Watchmen - You gonna see it?

[fistfulofmetal]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

It isn't the first time a movie makes it's money back on DVD sales. Chronicles of Riddick is an example.

[Solo]

Are people honestly saying the box office is incredibly disappointing for WB? Watchmen made $15M less than Snyder's 2 year old other R rated movie did (which opened at exactly the same time of year). And Watchmen certainly has had a ton more hype, marketing, and buzz than 300 ever did. Top that off with the fact that WB is PAYING FOX to release this thing, and you've got a result much lower than WB would have wanted.

That the movie will do well/recoup its budget on DVD/BD is irrevelent; 99% of movies successfully do this. Doesn't change the fact that WB expected much better. Even worse, the film was frontloaded this weekend ALONE. Next week's drop off will be huge.

[Vrolokus]

And presumably the Under The Hood and Black Freighter DVD sales all go into the same pot.

That the movie will do well/recoup its budget on DVD/BD is irrevelent; 99% of movies successfully do this. Doesn't change the fact that WB expected much better.

Sooo... it's a disappointment because it's merely successful, not wildly successful?

[The Fake Shemp]

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?

That was a million copies in 2008.  The novel was published twenty years ago.

If every person that bought the novel last year bought a ticket, that'd be an additional $7.1 million.  That's excluding readers from the past nineteen years.

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

In a discussion about how Watchmen, as source material, is more recognizable than Frank Miller's 300?  Not really kooky at all.  Winners of the award in recent memory have been New York Times bestsellers.  It's not a fringe award.

None of your commentary proves otherwise - if anything, it goes to show you how much more recognizable the property is.  Thank you.

[The Fake Shemp]

The only people that seriously use "Man, [enter film here] will make its money back on DVD!" argument are fanboys.  You guys should watch What Just Happened, when DeNiro's character poses the same line to a studio executive and gets laughed at.  That's how real Hollywood works.

Considering that Warner Bros. is paying Fox a percentage of the gross and that Paramount is getting the international box office take, sales from the home video market is not the prize money any studio executive wants.

No film studio sinks millions into a production hoping to recoup costs on the home video market - that's a revenue stream that's in addition to box office.

You think Universal is banging on David Twohy's door right now for a Riddick sequel?  Where's the rush to greenlight a Jumper sequel?  If DVD sales were so important, both sequels would be in pre-production right now.

[Solo]

Sooo... it's a disappointment because it's merely successful, not wildly successful?

I doubt breaking even/turning a profit in a year on DVD is what WB is calling successful.

[The Fake Shemp]

Especially since Warner Bros. has streamlined its film divisions, with an emphasis on tentpole flicks (of which it was relying heavily on Watchmen to be one) to propel business as it cuts film output in half.

[Solo]

Im assuming that Harry Potter will be WB's cash cow this year. They didnt slot it into the TDK release date for no reason.

[The Fake Shemp]

Harry Potter is bank, but they were really relying on Terminator and Watchmen to pull in business from the key male demographics, as well.

[Solo]

T4 is going to be a major hit, I think, regardless of whether or not they PG13-erize it. That last trailer has sold a lot of people on it. Much better box office intake than Watchmen, count on that.

[GilloD]

The only people that seriously use "Man, [enter film here] will make its money back on DVD!" argument are fanboys.  You guys should watch What Just Happened, when DeNiro's character poses the same line to a studio executive and gets laughed at.  That's how real Hollywood works.

Considering that Warner Bros. is paying Fox a percentage of the gross and that Paramount is getting the international box office take, sales from the home video market is not the prize money any studio executive wants.

No film studio sinks millions into a production hoping to recoup costs on the home video market - that's a revenue stream that's in addition to box office.

You think Universal is banging on David Twohy's door right now for a Riddick sequel?  Where's the rush to greenlight a Jumper sequel?  If DVD sales were so important, both sequels would be in pre-production right now.

Fanboy? Willco, you got the wrong dude. I realize that as far as studios are concerned DVD sales might as well not exist- If it doesn't open big in the theater, then it's a flop. But much as LOST is a better show on DVD than TV, I think there are a huge number of people either waiting for the DVD, or waiting to re-watch it on the DVD or, in 3 or 4 months, they'll see an ad on TV that's all "NOW WITH AN EXTRA HOUR OF FOOTAGE" and they'll be on board, too. I think this a film filmed and built for a healthy theatrical release with a gigantor DVD follow-up.

Also, "What Just Happened"? Talk about a film that went nowhere.

What I'm saying is that playing that classic character- INTERNET EXPERT ON (MOVIE FINANCE)- is just a goonish way to go about this.

[GilloD]

Also, that Star Trek trailer FUCKING RULES SO HARD

[fistfulofmetal]

Much better box office intake than Watchmen, count on that.

Wow. That's quite the bold claim you've got. I'm surprised you're putting up your internet reputation and going out on such a limb there.

[Solo]

Also, that Star Trek trailer FUCKING RULES SO HARD

Star Trek, T4, Harry Potter, and Transformers 2 will rule the summer, $$$$$ wise

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I sincerely doubt that WB was depending on DVD sales to get past the break even point.  They most likely expected a $65-80 million opening weekend where it would close out at $225+ million overall.  The trailer was in TDK, which is Watchmen's key demographic.  Trust me, WB probably had very high hopes for this film.  Maybe they didn't expect it to get TDK numbers or even half of them (maybe) but $55 million or so can be chalked up as a letdown.  You don't need to be an internet finance expert to deduce that.

[The Fake Shemp]

I think this a film filmed and built for a healthy theatrical release with a gigantor DVD follow-up.

Watchmen is going to drop like a rock in theaters.  That's my bet, at least.  And since Warner Bros. is giving a percentage of the gross to Fox, and Paramount has the overseas take, this is not a great day for Dan Fellman.

Also, "What Just Happened"? Talk about a film that went nowhere.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a good movie or anything, but it is an eerily accurate depiction of studio suits, producers and Hollywood scum.

What I'm saying is, saying that it "doesn't even need the theater take" (which you did) is dumb.  Nobody needs to be an expert on anything to realize that, GilloD.

[Solo]

Watchmen is going to drop like a rock in theaters.  That's my bet, at least. 

No doubt. Hell, it had a drop from Friday to Saturday, which shows how incredibly front loaded it was. Next weekend will be an epic drop. Last House On The Left will take #1 over Watchmen.

[GilloD]

I think this a film filmed and built for a healthy theatrical release with a gigantor DVD follow-up.

Watchmen is going to drop like a rock in theaters.  That's my bet, at least.  And since Warner Bros. is giving a percentage of the gross to Fox, and Paramount has the overseas take, this is not a great day for Dan Fellman.

Also, "What Just Happened"? Talk about a film that went nowhere.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a good movie or anything, but it is an eerily accurate depiction of studio suits, producers and Hollywood scum.

What I'm saying is, saying that it "doesn't even need the theater take" (which you did) is dumb.  Nobody needs to be an expert on anything to realize that, GilloD.

Yes, I know it's dumb. There's stigma around direct-to-DVD release, as well as the fact that something as bankable as Watchmen would be insane to position that way. But the flick will do huge numbers on DVD, well over what it does in theaters. And as much as that fails to please the fat-cats or stroke their egos, a dollar is a dollar. I'm just saying that a weak theatrical take isn't really END OF STORY for comic book movies.

It did feel weird that they'd push so hard for something that had 0 chance of becoming a franchise, though.

[The Fake Shemp]

Star Trek, T4, Harry Potter, and Transformers 2 will rule the summer, $$$$$ wise

Not sold on Star Trek.  The Internet is, but we'll see.  Science fiction is a tough sell, no matter how many glossy, action packed trailers Abrams can churn out.  I'm not confident in saying that it will tank either.  My gut says middle-of-the-road box office performance.

I think the other three will make bank.

Maybe G.I. Joe will even turn a profit (unfortunately).

[WrikaWrek]

I'm fine with stating the cold hard truth.

But you and Solo seem to take pleasure in mentioning that Watchmen is a "bomb".

[Solo]

Not sold on Star Trek.  The Internet is, but we'll see.  Science fiction is a tough sell, no matter how many glossy, action packed trailers Abrams can churn out.  I'm not confident in saying that it will tank either.  My gut says middle-of-the-road box office performance.

Star Trek could go either way, agreed. I threw it in there because Ive heard nothing but gushing praise for the latest trailer, from internet posters and real, non-geeks alike.

As far as Im concerned though, they're all competing for second, dollars-wise. Transformers 2 will be the highest grossing movie of the summer (and by extension, year).

[The Fake Shemp]

I'm just saying that a weak theatrical take isn't really END OF STORY for comic book movies.

I never said that either.  The sub-genre has made far too much money in a short amount of time to close up shop and stop mining properties for box office gold.

I do think it's the end of letting filmmakers putting comics and graphic novels on the screen, panel for panel, if a studio thinks it's not in their best interest to do so.

[Solo]

But you and Solo seem to take pleasure in mentioning that Watchmen is a "bomb".

I havent seen the movie yet, so its not like I hated it passionately and want it it to fail. I have however seen and disliked Snyders two previous films, so Im not exactly pulling for him either.

[The Fake Shemp]

But you and Solo seem to take pleasure in mentioning that Watchmen is a "bomb".

You know what's awesome, you single-handedly prove my point about butthurt fanboys.

Neither Solo or myself ever used the word "bomb".  It's not a trainwreck.

And I have more reason to be upset than most, since I fucking adore the source material.  And I like the director, which is not something Solo and I agree on.  I spent half the thread talking Triumph down from putting a bullet in Zack Snyder's skull.

But I'm not going to be a realist and live in some fantasy world where this box office haul is not a disappointment, vindicating fans everywhere.

What the hell, dude?

[The Fake Shemp]

It's not a failure, so Snyder won't be in the unemployment line, but he's not going to be able to refuse studio notes on the next production he works on - I can bet the farm on that.

[Solo]

I seriously hope this doesn't tank, because it could mean terrible things for Snyder.

I actually don't think Watchmen (potentially) tanking is going to destroy Snyder at all in the eyes of the business. Sure, if his next film performs the same, he might be in trouble, but after just this one movie, I dont think he is in jeopardy.

[GilloD]

Let me say this: If you are a man and you do not enjoy the films of Zack Snyder, then you are wilde hom0. I'm not into macho-macho stuff, I know enough data about Dungeons and Dragons to make John Hodgman blush and I have never ever seen an entire sporting event. But these are sweet man films and they are awesome.

[cool breeze]

dragon ball evolutions will be the the surprise hit of 2009

[WrikaWrek]

There's a reason why i put Bomb in "" Willco.

And i'm not really a fanboy. I didn't knew shit about watchmen (aside from knowing it was a comic book) until like 2 months ago. And i'm not very pleased with the movie, i think many of it's problems were just weak decisions and overall, weak direction from Snyder.

But i do want to take my hat off for Jackie Earle Haley, the guy who plays Rorschach, he really is a damn fine actor, and his final scene in the movie is 10 times more powerful than what it was in the Comic book.

  

[The Fake Shemp]

I would agree with that.  Jackie Earle Haley knocked it out of the ballpark and his character was perhaps the only compelling one in the entire film.  Without him, this film is indeed a trainwreck.

[GilloD]

I would agree with that.  Jackie Earle Haley knocked it out of the ballpark and his character was perhaps the only compelling one in the entire film.  Without him, this film is indeed a trainwreck.

I thought Patrick Wilson was a great pick, too. I adore "Little Children" and so I was happy to see him again. That said, Carla Gugino was fucking terrible and she ruined a lot of the scenes she was in. Except for Boobies.

[The Fake Shemp]

I wrote a few pages ago that she was the worst actor in the film, chewing massive amounts of scenery at any given moment.

Patrick Wilson looked good from a casting perspective (he looks like Dan), but I was never really sold on his character.  This is more of a screenwriting flaw than anything, but Earle Haley was able to elevate his performance to a level where the material didn't hold him back.

[BlackMage]

this movie was pure diarrhea.  

[Cheebs]

I think it'll stay in the stop five long enough to make the films budget back.

That is pretty much impossible. It will finish in the 120-140 mill range. They sunk 200 million into this with marketing and have to share a chunk of the domestic profit with Fox due the legal battle and Paramount gets the world wide gross.

The movie will not make back what WB put into it in theaters.

Is it a bomb? No, but it is doing well under what WB was hoping for and WB will not eek out a penny of profit on it prior to DVD release.

As for the summer? Transformers 2 will rule all. I expect Terminator 4 to do really good as well. I actually expect Harry Potter to do a little less than what normally would be expected. Without any new books left I suspect the fanbase isn't nearly as rabid as it once was.

Star Trek? Totally clueless. Could be like what Transformers was in 2007 take a geeky franchise and turn it into a mega blockbuster but I am not willing to guess. Abrams and Paramount are marketing this thing as best as possibly could be done but like Transformers in 2007 it is really up in the air if it can pull it off.

[The Fake Shemp]

Transformers was a nostalgic trip for most - it's not really known for being geeky (all dudes had Transformers), but childish.

Star Trek is firmly rooted in geekdom.

[fistfulofmetal]

I thought Dr. Manhattan was my favorite role in the movie. Billy Crudup delivered the lines exactly how I imagines them in my head back when I read the book.

[The Fake Shemp]

Dr. Manhattan is not a compelling character, much in the same way Dan is not, on film.

[Cheebs]

Star Trek is firmly rooted in geekdom.

60's era Trek I'd say is as much nostalgic trip for people (although those type of people are in their 40's now) as Transformers was for 80's kids. And this film pushes that, with the short skirts go-go boots...etc. But as I said, who knows if it will work. I gotta give Paramount and Abrams credit for marketing as well as they have though. If it doesn't do as well as it should then it's no fault of the marketing guys. Haven't seen a tentpole film this well pushed via trailers/tv spots in years. I mean it's 2 months away and they are already putting tv spots out for it during 24, Heroes...etc.

[fistfulofmetal]

Dr. Manhattan is not a compelling character, much in the same way Dan is not, on film.

I found him very compelling. His scenes were my favorite in the film.

[Eel O'Brian]

i don't understand why you guys give a fuck about box office at all, either way

the only money concern i have is whether or not my $8 is going to be wasted

[The Fake Shemp]

Cheebs, 60s Trek was never popular.  It was canceled for Christ's sake.  It's a very, very geeky thing.  Is nostalgic for old geeks?  Yes.  But old geeks are still geeks, dude.

[The Fake Shemp]

i don't understand why you guys give a fuck about box office at all, either way

the only money concern i have is whether or not my $8 is going to be wasted

Give me your $8, I will show you a good time.

Box office dictates a lot of things, from what types of pictures will get a greenlight, who still has a job, sequels, etc.  Snyder got his gig on Watchmen thanks to his box office success on 300, for instance.  I view it from the angle.  Some view it as a pissing contest too.

[Vrolokus]

What the hell, I'll jump onboard the "I'm not qualified to say at all but here's my prediction" train.

For all the business Transformers did, I can't find a person who actually liked it - certainly not enough to go for a second helping in the form of a sequel.

Terminator 4, Star Trek and Harry Potter will be the big moneymakers this year... in order of least money to most. The T4 people will look at Watchmen's take and use it to justify a PG-13 cut, which will kill the movie's popularity (see T3, Diehard 4, etc.). Star Trek will do alright. HP will be HP, i.e. crazy successful for what it is.

[Cheebs]

Yep, which is why the box office of Watchmen IS important for future movies. WB is going to be far more likely to force PG-13 at McG due to Watchmen's intake.

[Vrolokus]

Trying to steer the topic back to, you know, WATCHMEN:

I was really struck by how obsessively close the movie is to the comic... off the top of my head, I can't think of another film so loyal to its source. Anyone think of other examples?

(As a side note: personally, I'd rather have a movie that's loyal to a fault than the other direction. I'm STILL angry and disgusted by the movie of LXG... never has there been such a vast, yawning chasm between the quality of the source and the film version.)

[Barry Egan]

Dr. Manhattan is not a compelling character, much in the same way Dan is not, on film.

I found him very compelling. His scenes were my favorite in the film.

QFT

Dr. Manhattan was The Watchmen film at its most intriguing. 

[Human Snorenado]

Dr. Manhattan is not a compelling character, much in the same way Dan is not, on film.

I found him very compelling. His scenes were my favorite in the film.

QFT

Dr. Manhattan was The Watchmen film at its most intriguing. 

This I will agree with.  I enjoyed pretty much any scene that was focused on Dr. Manhattan, ditto for Rorschach except for the flashback scene where he tracks down the girl and the kidnapper.  Niteowl and Silk Spectre are what made me want to barf.

[cool breeze]

that's not really any different in the book.  Manhattan, Rorschach and The Comedian were the interesting characters with Dan and Laurie just being boring; Veidt and the old hero crew were so-so.

[Greatness Gone]

This I will agree with.  I enjoyed pretty much any scene that was focused on Dr. Manhattan, ditto for Rorschach except for the flashback scene where he tracks down the girl and the kidnapper.  Niteowl and Silk Spectre are what made me want to barf.

You've read the book though, right? Dan and Laurie are supposed to be the pathetic human-acting ones.

[Human Snorenado]

This I will agree with.  I enjoyed pretty much any scene that was focused on Dr. Manhattan, ditto for Rorschach except for the flashback scene where he tracks down the girl and the kidnapper.  Niteowl and Silk Spectre are what made me want to barf.

You've read the book though, right? Dan and Laurie are supposed to be the pathetic human-acting ones.

Yeah, but what works well in written or even comic book form doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.  Especially when it's handled by VISIONARY DIRECTOR ZACH SNYDER.  I hear he's nearly as talented as Eli Roth.

[Lafiel]

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.

Haven't seen the movie, but would't the cat be pretty pointless in the film, considering they changed the ending? i always remembered the cat's significance in the GN, was that she foreshadowed the original ending.

[Phoenix Dark]

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.

It makes perfect sense, and it's not like I came up with it. It boils down to basic math. Watchmen may have more screenings, but on a theater basis it's only shown a few times. I'm looking at the local showings right now: 4 IMAX, 6 DP, 3 RWC/DVS (whatever that means). 13 showings. 300 could have almost twice as many showings in a day

And yes, DVD sales are going to be amazing.

[drew]

lol dvd sales

[fistfulofmetal]

Haven't seen the movie, but would't the cat be pretty pointless in the film, considering they changed the ending? i always remembered the cat's significance in the GN, was that she foreshadowed the original ending.

Bubastis is purely fan service in the movie, nothing more.

[drew]

[Phoenix Dark]

It seems like the movie has sort of been doomed to failure, with this Fox affair and the lack of foreign box office sales. You'd think studios would have got the real story of 300's success: shooting an "epic" looking film with such a small budget makes it easier to generate profit. I'm baffled as to how this movie costs $150 million, well actually $200 million when you include the ridiculous marketing blitz.

I want to see how the legs are. Given Solo's prediction history, Watchmen definitely has a chance.

[fistfulofmetal]

All I care about now is getting a 4 hour cut of the movie on blu-ray in a few months.

[Great Rumbler]

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.

It makes perfect sense, and it's not like I came up with it. It boils down to basic math. Watchmen may have more screenings, but on a theater basis it's only shown a few times. I'm looking at the local showings right now: 4 IMAX, 6 DP, 3 RWC/DVS (whatever that means). 13 showings. 300 could have almost twice as many showings in a day

The Dark Knight was only about ten minutes shorter and it made more than $55 million on its first day, so length certainly isn't as big a deterrent as you make it seem.

And how could 300 have almost twice as many showings? 300 was 117 minutes and Watchmen is 163, that's a difference of only 46 minutes. "Basic math" means that if Watchmen has 13 showings during a day then it takes up 2,119 minutes. In that same stretch of time, 300 would have 18 showings or an increase of slightly less than 40%.

[Cheebs]

And how could 300 have almost twice as many showings? 300 was 117 minutes and Watchmen is 163, that's a difference of only 46 minutes. "Basic math" means that if Watchmen has 13 showings during a day then it takes up 2,119 minutes. In that same stretch of time, 300 would have 18 showings or an increase of slightly less than 40%.

And that isn't even factoring in watchmen had a massive 500 more theaters compared to 300.

Oh and PD we already know its likely legs. A big drop from friday to saturday is a signal a movie is very front loaded.

[Great Rumbler]

And how could 300 have almost twice as many showings? 300 was 117 minutes and Watchmen is 163, that's a difference of only 46 minutes. "Basic math" means that if Watchmen has 13 showings during a day then it takes up 2,119 minutes. In that same stretch of time, 300 would have 18 showings or an increase of slightly less than 40%.

Oh and PD we already know its likely legs. A big drop from friday to saturday is a signal a movie is very front loaded.

Most likely it'll end up like the Friday the 13th remake. Good take on Friday, big drop on Saturday, further drop on Sunday, and massive drop on second weekend. The later's first three days still make up 64% of its total gross after 24 days. I think Watchmen will have a better hold, but the signs aren't good.