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


Fox makes a killing (obviously)
Warner comes out alive, probably makes a few bucks
Paramount comes close
Legendary loses $$30-$40M.
Legendary is the stooge again. Warners will let you “play producer” all day long until the hedge fund money runs out and you stop absorbing all their losses (and let them make disproportionate profits on the winners.
Whatever. The principals will be making steady money off this movie for 20 years easy. It it vulgar in the extreme to suggest that making 55 million dollars on anything in about 72 hours is a disappointment – especially something as complex as this property. This business is making money hand over fist right now on some awful awful disposable stuff. This one will endure and is also making money despite the Monday morning quarterbacking.
At least Warners appears to be making attempts at actually being in the moviemaking business. Snyder did a great job. The remarks about the lament of missing out on family auds is the most telling thing in this whole piece. If you want to make a family friendly version of this property then you pick a different property.
If the Watchmen is a faithful adaptation, then I really hate to see what would have happened without the altruistic intentions of Snyder and Warner Bros.
I realize the squid is not doable. But, what it was replaced with was a bit of a cop-out.
I didn’t mind the movie. Most fans of the book I know weren’t crazy excited by the film though, and didn’t feel like they needed to rush out to see it, because it’s going to be around for a while.
The idea that this could have been made into a PG-13 family film is ludicrous. That film version would have opened far lower than 55 million, and it would have been out of theaters quickly and made next to nothing overseas.
Like Joe said, if that is the film you wanted, then you don’t make Watchman at all. If the studio needed 1 billion worldwide to make money of this deal, then they are stupid for making the movie at that financial level, but there would be no way to re-jigger this story to turn it into a 1 billion dollar property. That’s delusional.
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.
I think that the Watchmen will at least become an underground cult film, like The Fight Club (which also bombed at the box office).
“It it vulgar in the extreme to suggest that making 55 million dollars on anything in about 72 hours is a disappointment – especially something as complex as this property. This business is making money hand over fist right now on some awful awful disposable stuff. This one will endure and is also making money despite the Monday morning quarterbacking.”
Couldn’t have said it better Joe. But if I might add a theory. If the Warner brass had any balls and brains they would’ve released the director’s cut in the first place which adds an extra 30 minutes to the proceedings. The film feels long because there’s no connective tissue to some of the subplots. For example, the Dr. Manhattan origin and how it affected his girlfriend Janey is much more moving in the novel, details they left out of the movie that would’ve made it more emotional for the audience — Laurie’s issues with her mother and her eventual acceptance of the truth of her parentage, again in the movie it was too rushed. Movies with complex storylines have to be able to breathe in order to achieve their maximum impact.
Think about the Godfather — Coppola wanted to cut out the entire Michael hiding out in Sicily segment, but Evans forced him to keep it in giving Michael’s descent into darkness more gravitas.
Some movies don’t benefit from the 3 hour length, another example, Curious Case of Benjamin Button, a film that I think would’ve been much more powerful at a lean 2 hours. Superman Returns — much more effective with a short running length.
With the Warner Bros, STUDIO CUT, they were trying to appeal to the common denominator with material that is anything but common. But I’m not crying for these studio assholes — they’ll be making dough off this flick for years on end once the director’s cut comes out and hopefully will add a lot more details from the novel therefore giving critics another opportunity to reasses their original gripes. We’re talking a Blade Runner cult on this one. Watch…you’ll see.
I could see the film doing well in France; it’s already gotten a lot of press and the French love ‘bande dessinnee’ AND noir and have a lot of respect for Zack Snyder. I think it will do well in Asia also…but more on dvd than theatrical release…
Films have been overpeforming because people want to forget what’s on the front page of the newspaper. But just because “Hotel for Dogs” was a smash doesn’t mean “Watchmen” will be. The audience wants a narcotic, not a dystopia. And they certainly don’t want to see the people who are supposed to save the day dying off.
This movie is “Speed Racer”.
“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.
oh no, of course not.
If you want to sell something, sell it to a salesman.
I am sick of all the studio catering to the “family-friendly” crowd. Yes, the movie business is just that, but enough already with the intellectual dishonesty of squeezing and trimming to fit material grownups (anyone 17 or older) might appreciate into an extremely unrealistic PG-13 girdle. And I’m not talking about the torture porn that has been passing for horror. I’m talking about the kinds of sophisticated material that Warner Bros. and Paramount made 30 years ago — “Chinatown,” “Klute,” “A Clockwork Orange,” “Tbe Untouchables” anyone? All were rated R. In those days an R rating was a plus, not a negative. Of course that’s just wishful thinking on my part. Those days are too long gone, and it appears that pandering to the “family-friendly” political crowd who don’t buy movie tickets but take loud umbrage at the slightest provocation remains the order of the day. Gag me.
I thought the movie was unexpectedly fantastic and I found myself really enjoying its complexity and depth. I’m really annoyed that now probably there will never be anything like that encouraged again because of some low opening numbers.
This fangirl thought it wasn’t that bad – it could have been much worse than it was. Casting was good for the most part, with Haley as the standout. Yeah, not all of the little details from the book made it in the theatrical cut, but the director’s cut on DVD will make up for those cuts.
I thought that the film ending was a vast improvement over the book’s. The ending of the book is one of its main weaknesses – it was half assed and lazy after all the effort Moore and Gibbons put into the first 3/4ths of the book. I really didn’t care that the Black Freighter wasn’t included in the film cut – I don’t like it in the book because it seems to be out of flow with the rest of it. I did love the opening credit montage and Sally’s flashbacks as Snyder’s way of including the Minutemen backstory.
I don’t think Nikki and other doubters were the target audience. I think they were the people dragged along by the fans and their pessimistic viewpoint colored their perception of the movie. I think most people who had read the book which is more than Nikki thinks would be happy with a semi faithful adaptation. I don’t expect complete fidelity to the source material, but to convey its spirit the way its original creators intended. I think Watchmen accomplished that for me.
I think after Watchmen the only comic book properties remaining for screen adaptation are the DC Vertigo titles like Sandman, Preacher, and Y the Last Man. Preacher was killed recently by HBO as a miniseries, which was probably the best way to adapt it due to its scope and the CGI costs. Sandman seems easier on paper than Watchmen to adapt due to Gaiman’s relaxed take on adaptations based his work (Stardust) compared to Moore’s. The problem is the scale and scope of it and how much it would cost for FX and CGI. Y is the most likely of the titles mentioned to be put into production in the next year due to its more realistic setting and creator’s own willingness to cooperate in an adaptation.
It’s unfortunate that all the press is on Watchmen’s opening. We berate the studios for not taking any chances or producing anything original, and when they do take a chance, we analyze the box office. It just gives them more ammunition to continue dipping into the remake/adaptation/reboot well.
I’m aware that Watchman is an adaptation, but it was a hell of a risk. And true, it did cost a lot of money. But the long view is Warner Brothers will be making money off this film long after it’s out of the theaters.
Shawshank opened 9th on its opening weekend, and now it’s considered a classic, and I’m sure its made it budget back a couple of times over.
So even if Watchmen is no Dark Knight, box office-wise (and what could be?), I congratulate Warners for at least trying to break some new ground and go for something different. Hopefully this weekends drop off won’t be too steep.
Excellent post Nikki. This is why I read your blog everyday. Please keep the pro-SAG ad nauseum crap to a minimum…
It wasn’t Snyder being concerned about the fanboys, it was Snyder believing the story was perfect as it is in the book.
Joe is right. Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don’t. What fascinates me is that the article and the comments reek of cynicism at all costs. Yes, the movie was visually stunning, and yes, dramatically it is by the numbers, because the novel doesn’t fit into a two-hour plus movie format, and the obligatory young casting (not by too much, though) is a bit at odds with the premise. But come on, who are you kidding? Marketing knew exactly what it was doing. They rolled the dice on a non-family friendly story, hoping to bedazzle the Indians into the multiplexes. Call it hubris, but I hope it succeeds so that it makes it a trend for hands-off and risk-tasking.
Joe just hit it right on the nose. 55 Million dollars in a few days is a GREAT box office. The movie was LOOOONG. You can only show a long movie so many times. It was violent and sexual. It is what it is. And because it was so long people are having to find the time to see it. I think it will do well at the box office for a number of weeks.
The movie delivered what a lot of us go to the movies for — to be in a different world and see something we’ve never seen before in an interesting entertaining way.
I know many who plan on seeing it again in the theater because it’s so dense (and/or buy the DVD when it comes out as there’s supposed to be a ton of stuff that was cut out (sadly.))
It’ll make its money back. Snyder filmed the unfilmable. Congrats all around.
I still think its going to do well this weekend. I have friends who really want to see it but never, ever go to movies on the opening weekend. Too many people who think they are watching the movie in their living room, talking, kids, etc.
It is simple. WB and everyone else overestimated the number of Watchmen fanboys, and the general public seemed to feel that this movie based on a graphic novel they never heard of, starring actors they never heard of dressed in goofy costumes, wasnt something they wanted to see. They should have never spent $150M production + $50M marketing on this.
The idea that Snyder is to blame for being too faithful is stupid. You either remain faithful to the source material, or like Joe above said ‘you pick a different property’
The movie will be lucky to hit $110M domestic. But it could turn out to be a cult hit on dvd/cable. I applaud WB/Snyder for taking a chance on an “unfilmable” movie, but dollar signs clouded their judgment as to how big this would ever be.
“If you want to make a family friendly version of this property then you pick a different property.”
Totally. As a fan of the source material and of Zack, even I was surprised at the high opening numbers. Watchmen IS an acquired taste, definitely not family friendly, and WB was over a barrell marketing-wise, as every other idiot was going to see it thinking it would be some lightweight POS like Spider-Man 3.
Fortunately, folks like Chris Nolan and Bryan Singer (at least with X-Men 2) have shown broadened the audience’s palette, showing them you CAN take a man/woman in tights seriously, and that just because people are superheroes (or just dress like them) they can still be flesh-and-blood characters.
It won’t make a billion dollars like Dark Knight, so Hollywood haters will call it a bomb, but as long as WB doesn’t yank its promo, it’ll do well.
it was mainly a mixed bag hedging closer to a disappointment. Rorshach and the music were the best parts.
Glad I downloaded it instead of paying almost 10 bucks.
i wanted to like watchmen so badly…
Even if the finished product wasn’t what anyone expected, I admire Snyder’s dedication to making a fanboy flick, and the studios for backing him up, well aware of the risks. I just hope everyone comes out of this still willing to tackle challenging properties like “Watchmen” in the future.
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.
Oh what a bunch of bullshit. These same idiot fans woul dbe demanding Snyder’s head on a pike if he changed ANYTHING from the book, and now they are saying the movie is TOO MUCH like the book? That’s horse shit. They wanted to hate this movie from the get go, cuase how dare Hollywood make a movie out of thier precious book! So screw them
The real problem with this movie is that it is too smart, and your general audiences are too stupid. Put out Mall Cop and it makes a killing. Put out something dense, layered, and intelligent…something that demands THOUGHT, and everyone pisses all over it. That’s fine. I dont respect stupid people so its no sweat off my back. The movie is doing fine for itself, despite what Nikki wishes. And it will make a killing on DVD for a long time to come. This is another Blade Runner. It’s got cult status written all over it. And it deserves it. The film was nothing short of outstanding. I’m glad Snyder and WB took the chance to make something against the norm. Too bad more studios dont do this.
To all the brain dead, dont you worry. Wolverine has been butchered down to a 90 minute running time. So you’ll get your brainless, explosion filled, comic book movie soon.
Yeah this movie was excellent. Screw all the haters. This is going to be remembered for years. It definately has cult status written all over it. Too bad people are too dumb now to see how good a movie it is. But hey you can just go see Hotel for Dogs or Madea again!
I liked the concept. But thought it was way too long. Too much back story. They could have cut out 90% of each of the characters’ life-glimpse vignettes. And the script vacillated between compelling and formulaic torture-to-the-ears dialogue. I told this much to my friends as we left the theater, explaining that I considered that the extended, for-DVD-only version.
It’ll break even with DVD and iTunes. But the studios won’t chance something like it again, not without at least one star who takes the/a lead role.
Actually it wasn’t faithful enough, the changes ended up screwing the story and it’s profundity. The ending didn’t have to be a squid, but to not have some alien and just have some big crater takes out all of the impact the comic had. Second Ride of the Valkyries was a metatextual choice but you’re too dumb to get that. It was one of the smart things Snyder did. But again it wasn’t faithful enough, not having Ozy like the comic and just being an all out villain, not giving Manhattan that line all that made a massive difference.
It was too faithful to the comic???? What??????? Everyone online is agreeing that the changes and little ommisions made it seem like a dumb version of the comic. Obviously you can’t fit all of it in. But little important things suddenly made it seem like a way lesser version of the comic. Like things were missing. And please too long. goddamn youtube generation. The Godfather was 15 minutes longer! And that didn’t have Rorschach. Godfather would have failed nowadays. And 55 million for an R rated violent, superhero movie with no stars(like that makes a difference, ask assassination of jesse james) with hard sex and violence, with a complex story that even if it didn’t come close to the complexity of the comic was still above most theater fare and you think that’s disappointing???
Trying to handicap this property’s future in “Blade Runner” or “Fight Club” terms ignores the lingering side-effects from the shotgun wedding of studios resulting from the lawsuit. A better property for comparison is “Popeye” which seems rarely remembered among superhero/comic strip films. “Popeye” came from a combo of pre-Eisner Disney and Paramount, representing a tentpole gamble on Robert Altman and Robert Evans, with artful photography by Guisseppe Rotuno and a fanboy script by Jules Feiffer. Massive marketing (including board games and kiddie story books) ultimately couldn’t overcome intrinsic structural flaws of the adaptation, starting with the studio partnership on down to the above-line talent. Yet it continues to do enough business almost 30 years later to warrant a family market DVD re-release (having previously been a laserdisc title in the 80s – talk about niche markets).
NF: I don’t usually do geek, but:
The “non-starter” squid ending is actually kinda brilliant. And I know this sounds a little outrageous, but frankly, nobody bitches about the end of Adaptation when, after spending two hours dissecting the various ins-and-outs of cinematic cliches (or, conventions, if you’re a pretentious ass). That’s exactly what Watchmen is :::supposed::: to be – a deconstruction of the Superhero genre. The ending, amidst all sorts of complex psychological and emotional turmoil, it still boils down to some crazy hackneyed “mad-scientist-blow-up-the-city-with-a-mutant-squid” scheme. Just like Adaptation ends with a car chase and shoot out and man-eating crocodile. Get it? The book’s actually pretty goddamned smart.
Granted, that’s not what came across on the screen. Zack Snyder simply brought to life a number of memorable images, and considering that the man possesses the subtlety of an abbattoir of retarded children, that’s about all anyone could hope for. I’d say we had about 20% walkouts at the show I attended last Saturday, and it makes sense. The fan boys are really the only ones with any vested interest in this project. There’s plenty more to say, but I’m sure it’s already been said by more articulate souls than I.
no one – The character vignette’s ie Rorschach’s and Dr Manhattan’s were the best parts in the book, here they were pretty shortened(ie the photograph in my hand) and thus lost it’s poetry. However, both were the highlights of the movie. So cutting them down would of made it not worth watching at all. Dr Manhatan’s especially is the one that comes closest to the greatness of the comic.
This is like a case-study of how incompatible artistic intent and marketing can be – especially on a tentpole. Watchmen wasn’t an artistic touchstone, but there are more ideas there than in your typical superhero flick. And it wasn’t a marketing disaster, though some suits obviously feel it missed opportunities.
Marketing the film to a PG-13 audience would have killed it artistically; less garrish action, music, etc. would have cut even more box office.
The problem in my mind with the ending is that it’s just a tad too vague. Spend another 120 seconds on it, show some flashbacks to have it make more sense (what’s another few at that point?) so that you actually GET the “James Bond villain moment” that is so casually dismissed with the “I did it 35 minutes ago” line which was staggering in the book, but lacked serious impact in the film.
This was always a niche film. It has a very strong, rabid but ultimately small fan base. Deconstructing superheroes is great when your audience knows superhero archetypes well enough that they care to see them deconstructed. The successful superhero franchises are able to do two things. One, stay true enough to the source material, note I said true “enough”, that the loyalist are not lost. Two is to provide enough general interest entertainment that the larger audiences who don’t know the property or frankly care about the meta issues of comics will enjoy the movie. Dark Knight is genius because it does both as does Spiderman (I & II). Watchman is an expensive movie built for a very small, rabid audience.
I don’t know what to think, but I hope to be seeing it in IMAX by this weekend. I hear this, and that, and the other thing, but it all just makes me want to see it more. I’ve never read the comic.
Curse those Hollywood Bigwigs for granting too much artistic freedom! Dang this is a damned if you do damned if you don’t town.
Ugh–no way in hell was this “famblee” material. Whatever WATCHMEN’s failings, it would have been a real disaster had it been dumbed-down and kiddie-d up.
And Snyder’s literal recreation of the graphic novel is bad news, but not because it’s “fanboy pandering.” It’s because he was the wrong director for this and didn’t have the creative chops or depth to adapt this properly. He was hired because he brought 300 to the screen successfully (and because the suits obviously thought that made him a genius at adapting graphic novels to movies) but 300 and WATCHMEN are totally different beasts.
The thing about Watchmen is this.
The comic book has the scope and density of a novel. It broke new ground and was a serious revolution in comics (if one can forgive the damned squid at the end).
To translate that magic to the screen would have entailed something with the majestic filmic scope of Citizen Kane. Because that’s what the comic book itself was — comics’ Citizen Kane moment.
Unfortunately, being true to the book sacrificed what was necessary for a successful movie.
The music was irritating throughout, starting with that grating Dylan under the opening credits. Please, spare us your never-was-there Hippie Nostalgia. None of the music fit. (And some of us are old enough to recall the *first* movie “Sounds of Silence” was in, dammit!)
Also, Nixon didn’t fit. The entire Countdown thread should have been removed. I see someone mentioned a prior screenplay version that updated it to terrorism. Given Extraordinary Rendition, that would have given the Who Watches The Watchmen undertone some contemporary meaning.
Plus, the entire overarching idea was that these were *regular people* who took it upon themselves to become costumed vigilantes. Yet the Ultraviolent Martial Arts undercut that idea. Nite Owl forcing a guy’s bone through his arm? Say what?
Interestingly, the New Yorker has a profile of screenwriter Tony Gilroy in which he describes adapting the first Bourne novel this way:
>>>Throw the novel out and just take the idea of an assassin with amnesia. Fill him with both doubt and an amazing set of lethal skills. Then what was interesting was how he was both like the rest of us and different from us.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/16/090316fa_fact_max
I haven’t read the Bourne novels, but the movies are killer. Watchmen just wasn’t killer.
All that said, like most everyone else who loved the book, I look forward to the expanded DVD version. It still won’t be the movie it should have been, but can it really be worse? (Well, maybe, if there’s even MORE inappropriate music … really, with the way the music was going, I sat cringing, expecting it all to end with Judy Garland belting out “Somewhere Over the Rainbow!”)
Ive read all the posts here.I am what most would consider a comic book fanboy.I have read Watchmen.However, I havent read it in 20 yrs and while I remembered the major plot points, didnt remember the minor details.I loved the book when I read it, I remembered it as being influential and important.When I heard about the movie, I was intriuged.Finally we would see these characters on the big screen and most importantly without Ahnold as Dr. Manhattan.(Talk about cringe) As it progressed, I found myself wanting to see the movie more and more. So last weekend, my friend Eric and I went to see the movie (There was a comment earlier about “the core audience” not being the type to go see movies in their opening weekend.My friends and I might not be the typical Hollywood statistic-cookie cutter moviegoers.If we want to see a movie, blockbuster or not, we go opening weekend.)
Over the last few years, I have developed a problem and often nod off during movies, even movies I want really want to watch (ie Coraline).For all the folks griping about run time, I did not once nod off during Watchmen.I did not even get restless or squirmy.
I mostly despise the singing of Bob Dylan (although I do understand that he is one of the greatest song WRITERs of all time), I had no problem with the opening montage.I loved it and now can hear it and think of that monatage (My brother in law compared it to Snyder’s use of Johnny Cash’s “The Man Comes Around” in Dawn of the Dead)
I didnt mind the changing of the ending.I thought the original was a little silly (although I can see Rabble’s point about the whole squid thing [Excellent point, btw])
I loved the fact that the movie was filled with unknowns. Jackie Earle Haley was brilliant as Rorschach (And to the writer who complained about the voice-overs, I loved Rorschach’s diary entries. “Abbatoir of retarded children” is priceless and, yes, also from the original. What is movie criticism’s problems with the voice over?) I thought all the actors did a great job.
There were things I didnt like.In all deference to the respective actors, I thought all the “real-life” people in the movie were horrible likenesses.Andy Warhol was quite buff, Pat Buchanon looked like Morton Condrackle, and Ted Koppel interviewing Dr. Manhattan (if I hadnt been told that’s who he was supposed to be, I would have NEVER guessed) I did however think Lee Iacocca was spot on.
I thought there should have been more Ozymandias in the film.In retrospect, it seems kinda obvious that he is the “villain” of the piece.There should have been more to throw off suspicion for those not versed in the novel.
There have been a lot of posts about the violence (when viewed as the contest can seem excessive), the slavish devotion to fanboys (You cant please all of the people all the time, but if you dont please the core audience, you wont make dime one), but for some reason, the thing that bugs me most is the overly excessive complaints about the music.In these days of soundtracks “From and INSPIRED by the motion picture” which are solely manufactured to sell the flavors of the day, its nice to see a soundtrack that fits its subject matter. Watchmen is a movie of the 20th Century and the reason we get soooo much “Cliched” music is because it is the music of the 20th Century.Hey, even I thought “99 Red Balloons, WTH?” but it was 1985.If you thought this soundtrack had too many cliches, then thank your lucky stars that at least it didnt have “Brick House” (Can we get a moritorium on that one at least) and you know what, I like, no LOVE the music of Leonard Cohen and any mainstream movie that uses it gets kudos in my book.
(one final note, the Tony Gilroy comment. The worst thing you can do adapting a novel to the screen is to not adapt it at all.Gilroy wrote the adaptation of Dolores Claiborne, which I havent read, and I loved the movie.He also wrote The Devil’s Advocate, which I have read and I wondered if he did before writing the script. If you just take the “jist” or “bare bones” of a story that you are supposed to be adapting, then why bother adapting? If you want to just write a script about a “amnesiac spy,” then write your own movie, don’t run the risk of tarnishing another writer’s work in someone’s eyes becuase they confuse the movie with the book.)
Im not trying to “one-up” any other poster, claim that my views are the only ones, or trying to start arguements.These are just my opinions and should be taken as such. Thanks to all that take the time to read them