RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Cannes: J.C. Chandor Sets Next Project ‘A Most … 
Hannibal Classics Sets Cast For Nic Cage Pic … 
Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Warner Bros Tells Space Story, From The Bra Designers Who … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Don Jon’ 
Billy Crystal-Starring Comedy From Matt Nix & Larry … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
It was easy to forget during all that legal warring between Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox over Watchman whether the movie would actually perform well at the box office. Now a new MovieTickets.com poll finds that Watchmen topped the list of films that the two youngest demos tracked (ages 25-to-34 and under-24) expect to see next in theaters. Even though its release isn’t until March 6th. Though I’m not certain how many of the moviegoers understand that, they may like the film’s footage that has been shown but perhaps not the ending which director Zack Snyder has altered on the comic book series/graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons. (See my previous, ‘Fox & Warner Settle ‘Watchmen’ Lawsuit: Fox Gets 8 1/2% Gross + Cash + Piece Of Sequels/Spinoffs)
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Haven’t been to the theater for some time (relying on netflix and redbox lately), but can’t wait to see this one on the big screen.
Thanks Warner and Fox for agreeing to a settlement (and to their lawyers for not blocking it in favor of further $$ proceedings).
I want to hear what kind of rumbling is going on b/w Warner & Zack Snyder.
Snyder says there is “no way” any kind of sequel can be made, as finished product supposedly covers all possible ground of the graphic novel. But clearly Watchmen is shaping up for Dark Knight-like numbers…
I’m calling it now, this movie will open north of 70 million, bank on it.
Yeah buzz. Az in zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Nikki, I know you don’t do geek but regarding the ending, I’m not sure you understand if you haven’t read the novel.
Without going into spoiler territory, the ending as written by Moore and Gibbons quite simply would not work on screen. EVER. At all. It’s not like Snyder is changing the end to Of Mice and Men where aliens save George and Lennie or something like that.
I do hope you read the book though. Still Time Magazine’s one of the greatest novels of the 20th century!
This material kind of precludes a sequel but it leaves plenty of room for a prequel or three. It’s just a matter of how much DC/WB want to piss of Alan Moore by developing that kind of thing. Dave Gibbons on the other hand seems thrilled to have been so involved in the adaptation.
Nikki you should horizintally flip your “smiley badge” image because you have it backwards — the bloodstains correspond to the hands of a clock and instead of having them advancing on midnight you have them at 1:06.
I don’t think the movie if faithful to the Graphic Novel will do well.
First, the Graphic Novel is all about the Cold War, irrelevant in the age of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and disorganized rabbles getting their hands on nukes to kill lots of Westerners, to gain a following and exile army.
It speaks to the world of 1983, not the world of 2009.
Second, there are no real heroes, and no character actually accomplishes anything. There is an investigation, a discovery, a traditional sci-fi “reveal” ending, (Moore copped quite clearly a story from the 1950s for Watchmen), and stuff that works only if you know comics very well.
It’s derivative and post-modern. Making your own, depressing, downbeat versions of the Question, Wonder Woman, Mr. Terrific, Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, and Vigilante, many of whom are obscure and interesting only to comic book hard-core fans, is not guaranteed for wide-spread appeal.
Iron Man worked, because for about 40 years he’s had lots of fans who like the idea of a technological knight in shining armor (with the knight inside having plenty of problems to work through).
Doing your own riff on the obscure DC character “the Question” or Blue Beetle, deconstructing them, is not very interesting. Since there is little adventure, no real romance, much ugliness, and an ending that emotionally makes no sense whatsoever in modern times; and indeed runs counter to everything America is trying to do now.
We don’t face nuclear destruction of the human race between us and the Defunct USSR. We face one-two off nukings of Western cities by Dark Ages madmen. Anyone who has read the book knows what I’m talking about.
Watchmen is like Ulysses — “a Classic” that everyone thinks is great but no one actually reads, much less enjoys. Particularly in a recession.
I don’t see this one as a big movie.
The original ending is lame anyway. The book is great. Probably the best ever. But the ending is not the reason why. The ending is kind of stupid.
The comic’s ending is all kinds of brilliant, and while I’m bugged by the film’s altering the “how”, I’m even more concerned that Snyder has changed the “why.” He’s reportedly taken all possible ambiguity out of a certain character’s actions, and then to really drive home the point, Snyder has added something really lame, that absolutely didn’t happen in the book, and shouldn’t happen in the movie.
…not that any of this will stop me from seeing it 12 or 13x.
Watchmen will be the first non-biblical R-Rated movie to gross over $300 million.
I’m very distrustful when it comes to websites and their ‘polls’ of what’s hot and what’s not, but I knew this film would hit. The question now seems to be…how big?
Warners have a great track record of releasing films in March (300 and 10,000 BC) and I have no doubt that Watchmen will continue that. Also if WB are smart they’ll set Jonah Hex for March 2010 right now.
I think the thing that Warners are going to get the most kudos for when everything is said and done is the fact they had the foresight to have loads of merchandise ready to go for the film’s release.
Seriously, did anyone think they would see not only a (potentially) good Watchmen film but actual Watchmen action figures to go with it?
As for all the sequel talk….isn’t such a clause a standard in all contracts for films of this nature? If this film does Iron Man (never mind Dark Knight) numbers then perhaps we might…just might get some prequel talk. But I assume that Warners will want to stay on Snyder’s good side.
But a sequel…? No way. Come on people.
I hate to be pedantic, but they’re not really changing the end of the film. They’re changing the climax of a plotline, but there’s still likely a good 10 to 15 minutes of movie after that point, including a big fight scene, a big decision relating to the core theme of “Who Watches the Watchmen?” along with the fallout of that including a major death and a reconciliation. The true ending and climax comes after the big change.
70 million opening…try at least a 100. Next to Trek this is truly the most anticipated movie of the year by far. As bleak and disturbing it is, it’ll do gangbusters at the b.o.
Watchmen will be big, but nothing like TDK. The R-rating will hurt it in the long run. I expect 300-like numbers, which will be A-OK for all involved.
Avid comic book fan here but have only been half hearted in my excitement for the Watchmen movie. It’s not because I’m such a purist that I think it has to stay 100% true to the graphic novel, but because the promo photos of the actors/costumes I’ve seen look embarassingly cheap and ridiculous when put on real human beings. It’s gotten so much buzz though that it’ll definitely open big but where it will go from there is I think anyone’s guess (although I figure that we’ll know more after this week’s NY Comic Con where there will no doubt be some sort of sneak preview)
The news: there’s excitement from young people who are active online for a movie version of a popular comic book series!
Aren’t those young nerds who spend all their time online in the bag anyway? I would think the real test are the other demographics…
I’ll add to the chorus…
The ending of the original books wasn’t particularly good. The series worked fantastically in every way except the ending, so people overlooked it.
As noted above, the ending would never work in a movie today.
Moreover, Nikki, you’re coming off as someone naive by harping on this all the time. Hit movies are never made off the backs of fans of the original material. The Lord of the Rings didn’t make it’s mint from only the folks who read the books. And I know a few people who loved the books but hated the movie — only seeing the first one — because of changes made.
So, those who hate the changes don’t count. What matters are, do the changes make an effective movie. In the case of Lord of the Rings, for example, yes. And so the movie was rewarded at the box office by plenty of folks who would never read the books going and paying to see it.
From what I’ve heard about the specifics of Snyder’s re-working of the ending, it’s kind of brilliant. It ties the conflict of the characters into a tighter knot, and works out of the logic of the characters organically.
My guess is the movie is going to be a blast.
The problem with translating Watchmen isn’t the ending. Watchmen is a book where Alan Moore took every literary technique he could find and fit them into the comic structure. It’s an amazing plot with amazing characters, but it’s so incredible because it’s a comic novel built on the shoulders of giants.
Translating Watchmen into a film is like translating Joyce’s Ulysses into a film. Sure, you *can* do it, but the result won’t be satisfying because the work was made to tailor the format.
The stunt worked!
The lawsuit was phony and designed to get this obscure comicbook a lot of free press.
Wake up people. Not all execs are stupid.
Fox, WB, bravo.
Most of the buzz I’m hearing about is the bellyaching of disgruntled fan-geeks who are peeved that the adaptation isn’t going to be 100% faithful to their beloved source material. Nevermind the fact that a project with full fidelity would be 5 hours long and would cost in excess of 400 million.
whiskey said:
It’s derivative and post-modern. Making your own, depressing, downbeat versions of the Question, Wonder Woman, Mr. Terrific, Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, and Vigilante, many of whom are obscure and interesting only to comic book hard-core fans, is not guaranteed for wide-spread appeal.
At the risk of confirming your central point, Rorshach is Question, Doctor Manhattan is Captain Atom and Nite-Owl is Blue Beetle, but the rest are wrong. You are citing DC original characters not Charlton characters. (DC bought the rights to the Charlton characters prior to Watchmen’s development and original release.)
The Comedian is the Peacemaker not Vigilante
Ozymandias is Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt not Mr. Terrific
Silk Spectre is more complicated because she was not based on a Charlton character but invented by Alan Moore to pay tribute to female characters like Black Canary and Phantom Lady.
Again, your point about comic geeks probably strengthened.
*****
To the original ending issue, it was discarded early in the adaptation process. The first script by Sam Hamm turfed it with Alan Moore’s blessing before he became embittered by the film adaptation process.
Silk Spectre is based on the Charlton character Night Shade.
I’m thrilled they’ve changed the ending. Anything has to be better than that laughably bad crap bringing a fascinating graphic novel to a horrible close. There are ways to change the ending and have its spirit remain while getting rid of the sense I got that Moore didn’t know how to end it properly (I’ve even heard he and his editor argued about the ending because his editor hated it).
While it’s highly anticipated, word of mouth will probably cut its audience in half after the first couple days. There’s a reason why there’s no substantial material being put out by their marketing: it’s a pretty depressing story. Oh, yeah, interesting, sure, brilliant, sure. But depressing as all hell, depressing not just at the end, but throughout the whole damn thing.
Carlos Torres said Silk Spectre is based on the Charlton character Night Shade.
*Sigh*
At the risk of raising the comic-geekry to uncomfortable levels, not according to Alan Moore:
The Silk Spectre was just a female character because I needed to have a heroine in there. Since we weren’t doing the Charlton characters anymore, there was no reason why I should stick with Nightshade, I could take a different sort of super-heroine, something a bit like the Phantom Lady, the Black Canary, generally my favorite sort of costume heroines anyway. The Silk Spectre, in that she’s the girl of the group, sort of was the equivalent of Nightshade, but really, there’s not much connection beyond that.
From this interview:
http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html
The Black Canary comparison is obvious with a 1940′s heroine whose daughter takes the name and is somewhat conflicted about following in her footsteps. Not to mention the whole fighting crime in a Victoria’s Secret outfit.