Turn Off the Oven, Watchmen is DONE!

[joe_collector]

Well I just find it funny that a movie that sucked so much has over 30 threads dedicated to it on these forums.

 

Funny how? Anger and disappointment always breeds more discussion than happiness and contentment. It's the human condition.

 

Let's say I a) shake your hand and then b) punch you in the face - which one will get you more riled up?

[EastEnd]

Are people getting butt hurt because some on this forum didnt like the movie?

 

Definitely, and somehow my "2 stars out of 5" review has people thinking I absolutely loved the movie and am now "changing gears" by slamming it and Snyder.

 

I do understand that for most fans, just seeing an incarnation of Watchman on the big screen was enough, but that doesn't escape the fact that this one is a pretty bad movie.

 

Sorry, but you're tap dance isn't working. You gave it a "thumbs up" which means you recommend it... and you never once mentioned that it was 2 "out of 5" stars.. you just said 2 stars... and since movies are typically rated on a four star system, that implies an average movie... not an "abject failure" which is how you've described it today.

[whisp]

Well I just find it funny that a movie that sucked so much has over 30 threads dedicated to it on these forums.

 

Funny how? Anger and disappointment always breeds more discussion than happiness and contentment. It's the human condition.

 

Let's say I a) shake your hand and then b) punch you in the face - which one will get you more riled up?

 

Well I just find it funny that a movie that sucked so much has over 30 threads dedicated to it on these forums. Dark Knight didn't even get that many and that was a good movie. Guess it goes to show how people thrive on negativity.

 

Also, I am not a fan boy of watchmen and as I mentioned I semi enjoyed myself.

 

Btw it depends on where your hand has been.

[joe_collector]

Sorry, but you're tap dance isn't working.

 

Please produce some quotes of my "incredible love" for Watchmen the movie, and I'll go collect the multitudes of negative commentary I've posted on the movie, then we can compare notes and find the truth.

 

And where do you get the idea what my "Did You Enjoy Watchmen" thumb's up answer as a blanket recommendation? Did you read the original question? Did I enjoy Watchmen? Yes I did, and I found it interesting to see how Snyder translated the panels of the GN, but the movie still sucked. I enjoyed it for a far different reason than quality.

 

If the poll had asked, Would You Recommend Watchmen to Friends and Family, the answer would have been a resounding NO!! and I believe I stated that previously.

 

I can PERSONALLY enjoy POS movies for a variety of reasons - one real stinker I loved to watch because it has a high school friend in a co-starring role, but the movie sucked major hass and I would never ever recommend it to anyone else. Still enjoyed it immensely and laughed my hass off.

[Gone Phishin']

Word of mouth is horrendous on this movie. I havent seen it, but my brother, who is 23, and 6 of his friends all thought it was awful. 10 of my college buddies did not like it at all, while 1 saw it twice because he loved it. Even my dads friends got into the action, but they all hated it.

 

 

[EastEnd]

Sorry, but you're tap dance isn't working.

 

Please produce some quotes of my "incredible love" for Watchmen the movie, and I'll go collect the multitudes of negative commentary I've posted on the movie, then we can compare notes and find the truth.

 

And where do you get the idea what my "Did You Enjoy Watchmen" thumb's up answer as a blanket recommendation? Did you read the original question? Did I enjoy Watchmen? Yes I did, and I found it interesting to see how Snyder translated the panels of the GN, but the movie still sucked. I enjoyed it for a far different reason than quality.

 

If the poll had asked, Would You Recommend Watchmen to Friends and Family, the answer would have been a resounding NO!! and I believe I stated that previously.

 

I can PERSONALLY enjoy POS movies for a variety of reasons - one real stinker I loved to watch because it has a high school friend in a co-starring role, but the movie sucked major hass and I would never ever recommend it to anyone else. Still enjoyed it immensely and laughed my hass off.

 

I think you've shifted into the soft shoe now.

 

I already gave you the quotes. Thumbs up means thumbs up... in movie review parlance a "thumbs up" is a recommendation. The rest of your response above is double-talk.

[MR.COMICBOOK]

Two reasons for Watchmen`s box office failure, it`s almost 3 hours long and people can`t take their kids to it, Wolverine and GI JOE will both double the box office of Watchmen, that`s a no brainer.

[whisp]

I am looking forward to GI Joe.

[AGGIEZ]

Wasn't referring to advertising budgets here JC or the total spend in general, just the flick.

 

Then you live in a fantasy land if you don't understand how much the production and promotional budgets separate films.

 

But I guess opinions are like a-holes. (thumbs u

 

 

[goldust40]

Well I just find it funny that a movie that sucked so much has over 30 threads dedicated to it on these forums.

 

Funny how? Anger and disappointment always breeds more discussion than happiness and contentment. It's the human condition.

 

Let's say I a) shake your hand and then b) punch you in the face - which one will get you more riled up?

 

To be fair the 30 threads were due to the unprecedented level of anticipation regarding this project. Considering the 23 years, 4 directors and 6 studios it took to bring what is to all intents and purposes the most sacrosanct work in the medium to the big screen, I wouldn't've expected less.

[ciorac]

When I heard the movie got mixed reviews or whatever... and that fan response was a little tepid, I thought that it shouldn't come as a surprise. Watchmen is a great work to most fanboys -- but in reality -- in terms of widespread crossover, it isn't slick and cool like Iron Man and doesn't have the fan base of non comic fans like Spidey or Wolverine.

 

No, it's just not a very good movie. Something like V for Vendetta, which is virtually unknown as a property and was marketed similar to an independent, but is a much, much better movie and still managed to eke out a nice $70 million domestic (on a $50M budget) and its $60+ million will probably beat Watchmen's total worldwide.

 

 

Which means it lost money in domestic. A film needs to more than "double up" in terms of box office to budget to be considered profitable.

 

here is a snippet that exlplains movie profitability at the box office:

 

"The simple fact is that the studios pay more to alert potential audiences via advertising and to get movie prints into theaters than they get back from those who buy tickets. Consider, for example, Warner Bros.' movie The Negotiator, with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. It was efficiently produced for $43.5 million, scored a world box office of $88 million, and appeared to be a modest success. In fact, Warner Bros. collected only $36.74 million from its theatrical release after it had paid check-conversion and other collection costs, the theaters had taken their cut, and the MPA had deducted its fee. Meanwhile, to corral that audience, Warner Bros.' advertising bill was $40.28 million, and its bill for prints, trailers, dubbing, customs, and shipping was another $12.32 million. So, after the movie finished its theater run, without even considering the cost of making the movie, Warner Bros. had lost $13 million. Why? For every dollar Warner Bros. got back from the box office, it shelled out about $1.40 in expenses, which was about average, if not slightly above par, for studio movies."

 

[BeachBum]

Has word of mouth really been that bad for this movie?

 

For non-fanboys, it has, as you can always count on the slavish nerds to support anything remotely comic-related. But walking in cold, I could see viewers thinking Watchmen is a big steaming POS, as one of the only reasons to see it, is to watch how hackboy Snyder copied the panels to the big screen.

 

Otherwise, it's just a tedious 3-hours.

 

I agree with JC.

 

I received several phone calls last Friday warning me off going to see the movie but we had Fandangoed our tickets already for Saturday morning. Word of mouth is killing this film.

 

Does the movie look good? Yes. Does it stay faithful to the book? Pretty much until the changed ending... And that's the problem.

 

Most movies play out in three distinct acts. The Watchmen plays out on the screen in chapters just like the mini-series. This works fine if you are picking up the comic monthly or reading the trade. But if you are sitting there watching a 3 hour movie it doesn't play well. There is absolutely no sense of urgency and the storytelling bounces around too much to keep the common movie-goer's attention.

 

Due to the story's structure it would have played better broken up like a TV mini-series.

 

But... The Silk Spectre does have a nice butt.

[blockedshot]

I went to this show with several non comic book reading friends, and other than a couple of them feeling there was a little too much blue exposed, we all enjoyed it greatly.

[Comicsarefun]

By the way, the comics are crashing as well. The week before opening I saw BIN's on eBay selling raw sets for $200-400. I sold a set on opening week for $146 and my set that ended last night went for $96.

 

Huge drop off.

 

Saw the movie yesterday. Not bad, but knowing the story made it impossible to watch it and grade it "strictly as a film". Somewhere between a 6 and 7 out of 10...right on that 3 or 4 star edge.

[rjpb]

When I heard the movie got mixed reviews or whatever... and that fan response was a little tepid, I thought that it shouldn't come as a surprise. Watchmen is a great work to most fanboys -- but in reality -- in terms of widespread crossover, it isn't slick and cool like Iron Man and doesn't have the fan base of non comic fans like Spidey or Wolverine.

 

No, it's just not a very good movie. Something like V for Vendetta, which is virtually unknown as a property and was marketed similar to an independent, but is a much, much better movie and still managed to eke out a nice $70 million domestic (on a $50M budget) and its $60+ million will probably beat Watchmen's total worldwide.

 

 

Which means it lost money in domestic. A film needs to more than "double up" in terms of box office to budget to be considered profitable.

 

here is a snippet that exlplains movie profitability at the box office:

 

"The simple fact is that the studios pay more to alert potential audiences via advertising and to get movie prints into theaters than they get back from those who buy tickets. Consider, for example, Warner Bros.' movie The Negotiator, with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. It was efficiently produced for $43.5 million, scored a world box office of $88 million, and appeared to be a modest success. In fact, Warner Bros. collected only $36.74 million from its theatrical release after it had paid check-conversion and other collection costs, the theaters had taken their cut, and the MPA had deducted its fee. Meanwhile, to corral that audience, Warner Bros.' advertising bill was $40.28 million, and its bill for prints, trailers, dubbing, customs, and shipping was another $12.32 million. So, after the movie finished its theater run, without even considering the cost of making the movie, Warner Bros. had lost $13 million. Why? For every dollar Warner Bros. got back from the box office, it shelled out about $1.40 in expenses, which was about average, if not slightly above par, for studio movies."

 

 

This neglects television rights (PPV, Cable and Network - foreign and domestic), DVD (and now Blu-Ray) sales - all of which account for around 50% of total revenue on the average. Not to mention the library value of a film in the long haul.

 

Also WB kicks back a percentage of production costs to itself for overhead, and collects a distribution fee for it's own product rolled into the other costs, and in the case of many films the production is subsidized by generous tax credits (which may or may not be included in the budget- a number which is hard to pin down - and may be flexible depending on whose doing the books).

 

While a film like The Negotiator wouldn't have filled a studios coffers, I wouldn't be so sure that WB actually lost money on it (even if the accountants claim they did).

 

[EastEnd]

When I heard the movie got mixed reviews or whatever... and that fan response was a little tepid, I thought that it shouldn't come as a surprise. Watchmen is a great work to most fanboys -- but in reality -- in terms of widespread crossover, it isn't slick and cool like Iron Man and doesn't have the fan base of non comic fans like Spidey or Wolverine.

 

No, it's just not a very good movie. Something like V for Vendetta, which is virtually unknown as a property and was marketed similar to an independent, but is a much, much better movie and still managed to eke out a nice $70 million domestic (on a $50M budget) and its $60+ million will probably beat Watchmen's total worldwide.

 

 

Which means it lost money in domestic. A film needs to more than "double up" in terms of box office to budget to be considered profitable.

 

here is a snippet that exlplains movie profitability at the box office:

 

"The simple fact is that the studios pay more to alert potential audiences via advertising and to get movie prints into theaters than they get back from those who buy tickets. Consider, for example, Warner Bros.' movie The Negotiator, with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. It was efficiently produced for $43.5 million, scored a world box office of $88 million, and appeared to be a modest success. In fact, Warner Bros. collected only $36.74 million from its theatrical release after it had paid check-conversion and other collection costs, the theaters had taken their cut, and the MPA had deducted its fee. Meanwhile, to corral that audience, Warner Bros.' advertising bill was $40.28 million, and its bill for prints, trailers, dubbing, customs, and shipping was another $12.32 million. So, after the movie finished its theater run, without even considering the cost of making the movie, Warner Bros. had lost $13 million. Why? For every dollar Warner Bros. got back from the box office, it shelled out about $1.40 in expenses, which was about average, if not slightly above par, for studio movies."

 

 

This neglects television rights (PPV, Cable and Network - foreign and domestic), DVD (and now Blu-Ray) sales - all of which account for around 50% of total revenue on the average. Not to mention the library value of a film in the long haul.

 

Also WB kicks back a percentage of production costs to itself for overhead, and collects a distribution fee for it's own product rolled into the other costs, and in the case of many films the production is subsidized by generous tax credits (which may or may not be included in the budget- a number which is hard to pin down - and may be flexible depending on whose doing the books).

 

While a film like The Negotiator wouldn't have filled a studios coffers, I wouldn't be so sure that WB actually lost money on it (even if the accountants claim they did).

 

Agreed, very few movies make money out of box office alone... and probably 6-7 out of every 10 films never turn a profit at all. DVDs and other ancillary revenues generally run about 150% of box office... so to estimate a film's "ultimate" revenue, you should more than double box office. And as you point out, all films contribute to a studios library and make it more valuable.

[comix4fun]

When I heard the movie got mixed reviews or whatever... and that fan response was a little tepid, I thought that it shouldn't come as a surprise. Watchmen is a great work to most fanboys -- but in reality -- in terms of widespread crossover, it isn't slick and cool like Iron Man and doesn't have the fan base of non comic fans like Spidey or Wolverine.

 

No, it's just not a very good movie. Something like V for Vendetta, which is virtually unknown as a property and was marketed similar to an independent, but is a much, much better movie and still managed to eke out a nice $70 million domestic (on a $50M budget) and its $60+ million will probably beat Watchmen's total worldwide.

 

 

Which means it lost money in domestic. A film needs to more than "double up" in terms of box office to budget to be considered profitable.

 

here is a snippet that exlplains movie profitability at the box office:

 

"The simple fact is that the studios pay more to alert potential audiences via advertising and to get movie prints into theaters than they get back from those who buy tickets. Consider, for example, Warner Bros.' movie The Negotiator, with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. It was efficiently produced for $43.5 million, scored a world box office of $88 million, and appeared to be a modest success. In fact, Warner Bros. collected only $36.74 million from its theatrical release after it had paid check-conversion and other collection costs, the theaters had taken their cut, and the MPA had deducted its fee. Meanwhile, to corral that audience, Warner Bros.' advertising bill was $40.28 million, and its bill for prints, trailers, dubbing, customs, and shipping was another $12.32 million. So, after the movie finished its theater run, without even considering the cost of making the movie, Warner Bros. had lost $13 million. Why? For every dollar Warner Bros. got back from the box office, it shelled out about $1.40 in expenses, which was about average, if not slightly above par, for studio movies."

 

 

This is the style of accountant tom-foolery that has been used against actors and directors and producers who foolishly took a "percentage of the net" in their contracts instead of a piece of the gross.

 

Studios have been cooking the books as far back as their were books or cooking utensils.

 

This type of "hide the ball" kind of game has been used to deny Peter Jackson his profits for The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Stan Lee his profits for Spider-man, and Tom Hanks who was exec producer for My Big Fat Greek Wedding (which cost $5 million to produce and made $370 box office).

 

If they can, with a straight face, say none of these films made money then I will never believe another word they say on the topic.

 

Chris

 

 

PS.. Watchmen making $100 million world wide in the last week is still pretty impressive for a 3 hour, R rated flick, regardless of expectations. (thumbs u

[Wally's Comics]

Vincent, a serious question. What comic book related movies do you like?

 

I could be wrong,

but I think he has answered that about a half a dozen times already hasn't he?

I don't know. I never paid any attention before. The thought finally moved from a wonderment to a curiosity. I never fancied you one to shy away from repetition though.

 

[kimik]

While the Wolverine movie looks better, I am beginning to wonder if the economy is starting to take its toll on the movie theatres as well. Let's face it, with the amount a ticket costs now, plus popcorn and drinks, it costs you $30+ just to see a show as a couple (it cost us around $70 when we took the kids to Hotel for Dogs ). However, if you wait, you can snag the DVD for $15 - $20 and watch it at home as many times as you like. While people turned to movies as a distraction during the last few recessions, with recent movie access on PPV or the net, along with 100s of TV stations for $49.99 a month, I don't think people will need to go to the big screens to "escape" this time around.

[the_Greatest]

While the Wolverine movie looks better, I am beginning to wonder if the economy is starting to take its toll on the movie theatres as well. Let's face it, with the amount a ticket costs now, plus popcorn and drinks, it costs you $30+ just to see a show as a couple (it cost us around $70 when we took the kids to Hotel for Dogs ). However, if you wait, you can snag the DVD for $15 - $20 and watch it at home as many times as you like. While people turned to movies as a distraction during the last few recessions, with recent movie access on PPV or the net, along with 100s of TV stations for $49.99 a month, I don't think people will need to go to the big screens to "escape" this time around.

 

If you can point to any evidence the movie business is slowing down, I would love to see it. Box Office Mojo shows business as down 3/10ths of 1% from this time last year. That compares to a drop of 5% during a similar time frame comparison 4-5 years ago.

There just is no evidence the movie business suffers during recessions. None.