Movies Features

By Robert Dixter Apr 6, 2009, 18:16 GMT

What we learned from 'Watchmen'

In the mid 1980’s there were three things that revolutionized geekdom. 1) Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns 2) Alan Moore’s Watchmen and 3) The water splashing down during the ‘Maniac” dance in Flashdance. Two of those three things changed the comics industry, the last one just had prepubescent boys trying to hide erections when called upon in English class. Fast forward to over 20 years later when Hollywood finally releases the film version of Watchmen, and realizes Alan Moore might have been right when he said the book was unfilmable. Rumors are now flying faster than Andre 3000 behind the wheel that Warner Bros. will no longer put out rated R comics/ superhero films.

The film cost $150 million to produce plus buckets more to market. It was supposed to be an event movie in March, and it needed to make a lot of money because the profits get cut up between Warner Bros., Paramount, Fox and Legendary Pictures. The expectations for the film were higher than Seth Rogen while watching Half Baked. The educated guess put the opening weekend at $70 million. It only did $55 million with a huge percentage drop in its second weekend. The word on the streets now (and by that I mean either the internet or things I yell at my wife from the basement) is that this film that took two decades to bring to the screen is such a big bust that Dolly Parton thought they might be related. So how was a book that most comic readers will tell you is the greatest piece of fiction ever written turned into a failure of a film?

The first question to ask is Watchmen even a good movie? That’s a trick question. The film is great…if you’ve read the book. Director Zack Snyder stayed so true to the source material that I can’t get the image of Dr. Manhattan’s blue dong out of my mind and have had to consult a psychologist. Geeks proved they were waiting for someone to film the book as is (not an updated Paul Greengrass version) when they forked over $4.5 million the Thursday night before the film opened at midnight screenings. But if you’ve read Watchmen you know the story is so dense it makes Forrest Gump look like Gary Coleman in The Kid with the 200 I.Q. There are so many things happening and so many layers as the story unfolds at it’s own pace. The fact that Zack managed to cram all that into 2 hours and forty minutes is impressive but he does skim over certain events that are more fleshed out in the book (like the Minutemen). So if you haven’t read the book before seeing the film you might get lost and not get the full Watchmen effect.The second issue the film had to face was trying to figure out who the audience was that would show up to see it. Every year at Comic Con we hear how filmmakers are trying to court the real geeks (the difference between nerds and geeks being that nerds are also smart) and make the comic book film for them. How many times have we heard “If you read the comic you won’t be disappointed”? I’ve heard that as many times as I’ve heard “Well, if you stop rubbing it all the time it should clear up by itself”. But this film proves that you need more than just the guys who live in their mother’s basement and dream about one day seeing a real breast up close to show up to your movie if you want to make money. That leads to the third problem. Even if you have never picked up a comic book in your life you’ve heard of Batman and Spider-Man. Unless you’ve read Watchmen you wouldn’t know a guy named Rorschach, nor would you want to since he’s dressed as a flasher in a soiled overcoat. On top of their zero recognition, the characters in Watchmen are not really heroes in the classic sense as the public understands them to be.

So add up the following, a rated R film with no stars, based on a dense comic book that only geeks are aware of with no known superheroes, a $150 million budget, various studios picking at the back end, and a 2 hour 40 minute running time, and what do you get? Watchmen unable to make back its money. Does this mean the rated R comic book is dead? Not at all, it simply means that Warner Bros misunderstood the material they were working with. Last summer’s Wanted was rated R, based on a comic, and was a decent size hit because it was made for $75 million. If Dark Knight had been rated R it still would have grossed hundreds of millions (although not $1 billion) because everyone knows who Batman is. It probably would have done Matrix Reloaded (which was rated R) numbers ($739 million worldwide). So the big lesson learned here for Hollywood studios is that they need to bridge the comic book world and the real movie going audience. Just because a title is big with geeks doesn’t mean it will translate to a big blockbuster with a big budget.

And Also

The Decade: Film's 10 Best Music Moments In The Aughts

The Decade: Film's 10 Best Music Moments In The Aughts - Cinema Blend
GASP: Goldstriker creates world's most expensive iPhone - The Tech Herald
Report: David Hasselhoff Rushed to Hospital After Seizure - PopEater
Chris Rock interview, Sons of Anarchy and Woody Allen shout out for 'Madagascar' star

Your Talkback on this Story

Latest Headlines in Movies

Older Talkback

page: 1

Chris HillApr 7th, 2009 - 15:16:33

I agree with this article, I feel that Snyder should be congratulated on his attempt to include as much detail as possible but in the hands of more experienced director this could have been a truly great movie. I also feel that if Watchmen had been made by a non-American director that it may have been better. I found it patchy and poorly paced at times and yet in the comic the same scenes had a better 'feel'. I also felt that Snyder couldn't help but indulge himself in the inclusion of more violence (which had been altered from the comic).

The graphic novel has a lot to say about the use of violence but at times this film seemed to revel in it, the broken arm, machete attack and prison scene for instance which I felt missed the point. I also feel that since the publication of Watchmen other films and TV shows have incorporated some of the themes and issues from the comic, sort of trumping any great revelatory moments as exemplified in The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight was successful because it allowed different audience members to draw different relevances from it without alienating too many people, although The Dark Knight may be a little too efficient at times and could do with a longer cut to add a touch more character/audience engagement (which Warners wouldn't have sanctioned!).

Perhaps the Watchmen DVD will be a different cut and I will find it a better film, its a shame that Paul Greengrass didn't get his version made. Despite my criticism I did like the new twist at the end! This shows that sticking religiously to a source material isn't always best for the screen.

Report this comment

JustinApr 7th, 2009 - 16:30:35

Wrong Wrong Wrong.

NO this article is suggesting that this movie couldnt have done well no matter what. Silly. If they had taken the time to make this film properly as a more of a drama than an Superehero movie. Have a proper director come in and in the trailers show the depth that wasnt in the movie, write a proper script this movie wouldve made money. Oh and this is watchmen it should not have cost more than 60 million dollars to make.

Report this comment

DanApr 8th, 2009 - 11:28:09

I disagree with all three of you.
1. None of you are filming makers, so don't pretend because you watch a film, and like/disliked it, that you have some knowledge and your opinion somehow matters (this includes the critic)
2. The movie was not unfilmable (which, critic, I know you aren't educated since this isn't even a real word). The story was where it needed to be.
3. Nerds, calm down. I'm really tired of always hearing up an uproar because someone made something they love. Get out the basement, play some tennis and calm down.

Report this comment

nachitodecalaveraApr 18th, 2009 - 05:57:56

The Comic Book Era is over. Warner Brothers should have known that with Superman Returns, but they took another gamble to confirm it.

Nerds, go flee to thine comic book stores. (Don't worry, I'm one of you.) For the big screen is no longer ours.

Comic book heroes and villains have gone the way of urban professionals and soccer moms: if they don't care about it, it won't sell. End of story, good night, and, uh... no theater hopping.

Which is exactly why Iron Man 2 and Spider Man 4 will work but The Avengers and Green Hornet WON'T. The former are gambles just like Watchmen that really should not be taken, and the former are personality driven screenplays: without Robert and Toby, there's is no movie. Seriously, prove me wrong, I'd hate to be right about this prediction.

Report this comment

lussitoApr 18th, 2009 - 05:59:34

The former and the former, huh? Thanks, Robin Williams. (Three for those keeping score...)

Report this comment

nachitodecalaveraApr 18th, 2009 - 06:04:18

...shaddap. :D

One error in my grammar doesn't mean I'm entirely wrong.

Report this comment

lussitoApr 18th, 2009 - 06:38:22

Is this your first time on a Blog? Yes, it does, actually.

My turn:

1) The basic core question of a drama -- Do I care what happens to the characters? The movie portrayed superheroes as basically ex-cops wanting to be vigilantes, so they'd don a costume to do what they wanted to do on the streets instead of what they were paid to do... and the story is about their 'grandkids' who were handed the mantle. I do it cause my daddy did it, no personal reason. It's clear that their hearts weren't in it. Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II could not be more flat. And it's unfortunate for Patrick Wilson, because he IS capable of intensity. He just isn't believable as a sqeaky-clean do-gooder. Malin Akerman did do some good work in the revelation of an important plot point later on (with the prior Silk Spectre) but I can't believe that the good Doc changed his mind about the world 'Because she asked me to.'

2) Good guy turned bad guy... I won't give too much away more than that, but I don't believe that there was any empathy for his former compatriates. Another wasted arc... I just couldn't care enough to like the ending. I got it, but again, if I can't relate, it's like reading lore about King Arthur than an genuine movie experience.

3) The only rounded characters were Dr. Manhattan, The Comedian and Rorshach, but as brilliant a job as these actors did, they still couldn't carry the rest of the ensemble on their shoulders. You believed Billy Crudup's detachment, you hated Jeffrey Dean Morgan but laughed at how nuts he really was, and Jackie Earl Haley was born for this role... watch out for that guy.

So, the recognizability of the superheroes may mess with some, but in my eye that's irrelevant: you can nail any role out of the park even if the audience doesn't know what the heck you are even talking about. There was magic in this cast, there was genuine moments. But the needle jumped the record at all the wrong points.

Report this comment

nachitodecalaveraApr 18th, 2009 - 06:46:17

King Arthur is a genuine movie experience? You're missing a word.

Congratulations! We're both wrong! :D

Report this comment

lussitoApr 18th, 2009 - 06:56:57

At least you're going to die alone and afraid.

(It's not a personal attack, mind you, so will I.) Still, I'm going to fill your Pepto Bismol with pink shampoo when you least expect it.

Report this comment

page: 1

Movies

Movies Features

What we learned from 'Watchmen'

And Also

Your Talkback on this Story

Latest Headlines in Movies

Older Talkback

Watchmen

Related Articles

External Links

From Sites we Like

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print