Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023) (1 Viewer)

[Bryan^H]

I usually end up spending $80 for the home video release, so I don't see Marvel films in the theater anymore.
But I'm still looking forward to this.

 

[Tino]

I think it's about as good as any of the other Marvel movies)

Any?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I usually end up spending $80 for the home video release, so I don't see Marvel films in the theater anymore.
But I'm still looking forward to this.

FYI this film did not feature any foreign language subtitle translations onscreen, so the presumptive Japanese 3D disc shouldn’t require any special workarounds to be viewed on a U.S. system.

 

[Bryan^H]

FYI this film did not feature any foreign language subtitle translations onscreen, so the presumptive Japanese 3D disc shouldn’t require any special workarounds to be viewed on a U.S. system.

Great. Thank you sir.

 

[TravisR]

Any?

Yeah but I'm not the biggest Marvel fan so my two cents on the matter aren't even worth that much.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Ouch. I know word of mouth on this movie isn't great (personally, I think it's about as good as any of the other Marvel movies) but I think part of the drop can be attributed to superhero fatigue finally starting to set in with the general public. Guardians Of The Galaxy will still be huge but I'd be worried if I was WB with Shazam in a few weeks.

The 1st "Shazam" wasn't all that big - in blockbuster terms, at least.

#21 in the US for 2019 - nestled between "Once Upon a Time In Hollywood" and "Ford vs. Ferrari".

WW made $366 million.

Turned a profit because it "only" cost $100m, but it's not like it was a massive blockbuster.

The 1st "Ant-Man" was viewed as lackluster at the box office but it made $519m WW.

That one made $180m US, so "Quantumania" has already made almost as much.

 

[TonyD]

I usually end up spending $80 for the home video release, so I don't see Marvel films in the theater anymore.
But I'm still looking forward to this.

$80
Why?

 

[Jake Lipson]

That one made $180m US, so "Quantumania" has already made almost as much.

Yes, but Quantumania also cost more to make.

 

[Malcolm R]

Not that much. All three films have been budgeted mostly from $150 to $200 million.

It seems to be headed into the same range as the first two domestically, $180 to $220 million, so I think it's doing OK. Worldwide is over $300 million in about 10 days.

School vacation is this coming week in some areas that didn't have it last week, so that may provide a bit of a cushion.

 

[Bryan^H]

$80
Why?

The 3D/4K combo discs from Japan. It is worth it to me.

 

[Tino]

The 3D/4K combo discs from Japan. It is worth it to me.

Are 3D region free?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Are 3D region free?

Yes.

The caveat is that these are discs produced exclusively for the Japanese market so they are not international-friendly. By that, I mean, while the discs do include English and Japanese language tracks, they do not include English-language forced subtitles for any alien or foreign language translations that appear onscreen during the film. For this film and Thor: Love & Thunder, there are no such subtitles, so it’s not an issue. But for Black Widow, Shang Chi, Eternals, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and (presumably, as the disc is not out yet) Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, those films do contain English onscreen translations. The only way to see those captions on the disc is to keep the English SDH subtitles on for the duration of the film.

(Alternatively, if you’re a crazy person like me, you can use a computer to rip the forced subtitle track off the domestic release, marry it to the Japanese 3D file, and burn a new disc.)

 

[Malcolm R]

Japan is Region A, same as the US, so all Japanese discs should play in a US player.

The main issue is as noted by Josh above. Subtitle issues and Japanese menus may vex some.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Not that much. All three films have been budgeted mostly from $150 to $200 million.

It seems to be headed into the same range as the first two domestically, $180 to $220 million, so I think it's doing OK. Worldwide is over $300 million in about 10 days.

School vacation is this coming week in some areas that didn't have it last week, so that may provide a bit of a cushion.

Yeah, none of the Ant-Man movies have proven to be major smashes. They've done just fine but "lackluster" compared to many of their MCU counterparts.

Not completely sure why that is, as they've been pretty good movies.

Maybe people just think a dude who shrinks down small and cavorts with bugs is a dopey character?

 

[Malcolm R]

I think the dopey part is that he can also be huge. At that point he's no longer "ant" man.

 

[TonyD]

I think the dopey part is that he can also be huge. At that point he's no longer "ant" man.

Well he also has the power to become GiAnt-man

 

[jayembee]

I think the dopey part is that he can also be huge. At that point he's no longer "ant" man.

 

[Ross Gowland]

I think the dopey part is that he can also be huge. At that point he's no longer "ant" man.

Then he’s a giANT MAN in a quANTuMANia.

They like plays on words over at Marvel.

 

[Carlo_M]

Just saw it in Laser IMAX at the TCL Chinese Theater yesterday. I liked it. A solid 7.0 out of 10 score for me. Right in line with most "good" MCU movies, and not ranking with the best (or worst).

Josh Dial and Sam Favate wrote reviews back on Page 11 (links on their names) that I almost completely agree with so I won't rehash too much what they said. I will re-emphasize that I think the weakness is, it should clearly be 20-30 minutes longer (with some baffling editing choices) but that Majors is such a bad-ass in his role, and Pfeiffer really has been allowed to flex her skills onscreen. But Josh and Sam have many more great points so I would refer you to their posts.

I will just talk a bit about this whole "is Marvel declining" or "with Infinity War/Endgame are Marvel's best days behind it" sentiment. I think that's an unfair proposition. In my youth I read nearly all of the Marvel series from the 1960s-19080s that form the modern MCU. Guess what? None of them were excellent in every issue. Most of them could be best described as action/sci-fi soap operas for young adults. The norm, for the best series, were those that had mostly good issues, with a few stellar issues, and very few bombs. Which is what I think of the MCU movies that spawned from those comics. They're mostly good, solid movies, with a few stellar ones and a few meh ones.

Of all my favorite directors, Chris Nolan may be the lone exception where I think everything of his I've seen is uniformly excellent (which others will disagree). Spielberg, Coppola, Kubrick...they all have exceptional movies I love, and some I watched once and never will again.

I think the Russos set a pretty high water mark for their movies, and just because others haven't hit that standard, that suddenly it means the MCU is in decline. Put it this way, while the original Iron Man films were enjoyable (and the first was great!) nothing in the early MCU gave any indication of the quality that Civil War, Infinity War, and Endgame were going to deliver. Not even the first two Avengers films which haven't aged well (outside of what's come out about Whedon).

So I think the MCU is simply in that phase again where they are telling solid stories that, unfortunately are in the shadow of some recent stellar movies. They have to slowly build to another climax. But that doesn't mean that when the Kang saga reaches its apex, we can't get a similar level of quality that we got with CW/IW/Endgame.

They were never going to be able to churn out Endgame after Endgame. I'd argue it would get fatiguing to have that style of megamovie over and over again. You need smaller stories to allow those who are in for the long haul, a chance to breathe. You need to smaller stories to start to build the tension that will be resolved at the climax.

 

[Alex...]