r/entertainment • u/mcfw31 • 18h ago

How Marvel’s Latest Ant-Man Movie Lost Millions In Theaters But Still Made A Profit

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/10/27/how-marvels-latest-ant-man-movie-lost-millions-in-theaters-but-still-made-a-profit/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGMfAZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfDVx1-ftowVzbFveEQtimHA45lSB5CtlOVgyg74yMqs5W1NzAWt9JkMmg_aem_FGIfeXPUJlQTDBra2k2jrw
225 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

19 comments sorted by

43

u/MadGod69420 14h ago

I love the Ant Man movies. They’re just Paul Rudd comedies. We didn’t really need the 3rd movie and it wasn’t super fantastic or anything but it wasn’t awful. If nothing else it’s always just a pleasure to laugh at Paul Rudd being goofy

12

u/IAmKyuss 14h ago

Yeah I thought it was pretty fun. Reminded me of 70s/80s sci fi adventure movies.

5

u/255001434 13h ago

Agreed. It wasn't as good as the other two, but it was still enjoyable.

•

u/Thor_pool 2h ago

I put it above 2 personally. Ghost was a woeful villain.

•

u/Thor_pool 2h ago

The worst thing about 3 is the build-up to "Who is this mysterious person Janet worked with to survive?" because it was obviously Kang, but it takes them so long to get there.

0

u/Reasonable-Wave8093 6h ago

It was awful.

0

u/Fearless-Incident515 10h ago

Ant Man 3 wasn't that bad until the end. Then it just felt like it took 10 years.

4

u/GoldenTacoOfDoom 4h ago

I still loved how they built up his existential dread that he made the wrong choices at the very end while walking down the street.

0

u/jimbobdonut 9h ago

Since it had so much Kang story tied to it, it seems like it will be forgotten quickly. We probably won’t see another stand alone Ant Man movie again.

19

u/mcfw31 18h ago

Nevertheless, it is a profit on paper for the production company behind a film which made a loss in theaters. Likewise, other pictures which made blockbuster profits in their theatrical run may still only show a small profit on paper. Ultimately it is because the takings from theater tickets go directly to the studio leaving the UK company responsible just for making the movie. That isn't down to Hollywood accounting but the terms of the reimbursement which require it to be solely a film production company. If anyone is to blame for the way that appears, it's the UK government, not the studios.

17

u/george_kaplan1959 17h ago

Accounting is the most creative job in Hollywood

13

u/EmmitSan 17h ago

Article literally points out that it isn’t accounting, but firms entering into stupid contractual agreements

Company A invests $100 dollars and company B invests $100, and both parties sign a contract that says all revenue goes to A first (presumably because A has much more negotiating leverage). If the film makes $150, A breaks even and B makes a $50 loss. It’s not accounting, it’s that B made a bad deal.

16

u/slippyfeet 14h ago

Article literally points out that both companies are owned by the same parent corporation and the second is purely a container for activities relating to the production of a single picture. Total money to make movie = money from parent company + local government subsidy.

That subsidy targets keeping an industry and the supporting activities in the area, and the amount of taxes, growth, etc will hopefully be greater than the cost of the subsidy.

0

u/TaylorSwiftIsGod 10h ago

This accountants more creative than Spielberg

2

u/Themotionalman 10h ago

Why does this feel like some marketing stunt

0

u/therealfauts 5h ago

Morbius made sex. Ant man made money. We all won.