The failure of Watchmen should be a lesson..

[datas_cat_spot]

Watchmen under performing is really just an indication that the average movie goer isn't interested in such a long movie with difficult subject matter. For WB, it means they won't spend that much money on an R rated film anytime soon. Watchmen cost more than double of 300, so of course Watchmen will have a harder time making money.

 

[miraclefan]

can the lesson just be dont make the movie 3 hours or have a giant penis in it

Dont you mean ''a giant Blue Glowing penis''? Yah... I heard that alot of people were ''Distracted'' by Dr.M's ''ding dong doodle'' Plus I'm sure alot of comic nerds that would have brought there girlfriends didn't, just so they could avoid this very uncomfertable question ''How come yours isnt that big?''

 

[miraclefan]

Watchmen under performing is really just an indication that the average movie goer isn't interested in such a long movie with difficult subject matter. For WB, it means they won't spend that much money on an R rated film anytime soon. Watchmen cost more than double of 300, so of course Watchmen will have a harder time making money.

That's why I belive that ''Terminater: Salvation'' will be PG-13. WB can't afford to lose ''or'' risk anymore money on another R rated film.

 

[Neopeius]

Just curious, Neo, what kind of genre movies do you like?

I mean, Dark Knight is not a masterpiece, but it is enjoyable, no?

By genre, do you mean science fiction? Or super hero?

I didn't like Dark Knight at all. It made pretenses to being "realistic" and wasn't. You had this chaotic maniac who killed his own men yet everyone followed his instructions to a detail that would make Tom Clancy jealous. He had these Rube Goldberg plans that *always* worked exactly the way he wanted them to.

And Christian Bale was no Kevin Conroy.

So what do I like?

Superhero:

The Timmiverse. The X-men trilogy (sans Storm who was wretched). Hancock was pretty good. The first half season of Heroes. Iron Man was great.

Science fiction:

Firefly (not Serenity, which I didn't like), the 1st season of Babylon 5, TOS, Blake's 7

And if we're allowing anime, I'd also include Gundam (original), Macross, Toward the Terra, Wings of Honneamise, They were 11, Saber Marionette J, Patlabor

Does that help?

 

[Neopeius]

That, and it wasn't that well done.

We definitely saw different movies...

No, you're just perhaps more forgiving.

I was disappointed with the performances turned in by Silk Spectre and Dr. Manhattan. (Night Owl and Comedian were great)

Also, the musical score, particularly in the Doc Manhattan scenes, was really dull.

But then Hollywood generally neglects the aurally minded for the visually inclined. I haven't heard a good score in a while.

And for those who want my opinion as to what a good score is, Batman the Animated Series had very good scorers. Time after Time (1979) has an amazing score. Watchmen could have used more unique character scoring...

And using our universe songs to underpin the movie got kind of silly after a while. It's *not* our universe. Now, I suppose Zack Snyder cared more about making Archimedes look awesome, which it did, than composing another "Dewey Cox Story", but it would have been pretty cool.

 

[Caligula]

With all due respect to the naysayers..... I don't give a flying frak how much money the Watchmen movie makes. That doesn't concern me one bit. The amount of green that the film studio execs put in their pockets is not a number I ever wanna think about. It was never meant to have a sequel, anyhow. What I do care about is the fact that I was given exactly the kind of movie I was looking for out of Watchmen, and for THAT I thank all those involved in its creation profusely.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I had a feeling Watchmen would flop and I was right.

I have a feeling Star Trek XI will succeed...yall can finish that thought.

Zack Snyder did everything possible to keep Watchmen the movie true to Watchmen the comics. End result - a less than stellar showing, with an even lesser time staying in the public consciousness.

I dunno about your logic, though. Watchmen is a downer topic and people aren't in a mood for downer stuff now. They are in a mood for just what Star Trek XI is likely to deliver. It's really just as simple as that: it's all about timing.

 

[Devon]

I don't know, the movie did $93 Million so far in the U.S. alone, that's pretty good on its own. Against its production budget is another story, but $93 Million is pretty cool I think. It will inch its way up undoubtedly.

 

[RAMA]

How is it a failure?? Its made $150 million in just over 2 weeks worldwide? I don't care what projections say, I don't base movie's success on projections. Ridiculous. This isn't Vegas. Only one ST movie has even made that much.

RAMA

 

[shapeshifter]

Just curious, Neo, what kind of genre movies do you like?

I mean, Dark Knight is not a masterpiece, but it is enjoyable, no?

By genre, do you mean science fiction? Or super hero?

I didn't like Dark Knight at all. It made pretenses to being "realistic" and wasn't. You had this chaotic maniac who killed his own men yet everyone followed his instructions to a detail that would make Tom Clancy jealous. He had these Rube Goldberg plans that *always* worked exactly the way he wanted them to.

And Christian Bale was no Kevin Conroy.

*covers ears* NYA NYA NYA! Shit, it's too late; the damage is done. *throws TDK away*

So what do I like?

Superhero:

The Timmiverse. The X-men trilogy (sans Storm who was wretched). Hancock was pretty good. The first half season of Heroes. Iron Man was great.

Hancock & X-Men 3 was good? There goes your credibility with me, out the window. *retrieves TDK from the trash*

 

[Neopeius]

Hancock & X-Men 3 was good? There goes your credibility with me, out the window. *retrieves TDK from the trash*

My opinion was asked for.

Who asked for yours?

 

[miraclefan]

Hancock & X-Men 3 was good? There goes your credibility with me, out the window. *retrieves TDK from the trash*

My opinion was asked for.

Who asked for yours?

I did, thru the power of ''Telepathy''

 

[CordrazineOD]

...that pandering to the core base of a certain franchise is not the way to go. Zack Snyder did everything possible to keep Watchmen the movie true to Watchmen the comics. End result - a less than stellar showing, with an even lesser time staying in the public consciousness. 300 made Gerard Butler and Lena Headey household names. Don't think the same can be said of Jeffrey Dean Morgan or Billy Crudup. The movie didn't even have a recognizable catchphrase (like 300 did with "This. Is. SPARTA!!"). Had Snyder caved to the studio's voice and made Watchmen more contemporary, it might have had a better chance at the box office. The audience literally had nothing to relate to!

Now contrary to popular belief, stories don't have to be "dumbed down" for the average movie goer to enjoy. The major box office of The Dark Knight proved that. However, it is the average movie goer that contributes to the major hauling and box office success of a particular movie. If the average moviegoer does not enjoy it, and in turn not bring repeated business, the movie will fade away. Old fans means squat, it is the new fans that have to be created for the continuing existence of a franchise.

That's why I am glad that J.J Abrams took the other route and made Star Trek much more accessible to the average movie goer. He didn't make it "just for the fans". If he did, only people well versed in Trek lore (such as all of us here ) would enjoy it. The average moviegoer would go "huh?!", and in the last decade or so, our numbers have also dwindled. A lot of old fans are complaining about random stuff of whatever they have seen so far, not understanding the reasons for those complaints are exactly the reasons that will drive this movie to be a success. The more success the movie has, the more Trek we'll have in the long run.

And we don't really have any complaints about that, do we?

Well, I would have a complaint about a greater quantity of movie Trek if it comes at the expense of quality in order to pander to the lowest common denominator. As long as Abrams maintains Roddenberry's humanism and altruism then it's not a compromise to accentuate the action, as long as it's not gratuitous action. I haven't seen Watchmen or read it, but from the reviews I've heard about it being too "talky" and philosophical, coupled with disappointing box office, I'm strongly led to conclude that it must actually BE WORTH SEEING.

As for 300, I didn't read the graphic novel and after seeing the movie I was impressed with the direction, cinematography and visuals---but not much else. It was black and white (actually, no, it was evil vs. even more evil, with the former posing as virtuous). Not only Eurocentric, but actually idealizing Spartan values over Athenian ones? "Boy Loving Athenians"? WTF? I realize the story is told from a Spartan perspective but that doesn't mean that the folly of their militaristic, intolerant culture of death couldn't have been eluded to somehow, at least meta-textually---but it wasn't. It's all too easy, and unfair, to judge the morality of an ancient culture by modern standards, but damn---just what are modern American standards? Holding up a culture that murders deformed newborns, is anti-intellectual, intolerant, non-artistic, ethnocentric, and hyper-militaristic? hmmm...interesting. Is their some kind of cathartic parallel here? It's not that 300 presented Sparta in morally neutral terms; the film itself actually EDIFIED the values of this culture. That's what's disturbing.

Star Trek shouldn't compromise or adapt to the devolving, increasingly unenlightened tastes of a degenerating and anti-intellectual consumer culture. The culture has to change and Trek can either be at the vanguard or relegated to novels and fan fiction, either way is fine by me as long as its true to its ideals.

 

[miraclefan]

^What do you mean by''anti-intellectual, intolerant, non-artistic, ethnocentric, and hyper-militaristic? And I am not being sarcastic, I'm being VERY serious! Explain!

 

[scotthm]

300 made Gerard Butler and Lena Headey household names.

Who?

Never heard of them.

---------------

 

[bismarck_1892]

"Watchmen" is hardly a failure. It made over 140K worldwide thus far. Besides, the films' attempt to be true to the comic is hardly a reason to say that that is the reason for the movie not making more money then it already has.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

Watchmen under performing is really just an indication that the average movie goer isn't interested in such a long movie with difficult subject matter. For WB, it means they won't spend that much money on an R rated film anytime soon. Watchmen cost more than double of 300, so of course Watchmen will have a harder time making money.

That's why I belive that ''Terminater: Salvation'' will be PG-13. WB can't afford to lose ''or'' risk anymore money on another R rated film.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. That's not neccessarily due to Watchmen's performance though. That battle over the rating has been going on since it went into production.

 

[EyalM]

"Watchmen" is hardly a failure.

It fell 78% from it's first to second weekend. That's "The Hulk" numbers.

 

[miraclefan]

Watchmen under performing is really just an indication that the average movie goer isn't interested in such a long movie with difficult subject matter. For WB, it means they won't spend that much money on an R rated film anytime soon. Watchmen cost more than double of 300, so of course Watchmen will have a harder time making money.

That's why I belive that ''Terminater: Salvation'' will be PG-13. WB can't afford to lose ''or'' risk anymore money on another R rated film.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. That's not neccessarily due to Watchmen's performance though. That battle over the rating has been going on since it went into production.

Unfortunately it's not even going to get the R-rating for violence, It would get the R-rating for a ''Topless'' sceene! Man! Even in a terminator movie the violence would ''still'' be at a PG-13 level!

 

[M'Sharak]

^What do you mean by''anti-intellectual, intolerant, non-artistic, ethnocentric, and hyper-militaristic? And I am not being sarcastic, I'm being VERY serious! Explain!

All of those pretty accurately describe the culture of the historical Spartans at the time (480 B.C.) the Battle of Thermopylae took place. So would "boy-loving", though, so having the Spartans use it as an epithet toward the Athenians is a bit questionable.