Greetings, Maniacs, and welcome to another jaunt through The No-Fly Zone, where we explore the corners of comicdom where capes fear to tread. Truthfully, we scare superheroes here, but occasionally we talk about the more avant-garde examples. And more truthfully, we can’t avoid talking about the cinematic adaptation of Watchmen. Last week, we ran a positive review of the film that expressed a couple of reservations. Some of the film’s more enthusiastic fans assumed that a few quibbles meant outright contempt. A few bloggers and reviewers have already experienced the wrath of fanboys ready to jump to the film’s defense. The film may very well deserve their energy. Ultimately, history judges any work of art and it will likely regard Watchmen kindly—and if not kindly, then as unbelievably brave. All of the things—save Tales of the Black Freighter, which will find its way on to one of the DVDs—everyone expected the filmmakers to excise remained in the film (besides the damn squid). As comic adaptations go, Watchmen is one of the most faithful ever committed to film. That has served it well among the book’s fans, but it hasn’t quite resonated with the rest of the public.
Back in March of 2008, Comicscape ran a feature about how the failure or success of Watchmen might bode for future comic adaptations. Essentially, it stated that box office or critical failure might spell a quick end for comics-turned-movies. And, while Watchmen opened strongly with $55 million in its opening weekend, it only garnered $18 million over last weekend, dropping 67% and coming in second to Disney’s Escape to Witch Mountain. For a film rumored to have cost $150 million, that represents a disturbing trend. Granted, Watchmen is a very long film. That means fewer showings per day at the same ticket price. But, money talks in the end and theaters don’t adjust ticket prices for length. Regardless of the mostly-positive critical response—a respectable 64% at Rotten Tomatoes—and an enthusiastic response from comic fans, reports emerged of walk-outs in theaters and a general sense of confusion among the general public—it’s confusing, it’s too long, it’s too violent, it’s not like other superhero movies, we are shocked that we brought our children to this movie, and the blue guy’s cock is all over the screen. No one is required to like the film, but most of the common criticisms are all of the expected ones. Call it “too flashy,” call it “self-indulgent,” say “it missed the point,” or whatever you will. As with any work, there are always legitimate arguments to make against the film. Complaining about Dr. Manhattan’s big blue dong says that you weren’t even paying enough attention to find a good reason to dislike the film.
The No-Fly Zone is not terribly surprised. Watchmen—the film and the comic, and whether you think they are good or bad—stand as dense, challenging works. As with any work, whether they succeed or fail remains in the hands and minds of the audience. Regardless, we can all agree that they hardly represent a conventional approach to superheroes—particularly not one modern audiences have grown accustomed to over the past ten years of heroes on film. Fans may love Watchmen. Book critics may love it. But, most people just wonder why the hell it’s not more like X-Men. It kind of looks like that, with toys, video games, bright colors, and costumed crime-fighters. But, it’s something entirely different, and more than most people are prepared for. That Race to Witch Mountain trounced it at the box office last weekend says something about audience tastes. Remember Maniacs: we liked the film, problems and all.
Granted, Watchmen has not failed in any truly epic sense. It will make its budget back and it will have a long life on DVD. It’s not the Heavens Gate of superhero films, which is what we feared when the aforementioned Comicscape appeared in March of 2008. Its disappointing performance will not kill comic adaptations for the foreseeable future. But, in an open letter to fans last week, screenwriter David Hayter spelled it out: “if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again.” Only time will tell if Hayter is right, but Watchmen has, for all intents in purposes, dropped off the radar. Next week’s drop will send it further down the box office rankings. Hayter’s claim that the film is made by fans for fans rings true, and the general public’s response follows suit—most people aren’t comic fans. They might like superheroes on film, television, and video games, but they don’t care one whit about comics. In that regard, fans should thank the nerd gods that Watchmen even exists and that it works as well as it does. Love it or hate it, the film and those responsible came out swinging and, in the grand scheme of things, compromised very little of Alan Moore and David Gibbons’s vision. One can argue that they didn’t capture the essence or the soul or whatever, but it was set in 1985, Dr. Manhattan was naked, and a lot of people died in the end—all things the studios wanted to change during the film’s long development.
It may come as little consolation, but in a lot of ways, fans finally got what they wanted. And, in a lot of ways, the public has turned its nose up and walked out of the theater. But, we at The No-Fly Zone never expected much from the public to begin with, and we figured something like this would happen. Thankfully, it wasn’t worse. In the end, it may not be the end of the world. Many films have redeemed themselves financially and critically—the latter of which Watchmen doesn’t really have to worry about—on DVD. But, savor the film for what it is, because it’s the last thing you may see like it for a long time.
You are now exiting The No-Fly Zone.
And I would like to add a thing. The first Hellboy movie made 1.5 times its budget in theaters worldwide and it was enough not only to be considered successful, but to provide a sequel too (even if with a different studio). I think Watchmen has more than a chance of making 1.5 times its budget in theaters ww.
"It's a property known only to readers, you can't sell it as an action movie." Which they did. This is a very intense movie that would have done better with the type of crowds that would go see A Clockwork Orange or Platoon. They targeted the wrong audience, which is too bad. There are a lot of non-comic readers that would love this movie if they knew that what it was. But the marketing sucked.
Well, It IS on it's way down. I finally went to see it yesterday, after work. I was (no kidding) the only person in there to see it. Granted, although it wasn't the end all and be all to movies, I liked it. The so called gratuitous violence wasn't as bad as I've seen in other movies. Hell, I saw more "blood splatter" in the last Rambo movie. Also, it wasn't the gore porn the Saw movies were. And I guess I've seen too much sex in movies over the years, as I thought it wasn't THAT graphic. Maybe I'm jaded, but it wasn't like 9 1/2 weeks, or anything like that. Do i wish they coulda left some things in, sure. And no I'm not even referring to the squid. Some of the little things woulda made more of an impact if they had been unchanged. Off the top of my head, if they had "expanded" the New Frontiersman more throughout the movie, the end scenes woulda had more impact to the "uninformed". But it is what it is. I'm sure I'll own it.
Watchmen is a tough sell without any prior reference. You show people in costumes doing super hero-ish things people are going to ecpect a typical super hero movie. The length would lend most people to believe that it is an epic film, with epic scenes of super hero stuff. To walk into the movie and then be thrust into a dark super hero deconstruction film that is mainly plot and dialogue is bound to throw anyone. I've been reading comics sinse I was a kid, and only recently read the Watchmen and found it something that I had to adjust to. It is, in the truest deffinition of the words, a graphic novel; it is a story that could very well have been told in standard book format, in fact and i'm sure I'll be blasted for saying this, it might have been better that way. The story is very much a character story; you get way into these character's lives and what brought them to the present. So while there is alot to look at from frame to frame, there isn't a ton of visual momentum. The Watchmen graphic novel is driven more by the what the characters are saying or internalizing than what is actually going on. You add on top of that the story of The Black Frieghter and it becomes even thicker. I personally found The Black Frieghter sections hard to get through, they usually came at a point where I was just getting into the characters and story and then I was taken out of it for this comic book parallel of the descent of Ozi's character. The book as a whole is alot to take in, and it does come together in the end with a thought provoking twist.
Now I can say that I felt the movie captured, better than most films based on an original source, the source material very well. They removed the black freighter bits, which would really have lengthend the movie, and then changed the ending plot device. I do say, however, it was necessary. For the ending to have remained intact it would have either lengthened the movie even further or, more than likely, cut character stuff out which is really what the book is about. They said the movie was unfilmable, I say it isn't. They did a great job. I think with different marketing the film would possibly have translated to the uninitiated a better sense of what the movie is about. It isn't about owlships, and explosions, and a god-like blue man blowing people up. It's not a revenge picture, that some people have thought it was, where one of their own is killed and the old team gets back together and avenges his death. It character deconstruction, which is not what most people going in were expecting. For me it was everything that I could have hoped for with the material at hand. I look forward to the dvd extended edition to get everything that he said he was going to do with it.
I think this movie will be one that will truely be respected for its faithfulness as time goes on. Now however the uninformed masses are having their way with it and are coming to grips with the reality of the movie and their pre-conceptions of it. Do I think the movie is going to break $150 million. Not likely, not without somekind of miracle out of left field. I do think it will make pleanty of money on DVD however. Do I feel that Watchmen's failure at the box office is the end of super hero movies. No. But it might very well be the end of close adaptations, and I think film companies will be much more cautious of the source material and its appeal to a wide audience. Bottom line, the Watchmen is not for everyone. It is a $150 million dollar, fanboy, wet dream picture.
I said way back when that the normal meathead was going to think that because there were superheroes in the movie that the movie was going to be a mindless action flick. Warner Bros. marketed it as an action movie (hence the big opening weekend, and quick dropoff), and Snyder even skewed the movie towards a more action-oriented movie from the scenes he choose to keep and others he decided to cut out (and others he decided to add (see the child molester scene for reference)). Frankly, it wasn't going to please everyone. Hell, even the book didn't do that.
Would it have been better as a cable-tv miniseries? Probably. But Warner Bros. has been greedy with this property ever since they took over DC Comics, and they wanted to squeeze as much money as they could have from this project. Hence the reason they went the movie route.
I gave it a 6/10. It was a pretty to look at movie, but all the substance was removed making it hollow and kind of pointless. But then again, that's the kind of movies that Zack Snyder makes. He's the Michael Bay of comic book movies, and instead of explosions, he likes slow-motion fight scenes.
I guess that WB won't do the director's cut release to theaters in July now (something Snyder talked about at Wondercon) seeing that the movie isn't doing quite the amount of business WB was hoping for. AND it looks like we'll have at least 5 different DVD versions to look forward to over the next 1.5-2 years, since you know that's how WB will try to milk this franchise to get their money back.
Bottom line, the movie was made for all the wrong reasons, and it shows.
The movie was made for the wrong reasons? Sorry..don't get that.
I thought the movie was terrific. I thought it was remarkably true to the spirit AND content of the source material, and did an amazing job in presenting a very complex, dense story, with multiple flashbacks and backstories and references to alternate history. The movie was smart and gutsy - it took chances. I enjoyed it, I respected the guts it took to make it the way they did, and I appreciated those making this movie clearly enjoyed, respected and liked the comic book they were working from.
That being said - I am NOT surprised it is struggling some at the box office.
Right out of the box... the movie is long, limiting showings, and it is rated R, limiting the audience. It is dark and unconventional and not at all in the typical "superhero" mold. It is challenging and yeah, "odd". I understand the criticisms of the marketing...but how DO you market it? Almost any images you show will convince people it is a "superhero movie". I think some of the ads even said something about "you've never seen superheroes like these" or some such...
If the movie was a BIT less violent ... at the PG13 level...might it have done better ? Yeah..maybe. But I think maybe we have to accept that WATCHMEN is not "broad audience" material. That is not a knock on WATCHMEN. Plenty of great books, movies, music, etc, aren't "mass appeal". WATCHMEN isn't HARRY POTTER, or, for that matter, SPIDERMAN. It isn't DARK KNIGHT - which, while I LOVED it, is a much more conventional superhero film than WATCHMEN ever could be. WATCHMEN is a much more morally ambiguous, twisted, complicated story... a more challenging story, that is pretty much designed to leave an audience uneasy and questioning. The very things some love about the story are going to put some others off.
Maybe we just have to be happy that we got an "authentic" WATCHMEN - something that is amazingly unlikely! - and accept that an authentic WATCHMEN just isn't going to be for everyone.
Shadow
PS - Great article, Kurt!
Shadowprime, it was made because superhero movies (any superhero movie) are hot right now. Not because anyone respected the story.
I was one of those comic fans who did not like Watchmen. Maybe the graphic novel was unfilmable. Maybe it was the nearly three hour running time. Maybe it was the all around unpleasantness of the film. Or maybe the story was relatable in 1986-87 but not in 2009. Most likely, it was all of the above reasons to why it didn't click with me. In the end, I just didn't care about this world or the characters that inhabit it. When you come out of a theater and feel nothing , there is something wrong with the movie. I have heard of people who like the graphic novel who didn't like the movie.
I have no idea how you could walk away from this film and accuse Zack Snyder of not respecting the story. That's delusional.
Did it get the green light because X-Men and Spidey made superhero movies The Next Big Thing? Yep. But the evidence or rather lack of, the usual studio tampering mucking up and disrespecting the source material just isn't there. Other than run-time I just don't see it and frankly doesn't bother me. With the exception of Rorschach's meat cleaver I'm on board with the changes made for the sake of a different medium. Snyder used his clout from Dawn of the Dead and 300 to make THE most faithful adaptation of a comic EVER to date. This thing was not meant for the masses but the studio didn't realize that. This one Zack made for the fans.
I predict long legs once it is on DVD and it will be looked on favorably as one of motion pictures best and most ambitious projects ever accomplished. I'm very much looking forward for the massive DVD cut of the film.
It was marketed poorly but the folk that Little Nell mentioned will catch on.
LOGIN
REGISTER
RSS
HOME
While I think it's stupid and useless for people to discuss movie businesses in blog and websites, I would like to clarify that nobody is going to lose money on Watchmen. Theater incomes represent an average of 20% of the revenues from all the markets. The budget for a movie is decided based on the sure incomes from TV rights sales and minimum guarantees. When the movie debutes in the theater most (if not all) of its budget is already in the pockets of the producer.
Regarding Watchmen's budget in particular, I still have to understand where this 150 million rumor come from: Snyder (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article5797760.ece) and his VFX people (http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/inside-watchmen.htm/printable) declared a budget of 100 million or less.
The New York times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/movies/01itzk.html?_r=3&em=&pagewanted=all) has the budget at 120 million while the Hollywood Reporter at 125 million ((http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ib4ab512be78d97099f3d107988b0ca94))
The fact that the movie didn't resonate with the audience, save for the comic-book readers, was predictable. It's a property known only to readers, you can't sell it as an action movie. Snyder and his producers made the mistake of not casting famed actors, whoch would have sold the flick to a bigger audience as a "serious movie", instead devoting those money to a debatable CGI Manhattan.
The R-rating didn't help and watching the movie I couldn't help thinking that maybe a PG13 version, without the gratuitous violence and ludicrous sex scene, would have been probably better and more successful.
Anyway, the performance at the box office for Watchem surely won't kill the chance of "obscure and adult" comic-book properties to be brought to the screen. Studios won't forget easily the money made with 300 and Wanted.