DISQUS

PaulSileo · 8 months ago

It's weird to hear stories from screenings around the country. I saw it at the IMAX in St. Louis and it was given a round of applause, with about half the theater giving a standing ovation. I don't remember anyone getting up to leave, though I could have missed it while focusing on the closing moments of the film.

But I think you hit it on the head, Adam. People like to complain about Hollywood's regurgitation of material, but, in the end, they will still spend their money on the familiar. And as long as those films have huge hauls at the box office, Hollywood will keep churning them out.

JMoney · 8 months ago

I think the one thing you can say about The Watchmen is that it isn't "the middle" or "playing it safe".

Adam_Sweeney · 8 months ago

I disagree. Snyder clung to the graphic novel tighter than a toddler does their bedsheets.

Sean · 8 months ago

Dark Knight didn't come out in 2007

SgtZim · 8 months ago

I agree with JMoney. An almost 3 hour, $150 million dollar, R-Rated Superhero film filled with almost no action that deals with adult themes and is filled with unlikable characters doing not-so-nice things. That sounds like the exact OPPOSITE of playing it safe. I'm still amazed somebody let this movie be made in the first place.

Meli · 8 months ago

I had two different experiences watching Watchmen. The advanced screening I went to had a captivated audience who cheered and then at the Friday night showing I was surrounded by immature people who couldn't quit snickering every time Dr. Manhattan appeared without clothes. One chic behind me couldn't shut up at parts and clearly wasn't enjoying the film, I think she was one who wanted an action packed comic flick.

I do agree with your article the box office numbers don't lie. Personally, I wait for a good portion of mainstream films to hit DVD or cable because they don't feel worth the money.

Mladen · 8 months ago

Good article. Very true. Whats worse is that even when you're consciously aware of it, you can't help it. Must be hardwired into our personalities. We won't pay money for something unless if we have a good idea of what to expect.

ERoBB · 8 months ago

Thats a great point! Everone slams Hollywood for a lack of originality, but they herd to the latest "Date Movie/Meet the Spartans/Disaster Movie/Scary Movie". Innovative movies dont get made because lemmings wont see them. And when they do, they often dont know what they're watching, and therefore dislike it.

MrDeath · 8 months ago

But it is playing it safe. It's based on what may be the most popular graphic novel of all time. It would be more of a risk to tone it down than keeping it's dark roots.

SgtZim · 8 months ago

Your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. First off, it's a comic, not a graphic novel as everyone has taken to calling it. Second, outside of the geek community Joe Average has never heard of it, as opposed to, say, Batman, Spider-Man or Superman, who even my kindly old grandmother is familiar with. There's nobody making Watchmen thinking, 'This is going to make SO much money.' when everything is stacked against it: Expensive to produce. Long, which means less showings per day. R-Rated, meaning less people can go see it. Lots of talking, little action meaning it's not really a crowd pleaser like '300'. Financially, this looked like an unsafe bet, I don't know how much more clear I can be.

MrDeath · 8 months ago

It was a safe decision though. Just because it doesn't have the extreme popularity of the popular superheros doesn't mean it's unheard of. It's a big deal even outside of the internet. It's not Batman, but it's was still popular enough not to be a risk venture. The length of the movie isn't a issue either. Most of the big big moneymakers are ridiculously long anyway. The R-Rating I'll agree with you, but Iron Man also had little action and it did alright. What I'm trying to say is it really isn't as big of a risk as you think it may be. I'm sorry you didn't see this in my first post.

Adam_Sweeney · 8 months ago

If it was such an unsafe bet, do you really think Warner Bros. would have thrown so much money at it? No way.

SgtZim · 8 months ago

You're right, Adam, no studio in history has ever bet large on a movie they weren't 100% sure of. That's why there have never been any huge studio bombs.

Adam_Sweeney · 8 months ago

I should have put 2008. Sorry, old chap.

Cole_Abaius · 8 months ago

The editor HAS FIXED IT.

Adam_Sweeney · 8 months ago

Filmmaking isn't an exact science. If nobody thought Watchmen was going to make a lot of money, why are there so many articles saying that it is shocking that it didn't outperform 300?

_Christopher_M · 8 months ago

he didn't want to alienate the fans...and wanted to respect Moore's vision...like you said it's a double edged sword...people have been saying this for years it's a graphic novel that really works best as a comic rather than a movie...it's going to gain that cult status because we're more than likely going to be flooded with the same ol' cookie cutter superhero movies from now on...it was nice to see a film try to break the superhero archetypes...good, bad or just ok the film was a different take on the genre...

Adam_Sweeney · 8 months ago

I enjoyed the film, for sure. I don't want it to seem like I don't. At the same time, I don't think the film from a directing perspective was risky. I am happy Snyder stuck to the script. Did he do it at the sake of letting the film itself breathe? I think so. I would still say it was about as good as you could make Watchmen, which should have been a mini-series, in my opinion.

dragonmum · 8 months ago

I absolutely loved LOTR: Return of the King, but I think this mentality is why it won every Oscar for which it was nominated. Not that it didn't deserve them, but it just would not have gotten the attention it did if it hadn't been part of a series. But at the same time, the "more of the same" mindset means that we expect (or at least hope that) sequels will be at least as good as their predecessors. I've lamented about Harry Potter sequels on this board before, but they're perfect examples. They come from a book series, so we already have high expectations. The first movie was an excellent translation, so that raised our hopes even higher. Second movie, third movie... not quite as good, but still pretty decent. Fourth movie... much too short, subplot threads went nowhere. Fifth movie... every kid actor forgot how to act (which I firmly believe was the director's fault). It's as if WB has decided we'll watch every last movie no matter how bad it is... like ERoBB said, they EXPECT us to be lemmings and watch whatever crap they throw at us. And gods forgive me, when it comes to Harry Potter, I probably will. lol

Adam_Sweeney · 8 months ago

I think that's a good point that you bring up. When did every sequel automatically have to be as good as the predecessor? If the first film is quality, that creates quite a bit of pressure for the following projects, especially if there are seven more of them (Deathly Hallows being cut into two.). Haha.

_Christopher_M · 8 months ago

I agree that Watchmen should have been an HBO mini-series...on the other hand we have yet to see the director's cut along with the version that has Black Freighter added to it...you never know it could be a different experience when viewing those other versions...

Aleric · 8 months ago

Agreed, you could tell who had read the comics by those that were shocked at seeing a big blue naked guy. The response at my local theater was positive, some were confused it wasn't a "Super Hero' film but no one left early or booed. I would have told them to shut the hell up if they had, not that I was a big fan of the book, but the fact that it stuck to the source material impressed me.

Jeff · 8 months ago

Familiarity is not necessarily a bad thing though. Heck, even playing the "I am not part of the herd" card is pretty much being part of the herd these days. I did not care for the Watchman Novel so I am not feeling an urge to rush and go see it in theaters.

Curious about the movie though??? Yeah sure

The fact for many (and its not a bad thing) we want our "Good guys" and we want them to be THAT GUY. It seems like almost every "Good guy" these days has to die even if its a remake (3:10 to Yuma) or they have to wear a black hat and have some serious "Issue" which in my opinion is REALLY getting lame. Yeah...Ok I get it.

Once again Adam a great article, if I go see Watchman I will give you a call or something. Pat might be seeing it tonight. (I warned him about "blue man junk" lol

James Bradford · 8 months ago

I find all of the articles and comments referencing 300 rather funny. The central conceit being that somehow Watchmen and 300 were similar books and thus would be similar movies with similar fan bases, audiences and draws.

This is nonsense.

300 is the kind of book that Hollywood should be adapting, its basically an awesome storyboard with the scripting already inserted. 300 is not a deep character piece using super-heroes to meditate on the duality of mankind staring into the abyss, its about 300 tough dudes kicking some ass.

Its not difficult to judge which one will be a huge draw. 300 and Sin City are very cinematic in book form, and for the most part exist as a whole on the plot level without delving into the philosophical places that Hollywood films abhor (outside of award season).

Watchmen, however, does not. As has been stated many times in the past few weeks the plot is really secondary to what it evokes in the characters and in the reader itself. This is something that is difficult to translate via celluloid-- especially to an audience who (fans aside) are expecting "slow-motion superhero action" .

For me I guess that means I still am unsure of how I feel about this movie, so as said before me, I guess I'll wait for the directors cut.