Incidentally, I was playing around with some numbers, and I came up with somewhere around 130 Million as my prediction for box office final for Watchmen.
I’m assumung Watchmen will play out similar to a film like Ghost Rider or Daredevil rather than Spiderman or X-Men. I think a lot of the people who wanted to see it, have seen it. I think the mixed reviews will hurt word of mouth. I also suspect that there will be a 60% drop from week one to week 2. In short, I doubt it has a lot of legs.
Just doing some back of the envelope calculations in Excel (I’m not a big numbers guy, but I am trying to improve), I came up with the following predictions using a few superhero films as my (ROUGH) estimates on how the box office will play out. I make no adjustment for the effect of IMAX or seasonality, so grain of salt required.
I think the upside is Watchmen playing out with similar box office trends to Batman Begins (which with Watchmen’s open should yield around 165 million.)
I personally think the Daredevil model is most probable.
FILM COMPARISON PROJECTION FIRST WEEKEND DROP
GHOST RIDER $131,603,846.61 60%
DAREDEVIL $133,946,932.04 55% <----My personal hunch is this #.
FF $128,690,173.62 59%
SUPERMAN REURNS $129,971,482.30 59%(HOLIDAY WEEKEND)
BATMAN BEGINS $165,676,528.94 43%
Though I didn’t think Ozy was the best-cast out of the group, I didn’t really have a problem with him (well, his weak chin was kind of distracting, but that’s beside the point). I thought his look worked–a little effeminate, handsome, intense, very detached (there was even a line in the GN that didn’t make it to the movie, from Rorschach’s journal: “Possibly homosexual. Must investigate.”) I mean, the guy dresses up like an Egyptian pharaoh and his favorite color is purple. I think casting a blond hunky “all American boy” type would have been all wrong. Blond Tom Cruise wouldn’t have been bad, but I think Matthew Goode was fine and made the look work without looking ridiculous.
I missed the Gordian knot thing too, though. I thought that was kind of necessary to the foreshadowing and the metaphor.
Add me to the list that thought the sex scene was awkward. “Hallelujah” is overused enough as it is, but that version just fell flat. People were snickering.
My favorite line that nobody’s mentioned yet:
SS2: “Remember Captain Carnage? The guy who used to follow you around asking you to beat him up? What ever happened to him, anyway?”
NO2: “He tried it on Rorschach, and Rorschach dropped him down an elevator shaft.”
They mentioned the same thing in the movie. Perhaps once he started making them ineffective and it was detected they would launch everything but they’d do it signing their own destruction. You’d think someone with his power could make some crucial component of a missile not function rendering the missile useless without it being readily detectable. The Soviets would also have to know that any missile they launched could be redirected at them by Manhattan. Even if some got through it seems unlikely any nation would sign their own death warrant that way. Ah well, it works for the movies.
I think some of those things would have been easy to add (like Moloch’s neon sign) but other things would’ve added length and more confusion. The key for me is that the movie accurately reflected the concepts and themes of the GN very well and I am not sure what sopme of those things would’ve added to the film’s narrative. The movie was already 160 minutes long, and a movie simply cannot be as layered as the movie.
Wrong. Nixon figures heavily into two War Room type scenes (in part 3 and part 10) that are substantially similar to what was in the movie. The main difference is that the movie made him seem a bit stupider than the GN, which shows him having a very hard time contemplating nuclear war.
Seconded. Can we agree that from this point forward wherever Leonard Cohen’s or Jeff Buckley’s version of “Hallelujah” is used over an emotional moment in a film that before its initial public screening the music must be pulled and replaced with the Benny Hill chase theme “Wacky Sax”?
I think that they’re now pretty equivalent in completely pulling you out of a scene.
winterhawk11 was saying that he really liked that line and I was telling him that the audience I saw the movie with really liked it as well. It was a line that was meant to be funny.
They 2nd sentence was a mistake. I had originally typed a longer post but cut it down and left that sentence there in error.
I really enjoyed the film, but overall I thought the story was more suited for a graphic novel than a movie. There is an extensive amount of exposition required and a few people walked out of the theater because they were expecting an action film, not a drama with some graphic violence. The violence wasn’t disturbing, just cringe-inducing. I looked away a few times because I don’t really care to see bones sticking out or people or anything, but I felt no need to run from the theater in terror. I liked the surrealistic style of the action sequences quite a bit and do not feel the violence was gratuitous but served the same purpose as it did in the GN – it’s kind of supposed to make you cringe.
I thought the acting was great, the characters perfectly cast and costumed (Night Owl and Rorschach being dead on.) I loved seeing my beautiful Laurie Jupiter in the flesh, and I thought the love scenes were very good (particularly well-executed was one of my favorite scenes in the graphic novel – ‘‘Uh, I’m going to need a couple minutes.’’) Best of all, for me, I do feel the movie helped me to grasp the motivations of some key characters in a better way. Some of the scenes were very emotionally powerful, and I think Rorschach was a lot more sympathetically portrayed whereas in the GN he is more ambiguous (dare I say, open to interpretation?)
I think Veidt was a bit misrepresented, but in both the novel and the movie it seems like his betrayal comes out of nowhere.
The way they changed the ending did change the meaning of the story. I still don’t understand what changing it had to do with feeling it would be poorly received in a ‘‘Post 9-11 World.’’ What the hell do aliens have to do with 9/11?
I also don’t think the movie is as dark as the graphic novel. I certainly didn’t leave the theater feelings as depressed as I expected to.
Yeah. This makes no sense whatsoever. I have not seen the film yet, but as I understand it, the same thing happens via a different event. Changing the ending the way they did allows them to eliminate the Black Freighter and Max Shea interludes, which I feel would have been exceptionally difficult to translate to film.
I personally would have preferred the James Bond approach - her clothes slip away, he starts kissing her neck, then fade to the post-coital glow, which is pretty close to the comic version. Just throw in the symbolic flamethrower and you’re golden. The humpy details were best left to the imagination.
My recollection of the book is that the devastation of the climax occurs is limited entirely to New York. My feeling was that the biggest “post 9/11” change they made was to have Ozymandias spread the killing all over the world.
I agree, and also I am not sure that a big octopus, which works in the comics, is not so easy to pull off in a movie as realistically, especially without the backstory which is fairly complex. I am not sure it would look too good, nor do I think it’s mechanism, transmitting evil thoughts is easy to portray effectively in a movie. Not everything translates well, kind of like why they didn’t go with the comic costumes in X-Men, it just doesn’t look good.
Having said that, I think they should have still kept the fake alien invasion theme somehow. Making Dr. Manhatten the supposed bad guy just does not seem to be something that would have the same unifying affect.
I disagree. I think the evil thoughts and nightmares are perfectly suited to movies - you show a chaotic montage of horrifying images interspersed with people wigging out, tearing their eyes out, etc. I think it would have worked extremely well visually and much more effectively conveyed the horror of Ozy’s plan (the plan which reduced the extremely jaded Comedian to tears).
Now, you are correct that it wouldn’t have worked without the backstory, but I think the backstory could have easily been included without substantially increasing the length of the movie. There’s really not much to it: the Comedian mentions the island, there’s 2 short bits of artists on the island (squid in background under tarp) and on the boat leaving the island, then Ozy explaining it at the end to NO and Rorschach. The first thing adds 5 seconds, the second two bits add maybe two minutes, and changing Ozy’s explanation changes nothing. The big NY reveal would have to have been longer, maybe 1 minute. So we’re talking 3 minutes, maybe.
If you reduced the length of the Archie sex scene and the NO/SS prison fighting, both of which were too long anyway, you could make up some of that time and improve the movie at the same time.
I liked some of the subtle stuff, too–going to have to see it at least one more time to try to pick out what I’m sure is a bunch of little things I missed. Maybe you guys can add some more to look for? Things like:
The lights in the Comedian’s apartment during his murder scene forming a smiley face.
Veidt’s screens at his Antarctic hideout showing the “Where’s the Beef?” commercial and Robert Palmer’s “Addicted to Love” video (I was disappointed not to see Rick Astley’s video on there until I mentioned it to the spouse, who pointed out that it came out later than '85)
The shot of the Twin Towers in the background after the destruction at the end.
The angel statue in the cemetery that had more than a passing resemblance to Veidt.
The “Who Watches the Watchmen,” “Tales of the Black Freighter,” and “Vietnam: America’s 51st State!” graffiti/art on several walls
The Gunga Diner blimp
David Bowie, the Village People, and Mick Jagger at a party Veidt was attending.
The various “Nostalgia” billboards
Did anyone see any “Krystallnacht” posters? I was looking for them but I didn’t see any.
I agree completely. If I want to watch hot, naked, explicit sex I’ll watch a porn film (and I’m a man who likes his porn).
The James Bond approach would have worked perfectly well in the context of the film, especially since I found myself thinking “If this scene isn’t the textbook definition of Fan Service I don’t know what is” during it.
I like attractive women in thigh-high boots so it’s not like I’m objecting to the scene’s presence, but I still think the James Bond approach to it would have conveyed the same information and had the same impact within the story, but without feeling like it was especially designed for The Comic Book Guy to have a wank over when the DVD is released.
But having said that, I still think the film was excellent overall, and I thought they did an excellent job of making a Superhero Film that avoided most of the cliches associated with the genre- but managed a couple of pretty broad winks to it all the same. (I’m thinking [del] the Bond Villain[/del] Ozymandias’ “Now I have you in my lair it’s safe to tell you my Master Plan, Bwa-ha-ha” speech at the end).
Ok, I didn’t make it to the film this weekend like I was supposed to (:mad:) so tell me if I am talking out of my ass, but it seems to me that your reaction is exactly why they needed to put in all the humpy details. If Watchmen the grafic novel was playing with your preconceptions of what superhero comics should be, then should Watchmen the movie be taking your preconceptions of Superhero, and to a larg extent that’s what James Bond is, movies are. Putting in all the ugly and uncomfortable details is part of the point right?
Again, I haven’t seen it so the execution may be seriously lacking, but you even say “the James Bond approach” which is totally antithetical to the idea of the comic (and from what I have read the movie too).
