Evil Avatar

Evil Avatar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Items (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Ant-Man and the Wasp Buzzes to $76 million Box Office Debut (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254489)

Evil Avatar 07-09-2018 08:19 AM

Ant-Man and the Wasp Buzzes to $76 million Box Office Debut
 

Despite its heroes’ diminutive size, Ant-Man and the Wasp opened with typical Marvel might at the box office, with an estimated $76 million in ticket sales.

Here is the Weekend Boxoffice Chart for the weekend of July 6th to July 8th, 2018.
  1. Ant-Man and the Wasp $76.0/$76.0
  2. Incredibles 2 $29.0/$504.3
  3. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom $28.5/$333.3
  4. The First Purge $17.1/$31.0
  5. Sicario: Day of the Soldado $7.3/$35.3
  6. Uncle Drew $6.6/$29.9
  7. Ocean's 8 $5.2/$126.7
  8. Tag $3.1/$48.3
  9. Won't You Be My Neighbor? $2.5/$12.3
  10. Deadpool 2 $1.6/$314.5
  11. Whitney $1.2/$1.2
  12. Sanju $1.2/$5.9

Ant-Man and the Wasp was a fun little late-summer movie, though it was a little bit on the tried-and-true formula side of things. I hope Marvel starts to shake things up a bit, they haven't been taking many chances outside of Thor: Ragnarok.

Chimpbot 07-09-2018 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Avatar (Post 2516540)
Ant-Man and the Wasp was a fun little late-summer movie, though it was a little bit on the tried-and-true formula side of things. I hope Marvel starts to shake things up a bit, they haven't been taking many chances outside of Thor: Ragnarok.

It's hard to criticize them for "not taking many chances" and comparing their three latest offerings to Ragnarok when all three were essentially in production (at various stages) at the same time as Ragnarok. Ant-Man & The Wasp wrapped up filming 16 days after Ragnarok was released, so any significant retooling would have been difficult, time-consuming and expensive.

If you want to see how they'll really be influenced by Ragnarok's success, you'll have to wait for the 2019 crop of MCU movies. It was a risk, but the 2018 films were already deep into production by the time they realized the risk had paid off.

Metal Jesus 07-09-2018 08:52 AM

>> they haven't been taking many chances outside of Thor: Ragnarok.

You mean since last November?! LOL

Booda 07-09-2018 09:04 AM

Saw Sicario 2 over the weekend. The only positive thing I can say is that it was a completely unnecessary film. Also, the ending was really fucking dumb.

It's a shame. The original film was amazing.

Scherge 07-09-2018 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Avatar (Post 2516540)
they haven't been taking many chances outside of Thor: Ragnarok.

Yeah, I don't understand that bit either. How have they taken a chance with Ragnarok? It was part 3 in a series, it used the same main cast, and it continued down the path of silliness (too much for me, if I'm honest with myself). I'd say the last time Marvel took a risk was when they decided to piss off many casual movie-goers by making "Avengers: Infinity War" part one of two, without openly announcing it beforehand. :eek:

EL CABONG 07-09-2018 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booda (Post 2516549)
Saw Sicario 2 over the weekend. The only positive thing I can say is that it was a completely unnecessary film. Also, the ending was really fucking dumb.

It's a shame. The original film was amazing.

Bummer I really like the 1st one.

Saw Antman. It was fun. Not amazing or anything but good. Enjoyed the low key Egghead reference. By far the best part is the villain didn't have the exact powers as the hero.
So sick of that. It's a big reason I didn't like panther that much. Not that panther was bad just felt like I seen that formula b4.

Sinistar 07-09-2018 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Avatar (Post 2516540)
I hope Marvel starts to shake things up a bit, they haven't been taking many chances outside of Thor: Ragnarok.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instan...tupid-noob.jpg

ElektroDragon 07-09-2018 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scherge (Post 2516550)
Yeah, I don't understand that bit either. How have they taken a chance with Ragnarok? It was part 3 in a series, it used the same main cast, and it continued down the path of silliness (too much for me, if I'm honest with myself). I'd say the last time Marvel took a risk was when they decided to piss off many casual movie-goers by making "Avengers: Infinity War" part one of two, without openly announcing it beforehand. :eek:

OH REALLY? So I'll just wait for the second and watch them back to back on rental then?

Fubl 07-09-2018 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scherge (Post 2516550)
Yeah, I don't understand that bit either. How have they taken a chance with Ragnarok? It was part 3 in a series, it used the same main cast, and it continued down the path of silliness (too much for me, if I'm honest with myself). I'd say the last time Marvel took a risk was when they decided to piss off many casual movie-goers by making "Avengers: Infinity War" part one of two, without openly announcing it beforehand. :eek:

the entire time during production they said Avengers 3 and 4 would cover similar material. when it was announced it was called part infinty war part 1 and 2

excalibur1814 07-09-2018 03:42 PM

"Ragnarok"

Wrong. It was just wrong. Great film, great jokes, beautiful scenes but still wrong. The tone felt totally different to the previous two films and that was wrong. When his friends and family, his people, were being slaughtered, the jokes kept on coming.

Yet... Everyone thinks that it was fantastic. Don't get me wrong as I enjoyed it but, as above, it wasn't right when joined to the previous two.

Rommel 07-09-2018 05:08 PM

I really enjoyed Ant Man & The Wasp. One of the nice things about these films is the smaller (Heh) scale than say, saving reality from a space wizard head.

Chief Smash 07-09-2018 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rommel (Post 2516590)
I really enjoyed Ant Man & The Wasp. One of the nice things about these films is the smaller (Heh) scale than say, saving reality from a space wizard head.

I haven’t seen this movie yet but I have to agree on the appeal of smaller stakes stories. I think more games and movies could benefit from smaller more intimate stories.

Evil Avatar 07-09-2018 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metal Jesus (Post 2516546)
>> they haven't been taking many chances outside of Thor: Ragnarok.

You mean since last November?! LOL

Just saying that since Winter Soldier, not many of the Marvel movies take any chances. Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man and Wasp, Age of Ultron, Doctor Strange, Spider-Man Homecoming... all were decent movies but were all also pretty bland.

Thor was the only one to really take chances by going in a much more comedic direction.

MusicToEat 07-09-2018 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Avatar (Post 2516605)
Just saying that since Winter Soldier, not many of the Marvel movies take any chances. Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man and Wasp, Age of Ultron, Doctor Strange, Spider-Man Homecoming... all were decent movies but were all also pretty bland.

Thor was the only one to really take chances by going in a much more comedic direction.

I'd say the original Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty chancy. It was a fairly obscure license and the first of the MCU to really take an all out comedic approach. Ragnorak seemed to build off of it's formula imo.

Chimpbot 07-09-2018 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Avatar (Post 2516605)
Just saying that since Winter Soldier, not many of the Marvel movies take any chances. Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man and Wasp, Age of Ultron, Doctor Strange, Spider-Man Homecoming... all were decent movies but were all also pretty bland.

Thor was the only one to really take chances by going in a much more comedic direction.

Guardians of the Galaxy starred a talking raccoon during a time when film companies were nervous about having a female character - such as Wonder Woman - star in a film. It also featured a cast of entirely unknown characters (predominantly to general audiences, but even comic fans weren't super-familiar with the likes of Star Lord) in a space/cosmic/sci-fit setting that had yet to be explored in the MCU. While Warner Bros was wringing their hands about greenlighting a film starring one of the most famous, well-known characters on the planet, Marvel released a film starring a goddamned raccoon and a talking tree. In Space.

Guardians of the Galaxy is the poster child for taking risks. It was entirely unlike the rest of the MCU and its success directly influenced everything that came after.

Without Guardians, we wouldn't have had Ragnarok directed by Taika Waititi.

SpectralThundr 07-09-2018 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimpbot (Post 2516615)
Guardians of the Galaxy starred a talking raccoon during a time when film companies were nervous about having a female character - such as Wonder Woman - star in a film. It also featured a cast of entirely unknown characters (predominantly to general audiences, but even comic fans weren't super-familiar with the likes of Star Lord) in a space/cosmic/sci-fit setting that had yet to be explored in the MCU. While Warner Bros was wringing their hands about greenlighting a film starring one of the most famous, well-known characters on the planet, Marvel released a film starring a goddamned raccoon and a talking tree. In Space.

Guardians of the Galaxy is the poster child for taking risks. It was entirely unlike the rest of the MCU and its success directly influenced everything that came after.

Without Guardians, we wouldn't have had Ragnarok directed by Taika Waititi.

Really they were nervous about females? Really? Someone needs to tell Disney that so they can stop mary sue'ing Starwars to absolute death.

vallor 07-10-2018 01:34 AM

Yep, Guardians came out of left field. With the characters and franchise it could have just as easily been a swing and a miss but they knocked it out of the park and built something iconic and fresh.

Without that opening we would never have had anything like Ragnarok or even lighter fare like Antman (and now Antman and Wasp). I'm not sure I liked Ragnarok as much as some of y'all but it was a great diversion.

Evil Avatar 07-10-2018 04:49 AM

I meant Guardians 2, it really didn’t break much from the Marvel formula. The first one was a bit unusual because most of the cast were unknowns other than Gamora and the voice actors (who could be anyone because you never see them).

Chief Smash 07-10-2018 04:51 AM

Was Guardians really a risk though? What if it failed? Would anyone really have noticed or cared given that nobody outside of the most dedicated comic collectors knew or cared about the property?

LostToys 07-10-2018 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimpbot (Post 2516615)
Without Guardians, we wouldn't have had Ragnarok directed by Taika Waititi.

And, personally, I wish it was that way. I wish Taika Waititi had done his own film, not a Thor film, particularly not one about Ragnarok. Like excalibur1814 already said, it was so tonally off that I did not enjoy the film at all.

It also has the same issue that I have with Guardians of the Galaxy: When everyone is funny, no one is funny.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:05 PM.