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+.

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA Actually Did Turn A Profit... Of Around $88K
Related:

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA Actually Did Turn A Profit... Of Around $88K

ANT-MAN & THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA's Katy O'Brian Officially Joins THE RUNNING MAN Cast
Recommended For You:

ANT-MAN & THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA's Katy O'Brian Officially Joins THE RUNNING MAN Cast

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.
S8R8M
S8R8M - 4/23/2024, 7:09 AM
I wonder, if the studio regrets changing the original ending of Scott dying/trapped in the Quantum Realm?Also, Modok, what the hell was that?
Izaizaiza
Izaizaiza - 4/23/2024, 7:45 AM
How could the people at marvel make such a bad decision? Even if the film had been great, you don't spend over 300 million on an Ant-Man movie. The chance of it making close to a billion dollars is very slim.

Also, you make it good. AM3 was terrible.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/23/2024, 9:09 AM
@Izaizaiza - For one they shouldn't have greenlit more than $150M budget for an Antman film as non of them have done that well at the box office (look at the second one between IW and Endgame as a perfect example). However also do think it is possible they didn't spend over $300m on the film at all but lumped a whole load of unrelated costs onto it to increase the tax rebate as much as they could so...
Izaizaiza
Izaizaiza - 4/23/2024, 9:46 AM
@Apophis71 - I definitely agree about the smaller budget. You look at the first iron Man, Captain, America and Thor... Those were great films because they had great scripts and great actors. The character Ant-Man is never going to be a draw for a billion dollar movie. Got to keep that production budget low.

Interesting hypothesis about the tax rebate!
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/23/2024, 9:54 AM
@Izaizaiza - I say that not in defence but due to how much of it goes on ever here cos it has been an increasing issue of big multibillion dollar companies finding ways to cash in on subsidies, grants and tax breaks and sometimes all at the same time.

The following being an example for that...

https://waronwant.org/news-analysis/secrets-and-fries-mcdonalds-ps295-million-tax-dodge

...thus I never trust at face value any tax filings from any megacorp in the UK.
JDL
JDL - 4/23/2024, 7:02 PM
@Apophis71 - Read the article. It's stupid. The income the author wants IS taxed. But it's taxed in the US because that where the sale takes place.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/24/2024, 5:40 AM
@JDL - They are avioding the tax that is supposed to be in the UK and Europe not in the country the company is HQ'd in so is huge tax dodges going on including in the US I'd wager. If a UK company was selling in America they should be paying some taxes in America and in the UK, vice versa for an American company selling products in the UK. Been multiple years that McDonald's has paid zero tax in the UK, same with Amazon by exploiting loopholes and creative accounting whilst at the same time taking taxpayer money for subsidies. If you think they are paying as much tax as they should be doing, even in America then...
JDL
JDL - 4/24/2024, 8:11 PM
@Apophis71 -
1) Forget McDonalds for now. Their revenue mechanism is too different from a movie studio's to have any bearing on this.

2) Subsidies like "we'll pay 20% of your xyz cost, if you do it in our country" have nothing necessarily to do with revenues and tax revenue issues. Ignore them for the moment.

My question is what is it you think should be getting taxed in GB and isn't ? Please be exact.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/25/2024, 6:18 AM
@JDL - Not gonna sit and explain the UK tax system, multiple layers to it for one thing, but suffice to say a LOT off tax avoidance goes on, and exploitation of subsidies and grants with big companies and a LOT of reporting on it which is suffice to say nobody trusts any big company tax filings.

If your interested google it and research yourself but find it odd anyone trying to defend multi-million £ tax avoidance schemes even, or indeed especialy, when they don't understand the basic math in simplified articles on it.
JDL
JDL - 4/25/2024, 5:47 PM
@Apophis71 - I'm an accountant so I need more substance than you are providing. Basically this sort of thing comes from either Revenue that is being excluded from taxation or an expenses that are being deducted and shouldn't or bor both. You don't have to be a tax expert to know those things. Otoh if you don't then you are simply parroting someone else.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/25/2024, 6:53 PM
@JDL - As an accountant you will thus know that exploitation of tax loopholes, sometimes legaly even if considered unfair, sometime illegal does go on and various ways it is or can be done so do your own research on it and find out for yourself.

I was merely giving a couple of examples of ones who were using such techniques on a massive scale to reduce tax burden by millions, whilst also utilising a range of subsidies and grants to additionaly reduce overall costs and increase profit margins as to why laymen tend not to trust at face value tax filings.

Most are aware that huge companies will manipulate figures even if legaly so to increase subsidies and/or tax rebates and/or through methods such as offshoring reduce figures to minimise tax burdens. Sorry if naming a couple of American companies offend but they are two who have been reported on the most but both those companies have been investigated and found to have unfair practices in regard to tax avoidance and at certain points found to be owing hundreds of millions of back taxes that were illegaly avoided.

As I say if your an accountant do your own research into it, all I'm saying is frequent reporting on it means there is little trust that tax filings are fair and accurate when it is known there are ways to inflate or reduce figures for financial advantages even if legal.
JDL
JDL - 4/26/2024, 4:33 AM
@Apophis71 - It sounds like you are arguing for tax payments as a moral obligation. As for 'articles on tax naughiness" the one example you gave was pretty bad. The author cried about amortising some costs over 10 years. What the idiot failed to mention is that the alternative is to expense 100% of it NOW, greatly reducing tax revenues NOW but getting more later because there is no longer an offsetting expense. Stupid.

Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/26/2024, 5:10 AM
@JDL - I am not arguing for anything I gave a couple of examples who use creative accounting to alter their ta and subsidies to demonstrate that figures can be misleading...

...as in that with a film they could add on investments into infrastructure onto the cost of a film in order to increase the subsidy. That infrastructure could thus then earn back all that investment and then some leasing out to other studios after the film was released. Such an investment a laymen would not consider part of the film cost typicaly or at least completely changes the calculations of profit and loss. Thus if out of the submitted tax filing they included building a £100M high tech studio facility for filming the void that facility could be sold at a profit after, leased out and/or result in overall long term savings that pays off that investment and then some thus including that investment into the 2.5 budget equation for profitability would be misleading.

...how the author of an article frames it is another matter, not my words.

That said taxation should be fair such that a huge international company shouldn't be able to completely avoid taxation that a small local company can't to such levels that it completely undermines competition or that a billionaire pays less total tax on their earnings than their secretary in extreme circumstances but that wasn't a debate I was even trying to start.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/26/2024, 7:39 AM
@JDL - I'll give you however a better example of a prior way that McDonalds reduced their corporation tax on their European royalties to zero both in the US and EU by exploiting a system in place to prevent double taxation in order to avoid paying any.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34996205#:~:text=A%20McDonald%27s%20statement%20said%3A%20%22McDonald%27s%20complies%20with%20all,with%20an%20average%20tax%20rate%20of%20almost%2027%25.

I'll let you decide if you consider that fair and reasonable or not, even if it may have technicaly been legal (which was in question hence the investigation there was into it). That is not the same as for instance Amazon paying zero corporation tax for at least two years running due to tax credits from investing all profits, which there can be fair arguments in favour of but the initial point wasn't about morality or legality but entirely as examples that the biggest companies find ways by creative accounting to increase rebates and subsidies and decrease tax even if legal and/or considered fair thus a filling figure without specifics can be misleading.
JDL
JDL - 4/26/2024, 5:39 PM
@Apophis71 - Link doesn't work.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 4/27/2024, 5:00 AM
@JDL - Dunno why but I'll try the slimmed down version and add a few more if your interested but as I say wasn't about a debate on if it is fair and legal so much as how big companies use various methods to shift profits and costs from one thing/region to another to alter how much they get in rebates or tax and such like such that a filling may be an inflated number if there is a fiscal benefit to do so.

There are sound arguments in many cases why such things are a good thing, such as long term investments being a very good thing for instance, that companies are required by fiduciary responsibility to do all that they legaly can to use any and all legal methods to reduce costs/increase profits and always the debate on what is the fair and reasonable level of tax along with where they should pay it (with most tending to feel there is way too much tax) but as I say that wasn't the point I was making or a debate I was trying to enter into, lol

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34996205

https://www.ft.com/content/021406a7-573e-4091-8cde-62aff9244524

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/mcdonalds-accused-of-tax-avoidance

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/03/eu-confirms-major-investigation-into-mcdonalds-tax-deals

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