol in close up and there was barely a flash or reaction. Missed opportunity imo for a cool effect / moment.
Totally agree. I know, I know, the general audience doesn't care and aren't gun nuts, but attention to details matter. Glocks don't have hammers, so what were the ants holding back? Were they holding the trigger in place? It was unclear.
And ditto on him running on the gun. barely any flash, no recoil, etc.
I'd have to read up on the model Glock used. Perhaps it was just preventing the slide from moving, jamming the movement of the firearm. I'd really need to see the scene again.
This is a quibble, but yeah, Glocks don't have hammers. You couldn't tell that by watching The Walking Dead or Sons of Anarchy. You hear the hammer cock on a glock almost every episode!
I also agree the villain was shite. I am growing weary of the standard villains being basically the same power set as the hero with ambiguous motivation. That's comic book territory though.
As for product placement... at least the Thomas the Train and the iPhone in the briefcase were written into the script before they sought permission, so it was story driven. I think the same thing was true for Baskin Robbins. They needed an entry level job that they could make into sort of a joke. They may have approached other restaurants (Taco Bell, McDonald's, Smoothie King... etc) It was well done.
Besides, we are surrounded by products everyday in real life, I hope that didn't take away from the movie for you. The BR scene seemed perfectly realistic for me.
This is a quibble, but yeah, Glocks don't have hammers. You couldn't tell that by watching The Walking Dead or Sons of Anarchy. You hear the hammer cock on a glock almost every episode!
I also agree the villain was shite. I am growing weary of the standard villains being basically the same power set as the hero with ambiguous motivation. That's comic book territory though.
As for product placement... at least the Thomas the Train and the iPhone in the briefcase were written into the script before they sought permission, so it was story driven. I think the same thing was true for Baskin Robbins. They needed an entry level job that they could make into sort of a joke. They may have approached other restaurants (Taco Bell, McDonald's, Smoothie King... etc) It was well done.
Besides, we are surrounded by products everyday in real life, I hope that didn't take away from the movie for you. The BR scene seemed perfectly realistic for me.
Product placement doesn't bother me most of the time, and it didn't here. The only time in recent memory it bothered me was in the Veronica Mars movie (every single character owned a mobile device by the same company, and it was name dropped numerous times).
I think the same thing was true for Baskin Robbins. They needed an entry level job that they could make into sort of a joke. They may have approached other restaurants (Taco Bell, McDonald's, Smoothie King... etc) It was well done.
Besides, we are surrounded by products everyday in real life, I hope that didn't take away from the movie for you. The BR scene seemed perfectly realistic for me.
I read an article the other day that said the original business was intended to be Chipotle. They apparently didn't like how the movie wouldve represented their company and pulled out. After trying out some made up busines names that didn't fit, they eventually landed on baskin robbins.
With seemingly everyone appearing in Cap 3, it kinda makes it Avengers 2.5. Smart for Marvel, but I'm kinda curious how they can be putting the movie out so fast. Principle photography only began April of this year, but its coming out in less than a year? Seems awful quick to me. For comparison, BvsS started principle filming in May of 2014 and finished in September of 2014, so about 18 months before release.
Obviously films used to be released much quicker after filming, but that was also the days before these monster $200 million CGI epics. I'm a little worried Cap 3 is being rushed just to grab that May slot.
BvS has to be run through the Darken Filter about 20 times.
i saw it for the 3rd time this weekend... the first time in 3D AND this time at a theater with those moving seats.. it didn't add anything to the experience
The theater I saw it in did not react at all to most of the humor. Not sure if it was because the jokes did not work, were too dead panned, or went over the heads of the crowd.
The audience at the showing I attended reacted quite well to the humor. They even applauded at the end of the film, something I hadn't seen at any movie in quite a long time.
Mine applauded once the movie was done (extra scenes and all).
Listened to some of the CGS crews review today. They espoused a few interesting ideas. Sorry, didn't take note of who exactly said what:
1) Its Box Office. Put forth the idea that it will have "legs" and will end up being very profitable on DVD and Blu Ray. No mention of international, but I think that goes without saying.
>>> Personally, I have no doubt that it will be considered a success, both financially and as a way of introducing Ant Man so he can make appearances in other movies. But I do not believe we will be getting Ant Man part 2. Its not tracking very well. It has now made more than The Incredible Hulk. The next highest grosser is the first Captain America. CA at this time (after the fourth weekend) had made a little under $157 million. Ant-Man meanwhile has earned $147 million. I have no doubt it will make more at the international box office, but those dollars aren't as valuable because the studio gets a lower percentage.
Additionally, the movie having good word of mouth and staying in theaters is good for the theaters. Its my understanding that as the weeks go on, theaters get a higher percentage of the grosses. So, while word of mouth is good for them, the studio needs to earn those big bucks in the first several weeks.
Regardless, I don't believe we will be seeing an Ant-Man part 2, but I think overall Disney and Co. will consider this a financial and creative success for expanding the brand.
2) That, given RDJ's pricetag, that Tony Stark could be phased out, and that Paul Rudd and Scott Lang could move into his spot as the sort of master of technology of the MCU.
>>> This, to me, is flat out not going to happen. As I said previously, I believe RDJ will be Tony Stark for as long as he wants to be. Iron man and RDJ are the $$$$ Big Money for Disney and Co, both at the box office and the toys. I believe wholeheartedly that when RDJ and Disney part ways either due to RDJ no longer wanting to play the part, or some sort of financial situation, that Tony Stark will be recast.
There's just no way, to me, that Ant Man can fill those shoes. A man in a high tech suit flying around and blasting things is just way, way more commercially appealing than a man who shrinks. The first Iron man earned almost $100 million in its first weekend. I don't see how you can chalk that up to the general audience being in love with RDJ because he hadn't had mainstream success at all until that point.
3) Catherine Zeta Jones as the original Wasp.
>>> I say go for it. It could be an after credits scene in Cap 3. He goes and finds her. Boom.
Listened to some of the CGS crews review today. They espoused a few interesting ideas. Sorry, didn't take note of who exactly said what:
1) Its Box Office. Put forth the idea that it will have "legs" and will end up being very profitable on DVD and Blu Ray. No mention of international, but I think that goes without saying.
>>> Personally, I have no doubt that it will be considered a success, both financially and as a way of introducing Ant Man so he can make appearances in other movies. But I do not believe we will be getting Ant Man part 2. Its not tracking very well. It has now made more than The Incredible Hulk. The next highest grosser is the first Captain America. CA at this time (after the fourth weekend) had made a little under $157 million. Ant-Man meanwhile has earned $147 million. I have no doubt it will make more at the international box office, but those dollars aren't as valuable because the studio gets a lower percentage.
Additionally, the movie having good word of mouth and staying in theaters is good for the theaters. Its my understanding that as the weeks go on, theaters get a higher percentage of the grosses. So, while word of mouth is good for them, the studio needs to earn those big bucks in the first several weeks.
Regardless, I don't believe we will be seeing an Ant-Man part 2, but I think overall Disney and Co. will consider this a financial and creative success for expanding the brand.
2) That, given RDJ's pricetag, that Tony Stark could be phased out, and that Paul Rudd and Scott Lang could move into his spot as the sort of master of technology of the MCU.
>>> This, to me, is flat out not going to happen. As I said previously, I believe RDJ will be Tony Stark for as long as he wants to be. Iron man and RDJ are the $$$$ Big Money for Disney and Co, both at the box office and the toys. I believe wholeheartedly that when RDJ and Disney part ways either due to RDJ no longer wanting to play the part, or some sort of financial situation, that Tony Stark will be recast.
There's just no way, to me, that Ant Man can fill those shoes. A man in a high tech suit flying around and blasting things is just way, way more commercially appealing than a man who shrinks. The first Iron man earned almost $100 million in its first weekend. I don't see how you can chalk that up to the general audience being in love with RDJ because he hadn't had mainstream success at all until that point.
3) Catherine Zeta Jones as the original Wasp.
>>> I say go for it. It could be an after credits scene in Cap 3. He goes and finds her. Boom.
What do you guys think.
I disagree it's as easy as "recast Tony Stark." He's not Batman. Marvel might believe it's the popularity of Stark that makes the character a success, but it's RDJ AS Stark.
Moving Lang/Rudd into the void left when RDJ moves on isn't going to be a lateral move without a drop in success...but the same can be said for the new actor playing Stark. He'll either try to mirror RDJ's version (which will look like an imitation) or a new version (which isn't a guarantee to be embraced.)
Neither Rudd nor Ant-Man has the clout RDJ/Stark has, but who knew Stark would be the face of the MCU back in 2008?
Listened to some of the CGS crews review today. They espoused a few interesting ideas. Sorry, didn't take note of who exactly said what:
1) Its Box Office. Put forth the idea that it will have "legs" and will end up being very profitable on DVD and Blu Ray. No mention of international, but I think that goes without saying.
>>> Personally, I have no doubt that it will be considered a success, both financially and as a way of introducing Ant Man so he can make appearances in other movies. But I do not believe we will be getting Ant Man part 2. Its not tracking very well. It has now made more than The Incredible Hulk. The next highest grosser is the first Captain America. CA at this time (after the fourth weekend) had made a little under $157 million. Ant-Man meanwhile has earned $147 million. I have no doubt it will make more at the international box office, but those dollars aren't as valuable because the studio gets a lower percentage.
Additionally, the movie having good word of mouth and staying in theaters is good for the theaters. Its my understanding that as the weeks go on, theaters get a higher percentage of the grosses. So, while word of mouth is good for them, the studio needs to earn those big bucks in the first several weeks.
Regardless, I don't believe we will be seeing an Ant-Man part 2, but I think overall Disney and Co. will consider this a financial and creative success for expanding the brand.
2) That, given RDJ's pricetag, that Tony Stark could be phased out, and that Paul Rudd and Scott Lang could move into his spot as the sort of master of technology of the MCU.
>>> This, to me, is flat out not going to happen. As I said previously, I believe RDJ will be Tony Stark for as long as he wants to be. Iron man and RDJ are the $$$$ Big Money for Disney and Co, both at the box office and the toys. I believe wholeheartedly that when RDJ and Disney part ways either due to RDJ no longer wanting to play the part, or some sort of financial situation, that Tony Stark will be recast.
There's just no way, to me, that Ant Man can fill those shoes. A man in a high tech suit flying around and blasting things is just way, way more commercially appealing than a man who shrinks. The first Iron man earned almost $100 million in its first weekend. I don't see how you can chalk that up to the general audience being in love with RDJ because he hadn't had mainstream success at all until that point.
3) Catherine Zeta Jones as the original Wasp.
>>> I say go for it. It could be an after credits scene in Cap 3. He goes and finds her. Boom.
What do you guys think.
I disagree it's as easy as "recast Tony Stark." He's not Batman. Marvel might believe it's the popularity of Stark that makes the character a success, but it's RDJ AS Stark.
Moving Lang/Rudd into the void left when RDJ moves on isn't going to be a lateral move without a drop in success...but the same can be said for the new actor playing Stark. He'll either try to mirror RDJ's version (which will look like an imitation) or a new version (which isn't a guarantee to be embraced.)
Neither Rudd nor Ant-Man has the clout RDJ/Stark has, but who knew Stark would be the face of the MCU back in 2008?
M
You may be right, we won't know for a while. Right now it's a chicken or the egg thing. RDJ was the first and only cinematic Iron Man. The only thing I'd say is to point out again that Iron Man was a smash hit right from the first weekend, before audiences had time to identify RDJ as the key.
I truly believe that at the end of the day it's the character that people are attracted to and that like James Bond, Superman, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, and other long standing cinematic characters that people will maintain their attraction to him, barring a casting disaster, after RDJ is gone. But, I also don't believe he'll be leaving anytime soon.
During its box-office run, Ant-Man pulled in $177m+ domestically and over $400m globally. Far outperforming Incredible Hulk and Captain America First Avenger. Couldn't quite catch Thor, though.
During its box-office run, Ant-Man pulled in $177m+ domestically and over $400m globally. Far outperforming Incredible Hulk and Captain America First Avenger. Couldn't quite catch Thor, though.
Didn't it just open in China and still making money?
During its box-office run, Ant-Man pulled in $177m+ domestically and over $400m globally. Far outperforming Incredible Hulk and Captain America First Avenger. Couldn't quite catch Thor, though.
Didn't it just open in China and still making money?
It hasn't opened in China yet, but it just opened in Korea, where it was #1. Currently, the film's worldwide total is $409,485,000. So it could still make a lot of bank, especially in China.
It still doesn't open in China for another two weeks! So, this thing could turn into a juggernaut for Marvel.
Bonus: Fun video demonstrating how, with Ant-Man, Marvel has created the strongest, most devastating character in the Marvel Universe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-MhE0J9Tx8
Following our hero’s debut adventure in this summer’s “Ant-Man,” Scott Lang will return alongside Hope Van Dyne on July 6, 2018 with Marvel’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” The sequel will mark the first Marvel Studios film named after its heroine.
Following our hero’s debut adventure in this summer’s “Ant-Man,” Scott Lang will return alongside Hope Van Dyne on July 6, 2018 with Marvel’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” The sequel will mark the first Marvel Studios film named after its heroine.
Following our hero’s debut adventure in this summer’s “Ant-Man,” Scott Lang will return alongside Hope Van Dyne on July 6, 2018 with Marvel’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” The sequel will mark the first Marvel Studios film named after its heroine.
Following our hero’s debut adventure in this summer’s “Ant-Man,” Scott Lang will return alongside Hope Van Dyne on July 6, 2018 with Marvel’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” The sequel will mark the first Marvel Studios film named after its heroine.
It's official, Ant-Man now boasts the second biggest Marvel/Disney opening in China, after "Avengers: Age of Ultron," bringing in nearly $44 million over the opening weekend there.
This brings the global total for Ant-Man up to $454.8 million (about 3-and-a-half times bigger than the budget). However, that still only makes it the 9th most successful Marvel Studios title.
Don't count this little movie out just yet! It has already earned back all of its $130 million budget in its domestic run and is now enjoying a blockbuster run in the China market. It just raked in another $22 million in its 2nd weekend in the Peoples Republic - pulling in $82 million in its first 10 days there.
Ant-Man earned $179 million domestically, it's now earned $315 million overseas. When compared to the other MU movies, it's ahead of "Captain America: The First Avenger" and "The Incredible Hulk" both domestically and globally along with beating "Thor" worldwide. Considering Ant-Man had the lowest production budget of any Marvel U movie ($130 million), a $500 million worldwide gross is definitely a 'success'. It is expected to reach that mark this coming week. Ant-Man is Crushing It and I'm looking forward to the sequel.
Comments
So... I went to see Ant Man, even though I had no plans to. It was OK. I probably shouldn't have watched it. Don't know anything about the comic, didn't expect that much bug action. I don't like bugs.
Anyway, I think its safe to say that the villain is truly terrible. He goes crazy for.... what reason? Evagiline Lilly says at the end "the chemicals are destroying your brain" or whatever, but we never saw him use the chemicals.... until the very end when he goes all super villainy. We never saw them get used on any human until then.
Not a complaint, but something that amused me. A certain other superhero movie that shall remain nameless, I feel like I've heard nothing but complaints about the product placement of a restarant. For years I've heard this over and over. Ant-Man features three minutes with Baskin Robbins, saying the name 8-10 times and discussing their menu items.... haven't heard a single thing about it. Hmmmmm.... I wonder.
Obviously films used to be released much quicker after filming, but that was also the days before these monster $200 million CGI epics. I'm a little worried Cap 3 is being rushed just to grab that May slot.
And ditto on him running on the gun. barely any flash, no recoil, etc.
At this point, Marvel has a well oiled machine. Aside from the new characters introduced recently, the bulk of the primary cast know their characters. Plus how much CGI will really be used? I believe the last 2 Caps used more practical methods then CGI.
The Russo Brothers are behind this and the next 2 Avengers (or 1 super sized movie.) I can't imagine they'd rush this. Especially if it's a crucial lead into Infinity War.
M
Maybe it's not, it just feels like it is
M
I also agree the villain was shite. I am growing weary of the standard villains being basically the same power set as the hero with ambiguous motivation. That's comic book territory though.
As for product placement... at least the Thomas the Train and the iPhone in the briefcase were written into the script before they sought permission, so it was story driven. I think the same thing was true for Baskin Robbins. They needed an entry level job that they could make into sort of a joke. They may have approached other restaurants (Taco Bell, McDonald's, Smoothie King... etc) It was well done.
Besides, we are surrounded by products everyday in real life, I hope that didn't take away from the movie for you. The BR scene seemed perfectly realistic for me.
M
That takes a while.
;)
http://comicbook.com/2015/07/26/marvels-ant-man-beats-adam-sandlers-pixels-to-top-box-office-aga/
movie still holds up
Mine applauded once the movie was done (extra scenes and all).
It was excellent.
1) Its Box Office. Put forth the idea that it will have "legs" and will end up being very profitable on DVD and Blu Ray. No mention of international, but I think that goes without saying.
>>> Personally, I have no doubt that it will be considered a success, both financially and as a way of introducing Ant Man so he can make appearances in other movies. But I do not believe we will be getting Ant Man part 2. Its not tracking very well. It has now made more than The Incredible Hulk. The next highest grosser is the first Captain America. CA at this time (after the fourth weekend) had made a little under $157 million. Ant-Man meanwhile has earned $147 million. I have no doubt it will make more at the international box office, but those dollars aren't as valuable because the studio gets a lower percentage.
Additionally, the movie having good word of mouth and staying in theaters is good for the theaters. Its my understanding that as the weeks go on, theaters get a higher percentage of the grosses. So, while word of mouth is good for them, the studio needs to earn those big bucks in the first several weeks.
Regardless, I don't believe we will be seeing an Ant-Man part 2, but I think overall Disney and Co. will consider this a financial and creative success for expanding the brand.
2) That, given RDJ's pricetag, that Tony Stark could be phased out, and that Paul Rudd and Scott Lang could move into his spot as the sort of master of technology of the MCU.
>>> This, to me, is flat out not going to happen. As I said previously, I believe RDJ will be Tony Stark for as long as he wants to be. Iron man and RDJ are the $$$$ Big Money for Disney and Co, both at the box office and the toys. I believe wholeheartedly that when RDJ and Disney part ways either due to RDJ no longer wanting to play the part, or some sort of financial situation, that Tony Stark will be recast.
There's just no way, to me, that Ant Man can fill those shoes. A man in a high tech suit flying around and blasting things is just way, way more commercially appealing than a man who shrinks. The first Iron man earned almost $100 million in its first weekend. I don't see how you can chalk that up to the general audience being in love with RDJ because he hadn't had mainstream success at all until that point.
3) Catherine Zeta Jones as the original Wasp.
>>> I say go for it. It could be an after credits scene in Cap 3. He goes and finds her. Boom.
What do you guys think.
Moving Lang/Rudd into the void left when RDJ moves on isn't going to be a lateral move without a drop in success...but the same can be said for the new actor playing Stark. He'll either try to mirror RDJ's version (which will look like an imitation) or a new version (which isn't a guarantee to be embraced.)
Neither Rudd nor Ant-Man has the clout RDJ/Stark has, but who knew Stark would be the face of the MCU back in 2008?
M
I truly believe that at the end of the day it's the character that people are attracted to and that like James Bond, Superman, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, and other long standing cinematic characters that people will maintain their attraction to him, barring a casting disaster, after RDJ is gone. But, I also don't believe he'll be leaving anytime soon.
But we won't know until it happens.
It still doesn't open in China for another two weeks! So, this thing could turn into a juggernaut for Marvel.
Bonus: Fun video demonstrating how, with Ant-Man, Marvel has created the strongest, most devastating character in the Marvel Universe.
Following our hero’s debut adventure in this summer’s “Ant-Man,” Scott Lang will return alongside Hope Van Dyne on July 6, 2018 with Marvel’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” The sequel will mark the first Marvel Studios film named after its heroine.
http://marvel.com/news/movies/25244/marvel_studios_phase_3_update?linkId=17794832
M
Funny blu-ray promo
This brings the global total for Ant-Man up to $454.8 million (about 3-and-a-half times bigger than the budget). However, that still only makes it the 9th most successful Marvel Studios title.
Ant-Man earned $179 million domestically, it's now earned $315 million overseas. When compared to the other MU movies, it's ahead of "Captain America: The First Avenger" and "The Incredible Hulk" both domestically and globally along with beating "Thor" worldwide. Considering Ant-Man had the lowest production budget of any Marvel U movie ($130 million), a $500 million worldwide gross is definitely a 'success'. It is expected to reach that mark this coming week.
Ant-Man is Crushing It and I'm looking forward to the sequel.