Talk about an interesting case study… I won’t tell you that the most anticipated superhero movie debut since last summer’s The Dark Knight, and one of the most expensive because of its $130M to $150M budget, is a bomb financially. I also won’t tell you this non-sequel and non-remake big-screen retelling of a wildly admired graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons sucked creatively. Because even I believe that sometimes films shouldn’t be judged on just those criteria. Instead, this is one of those rare times in Hollywood when the concensus complains that the director and the studio tried to stay too faithful to the source material in order not to offend the sensibilities of the fanboy core audience. (Don’t quibble with me about the ending being changed. That giant alien squid nonsense was a non-starter even with CGI up the wazoo.)
But, first, let’s consider if the pic will earn out. “It’s way to soon to tell,” one of the studio moguls involved tells me. “What counts is where a film finishes, not where it starts. We have to see what the holds are like and what the international does in the end. With decent holds, it should be fine.” Estimates I’m hearing are that Watchmen will make $130M domestic and that’s more than it will take in overseas. But remember: Warner Bros still owns most of the pic as producer and domestic distributor. And Paramount owns 25% plus is the international distributor. Then Legendary Pictures owns a chunk. Then there were all those courtroom fights between 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. When the dust finally settled, Fox will receive up to 8 1/2% gross participation, and a piece of everything going forward (including any improbable sequel or spinoff), and a cash payment upfront including recoupment of its development costs and attorney fees. So cutting Fox in at the last minute played havoc with Warner Bros’ economics on the movie. Which is why there’s a lot of speculation that Warner Bros will seek to sue Larry Gordon, and he in turn seek to sue his law firm that made the deal (Bloom Hergott), which supposedly has a $10 million insurance policy which will end up in Warner Bros pocket.
Then let’s consider whether the pic will have legs. Warner Bros is encouraged. Sunday, the studio took an aggressive stand with an estimate of $11.5M and exceeded that. On Monday, the pic did $3.8M, nearly what the studio hoped for. And, for the 2nd straight weekend coming up, there’s no real competition against Watchmen. (Only Disney’s family film Race To Witch Mountain.)
As for overseas, most foreign moviegoers never heard of Watchmen. In fact, few did in this country except for old and young fanboys. There aren’t superheroes with household names. And the movie had no stars. So the result was no one really knew what Watchmen would make at the North American or international box office. The final figures were $55.2M here (pumped up by the $4.5M from 1,600 Thursday midnight and Friday 12:01 AM shows including all 124 sold-out Imax screenings, as well as the highest location count ever for an R-rated opening at 3,611 theaters), and $25M abroad.
Yet I can assure you that every Hollywood studio agreed before the release that the ambitious pic from 300 director Zack Snyder would have an enormous weekend opening. The expected range ran as high as $70M despite a long running time of two hours, 43 minutes because of what was a record number of theaters for an R-rated release and pent-up demand by mostly older male audiences with a lot of awareness among young males and even some females. Warner Bros believed it would end up “in the $60sM”. And an office betting pool by Paramount’s distribution department settled on a weekend total in the high $60sM. But by Friday night the Hollywood experts saw that even $60M would be impossible.
“It was a great opening despite what the gloom-and-doomsayers think. But even I had unrealistic expectations that it was going to do $70M,” said one of my studio marketing gurus who prides himself on very accurate box office forecasting. “I’d always pegged the movie at mid-$50sM. I’m mad at myself for ratcheting it up at the end. Not that I believed anybody’s hype. But I looked at the way pictures have been over-performing in recent months, and I bought into that notion that this is a tentpole and why shouldn’t it over-perform as well?”
As I noted before the weekend, Warner Bros spent its full-frills $50 million marketing budget for the movie — about average for a tent-pole these days — on a very aggressive campaign that spent big in the outdoor market and on TV advertising. But rival marketing execs were surprised, but also impressed, that the studio’s campaign for Watchmen stayed so true to the graphic novel andto fanboys of all ages – but left everyone else dazed and confused as to what the movie was about or even who the good or bad guys were. As one admired: “The campaign was about planting a big flag in the ground as if to say, ‘We are an event. And if you don’t understand that, then you’re not cool enough to get it’. ”
For instance, the Warner Bros team resisted the obvious tagline for Watchmen that “someone is killing off superheroes” in order not to oversimplify or oversell it. (As close as the marketing came was “We want our superheroes”.) That meant doing something movie marketers rarely do: accepting that Watchmen is an acquired taste based on a restrictive idea and written as an inaccessible story and then made into a movie that isn’t for everyone.
But that doesn’t widen the audience for this coming weekend when Watchmen‘s negatives — the complex story that was too murky, the hardcore sex and violence too noxious — are watercooler talk? “I hate to think that, after two fucking years of marketing, we’re a one-weekend movie,” a Warner Bros exec confessed to me a week ago. But that may be what happens. ”It’s impossible to change course now,” one studio exec says about Watchmen‘s long reluctance to even explain what the film was about in its movie trailers and TV ads. “The time to do that was in the last 10 to 12 days before the opening.”
Some other marketing gurus hold out hope that, since Watchmen‘s core audience of older males are not as obsessed with seeing pics like this when they first come out, they may buy tickets this weekend if the pic has received enough good word of mouth. At the same time, the execs point to missed opportunities. “The superhero genre is one that parents are most willing to take kids to. But all the blood and sex in Watchmen hurt what the opening could have been with families.”
Once the pic opened, “either you were familiar with the source material, or you had trouble following the bouncing ball,” one studio marketing exec analyzed for me. Exit polling showed that the audience didn’t really like the movie (as shown by a Cinemascore of only “B”). “Alan Moore always said that Watchmen the graphic novel couldn’t be successfully made into a movie. Maybe he was right. Because, at the end of the day, Zack Snyder’s slavish attention to detail in making Watchmen such a literal translation is what ultimately doomed the film. He cared more about the appeasement of the fanboys than in a cohesive, coherent movie meant for everyone.”
Yet even a sizable faction of fanboys railed online that Snyder’s take was too beat-by-beat faithful, with many expressing the wish that the Paul Greengrass version, which would have been set in the present day (instead of 1985 America against a Nixon-Kissenger backdrop) and involved multicultural terrorism (instead of the Cold War), had been made instead. (Oh, and they thought Zack’s music selection “zucked” by using all-too-obvious tunes like Hallelujah, Sounds of Silence, and Ride Of The Valkyries.) Though Snyder may have the last laugh (and help reverse the current Industry-wide DVD sales slide) because of all the talk that he’s been secretly making a 4-hour version for home release.
Inside Hollywood, some studio execs blamed the Warner Bros brass for — get this — being too hands-off because Snyder had given the studio such an incredible success with 300 and the moguls just figured he knew what he was doing with Watchmen. “This may have been one of those times when you second guess,” a Hollywood bigwig opines. “What distinguishes a great studio exec from every other studio exec is that they manage these filmmaker egos without letting them know they’re being managed. But,” the bigwig adds, “not everyone is Chris Nolan.”
WEIRD OR WONDROUS? Zack Snyder’s ‘Watchmen’ Clocks $55.6M Weekend
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.





im sure they’ll do just fine when the 4 different dvd/blue ray versions come out. I for one am interested in seeing the extended directors take.
Watchmen is a book that was constructed to exploit formal elements of comics in a unique way. It can’t be interpreted like a series of storyboards and you’re not going to get the same results when you try to apply a method that was developed for adapting Frank Miller’s comics (which can be rather storyboard-like) on Sin City.
A larger issue, frequently unmentioned, is that the book is a very dense 400 pages and contains not only comics, but text sections that contain much of the back story. A feature-length running time will allow you to be faithful to some sections while others are outright omitted.
This spreading meme of the danger of being “too faithful” to source material is misleading considering the idiosyncrasies of this particular case and the past success of extremely faithful adaptations like Sin City, Iron Man, etc.
Spot-on, Joe. Did Saw V miss out on that family audience, too? Hell, I don’t even know what Nikki likes: Haven’t we seen pretty much EVERY film get bashed as of late? It’s just like Brandon Gray: No one can understand what pleases these people… not even themselves.
Nikki, great post mortem on Watchmen. It’s always difficult to know whether a director is going to turn out the next Lord of the Rings or the next Heaven’s Gate, although I think a studio should be worried when they find out a director is secretly shooting a four-hour version for eventual DVD release rather than making a compact two-hour version. Cutting four hours down to two hours means you have to jettison entire scenes and subplots, whereas if you have a tight two-hour script, you can combine scenes and include some of the subplots into the main story, leaving less out. And since the final movie came out to be 2-3/4 hours, what’s in the theaters is basically an abridged version of the four-hour version. You might as well wait for the director’s cut DVD.
Well said Joe, I was thinking the same thing when I read the comment about family audiences. A suit somewhere thinks that all superhero movies should be family friendly, so what if the story suffers just so long as mommy can take little Jimmy to see people in tights. That’s one of the reasons we have so much crap to wade through. I for one enjoyed the movie very much, thought the new ending actually made more sense, and enjoyed being able to see a mature story being told. Didn’t hurt to not have a theater full of screaming kids to deal with either.
Great analysis, Nikki.
Lets be honest: Synder is not a talented film maker. “300″ was fluke, more the product of great, marketable source material (and his slavish, 1-1, panel-to-shot attention to it) than his (FX team’s) talent. His slow-mo, rock-score schtick was tired before “300″ hit the DVD market. 70% of the “Watchmen” weekend gross was pent-up audience demand for a comic book movie, and 30% fanboy hype. $14 million this week, $23 million this weekend, out of the theater in 2 weeks.
Nikki,
You’re obsession with “fan boys” is… um, strange.
And I’ll say again, let’s look at Lord of the Rings. No stars. Obscure source material that most people had never really heard of and fewer had read. Long running time. Story spread out over three movies. A vocal fan base that considered the movie “their” property, many of whom criticized every change Jackson and his team made.
It might look like a no brainer with hindsight, but I remember talking to some folks from Sony only two weeks before the opening of the first movie who asked, “Have enough people read this book for there to be an actual audience for this movie?”
The answer, of course, was no. If only the people who cared about the book showed up, The Lord of the Rings would have been a huge flop.
So, Watchmen isn’t going to be a 300. It happens. There might be lessons to be learned. But you’re not going to see them if you keep working from the wrong base assumptions. And as far as I can tell, you’re ignoring plenty of examples of non-star, not well known genre pieces that went off to do just fine.
I am stunned by why their is so much negativity over the performance of this movie, whether on the screen performance or profit margin/tickets sold performance.
I am a very conservative person and see nothing wrong with this pic going for an R-rating(especially if this is what the director feels will properly tell the associated story). I also see nothing wrong with staying true to the book or even for slight or drastic changes to the original source material. These are all artistic/director/producer choices.)
I am all for family-friendly movies but not every single movie needs to be rated PG. Even PG movies can fail miserably at the box office or simply & subjectively/objectively SUCK.
I find what is so stunning about the variety of negative criticism against this film, is that 9 out of 10 times, these SAME negative critics levying the criticism, ALSO promote freedom of artistic expression. YET this is exactly what Snyder did/is doing, with the blessings of the movie company(s) as well as the substantial support of one of the original book’s creators, Gibbons (although the other, Moore, supposedly put a curse on the work for past ill-treatment by Warners).
I believe Moore had nothing to say about Snyder’s work one way or another. Albeit, if he did criticise it negatively & yet did not see it, that would smack of hypocrisy. To judge a movie, “not very good,” without even seeing it, seems to me, to lack being sincere about artistic freedom. Especially if you do not even afford a fellow artist the same respect to not judge their work unless you have first viewed it.
That being said, I thought the movie was entertaining, understandable, as well as had a very strong ticket sales opening in my town. It remains to be seen if this will continue.
In the end, what a movie rakes in means nothing to me. a great movie is a great movie. or maybe i should say an entertaining movie is an entertaining movie. I would grade this movie a 8/10 movie.
..also, art is a very subjective experience.
I think the following comment is cruel & ignorant: “…and they thought Zack’s music selection ‘zucked’ by using all-too-obvious tunes like Hallelujah, Sounds of Silence, and Ride Of The Valkyries.” Those pieces of music fit PERFECTLY FOR THE SCENES THEY ACCOMPANIED. WHAT IS THE HERESY ASSOCIATED WITH THESE PIECES OF MUSIC!!??? IN FACT, THOSE WERE THE FIRST TIME I FELT EACH OF THOSE WORKS OF MUSIC WERE USED TO GREAT EFFECT IN A MOVIE(the valkyrie piece was a nod to Apoclypse Now…BUT FOLKS THIS IS A POP CULTURE TYPE OF MOVIE…AND THE DIRECTOR GIVES VISUAL/AUDIO NODS TO PAST FILMS. SO WHAT???? THAT’s WHAT MOORE DOES AS WELL IN HIS WORKS? WHY CANT SNYDER DO THE SAME IN FILM???)
I thought All along the Watchtower, with two of the main superheroes was drop-dead perfect. 99 Luft balloons same… and so on….
You cant please everyone I guess but peopel should at least be fair and not push their own biases or subjective points of view. or at least preface with a statement that it is just your opinion.
Oh and BTW, I have never read any of Moore’s non-traditional super hero series, including V for Vendetta, and enjoyed their movie versions IMMENSLEY. I also glance at a wiki entry now & then, only after seeing each film in order to not spoil the first-time experience.
cheers and relax folks…movies are meant to be fun & occasionaly intellectually stimulating. which, FOR ME, Watchmen was very much so.
go figure
DVD sales on this will be huge….
seconded, mouse. there are problems in the graphic novel that should have been addressed but snyder was too reverent to the material. all those flashbacks weighed on the novel as well, and there could have definitely been a meatier main plot. im glad they changed the ending although im not certain they changed it satisfactorily enough. then the overlong voiceovers…i hated it in 300 and i hated it here.
as always, zac’s films looking stunning. but a movie is so much more than just production design and cinematography. if i had wanted to appreciate pretty pictures, i wouldve gone to the museum.
Lets be honest: Synder is not a talented film maker. “300″ was fluke, more the product of great, marketable source material (and Snyder’s slavish, panel-to-shot attention to it) than his (FX team’s) talent. His slow-mo, rock-score schtick was tired before “300″ hit the DVD market. 70% of the “Watchmen” weekend gross was pent-up audience demand for a comic book movie, and 30% fanboy hype. $14 million this week, $23 million this weekend, out of the theater in 2 weeks.
Christopher Kubasik,
Dude, put down the bong while you still have a couple of working brain cells. Then move out of your parent’s basement and join the real world.
“The Lord of the Rings” is one of the most read and influential literary works in the 20th century. It never went out of print in 50 years and has been reprinted dozens of times in virtually every language.
If you think it’s obscure, it’s because you have never opened anything but a comic “book”.
“Watchmen” was a comic with a very small following. It’s virtually unknown to the general public. Trying to equate the two only shows how foolish you are.
“hey joe, the business is making REVENUE hand over fist from THEATRICAL right now. Everything else sucks and production and marketing costs are too high. Very very few films are turning an actual profit and the ones that are generally low cost junk like paul blart and taken.”
Well, define profit. Sure the studios as institutions aren’t making huge profits, but of course studios aren’t run to make profits for the studio i.e. the shareholders – they’re run to maximize executive/star pay. Which they’re certainly and obviously successful at. That’s their dirty little secret when they start whining about how they’re not making any money – of course it’s massively disingenuous but it’s been that that way for years.
Box office mojo has interesting numbers on the comic book franchise. Remember Brenda Star, Tank girl. Perhaps Watchmen will make its money back in the long run. But will you trust another WB movie other then the Batman franchise. My son wants to see it, but hey he’s a teen. He borrowed a friends book, so he knows it T and A. How about the Phantom, I did like the Spirit despite the bug eyed Samuel Jackson, Scarlet J played her part well. But the comic book franchise can only last so long with films like the Watchmen not being marketed properly just for 55 million.
I mean I will watch Judd Dread because it’s a comic sci-fi adaptation. But the Watchmen, I could not endure watching that a second or third time. I would rather reread my last script for the hundredth time. And I hate rereads and rewrites. But since box office mojo has Watchmen at 40 and moving up the list of 83 comic book adaptation films. I’m sure their will be a sequel and after 55 million they will make at least 250 million when it’s all over. That will take it past the great Xmen franchise and close to Iron Man. Marketing sucks.
First, people have to stop calling this a “superhero” flick. That’s where the marketing went wrong.
Watchmen was never going to be the next Spider-Man — or even the next The Dark Knight. The story isn’t about heroes. But when you have clueless marketers promoting the movie with “The world wants its superheroes back,” then the whole thing is a lost cause from the beginning. The general audience went expecting an action movie, and that’s not what they got.
I tend to agree with Alan Moore that this story is fundamentally unadaptable for the screen. It’s dense. It’s clearly meant to be read and reread. It was even designed to show off what comics can do that movies can’t do. The story isn’t really about the plot. It doesn’t really matter who killed the Comedian. And, most importantly of all — it doesn’t even have a villian.
Watchmen isn’t about superheroes. Ultimately, it’s about how “superheroes” are a bad idea: Who watches the watchmen?
The property was a poor fit overall for a movie adaptation. If you just took the plot and stripped out everything else, you might have your action movie…. But it would also be pointless, because then it would be the exact opposite story with “heroes” and “villians.”
OTOH, it would probably have made a crapload of money.
Also big bombs in their time: Blade Runner, Office Space, Big Lebowski, Fight Club.
The film version of Watchmen, I suspect, will go on to affect a whole generation of filmmakers.
KissInger, rather.
Oh no, I’m that guy.
What we should be doing is celebrating the fact that a major studio made a movie that as unusual and perverse as WATCHMEN. Maybe that’s naive thinking. I know everyone here is obsessed with money. So what if it’s not perfect? So what if the fanboys aren’t satisfied? They’re hardly satisfied with anything – their beloved Chris Nolan movies being the exception. Here’s a movie that isn’t about a mall cop or a doofus in drag. Thank god for risk-taking. Of course, it’ll be the last time in a long time, because of this gigantic flop that everyone despises.
(We now return to your regularly scheduled obsession with gross.)
Simon, if you’re claiming that “Watchmen” is some sort of artistic victory, its a hallow one. First, “Watchmen” is far from art, and the only made it because they believed in Snyder and his ability to deliver another “300″ style success. Second, for the $200 million they paid for “Watchmen”, they could have made 12-15 “Slumdog”s, and had a significantly better return on their investment, even if only two out of those 20 were hit. George Lucus actually had it right several years ago when he said he was going to focus his production on small budget films; if only he actually did. It really is a much better business model to invest in small films with even moderate mainstream success than to bet it all on a comic book. Remember that “Slumdog” had a much better ROI than even “Dark Knight”.
ITA with Joe. I just think it is sad that an R-rating is seen as a stigma by now. That essentially says more serious subject matters and films with a darker tone are taboo.
Personally, I loved Watchmen. I didn’t expect much going into it aside from being turned off by the trailer but intrigued by everything I’ve read about it. I thought it was wonderfully subversive on oh so many levels. And that although I’m apparently not the target audience, being female.
I went to see it with a friend and he had no clue about the story beforehand, but had no trouble following anything. So all that talk about it being too complex is bull.
The title sequence alone is worth seeing it on the big screen, if you ask me.
The problem with the new ending to this film is that it doesn’t SOLVE the problem that the book’s “non-starter” of an ending with the alien squid solves.
In the book, humanity is on the verge of global nuclear war, so Veidt puts his resources behind cloning and growing a gigantic “alien” squid designed by a team of geniuses –led by a horror novelist and a hollywood sfx designer– with the singular goal of creating something utterly horrifying and alien and fear-invoking to a human audience. Once created, it’s teleported into the middle of New York City where its giant filled-with-alien-horrors brain overloads and feeds horrific imagery directly into the brains of MILLIONS of New Yorkers, killing most, leaving the rest with horrifying imagery and dreams of an alien dimension which hates us and wants to destroy us.
New York, the global cultural capital is attacked by an OTHER, an IT from another dimension, killing millions of innocent people. It brings together the entire human race in sympathy and sorrow for the dead… kinda like 9/11 did in the real world 15 years after this graphic novel was first published.
The film’s ending, however, does NOT solve the problem that it purports to. Dr. Manhattan is an American creation… far from provoking sympathy and unity in Mankind, it’s far likelier that our enemies would simply view him “killing millions of New Yorkers” as Imperialist America’s chickens coming home to roost… much like how America created Bin Laden in the ’80′s and came to regret those actions in 2001.
Worse, Dr. Manhattan tells Laurie he’s departing our solar system for “another galaxy” — what good is he as an enemy for mankind to unite against if he’s not going to be around to hate? Wouldn’t everything just go back to the way it was after a year or two of no one getting a glimpse of Dr. Manhattan?
Worse again, at the point when the film’s ending scheme unfolds, the President has just ordered DefCon One, meaning the complete launching of America’s nuclear arsenal… this means that the President and the Kremlin are both deliberately committing suicide, knowingly committing Mutual Assurred Destruction. Why wouldn’t the Russians just see the vaporization of midtown Manhattan as a good Step One towards the rest of the job?
It’s easy to complain that the “Alien Squid” ending doesn’t work because it’s “goofy” or “comic-book-y” or whatever, but substituting Dr. Manhattan in as the nominal bad guy just doesn’t work.
Another thing that doesn’t work about this film is that in its hurry to include EVERY POSSIBLE ACTION SEQUENCE is that it does so at the expense of quite a few very human characters. The old man who sells newspapers. Rorshach’s Doctor’s Wife. The kid reading the Tales of the Black Freighter. Several dozen other characters who round out the universe. This complete absence of ordinary humans means that we only ever interface with the Super-Dolts, and therefore don’t really care about the theoretical New Yorkers that Veidt vaporizes… because we don’t KNOW any of them. In the book, by contrast, I remember growing angrier and angrier at Veidt for what he had done every time Jon & Laurie saw a familiar human face amongst the stacks of the dead in NYC. Oh, and that’s another note for Zack Snyder: stacks of corpses are always more terrifying than a big antiseptic perfectly round hole in the ground. A kid with exploded eyes and blood streaming out of his ears and nose died horribly and painfully, whereas a big empty hole means the dead never even noticed. I can quickly tell you which is probably worse, and which type of death makes Veidt’s character a bigger monster for having done what he’s done, good intentions or no.
Lastly, for Kelly, the above fan of the book who didn’t like the Pirate comic in the Watchmen graphic novel, “because it seems to be out of flow with the rest of it,” I would point out that the entire point of the Black Freighter story is to comment on the actions Veidt is taking in order to “save” humanity. Ozymandias IS the lead character of Tales of the Black Freighter (which, no doubt, is why he hired the author of the story to design his monstrous squid for him — he recognized a fellow sicko).
I guess the Simons of the world all work for nothing. Profit means more money to make more movies, that’s more jobs, that’s people in the industry being able to survive.
Bah.
As said earlier by I forget whom, the issue is why so much money was spent for what was basically a niche film, a la Speed Racer.
We own the DVD of Speed Racer (ten-year old boy in the house). Nice flick and why was so much money spent on a such a narrow demographic? Ditto Watchmen. Considering the narrow demographic (because with that rape scene NO WAY you were going to get most women in the door), why spend so much money?
Go ahead, do your art house schtick. However, at 150 mill, we aint’ talking art house but blockbuster and Watchmen was never, ever going to do that kind of business.
DVD’s aren’t selling well, right now. So don’t be talking to me how the costs will be made after the theatrical run.
I haven’t seen this movie yet, but all my friends already have. And I have ALOT of friends! “Watchmen” will drop second weekend…BIG TIME! People keep invoking this as a cult classic, but what movies opens to big hype with disappointing results. Sounds more like “Snakes on a Plane” then “The Big Lebowski.” ‘Watchmen’ will be one of THE debatable movie for 2009 and maybe beyond.
And I agree regarding Nikki. She is obsessed with fanboys.