ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA Was One Of Marvel's Most Expensive Movies Ever Reveals New Report

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA Was One Of Marvel's Most Expensive Movies Ever Reveals New Report

Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania has a 46% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but a new financial report from the UK government has revealed just how much the Marvel Studios threequel ended up going over budget.

By JoshWilding - Apr 23, 2024 05:04 AM EST
Source: Forbes

Ant-Man And The Wasp: Quantumania was supposed to kick off Phase 5 in style. Instead, the movie largely disappointed fans; wasting Kang the Conqueror on a battle with Scott Lang was a mistake on Marvel Studios' part, as was the decision to rely on The Volume in bringing the Quantum Realm to life.

Fans spent years waiting to finally explore the subatomic reality, only for it to be deemed bland, forgettable, and lacking in originality. 

However, if you thought Marvel Studios was saving money by using The Volume, think again, as Forbes has managed to access the UK government's "Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit." That gives productions like the Ant-Man threequel a cash reimbursement of up to 25.5% of the money they spend in the country. 

It's said Marvel Studios went over budget by spending a whopping $131.9 million on post-production, bringing the movie's spending up to a whopping $326.6 million. 

As the site explains, "Movie budgets are usually a closely guarded secret as studios tend to absorb the cost of individual films in their overall expenses and don't itemize the cost of each one. Films shot in the United Kingdom are exceptions to this rule."

"The filings reveal its $326.6 million costs which are a staggering 63.3% higher than the estimate from Variety which claimed that Quantumania had a 'production budget of $200 million.'"

While the Disney-owned Marvel Studios received a $50.6 million reimbursement, it still spent $276 million making Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania. After it earned a disappointing $476.1 million at the worldwide box office, Disney would have received an estimated $238 million as a studio typically only gets 50% of box office receipts. 

That means the studio made a $38 million loss in terms of box office revenue. Whether they clawed some of that back with merchandise and Digital/Blu-ray sales is unclear, though this is by no means a good result. 

Disney CEO Bob Iger appeared to address Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania's failings when he said, "Sequels typically worked well for us," he acknowledged. "Do you need a third and a fourth, for instance? Or is it time to turn to other characters?"

"There’s nothing in any way inherently off in terms of the Marvel brand," Iger added. "I think we just have to look at what characters and stories we’re mining, and you look at the trajectory of Marvel over the next five years, you’ll see a lot of newness. We’re going to turn back to the Avengers franchise, but with a whole different set of Avengers."

Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania is now streaming on Disney+.

Jonathan Majors Wants To Return To The MCU As Kang: Disney, Marvel Studios, I Love Them
Related:

Jonathan Majors Wants To Return To The MCU As Kang: "Disney, Marvel Studios, I Love Them"

DAREDEVIL: BORN AGAIN Featurette Spotlights Episode 6's Brutal Climactic Fight Scenes - SPOILERS
Recommended For You:

DAREDEVIL: BORN AGAIN Featurette Spotlights Episode 6's Brutal Climactic Fight Scenes - SPOILERS

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
vectorsigma
vectorsigma - 4/23/2024, 5:45 AM
When this was announced, i was really excited because of Kang and i really like multiverse stories done right. Too bad.
WhateverItTakes
WhateverItTakes - 4/23/2024, 5:51 AM
absolute waste of money
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 4/23/2024, 6:35 AM
@WhateverItTakes - i didn't even know the volume was that expensive
Doomsday8888
Doomsday8888 - 4/23/2024, 5:54 AM
The absolute state of Kangs and shit, man...
Origame
Origame - 4/23/2024, 5:58 AM
It's reasons like this the excuse "it made about as much as the other ant man movies" doesn't work.

Not only was this crazy expensive, but the scale was grander and it had a Thanos level villain and was described as an avengers level movie with just ant man.
Blergh
Blergh - 4/23/2024, 6:43 AM
@Origame - absolutely fair, I think at this point enough is known about Ant-Man, The Marvels and Indy 5 to understand that these were massive failures.
Disney overestimated the draw of characters like Ant-Man/Captain Marvel/Indiana Jones and their respective actors.
I feel Paul Rudd in general must have had a rude awakening given this and Ghostbusters being flops.

These movies cost too much, their directors are given too much freedom to adjust VFX on a whim, their actors are overpaid and the studio is investing too much in quantity.
The obvious solution is: do less with popular products.
Bokis
Bokis - 4/23/2024, 5:59 AM
That is honestly insane! What is it in the Marvel pipeline that enables someone to make such a lifeless and ugly movie while having so many resources?
Origame
Origame - 4/23/2024, 6:12 AM
@Bokis - ego
BritishMonkey
BritishMonkey - 4/23/2024, 6:13 AM
They should build more practical effects and use paintings. Old school methods. Looks so much better and so much cheaper.
TheVisionary25
TheVisionary25 - 4/23/2024, 6:17 AM
I wonder how/why that was?.

I mean , I can admire the ambition of seemingly trying to push the Volume and see what it can or cannot do if shooting on there wasn’t a cost saving method but then where did that money go (though I think actors salaries & such are included in these budget aswell).

I’m someone who found the movie to be enjoyable for what it was but there was a better & more interesting story in there that didn’t translate unfortunately.

Also say whatever you want about Peyton Reed but the dude is a competent director so I doubt it was also to “save” the movie in post.

The only thing I can think of is shooting in the pandemic caused the budget to inflate due to various protocols and that the Volume allowed for a nice enclosed set during the time but it’s overusage was expensive.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/23/2024, 7:33 AM
@TheVisionary25 - I kinda assume they were locked into a planned way of doing the film and costs ballooned way over and above budget due to the impacts coming out of COVID and inflation etc, however also entirely plausible they padded the costs to the nth degree to get a bigger tax rebate thus not the actual costs at all and just a quirk of creative accounting.
Itwasme
Itwasme - 4/23/2024, 8:42 AM
@Apophis71 - I think you're spot on with this. Pandemic mostly and once you have a loss then the write offs start to get layered on.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/23/2024, 8:58 AM
@Itwasme - Theoreticaly speaking I could imagine a scenario where they built a facility for filming in the UK for multiple projects but due to the pandemic the others got dropped or delayed thus lumped all those costs onto the one film that was made (even if those facilities then do get used in the future still).

The stuff international/foreign companies do here to exploit rebates and/or avoid taxes can be insane at times such as HUGE companies like Amazon or McDonalds at times paying zero tax year on year at times by billing from shell companies to appear like they made zero profit or from tax credits for investing in infrastructure.

Specific to the COVID era there was a lot more dodgy accounting to not only get the tax rebate for shooting TV/films but also to cash in on the taxpayer-funded Covid support (McDonalds for instance had total claims on that to the tune of £872M).
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 4/23/2024, 6:33 AM
You forgot to factor in marketing. The loss was even bigger than that.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/23/2024, 8:18 AM
@ObserverIO - Depends how they worked the figures, not defending anything here as they spent way too much on a flawed film however creative accounting could theoreticaly mean they included everything including marketing into that figure they submitted for the tax rebate.

They certainly would pad the number as much as they legaly could (not to mention the goto cheats of billing in the UK for stuff done elsewhere even if not explicitly just for that film) and downplay/exlude where they could any other reimbursements such a revenue from product placements so without knowing the precise details on how they cook the books near impossible to say for certain how big or small losses and gains are on any films with certainty.
Blergh
Blergh - 4/23/2024, 6:38 AM
The Volume should make unaffordable locations available, not cost a fortune.
A local VP is asking for 10k on their mini volume per shooting day, it’s those studios that are making the tech hated.
marvel72
marvel72 - 4/23/2024, 8:16 AM
I haven't even seen this movie but I heard it was shite, so I'll never ever watch it.

User Comment Image User Comment Image User Comment Image User Comment Image
mountainman
mountainman - 4/23/2024, 12:09 PM
@marvel72 - You aren’t missing out. It was terrible. I can’t say that there was one thing that I walked away from it happy with. Even The Marvels had Kamala’s family to bring some fun. There was no fun in Quantumania.
Matchesz
Matchesz - 4/23/2024, 8:20 AM
They embezzled all that money for male hookers at Diddy's after party
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

View Recorder