The All-Purpose Watchmen Thread *SPOILERS*

[DMN in the House]

Honestly, I think thats probably the cause of my disappointment with Watchmen. I had hoped for something in the realm of Dark Knight, and it fell short.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Rorschach was perfect, though. I can't stress that enough. Oh, and I've seen enough blue penis to fill my quota for the rest of my life. The opening with the action shots leading into the pictures was great, now if I could just remember the lesbian chicks name

Silhouette, my friend, played by Apollonia Vanova.

[DMN in the House]

Yeah, I found that, I just can't find the picture of her I want. The re-invisioning of the Times Square V-Day picture. Suprising, because its such a strong image, and you'd think that lesbian groups would latch on to it, but not suprising at the same time because she's not a major character at all.

On a side note, if anyone can find that image/acquire a good looking cap of it, I'd be appreciative. My mom and aunt want it, as do I for my sig.

[Captain Eo]

I think you just about picked the two worst people to make your point.

Who would be better choices? I just chose them because they're probably the word's best known superheroes.

Spiderman? Same story, the battles he faces in his personal life affect him in his superhero life, there's really no clear separation of the two. I put the Watchmen film up there with Iron Man, which I enjoyed immensely more than The Dark Knight, but still less than this one. I'm very torn though on what I really thought of the film. Rating in on the effects, the script, the dialogue, and everything else that makes a film a film there are very little flaws. But for some reason I can't figure out for the hell of me I can't say I truly enjoyed all of it. I sat in amazement watching it, drooling over every little detail, but at the end I coudln't think of anything to make me say damn I want to see that again like I had with "Iron Man", "Hulk", and "The Dark Knight."

Is this the place to put reviews if we would like or will their be an official EWBG2TM thread?

[DMN in the House]

Well, I'm just saying that the point of Superman and Batman is that they're the same with the mask on or off. Its done on purpose. Just look at the fact that Superman puts the glasses on to become Clark Kent, instead of putting on a mask to be Superman. Its the complete opposite.

I'd actually argue that Spiderman is a great example of the difference between on and off. When done right, Peter Parker is a lot more reserved, less confident, things like that, while Spiderman is a wise cracking, smart ass. Of course, things that effect the man will affect the superhero, they're the same person.

[zero]

Honestly, I think thats probably the cause of my disappointment with Watchmen. I had hoped for something in the realm of Dark Knight, and it fell short.

This is something I've wanted to talk about for awhile, about how Dark Knight has changed everything when it comes to not just comic book movies, not just action movies, not just adapted works, but movies in general. Of course, this whole trend started with the first X-Men movie, which admittedly fell short, but gave hope that a good comic book movie can be made and thus, we got Spider-Man. Spider-Man gave us the comic book movie we had been waiting for and it opened the floodgates for a parade of great comic book movies, decent comic book movies and shitty comic book movies.

Iron Man came along last year and elevated the comic book movie to something where people can't just say stuff like "well Transformers is a movie with lots of explosions and robots, who cares if it's devoid of a decent plot or acting?" Iron Man showed that a fun popcorn flick and a decent script aren't mutually exclusive, which I feel like most producers forgot over the last 15 years or so, relying on overly campy concepts or something that takes itself way too seriously, and Iron Man deserves a ton of credit for finding that happy medium.

Then a couple months later, we get The Dark Knight which showed us that you don't need to say things like "that's a great comic book movie," because TDK is just a flat-out perfect movie. I would say it got snubbed at the Oscars because of its source material, but that attitude will change in the coming years so long as people use Christopher Nolan's vision as a blueprint, and we will eventually stop using the qualifier "for a comic book movie" when discussing an adaptation's quality. As I type this, I realize there have been a lot of movies over the years that I'm not giving proper credit to - Blade, X2, Sin City, 300 - all of those films helped make comic movies actually watchable, something many of us thought would never happen 15 years ago, but Dark Knight has truly elevated the genre to a plateau where I hope people are no longer satisfied with just a "turn your brain off and enjoy" movie. Again, not to discredit mindless fun, but a lot of these comics and graphic novels just have such a rich source material, it's a shame to see it not properly explored in many cases.

To tie this rant back to Watchmen, Zack Snyder had a hell of a task in front of him - a 20+ year old source material (considered the greatest graphic novel of all time) that was considered impossible to translate to the big screen by many people in the movie industry. The novel's author immediately dismissed any attempts to adapt it and continues to do so, 20 years of clusterfuckery trying to even get a script written, studio bullshit, casting issues, more studio bullshit, lawsuits, angry fanboys, etc. Then of course, the release of The Dark Knight just eight months before, which is going to automatically make people go "oh is this is good as Batman?" Fair criticism or not, it's just the way it's going to be. I don't think this was as good as TDK, but I also don't think any movie released in the last decade is better than TDK, so it's a lofty expectation to place on Watchmen, in my opinion.

[DMN in the House]

I agree. It isn't fair, and I shouldn't do it, but I did, and it hurt my enjoyment of the movie. Right or wrong, and its almost definitively wrong, I did it.

Without Dark Night, which is one of the few movies I actually was willing to pay to see more than once in theaters, my mind is probably blown right now. I guess all I can really say is... it isn't yesterday anymore.

[NobBe Nobbs]

The novel's author immediately dismissed any attempts to adapt it and continues to do so, 20 years of clusterfuckery trying to even get a script written, studio bullshit, casting issues, more studio bullshit, lawsuits, angry fanboys, etc.

Let me also add, one of the worst serious scripts I've ever seen. Sam Hamm's attempt was good for some reasons - for example, I enjoyed his Veidt's "grand plan" because it was rather clever even if it did cause a predestination paradox - but on the rest, fucking atrocious. And these are reasons applicable to both fans of the comic book and non-fans - in the latter are things like him having Captain Metropolis in the opening scene, or Rory's trademark "hurm" verbal tic being replaced by hissing, while the former includes the Comedian's opening line, which is so corny Horatio Caine would be ashamed of himself for saying. I will rebut the general opinion, but not now.

[ROC]

Yeah, Jackie Earl Haley was phenomenal. If they have to reboot the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, I really hope they go with him as Krueger.

I hope they go for him for everything. More stuff like Little Children should be in his future, because he managed after 13 years away from film (between 93 and 2006) to just get so damn good at his craft. A great man, he is.

[caucasianheat]

Yeah, I found that, I just can't find the picture of her I want. The re-invisioning of the Times Square V-Day picture. Suprising, because its such a strong image, and you'd think that lesbian groups would latch on to it, but not suprising at the same time because she's not a major character at all.

On a side note, if anyone can find that image/acquire a good looking cap of it, I'd be appreciative. My mom and aunt want it, as do I for my sig.

The opening credits are actually available online from the production company that put them together. You could take a screenshot from there to your exact liking.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/18407/1/...LINE/Page1.html

Easily the best part of the entire movie, which isn't a slight because I really enjoyed the whole thing by and large. You have to know going in that it can't be as good on celluloid as it is in print and that sacrifices have to be made for time constraints. The modified ending works and it sidesteps what audiences would likely have perceived as a lot of hokeyness in Moore's original alien ending.

[Boulder]

Hey, to those who saw the movie, is Bubastis in there? Just wondering.

[tristy]

Hey, to those who saw the movie, is Bubastis in there? Just wondering.

Yes. Doctor Manhattan's frying near the end wouldn't be complete without him.

[Maxx]

Loved it, I think the new ending worked much better than the Squid ever would have.

I was annoyed because people brought little kids to the showing I went to. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with parents? It was a girl who was no older than 11, terrible. And the parent didn't bring take her out until the sex scene on Archie. Rorsharch's flashback to killing the child murderer wasn't enough to warrent removing the kid, but sex? OH GOOD GOD!

[tristy]

Warner Bros' superhero doomsday thriller with no stars and lots of violence opened to a blockbuster $25.1 million Friday for what's shaping up as a $55M weekend. But that's lower than the $60sM which the studio was hoping for Watchmen. Exit polling showed that 65% of the audience was male, and of those 35% over the age of 25. But moviegoers didn't necessarily like the movie as shown by a Cinemascore of only "B". However, pumping up Friday's total is the $4.5M from 1,600 Thursday midnight and Friday 12:01 AM shows including all 124 sold-out Imax screenings. (IMAX even added about 20 more 3 AM shows to accomodate the big demand.) And Watchmen has the highest location count for an R-rated opening -- 3,611 theaters -- more than even the record-setting 3,603 venues for the studio's The Matrix Reloaded. This marks the most anticipated superhero movie debut since last summer's The Dark Knight. Only it's not a sequel or remake but a long-awaited big screen retelling of a widely admired and highly creative graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Yet big questions remain: Is the complex story too murky? Is the rampant violence too noxious?

Most importantly, will the pic have legs?

Overseas, Paramount is distributing it day and date in the major territories, excluding Japan, for $35M in grosses there. (Warner Bros was targeted in a lawsuit by 20th Century Fox to gets its legal piece of Watchmen's proceeds, while Paramount owns 25% and has international distribution.) As for North American box office, I can report that every Hollywood studio was in agreement that the ambitious pic from 300 director Zack Snyder would have an enormous weekend opening. The expected range was high $50sM into the $60sM despite a long running time of two hours, 43 minutes. But now even $60M is impossible. So 300 will remain the highest March opener of all time at $70.9M.

One reason Watchmen did well was the lack of competition. Last week's #1, Disney's Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience, sank -83% to make only $850K on Friday (which is either a curse or a blessing depending on your POV.) It's still the 2nd highest grossing concert film of all time. "It played exactly like a concert film with a one-week only engagement," a Disney exec tells me. "The Miley concert, coming off of a sold-out tour and unaffordable concert ticket prices, certainly set the table with unrealistic expectations." But this has to be disappointing given all the JB hype.

Here's the TOP 10 after Friday. (analysis continues below.)

1. Watchmen (Warner Bros) OPENER [3,611 theaters] $25.1M Friday

2. Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail (Lionsgate) Week 3 [2,151] $2.4M Fri, Cume $70.1M

3. Taken (20th Century Fox) Week 6 [3,016] $2.2M Fri, Cume $112.8M

4. Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) Week 17 [2,890] $1.9M Fri, Cume $120.4M

5. He's Just Not That Into You (Warner Bros) Week 5 [2,445] $1.3M Fri, Cume $81.9M

6. Paul Blart: Mall Cop (Sony) Week 8 [2,558] $1.1M, Cume $130.5M

7. Confessions of a Shopaholic (Disney) Week 4 [2,290] $1M Fri, Cume $36.2M

8. Fired Up! (Sony) Week 3 [1,798] $945K Fri, Cume $11.7M

9. Jonas Brothers: 3D Concert (Disney) Week 2 [1,276] $850K Fri, (-83%) Cume $14.8M

10. Coraline 3-D (Focus Features) Week 5 [1,959] $765K Fri, Cume $63.1M

Of course the comic book fanboys are turning out for their long awaited graphic novel to come to the big screen. But what about everyone else? Turns out that Watchmen is tracking most heavily with older males -- which makes sense since the movie is set in an alternate 1985 America (although Nixon has been played down in the pic). Awareness, interest and first choice is being led by over age 25 males followed by under 25 guys. On one tracking service, younger males have lower awareness but higher interest from those that are aware. Here's what's also interesting: there's high awareness and positive interest from the Latino segment as well as African Americans which is translating into strong first choice numbers in both of those ethnic segments. What does it all mean? "I think that the movie is obviously poised to have an incredible opening," a top Warner Bros exec told me confidently.

The studio is even optimistic about attracting moviegoers from outside Watchmen's sweet spot of males ages 17-to-34. I'm told it's solid across all demos, and even doing well with females. That may be due to Warner Bros' $50 million marketing budget for the movie -- about average for a tentpole these days. The studio invested in a very aggressive campaign that spent big in the outdoor market and on TV advertising. But what's amusing is that rival marketing gurus say they're surprised and impressed by the campaign that's also left them confused what the movie is about or even who the good guys or bad guys are and why. As one of them 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'. "

That was indeed the challenge for Sue Kroll and her marketing crew, which is why they created a lot of value-added content to flesh out the very graphic characters. Surprisingly, they chose low-rated NBC to air the most cross promotional spots with the pic's characters -- showcasing Dr. Manhattan during a National Treasure movie, and Rorschach or The Comedian during Heroes. Overall, there was a very robust TV campaign running on all the networks and cable tv. Time was purchased on Lost, CSI, Law and Order, Criminal Minds, WWF Smackdown, NFC/AFC Playoffs, 24, The Mentalist, Fringe, The Office, 30 Rock, all the late night shows on every network, and on and on. Watchmen has also been everywhere online -- MySpace, Yahoo, Facebook, YouTube, IGN, Moviefone, NBC, For Your Imagination, Flizster, Hitifx, and Fandango.

Strangely, the Warner Bros team resisted the obvious tagline for Watchmen that "someone is killing off superheroes". (As close as the marketing came was "We want our superheroes".) Because the difficulty was staying true to the graphic novel as a social and cultural phenomenon but not oversimplifying or overselling it. 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. This may be a fine strategy to open the pic. But what about the following weekend when Watchmen's negatives are watercooler talk? "I hate to think that, after 2 fucking years of marketing, we're a one weekend movie," a Warner Bros exec confessed to me.

But that's exactly what Hollywood is anticipating. The real disagreement in Hollywood this weekend is not just whether the pic is weird but wonderful, but also whether Watchmen will have legs. As one rival marketing guru quipped, "Probably not. But if you open to $70+M you can get to $150M on your knees." As another agrred: "They will get a lot of initial interest because it's an event movie in March -- and then the bottom falls out. Whether Warner Bros can broaden the campaign to sustain interest in Watchmen is what movie analysts will be watching after this Sunday.

[MalaCloudy Black]

Where's that from?

[ROC]

Where's that from?

Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily blog. She seems to get the numbers before anyone else.

[Reddaye]

I haven't had a chance to see this yet, and maybe won't at all depending on how long it stays in theaters here.

So who here HASN'T read the book, yet enjoyed the film? Everyone I talk to has hated the movie but none of them read the book beforehand. I'm getting the impression the book's multilayered plot may be a bit too much to try and contain in a movie?

I'm even seeing reviews that go on about how the movie is actually meant to be homoerotic?

What the fuck happened? Did Snyder make some massive changes, or are some people just completely fucking crazy?

[MalaCloudy Black]

Completely fucking crazy, I'll wager.

[zero]

Most of the complaints I've seen are from people who say it's TOO faithful to the book. It's pretty much panel-for-panel identical to the book in many parts of the movie.

[Toe]

I have never read the graphic novel, but I really enjoyed the movie. The setting was great and I thought the characters were all very well done.