The failure of Watchmen should be a lesson..

[FemurBone]

The Watchmen movie is coming out after many other super hero films have already been released; X-men, Fantastic Four, Spider Man, Bat Man ect.... There's only so many super hero films people can get excited about seeing.

As to Star Trek, making a film that is more about action than ideas is not going to revive Trek. They already tried that with Enterprise and Nemesis and they both failed. An action packed Trek film could very easily cross over into Starship Troopers or The Fifth Element territory. It could also be dismissed as the poor mans Star Wars.

I'm not saying this new movie will be all action and no ideas, but if it is, it will be great cause for concern.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

You do realize that a core reason for The Dark Knight's smash success was Heath Ledger's death, right? Consciously and subconsciously, that context colored the public's reception of and response to it. Not that it wasn't a good film, but the fact that it was a good film is NOT why it made as much money as it did.

No. Opening weekend it is a factor, but that's the extent. You're overestimating Ledger's status going into the release. This is not Tom Cruise. The irony is; Ledger's performance in TDK was the one which could have elevated him to the status had he not died. You're basically saying even if Ledger's performance was weak, the movie would have been just a successful since audiences were going to see a dead man, not critically praised performance. The other assumption you're making is that people are not only going to see a dead man once, but multiple times, which is of course just as ridiculous. Not only that, but the word of mouth goes something like: "you have to go see this movie because the actor is dead!". So no, a movie will not make a billion dollars this way.

 

[pookha]

there were a lot movies that came out after the actor died that probably didnt do that much better then if they were still alive.

for instance th death of river phoenix didnt help "the thing called love".

i suspect things like.. batman is one of the most familiar comic characters, people liked batman begins, the joker is the iconic batman villain( a lot of people were interested in the sequel even before ledger was cast just because the joker would be in the next film)
and the film was a good film had more to do with the success then the death of ledger.

part of the problem with watchman is in a lot ways it is a niche comic.
it isnt something like batman that easily crossed generations of people who grew up reading comics.

and it is why i dont even know if it's fate at the box office can come into play when talking the trek film.
so many more people have been exposed to trek over the years then who read the watchman graphic novel.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

Trek and Watchmen are apples and oranges.

 

[Sector 7]

Trek and Watchmen are apples and oranges.

I like apples! It's exciting!

I am bored with people grasping at straws to prove a moot point. You don't like anything new such as the new movie... we get it. Enjoy your DVD and VHS tapes. I am going to be seeing the new movie and dammit I'll enjoy my DVDs as well. I am capable of doing both.

 

[Therin of Andor]

so many more people have been exposed to trek over the years then who read the watchman graphic novel.

I saw "Watchmen" again yesterday, and it's just as good the second time around. Some idiots brought little kids with them, and shunted them outside when the superheroes had sex! There were several kids under 10 - with their parents - but the kids really shouldn't have been there.

Thinking about it later, those kids stayed for several scenes of very graphic violence, the attempted anal rape, the failed coitus due to erectile dysfunction. (And that's not mentioning Dr Manhattan's huge, blue... attributes. Times four in one scene!)

I've recommended the film to many people but there really is a lot in it the general public would find very confronting.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Coming in late to this conversation...

... because I wanted to see the "Watchmen" movie before commenting on it. I've a long-time fan of the Allan Moore graphic novel, and have always been one of those who thought, like him, that it was "fundamentally unfilmable."

And you know what? It was. The movie we got had a lot of the set-dressing (MOST, really) of the scenario, even most of the same characters. But the very core of the plot was fundamentally changed. I'm still trying to figure out "why?"

The best argument I can come up with for the

Spoiler: (original story's core plot element)

"bogus transdimensional invasion in order to scare the world into unity"

bit being replaced by

Spoiler: (movie's replacement core plot element)

"framing the Doctor"

bit is that someone involved in the flick thought that the original ending would have been "too complicated" for audiences. But since that was, in EVERY way, the real core of the story... the single piece that drove everything else in the plot... losing it really did change the movie from what it should have been into what it ultimately turned out to be.

I loved the movie, overall... because I got to see things from the comic which I recognized. But I can see why audiences might not be as "stunned" by revelatory ending as they would have been if the original had been kept, intact.

Why am I saying this here? Because the OP's point was that the movie "failed," and that it "failed" due to having "pandered to the fanboys." I remain to be convinced that EITHER is true.

If the movie had truly "pandered," then they'd have gone with

Spoiler: (more on the original story's central plot element)

the whole "island" subplot, the cloned psychic's brain, the teleportation technology which kills living things... and half the population of New York being killed by the psychic outcry at the death of the "alien" (and better than half the remaining worldwide population "feeling" the death-throws of the dying cloned "alien" and having nightmares for years to come).

Oh, and on the one other "controversy" in here... I don't think naked breasts, or any other "restricted" aspect of our sexuality, are "damaging" to kids... provided that they're there for some reason other than pandering to a "Porky's" mindset. I don't think VIOLENCE is damaging, either... both are just parts of reality, and both can either be appropriate or be inappropriate.

"Friday the 13th" type movies are the pinacle of what's wrong in both cases. Sexuality played up for purely prurient reasons, and violence which is every bit as prurient. That sort of thing isn't "adult" in any way... it's every bit as childish as pretending that neither actually exists in the real world... and vice versa.

I went to see "Watchmen" with a woman, and she thought it was silly about the "big blue penis" all the time. But other people I know GOT IT... it wasn't about sex, it was about communicating how far removed from "mere mortal" thinking Manhattan had become.

It was a great movie, based upon "Watchmen" and using lots from "Watchmen," but at its core it wasn't "Watchmen." And I am far from convinced that it's a "failure" in any way... financially or otherwise.

 

[Arlo]

^ +++

Watchmen was a "failure", because the OP decided it was. All else under the false-premise crumbles.

 

[Jax]

Watchmen is not a succesful hit but the words failure is plain WRONG and stupid to use...

Budget = $150 million and with it about to break 100 million in the US market and still to open in key worldwide markets the total stands at $148 so over the next few weeks Watchmen will build a nice small profit total and then due to its genre and fanbase sell very very well on DVD/Blu Ray.

WB will end up with money from this and studios need to check there budgets in the future anyway, they seems to waste too much making movies these days.

 

[trevanian]

Coming in late to this conversation...

... because I wanted to see the "Watchmen" movie before commenting on it. I've a long-time fan of the Allan Moore graphic novel, and have always been one of those who thought, like him, that it was "fundamentally unfilmable."

And you know what? It was. The movie we got had a lot of the set-dressing (MOST, really) of the scenario, even most of the same characters. But the very core of the plot was fundamentally changed. I'm still trying to figure out "why?"

I just got back from it, but gotta say, I disagree. I thought it captured most of what made the graphic novel great, and improved on a lot of stuff that never worked well for me (and I've read this thing at least a dozen times, and consider it to be genuine literature.) I teared up several times during the movie, just because they were capturing it so well. There were things that didn't work perfectly, and some distracting stuff, but he wasn't afraid to add bits that made the world reflect ours a bit more (the reconstruction shot at the end is pretty nicely 9/11, and of course goes to the notion that if a TRUTH about 9/11 was revealed, then we'd have a similar meltdown at the very notion.)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I just got back from it, but gotta say, I disagree. I thought it captured most of what made the graphic novel great, and improved on a lot of stuff that never worked well for me (and I've read this thing at least a dozen times, and consider it to be genuine literature.) I teared up several times during the movie, just because they were capturing it so well. There were things that didn't work perfectly, and some distracting stuff, but he wasn't afraid to add bits that made the world reflect ours a bit more (the reconstruction shot at the end is pretty nicely 9/11, and of course goes to the notion that if a TRUTH about 9/11 was revealed, then we'd have a similar meltdown at the very notion.)

Yes, there was a lot of good stuff, taken directly from "Watchmen," in the film. And I'm not saying it's not a good film... it was better than I'd ever expected to see it done. (Have you ever seen the parody "Watchmen Saturday Morning TV Show" bit?")

What I'm saying is that at the very core, this movie was a mystery. And the mystery that they discovered, at the end, wasn't the same one as was in the book. So it's a different story, with many of the same trappings.

Sort of like if you take two Sherlock Holmes stories, and change the mystery in those. Doesn't mean they're not good stories, or that it's not a good mystery. But it's not the SAME mystery anymore.

That's the point I was making. "Watchmen" the book, and "Watchmen" the movie, had the same investigation, leading up to two very different secrets, with two very different impacts on the world.

 

[miraclefan]

so many more people have been exposed to trek over the years then who read the watchman graphic novel.

I saw "Watchmen" again yesterday, and it's just as good the second time around. Some idiots brought little kids with them, and shunted them outside when the superheroes had sex! There were several kids under 10 - with their parents - but the kids really shouldn't have been there.

Thinking about it later, those kids stayed for several scenes of very graphic violence, the attempted anal rape, the failed coitus due to erectile dysfunction. (And that's not mentioning Dr Manhattan's huge, blue... attributes. Times four in one scene!)

I've recommended the film to many people but there really is a lot in it the general public would find very confronting.

^I will ''NEVER''!! understand the mindset of some parent's bringing there kids to ''Hard-R'' movies!? (Do they just ignore the ratings?)And I love the fact that the ''Intense Violence & Sodomy'' Were okay for the young'ns, BUT! to have there ''Innocence'' takin away from them by a ''SEX'' scene or two, well that's just crossing the line now isn't it!?

 

[miraclefan]

The Watchmen movie is coming out after many other super hero films have already been released; X-men, Fantastic Four, Spider Man, Bat Man ect.... There's only so many super hero films people can get excited about seeing.

As to Star Trek, making a film that is more about action than ideas is not going to revive Trek. They already tried that with Enterprise and Nemesis and they both failed. An action packed Trek film could very easily cross over into Starship Troopers or The Fifth Element territory. It could also be dismissed as the poor mans Star Wars.

^I thought ''ALL'' of modern Star Wars ''was'' a poor man's Star Wars!

 

[trevanian]

I just got back from it, but gotta say, I disagree. I thought it captured most of what made the graphic novel great, and improved on a lot of stuff that never worked well for me (and I've read this thing at least a dozen times, and consider it to be genuine literature.) I teared up several times during the movie, just because they were capturing it so well. There were things that didn't work perfectly, and some distracting stuff, but he wasn't afraid to add bits that made the world reflect ours a bit more (the reconstruction shot at the end is pretty nicely 9/11, and of course goes to the notion that if a TRUTH about 9/11 was revealed, then we'd have a similar meltdown at the very notion.)

Yes, there was a lot of good stuff, taken directly from "Watchmen," in the film. And I'm not saying it's not a good film... it was better than I'd ever expected to see it done. (Have you ever seen the parody "Watchmen Saturday Morning TV Show" bit?")

What I'm saying is that at the very core, this movie was a mystery. And the mystery that they discovered, at the end, wasn't the same one as was in the book. So it's a different story, with many of the same trappings.

Sort of like if you take two Sherlock Holmes stories, and change the mystery in those. Doesn't mean they're not good stories, or that it's not a good mystery. But it's not the SAME mystery anymore.

That's the point I was making. "Watchmen" the book, and "Watchmen" the movie, had the same investigation, leading up to two very different secrets, with two very different impacts on the world.

Ahh, gotcha. I should have read more carefully. Have you ever heard of a novel called MENDELOV CONSPIRACY or ENCOUNTER THREE? Martin Caidin wrote it in the late 60s, and it has been reprinted a few times. Very much in the ARCHITECTS OF FEAR OL mode in terms of simulating a threat from 'away

 

[TS-1838-SWATH]

I will probably never understand why showing a breast can do more damage to a fragile young mind than showing people killed by various means in all the graphic detail ...

Because the "graphic details" are special effects, made by the effects houses with copious amounts of red dye and latex. I saw Predator and Terminator before I hit double-digits in age and even then I could marvel at how good the effects were (Carl Weathers' arm dropping, still shooting? that's good!) but for once I didn't believe the actor's arm was shot away. Compare that to a naked breast.. well.. that's "real". Pretend violence doesn't do as much damage as does real sexuality, age wise.

In some places in Europe they get worked up over Pretend violence in the media instead of Exposed Body Parts the reverse of USA/Canada

 

[USS Triumphant]

If Watchmen turns out to have "failed", I have a feeling it will be more about the angle of the (ever-present) dangle than the motion of the ocean, IYKWIMAITYD.

But in case you don't, I'll spell it out: there were probably quite a few parents out there that took their kids to see a "superhero" movie that the kids wanted to see, and that had been marketed at them (along with everyone else) with toys in toy departments, book stores, etc. Some people just don't pay that much attention to ratings, and the theatres certainly aren't about to turn away a ticket purchase unless they absolutely have to. And the "superhero" movie turned out to be about people having sex, including pretty much continuous full frontal male anatomy, rape, ED, and multiple partners at once, and graphic murders. Oh, and the heroes lose, and the bad guys get away with it. Mom and dad are not amused.

I have to admit, I was one of these. And I knew what Watchmen was about - I just didn't believe Hollywood would be that faithful. I figured they'd want the mass market appeal, and you don't get that by showing a blue man's schlong for two hours. My kids won't be scarred for life - they're pretty mature, we've talked a lot about a lot of things many parents try to skim or skip in the past, and we have the sort of relationship where they'll ask about anything they need to. But I can definitely see why there's a whole section of the population that won't be seeing it twice, or buying the DVD.

I know there's a love scene, but even still, I don't see nuTrek having anything like that problem.

 

[miraclefan]

If Watchmen turns out to have "failed", I have a feeling it will be more about the angle of the (ever-present) dangle than the motion of the ocean, IYKWIMAITYD.

But in case you don't, I'll spell it out: there were probably quite a few parents out there that took their kids to see a "superhero" movie that the kids wanted to see, and that had been marketed at them (along with everyone else) with toys in toy departments, book stores, etc. Some people just don't pay that much attention to ratings, and the theatres certainly aren't about to turn away a ticket purchase unless they absolutely have to. And the "superhero" movie turned out to be about people having sex, including pretty much continuous full frontal male anatomy, rape, ED, and multiple partners at once, and graphic murders. Oh, and the heroes lose, and the bad guys get away with it. Mom and dad are not amused.

I have to admit, I was one of these. And I knew what Watchmen was about - I just didn't believe Hollywood would be that faithful. I figured they'd want the mass market appeal, and you don't get that by showing a blue man's schlong for two hours. My kids won't be scarred for life - they're pretty mature, we've talked a lot about a lot of things many parents try to skim or skip in the past, and we have the sort of relationship where they'll ask about anything they need to. But I can definitely see why there's a whole section of the population that won't be seeing it twice, or buying the DVD.

I know there's a love scene, but even still, I don't see nuTrek having anything like that problem.

Triumphant, I signed out awhile ago, but reading what you said I ''had'' to respond! When you say ''Watchmen'' was ''marketed'' to ''kids'' how so? I grant you that the ''novel'' was certainly more out there at book stores, but I don't think it was aimed ''specificly'' at kids! Also There were ''never'' any Watchmen toys ever made for 'Wal-mart, toys r us, target, etc'' or places kids would normaly go! Now DC comics ''did'' release Watchmen Action figures ( There really statues more then anything) but they were only sold in ''speciality'' shops & Comic stores for adults! So how would kids, know about Watchmen in the toy ailes? Just for the record, I'm not ranting or angry, I just want to know how this movie has been aimed at kids? Because I haven't seen any ''Watchmen babies in V for vacation books for kids in stores?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I will ''NEVER''!! understand the mindset of some parent's bringing there kids to ''Hard-R'' movies!? (Do they just ignore the ratings?)

In Australia, it's MA15+, not R, but these kids were all under ten.

 

[Roshi]

It was 12 over here! Sissies!

 

[ST-One]

Pretend violence doesn't do as much damage as does real sexuality, age wise.

Based on what scientific studies?

I'd like to know that myself.