Watchmen - You gonna see it?

[ferrarimanf355]

They shouldn't have made this movie.  They should've made a watchmen movie and adapted it to be a movie instead of filming it exactly like a comic book... it felt really forced, slow and dumb.

You just don't understand the brilliance of VISIONARY director Zach Snyder, who has directed one re-make and two too faithful comic book adaptations.  He's just that awesome.

After finishing the GN, I'll wait for the director's cut.

[Great Rumbler]

vi·sion·ar·y  (vzh-nr)
adj.

Having the nature of fantasies or dreams; illusory.

[ManaByte]

It needed the squid.

Other than that, I could watch a 3 hour movie of nothing but this Rorschach. I'll wait until July to see the extended cut in order to curse or bury it as an adaptation.

But just from what's there it IS the best Alan Moore adaptation yet.

And yes, the Dawn remake was fuck awesome if only for Zombie baby.

[The Fake Shemp]

The squid would've made the ending much, much worse.  The problem wasn't a lack of squid - it was a lack of mystery.  What was there exactly to solve?  Nothing.  Rorschach drives the story in the book, in the search for the Comedian's murderer, but here it is just totally disjointed.

[Cheebs]

No squid was an improvement.

One of the worst parts of the ending was that fucking cat. It came out of NOWHERE in the last 10 minutes. My audience laughed when it showed up. For someone who never read it it would make no sense to pop up and be some freaky non-normal cat. I can't see how Synder thought it worked.

[Darunia]

[Mr. Gundam]

No squid was an improvement.

One of the worst parts of the ending was that fucking cat. It came out of NOWHERE in the last 10 minutes. My audience laughed when it showed up. For someone who never read it it would make no sense to pop up and be some freaky non-normal cat. I can't see how Synder thought it worked.

It was really odd for Bubastis to just show up like that. My wife leaned over and asked me "whats up with that weird cat?" I'm guessing the scene where they introduce her will be in the extended cut.

[Human Snorenado]

Yeah, the movie ending is like way better than the original ending, Manabyte loses again.

[Mr. Gundam]

Yeah, the movie ending is like way better than the original ending, Manabyte loses again.

Yep. Plus, it made

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Jon's decision to leave Earth a little more sensible.

[close]

[The Fake Shemp]

Film fell pretty short of expectations this weekend.  I gather this is the last time a major studio will do the whole "let's film the comic book exactly!" thing for awhile.  Unless that studio is FOX, which will continue with its oath to rape comic book properties as much as possible.

[Eric P]

i don't know my thoughts on it

it is really creepy when the audience LOVES Rorschach.

i thought the added gore and sex was really uncalled for and the music was just... well kind of crap, but whatever.

[cool breeze]

this isn't directly about the movie, but did anything surrounding Watchmen ever talk about why no one else tried to replicate what happened to Jon?

[Barry Egan]

not that I can remember

[ferrarimanf355]

(Image removed from quote.)

I'd tap that. 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

swaggaz, it was a freak accident, nobody's going to risk more human lives to make more naked blue guys!

[close]

[Barry Egan]

I'm pretty sure they would.

[Great Rumbler]

Film fell pretty short of expectations this weekend. 

Woah, that's not good at all. I had it pegged for about $70 million for the weekend [after the $25 million it made on Friday], but it's already sinking like a rock. I'll be surprised if it makes it past $120 million at this point.

[Mr. Gundam]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

swaggaz, it was a freak accident, nobody's going to risk more human lives to make more naked blue guys!

[close]

This is the US Government we're talking about, you'd think they'd be trying to do it over and over.

[Barry Egan]

yeah, there's no way you could come out of this movie and think it was going to go over well with mainstream audiences.

[ferrarimanf355]

I'm pretty sure they would.

No, not really.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

If people kept getting atomized into thin air and nothing happens, that would be a huge PR disaster. Plus, one giant blue dong is enough...

[close]

[Barry Egan]

we're not only talking about the US government, but the US government UNDER NIXON.  Doing radically unethical shit that never reaches the public eye is standard practice.

[ferrarimanf355]

But what happened to Jon was pre-Nixon, no?

[Barry Egan]

yes.  But it's not as though the technology that formed Dr. Manhattan has an expiry date.

[Phoenix Dark]

Very impressive opening

spoiler (click to show/hide)

in before Willco's "wait until next week's drop" post

[close]

[ferrarimanf355]

yes.  But it's not as though the technology that formed Dr. Manhattan has an expiry date.

But it was a freak occurrence, a one-in-a-million chance...

[The Fake Shemp]

Uh, not only did it make less than Snyder's other R-rated March opening, Warner Bros. was expecting over $60 million.  You guys are crazy if you think this was an impressive opening for such a hyped film.

[The Fake Shemp]

When you put as much into marketing as they did, that's not unrealistic.  As Reuters says:

 * "Watchmen" opens at No. 1 with $55.7 million

* Costly superhero saga falls short of expectations

(Recasts, adds demographic data, sales for other films)

LOS ANGELES, March 8 (Reuters) - "Watchmen," an unorthodox superhero movie that took two decades to reach the big screen, took the No. 1 spot at the weekend box office in North America on Sunday, but fell a little short of expectations.

The adaptation of a cult comic book series sold an estimated $55.7 million in tickets in its first three days, distributor Warner Bros. Pictures said, becoming the biggest opening of the year.

But pundits had expected an opening in the $60 million-plus range, and the tally was considerably lower than the $71 million start two years ago for "300," the previous film from "Watchmen" director Zack Snyder. The ancient battle epic holds the record for a March opening. "Watchmen" ranks at No. 3.

[Phoenix Dark]

Uh, not only did it make less than Snyder's other R-rated March opening, Warner Bros. was expecting over $60 million.  You guys are crazy if you think this was an impressive opening for such a hyped film.

Warner Bros' unrealistic expectations mean that a $56 million opening isn't good now?

And here...we go

300 had more hype, at least in terms of people wanting to see the flick. The anticipation for Watchmen seems more cautious

300 had great legs, I wonder how Watchmen will play out with word-of-mouth.  

[The Fake Shemp]

300 had more hype?  In what fantasy world, Maurice?

We have tracking data for these types of things, all of which had Watchmen in front of 300.  Watchmen also sold more advanced tickets than 300.  Watchmen had double the IMAX screens that 300 had (not to mention regular screens).  Warner Bros. dumped a ton of money into the production.

[Phoenix Dark]

It's also nearly three hours long. You could almost have two screens of 300 for every one screening of Watchmen.

And yes, 300 probably generated more buzz with folks. The average person hasn't heard of either comic obviously. The Watchmen hype is a marketing manufacturing. Slapping "visionary director/acclaimed graphic novel" doesn't mean much when the ordinary person looks at the trailer and thinks hm, looks like a Batman rip off

[Phoenix Dark]

All I know is that the movie gives me the Quantom Solace Syndrome. IE a movie I was kinda hyped about, then fizzled on as people I knew came back and said it was meh. I might see it on monday

[The Fake Shemp]

Except 300 was only 62 IMAX screens, whereas Watchmen was 124.  Your argument doesn't hold up.

And again, tracking data, including advance ticket sales say otherwise. 

The average person hasn't heard of Watchmen, but heard of 300?  That's ridiculous, as 300 is easily the more obscure graphic novel of the two.  300 owes its box office haul to the same "manufactured hype" that Watchmen does, except Watchmen has the benefit of being a Hugo award winning novel and listed on Time's top one hundred novels of all-time.

Saying Watchmen fell short of expectations, because of its length, when it launched on five hundred more screens than 300 with enough marketing to make George Lucas blush, is kind of silly.

Here's the real deal: It's not a very good movie.  People liked 300 more.

[The Fake Shemp]

I wouldn't worry about Willco, he just came from a company that chews out its employees for failing to improve same-month sales over a previous year when a WoW expansion came out.

Why would you worry about me?  I don't run Warner Bros. - I'm just telling you that the film fell short of expectations, as has any news outlet (including Reuters).  You're the one that seems to be Zack Snyder's PR agent.

[cool breeze]

we're not only talking about the US government, but the US government UNDER NIXON.  Doing radically unethical shit that never reaches the public eye is standard practice.

Even outside of Nixon and the government,

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Veidt could have easily done experiment; he even had the machine which he used against Jon in the end.

[close]

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

No way.

Watchmen had a lot more hype than 300.  Its trailer also had the benefit of being in The Dark Knight, so the movie had plenty of exposure there.  The fact that Zack Snyder directed it doesn't mean anything either.  How many people even know that Zack Snyder did 300?  Who even knows about the name "Zack Snyder?"  Not a whole lot.

I also didn't realize 300 was two years ago.  Man does time go by fast these days.

[Cheebs]

Film fell pretty short of expectations this weekend.  I gather this is the last time a major studio will do the whole "let's film the comic book exactly!" thing for awhile.  Unless that studio is FOX, which will continue with its oath to rape comic book properties as much as possible.

Yeah, WB was hoping for a lot better from what I read. And I bet the legs will be horrible.

PAUL BLART MALL COP's reign as the top grossing movie of 2009 will remain unchallenged.

[Cheebs]

And look at this.

Watchmen cost 150 milion, 300 cost 60 million. Watchmen had a MUCH bigger adverting push (50 million). Plus WB doesn't get the money from overseas (Paramount gets overseas money) and then has to share a chunk of the gross with Fox yet they were the one who paid for production marketing.

WB are not going to make their money back. Period.

[The Fake Shemp]

I only take issue with your assertion that because it opened with $56 million and not $60+ million, that studios will force more changes to films like this in the future.

It's not an assertion, it's a fact.  Snyder got a ton of notes from the studio in regards to Watchmen, but had enough clout to counter them because Warner Bros. thought it could replicate the runaway success of The Dark Knight or Snyder's last flick, at the very least.

$60 million was on the low end of the spectrum in terms of what the industry was predicting.  I think it was even Alan Horn that said last week that he'd be surprised if it didn't make $60 million.

So, yes, coming in under the low end of the spectrum and significantly lower than the director's previous outing is more than likely to result in some changes when it comes to creatively handling properties like this in the future.

And this is a good thing, because Watchmen proved that filming the Cliff Notes version of source material, no matter how great the source material is, never results in a good movie.

[WrikaWrek]

You know, as much as i liked Dawn of the Dead, and 300, after watching this movie, i can't help but feel that Zach Snyder doesn't owe a whole lot to talent.

I mean, some of the small changes were weird and for the worse, it isn't particularly well directed, pacing wise, editing wise, decision wise, the casting shouldn't been much better, as the acting was piss poor at many times. Only Rosharch and Night Owl made a good impression.

I don't know, i just got this screaming sensation during the movie, that i could've made a better job than Snyder did, because after all he stayed very true to the comic book in most places, but kinda didn't do it that well. It could've been better, and it should've been better, and some times, it's hard to understand why it wasn't.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I could see Watchmen limp along to $130-140 million

[Cheebs]

The movie is not going to even make 150 million, 120-140 mill is where this will end up, its going to be heavily front loaded and its opening weekend wasn't all that amazing to begin with. There is no way WB was expecting such a low tally when they invested 200 million into this and gave away the foreign rights and gave (although not by choice) a percentage of the gross to fox.

[Phoenix Dark]

Except 300 was only 62 IMAX screens, whereas Watchmen was 124.  Your argument doesn't hold up.

And again, tracking data, including advance ticket sales say otherwise. 

The average person hasn't heard of Watchmen, but heard of 300?  That's ridiculous, as 300 is easily the more obscure graphic novel of the two.  300 owes its box office haul to the same "manufactured hype" that Watchmen does, except Watchmen has the benefit of being a Hugo award winning novel and listed on Time's top one hundred novels of all-time.

Saying Watchmen fell short of expectations, because of its length, when it launched on five hundred more screens than 300 with enough marketing to make George Lucas blush, is kind of silly.

Here's the real deal: It's not a very good movie.  People liked 300 more.

Strawmen ahoy

I never said the average person has heard of 300 - I stated both films are based on comics the average person hasn't heard of. I'd argue 300 appealed to more person with a far better advertising campaign; everything about Watchmen's marketing is forced. T EXP brings up a great point though, which does damage my hype argument: I didn't think about the TDK implications/coat tails.

The average person doesn't even know what the Hugo award is. And as I've said, the marketing seems more obsessed with selling the film as an adaption of a critically acclaimed novel than convincing people it's a good comic movie. How could anyone argue the marketing isn't ridiculous?

The screen argument works. Theaters still couldn't play as many showings as 300. It might have more screenings on an overall, national basis, but the length limited the evening screenings; like I said, you could have two back-to-back screenings of 300 for every one Watchmen screening. That's not hard to understand.

"Watchmen," an unorthodox superhero movie that took two decades to reach the big screen, took the No. 1 spot at the weekend box office in North America Sunday, but fell a little short of expectations.

The adaptation of a cult comic book series sold an estimated $55.7 million in tickets in its first three days, distributor Warner Bros. Pictures said, becoming the biggest opening of the year.

But pundits had expected an opening in the $60 million-plus range, and the tally was considerably lower than the $71 million start two years ago for "300," the previous film from "Watchmen" director Zack Snyder. The ancient battle epic holds the record for a March opening. "Watchmen" ranks at No. 3.

"Our expectations were met," said Dan Fellman, president of domestic theatrical distribution at the Time Warner [TWX  7.47    0.41  (+5.81%)   ]-owned studio. He said the film's 161-minute running-time inevitably affected business, restricting theaters to one main evening screening.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29582400

[Cheebs]

I could see Watchmen limp along to $130-140 million

Thats the expectation now from what I read this morning on the internets. Fantastic 4 and Ghost Rider numbers! Hooray!

[Cheebs]

PD your screen argument makes NO sense. It's just studio spin. Watchmen had a lot more showings than 300 ever did due to its vastly better theater count.

[fistfulofmetal]

Warner was probably willing to take the risk and green light Watchmen because the knew Batman would do gangbusters. I hope they didn't expect it to do the same, but I doubt they're hurting because of it.

[Cheebs]

Warner was probably willing to take the risk and green light Watchmen because the knew Batman would do gangbusters. I hope they didn't expect it to do the same, but I doubt they're hurting because of it.

They wouldn't have invested 200 million in a movie if they expected it to limp to sub-150 mil numbers.

[drew]

shitty cam is up @ ninjavid



part 1: http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/19788
part 2: http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/19789

[Vrolokus]

I think ultimately it will make its money back, via DVD/Blu-ray sales, merchandise, publishing etc.

I have to roll my eyes at the suggestion that "only" taking in 50-60 million for the weekend is some reflection of the movie's quality - especially from gamers on a gaming site, where horseshit like Wii Play outsells <insert great game here>. 300 has way, way more broad appeal than something like Watchmen - it was ridiculous, over-the-top easy to digest action and naked bodies. Please!

And it might be worth reminding everyone that as beloved and critically acclaimed the Watchmen comic is, it doesn't have broad appeal or is widely accessible either. And almost every complaint that's being leveled at the movie (disjointed, boring, not caring about the characters, SSII is a cardboard cutout) could be directed at the comic as well. Even more than the "miracle" of Silk Spectre II being born, its almost crazy to imagine this movie even got made.

One last thought: I predict a lot of the geeks poo-pooing Watchmen right now will slowly grow to love it once the general public shrugs, scratches its collective head and Does Not See It. And when Watchmen is being discussed as this ridiculous, barely-broke-even behemoth of a movie 5 or 10 years from now, the geekerati will all be jumping to its defense.

One more last thought, from BoxOfficeMojo.com:

Many unrealistically compared Watchmen to 300, the previous picture from Watchmen's director Zack Snyder that was prominently cited in its advertising, and were expecting records to be shattered. However, just because a picture has a massive marketing campaign or a fervent fan base doesn't mean it's going to be a blockbuster. 300 set the March opening benchmark at $70.9 million on around 4,800 screens at 3,103 sites (which included $3.6 million at 62 IMAX venues). While technically 300 was a comic book adaptation like Watchmen, that's where the similarities ended, because 300 was first and foremost a harrowing, clearly-wrought tale based in history with a then-striking visual style.

As visually punchy as Watchmen's marketing tried to be, the movie's story was left obscure to the uninitiated. Considering that style and mystery took precedence over clarity and relatability, Watchmen's opening was terrific. Eventually, ads vaguely revealed that someone was killing off superheroes and that the Watchmen had to figure out why. However, the superheroes in question were not previously well known to the general public, making it an uphill battle to earn audience investment, especially given the picture's ensemble nature. Typically, the biggest superhero movies are the ones where the superheroes are ingrained in the culture, like The Dark Knight, Spider-Man, Superman and X-Men. Watchmen's source material had a following but never reached a high level of cultural saturation. What's more, the advertising presented no heroes to root for and no villains to root against (a potent combination that worked like gangbusters with The Dark Knight); instead raising the question "will they save us or destroy us?"

[The Fake Shemp]

PD your screen argument makes NO sense. It's just studio spin. Watchmen had a lot more showings than 300 ever did due to its vastly better theater count.

Jake Yenor spittin' real talk for once.

Does Maurice even know what a straw man argument is, by the way?

And Shinobi, film is a collaborative medium.  I'm not saying studio executives should write, direct and produce everything themselves, but the opposite is true too - total creative control given to directors and producers is almost never a good thing.  See: Tim Burton.

[cool breeze]

from my experience, I would say 300 had more hype than Watchmen.  I remember everyone was pumped to see it and constantly quoted the movie; for watchmen I just heard "isn't it about, like, a detective or something?"

[The Fake Shemp]

Internet memes and anecdotal evidence doesn't constitute as tracking data.  Watchmen sold more advanced tickets, had more marketing and was tracking extremely high.  Watchmen, as a novel, sold a million copies in 2008 alone.  I repeat, just last year alone, it sold a million copies.

This isn't Warner Bros. adapting a property that's only known to comic geeks; Watchmen has sold millions of copies, won the Hugo Award, etc.

[The Fake Shemp]

Snyder and Fong are definitely a good team.  It's really interesting to see how Snyder storyboards everything too.  I think they should tackle some original material and learn from the mistakes here.

[Vrolokus]

Internet memes and anecdotal evidence doesn't constitute as tracking data.  Watchmen sold more advanced tickets, had more marketing and was tracking extremely high.  Watchmen, as a novel, sold a million copies in 2008 alone.  I repeat, just last year alone, it sold a million copies.

This isn't Warner Bros. adapting a property that's only known to comic geeks; Watchmen has sold millions of copies, won the Hugo Award, etc.

1) Do you realize how small a number a million is these days, in a world where Dark Knight makes a billion dollars? Do the math in your head: if every one of those million people went and saw the movie this weekend, how much does it add to the box office take?

2) Do you realize how kooky it is to cite the Hugo in a discussion about Watchmen's broad, general recognizability?

[GilloD]

Wait- So some of your guys DIDN'T like this? I really loved it, although I thought the first half was way better than the second. This is also a rare example of a situation in which I wished I'd never read the book until after I'd seen the movie. I think the movie stands just fine on it's own two feet, but having worshipped at the altar of Watchmen, I couldn't help but go, "Well, that's different and they left out that...". It was hard to watch on it's own merit.

That said, I was 100% entertained the whole way through. The way I felt about it was. If you ask Tony Scott to direct Hamlet, you're not going to get art. But it's going to be fucking awesome. Same for asking Zack Snyder to direct Watchmen- But I was pleasantly surprised by how subtle his touch could be at times. I think he's a so-so director, but an absolute auteur- His work is instantly recognizable and it's always beautiful. The opening title sequence fucking RULED.

I can't see not liking this movie except as some statement of vague superiority. No, it is not an unbreachable work of art, Yes, it is fucking cool and several grades above 300. I have no problem saying that 8 1/2 and Watchmen are two of my favorite movies. 8 1/2 is the better movie, no durr, but if I had to pick one to watch, Watchmen it is.

[GilloD]

Also, lulz at the idea that a 50 mil opening is bad news. This film will have GARGANTUAN DVD sales. It'll be fucking huge, it doesn't even need the theater take.

[GilloD]

I never read watchmen before, so it was freeing to see the movie with no expectations at all.

The story is fantastic!

My point exactly- The vocal opinon on the internet comes from people who are OBSESSED with the material. I'm pretty familar with it, so of course I was like "WHERES THE NEWSPPAER MAN WHERE IS HOLLIS MAN GETTING WHACKED", ignoring the fact that movie is totally 100% fine without those things.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I'll watch the movie this week or next weekend.

[WrikaWrek]

Yeah this movie will make all the money it needs on DVD.

One of the things that was bugging me during the movie, was Adrien's inexplicable super human strength. The guy was hitting like Neo from Matrix.

[The Fake Shemp]

Also, lulz at the idea that a 50 mil opening is bad news. This film will have GARGANTUAN DVD sales. It'll be fucking huge, it doesn't even need the theater take.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Vrolokus]

I never read watchmen before, so it was freeing to see the movie with no expectations at all.

The story is fantastic!

My point exactly- The vocal opinon on the internet comes from people who are OBSESSED with the material. I'm pretty familar with it, so of course I was like "WHERES THE NEWSPPAER MAN WHERE IS HOLLIS MAN GETTING WHACKED", ignoring the fact that movie is totally 100% fine without those things.

The people who think if suffers for being squid-less blow my mind. Not only is the new ending better, but IMO the squid is one of those things that is indeed "unfilmable". You think people in the audience snickered when they saw Manhattan's penis? Imagine how many people would check out entirely when a giant squid is dropped on NYC. They'd think a practical joke had been played on them.

WrikaWrek: Yeah, I think more gritty, realistic fights would've served the material better. But I did really, really enjoy the way Rorschach hops down that wall in Ozy's fortress... looked sweet.

[WrikaWrek]

Also, lulz at the idea that a 50 mil opening is bad news. This film will have GARGANTUAN DVD sales. It'll be fucking huge, it doesn't even need the theater take.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Jumper made like 100 mil dollars on dvd last year, in the U.S.