Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

[Nick]

I fully understand the numbers and how they stack up comparatively to other current franchises but it's hilarious to me that a movie that'll make just under 500M worldwide is considered the end of a franchise.

That'll be more than the entire Friday the 13th franchise in one film's worth of revenue. Apples to oranges, obviously, but still makes me giggle.

Of course that’s a lot of money, but with how much they spent on it they’re going to lose money. TRON: Legacy made $400M WW in 2010, so inflation adjusted it probably will have made more than Ant-Man 3 in the end. It took until just now for TRON to finally (supposedly) get a sequel going.

 

[Jerroddragon]

Its not the main actors fault both Kang and Ant man were great with what they were given but MCU just isn't as interesting right now and while others can say well this is still better then Ironman 2...thats not really the point we should be wayyyy past these basic movies feels so basic

 

[Nick]

Honestly, between this and Thor 4, I’m done with these movies that just are just a CGI-fest, look cheaply made like the whole thing was shot in the volume, and the CGI isn’t even all that great. Not the animators fault, just insane crunch times. The MCU needs to get back to real places.

Avatar 2 once again proved you can do a CGI/mocap fest that is actually pleasing to the eye (and make it look quasi-realistic). You just have to allow time for the best possible end product and the way the MCU is run doesn’t allow for that.

 

[Jerroddragon]

Honestly, between this and Thor 4, I’m done with these movies that just are just a CGI-fest, look cheaply made like the whole thing was shot in the volume, and the CGI isn’t even all that great. Not the animators fault, just insane crunch times. The MCU needs to get back to real places.

Avatar 2 once again proved you can do a CGI/mocap fest that is actually pleasing to the eye (and make it look quasi-realistic). You just have to allow time for the best possible end product and the way the MCU is run doesn’t allow for that.

lol

I wish the effects were the issue. This movie would still be a mess with or without effects.

I know some people are just down for cool CGI but the MCU was never that for me, it was just fun films with good acting, good writing and sometimes a good message or interesting idea about politics

 

[Nick]

lol

I wish the effects were the issue. This movie would still be a mess with or without effects.

I know some people are just down for cool CGI but the MCU was never that for me, it was just fun films with good acting, good writing and sometimes a good message or interesting idea about politics

I’m not saying they are the issue. There’s many with this film. This was just one point I had where I’m really just tired of these fully CGI marvel movies shot on a volume. For me, the look of some of these recent movies is a big turn off before even thinking about acting or the story.

 

[ghostsarejerks]

I fully understand the numbers and how they stack up comparatively to other current franchises but it's hilarious to me that a movie that'll make just under 500M worldwide is considered the end of a franchise.

That'll be more than the entire Friday the 13th franchise in one film's worth of revenue. Apples to oranges, obviously, but still makes me giggle.

Yes but Friday the 13th movies are dirt cheap to make. Quantumania cost well over $200M (before marketing which is usually another $100M for a movie of this size) so yes this is a great comparison because it's still a failure relatively.

 

[Nick]

Yes but Friday the 13th movies are dirt cheap to make. Quantumania cost well over $200M (before marketing which is usually another $100M for a movie of this size) so yes this is a great comparison because it's still a failure relatively.

Ant-Man will be a money-loser in the end. There are more costs than you are making it seem. Disney only comes away with roughly 50-55%% of a film’s total gross after splitting with theaters, there’s backend deals, etc.

Both Thor 4 and Ant-Man 3 cost the same ($250M) and at $760M, it didn’t hit profitability until $650M. Ant-Man will be lucky to touch $500M. Quite frankly, it was pretty fiscally irresponsible to give this kind of a budget to an Ant-Man film. The others have been around $150M budget.

 

[ghostsarejerks]

Ant-Man will be a money-loser in the end. There are more costs than you are making it seem. Disney only comes away with roughly 50-55%% of a film’s total gross after splitting with theaters, there’s backend deals, etc.

Both Thor 4 and Ant-Man 3 cost the same ($250M) and at $760M, it didn’t hit profitability until $650M. Ant-Man will be lucky to touch $500M. Quite frankly, it was pretty fiscally irresponsible to give this kind of a budget to an Ant-Man film. The others have been around $150M budget.

I think a failure at this stage and at such a massive scale means restructuring MCU to focus on quality control and ensuring things don't spiral out of control. Seems like they already are keenly aware of cracks in the armor and are taking some steps to remedy that (pushing the Marvels back to do reshoots) so maybe this will be a good wake up call.

 

[Nick]

I think a failure at this stage and at such a massive scale means restructuring MCU to focus on quality control and ensuring things don't spiral out of control. Seems like they already are keenly aware of cracks in the armor and are taking some steps to remedy that (pushing the Marvels back to do reshoots) so maybe this will be a good wake up call.

They pushed The Marvels back to try and save that movie Rogue One style. Supposedly the test screenings have been getting horrible responses for The Marvels which is why they're going back for their second round of reshoots. Most movies can't be saved in reshoots though and at a certain point you're just frankenstein-ing a movie together.

 

[pumpkinbot343]

lol

I wish the effects were the issue. This movie would still be a mess with or without effects.

I know some people are just down for cool CGI but the MCU was never that for me, it was just fun films with good acting, good writing and sometimes a good message or interesting idea about politics

Exactly.

Sometimes the effects look bizarre*, but I don’t even notice most of these. It’s the increasing blandness and lack of passion (not to mention screwing over either stories or characters) that’s becoming a problem.

*Although poor VFX team though

 

[Nick]

Exactly.

Sometimes the effects look bizarre*, but I don’t even notice most of these. It’s the increasing blandness and lack of passion (not to mention screwing over either stories or characters) that’s becoming a problem.

*Although poor VFX team though

I'm not even saying the VFX team did a bad job! I'm saying I want to see the real world. Let's go back to New York, San Francisco, etc and spend time in real environment on location instead of spending two hours in the Quantum Realm. I just hate the look of movies like Ant Man 3 and Thor 4 where the whole movie is filmed to be pretty much 95% CGI and the scenes where it was shot in the volume are SOOOO obvious it's not even funny. It doesn't work filming movies in that type of setting the way Disney is doing it.

And maybe on just hating on the CGI setting more because I actively really dislike these two movies and they are two of my least favorite MCU films. But I just feel like every MCU films is starting to become the same thing. Just one big CGI-fest. Then coming up are GotG and The Marvels so it's just gonna be more of the same feeling until Cap: New World Order next year. When quality has dipped like it has and things just start to look and feel like the same movie over and over, i'm just starting to feel over it.

Ironically I think head of DC James Gunn is going to temporarily give the MCU some life again with GOTG vol 3.

 

[ghostsarejerks]

I'm not even saying the VFX team did a bad job! I'm saying I want to see the real world. Let's go back to New York, San Francisco, etc and spend time in real environment on location instead of spending two hours in the Quantum Realm. I just hate the look of movies like Ant Man 3 and Thor 4 where the whole movie is filmed to be pretty much 95% CGI and the scenes where it was shot in the volume are SOOOO obvious it's not even funny. It doesn't work filming movies in that type of setting the way Disney is doing it.

And maybe on just hating on the CGI setting more because I actively really dislike these two movies and they are two of my least favorite MCU films. But I just feel like every MCU films is starting to become the same thing. Just one big CGI-fest. Then coming up are GotG and The Marvels so it's just gonna be more of the same feeling until Cap: New World Order next year. When quality has dipped like it has and things just start to look and feel like the same movie over and over, i'm just starting to feel over it.

Ironically I think head of DC James Gunn is going to temporarily give the MCU some life again with GOTG vol 3.

Also, a lot of the individual thrill and pleasure of an Ant-Man movie is seeing him change his size relative to common things we take for granted (Thomas the Train fight in the first movie). Taking those characters and power sets and putting them in an amorphous CGI phantasmagoria dilutes any sense of scale.

Spoiler: Quantumania Spoiler

There's a scene at the end of Quantumania when Cassie and Scott, who are giant sized, hug and they remark about how weird it is. But because the way things are scaled in this fantasy environment it just looks like the two actors hugging regular sized.

 

[Nick]

Also, a lot of the individual thrill and pleasure of an Ant-Man movie is seeing him change his size relative to common things we take for granted (Thomas the Train fight in the first movie). Taking those characters and power sets and putting them in an amorphous CGI phantasmagoria dilutes any sense of scale.

Spoiler: Quantumania Spoiler

There's a scene at the end of Quantumania when Cassie and Scott, who are giant sized, hug and they remark about how weird it is. But because the way things are scaled in this fantasy environment it just looks like the two actors hugging regular sized.

I think one of the takeaways that’s most troubling to me is this was more sold as a Marvel event film rather than an Ant-Man movie and it’s going to make “just” over $500M. The crazy thing is I was a big fan of the first two Ant Man movies and they were smaller stories.

This just doesn’t even feel like the same franchise and I think AM works best as a palate cleanser. If even Ant-Man movies are world ending movies now, then what isn’t?

 

[Brian G.]

Finally got around to seeing it. It’s fine. Kang was great but I know there’s that elephant in the room now.

 

[Lucky Planet]

Finally got around to seeing it. It’s fine. Kang was great but I know there’s that elephant in the room now.

What you think of Modok

 

[Nick]

Finally got around to seeing it. It’s fine. Kang was great but I know there’s that elephant in the room now.

Speaking of that elephant....

I was talking about this with a friend and with things honestly looking pretty bad with Majors right now after the events of today especially, do you recast, or seeing as Majors only appeared as Kang/He Who Remains in one episode of a show and in one movie (and honestly he looked kinda wimpy both times), what if, using the multiverse, they brought Josh Brolin back, this time as King Thanos, the Thanos who won?

The issue with recasting Kang imo is every version of him would look like Majors canonically, although I guess they've recast before. Doing something like King Thanos though would bring back a fan favorite villain that's even more powerful, it wouldn't ruin any new villain by having them shoehorned in, and it would represent a real threat for something like Secret Wars and the only way to defeat him is to call on all the different versions of characters from different universes to come together to stop him.

Obviously the likelihood of something like that happening is very low and they will just recast though, although i'm not exactly sure who they would find that's as eccentric of an actor and fits the role so well. Donald Glover comes to mind as far as fitting the eccentric nature, but he doesn't have the physicality of Majors.

 

[pumpkinbot343]

Speaking of that elephant....

I was talking about this with a friend and with things honestly looking pretty bad with Majors right now after the events of today especially, do you recast, or seeing as Majors only appeared as Kang/He Who Remains in one episode of a show and in one movie (and honestly he looked kinda wimpy both times), what if, using the multiverse, they brought Josh Brolin back, this time as King Thanos, the Thanos who won?

The issue with recasting Kang imo is every version of him would look like Majors canonically, although I guess they've recast before. Doing something like King Thanos though would bring back a fan favorite villain that's even more powerful, it wouldn't ruin any new villain by having them shoehorned in, and it would represent a real threat for something like Secret Wars and the only way to defeat him is to call on all the different versions of characters from different universes to come together to stop him.

Obviously the likelihood of something like that happening is very low and they will just recast though, although i'm not exactly sure who they would find that's as eccentric of an actor and fits the role so well. Donald Glover comes to mind as far as fitting the eccentric nature, but he doesn't have the physicality of Majors.

You’re saying something like King Thanos as the ”true main villain” of the next few phases (like Kang is supposed to be)? Dunno. I’ve felt they shouldn’t have had brought AU versions of Gamora and Loki into the mix, and I don’t think King Thanos would be a good idea- sure it’s a technically different character, but he would still have the same actor portraying, he’d look and act very similar; it would kinda make his death in Endgame kinda pointless (which is a problem I again had with AU Gamora and Loki).

Personally it would reinforce my viewpoint that the MCU writes its villains like it’s the Kingdom Hearts series.

Some people are championing for John Boyega to play Kang though that’s unlikely given his past with Disney.

 

[Nick]

You’re saying something like King Thanos as the ”true main villain” of the next few phases (like Kang is supposed to be)? Dunno. I’ve felt they shouldn’t have had brought AU versions of Gamora and Loki into the mix, and I don’t think King Thanos would be a good idea- sure it’s a technically different character, but he would still have the same actor portraying, he’d look and act very similar; it would kinda make his death in Endgame kinda pointless (which is a problem I again had with AU Gamora and Loki).

Personally it would reinforce my viewpoint that the MCU writes its villains like it’s the Kingdom Hearts series.

Some people are championing for John Boyega to play Kang though that’s unlikely given his past with Disney.

I could see John Boyega playing the role. I don't think John boyega had anything personally against Disney per say, he was mad about how his character was treated. If he was cast as Kang, he's front and center guaranteed. The only real thing Boyega has said that he absolutely won't do with Disney is he won't do a Disney+ series. He considers himself a film actor and he thinks of film and theaters as hand in hand with each other from what I gather.

 

[Lucky Planet]

Speaking of that elephant....

I was talking about this with a friend and with things honestly looking pretty bad with Majors right now after the events of today especially, do you recast, or seeing as Majors only appeared as Kang/He Who Remains in one episode of a show and in one movie (and honestly he looked kinda wimpy both times), what if, using the multiverse, they brought Josh Brolin back, this time as King Thanos, the Thanos who won?

The issue with recasting Kang imo is every version of him would look like Majors canonically, although I guess they've recast before. Doing something like King Thanos though would bring back a fan favorite villain that's even more powerful, it wouldn't ruin any new villain by having them shoehorned in, and it would represent a real threat for something like Secret Wars and the only way to defeat him is to call on all the different versions of characters from different universes to come together to stop him.

Obviously the likelihood of something like that happening is very low and they will just recast though, although i'm not exactly sure who they would find that's as eccentric of an actor and fits the role so well. Donald Glover comes to mind as far as fitting the eccentric nature, but he doesn't have the physicality of Majors.

One problem is that Josh Brolin has had similar problems that Mayors has. So people would be upset. ( Similar allegations I think?)

Also. Loki season 2 features Kang very heavily for what I read. So the biggest problem right now is Loki season 2. I think you cannot cut him out of Loki season 2. So it's gonna be tricky for Disney

 

[Nick]

One problem is that Josh Brolin has had similar problems that Mayors has. So people would be upset. ( Similar allegations I think?)

Also. Loki season 2 features Kang very heavily for what I read. So the biggest problem right now is Loki season 2. I think you cannot cut him out of Loki season 2. So it's gonna be tricky for Disney

Loki S2 is very much like Ezra Miller and The Flash with DC. It's in the can and I doubt even if he was recast they'd be able to reshoot everything and it would cost a crap ton of money to do if they did reshoot all of his scenes.

IF Majors is let go from the MCU and they recast Kang, I almost think it's more likely Loki S2 never sees the light of day then they release it with Majors in it in a prominent role.