Comic Book Resources

If you want to get overly technical, based on the running times you could have four screening of 300 in the time it would take to have three screenings of Watchmen. Watchmen's opening weekend being more than 3/4 of 300's isn't THAT big a drop off.

Sure, Conor, I bet the length was a major impact.

Didn't Watchmen open on far more screens than 300 did, though?

I'm pretty sure I read something about Watchman having the highest number of screens ever for an R-rated movie on opening weekend.

From the numbers I saw, that seems very possible, Dave. Over 3,000 screens!

56 is not a good number for this movie. They spent that much on advertising alone, so they won't start to make back the 125 mil they spent on the actual movie until next week, when the movie should have a massive drop-off.

But 300 was so much easier for the general public to digest, Concept wise. WATCHMEN is really long, but not long enough, and is more complex then most movies ever try to be, thanks to its basis.

I hope it actually makes less box office so I can actually see it without a huge crowd. For some reason watching movies on my small TV and an even smaller laptop screen just doesn't compare to the movie going experience even if it is on a Bluray disc.

Why does anyone care what the box office is? Are you hoping for a sequel?

Man, if 25mil of that 56 was Friday, then the movie will have a STEEP dropoff next weekend. I usually see films based on the tomatometer on Rottentomatoes. And Watchmen's rating is fresh but pretty pathetic for my tastes. But I'm so, so curious about the movie that I may have to see it anyway unless I start hearing negative reviews from geeks who dissed The Dark Knight.

Well, I'm probably in the minority here, but I thought the movie was pretty mediocre. It played out like a pastiche of "cool" scenes instead of a coherent movie, no doubt the by-product of trying to include as much as they could from the book. I'd rather have seen them run with fewer threads and concentrated on making a better, more accessible film. Throw in some suspect acting and way too much gratuitous sex and violence and I'm afraid they really didn't do the book any justice.

Have to disagree with you there, Fubar..... I felt the movie was an excellent adaptation of the original work. The changes made in translation from page to film still remained true to the book, and I was thorougly entertained. I believe Zack Snyder was the only one who would dare to stay true to the book, and did so with GREAT CARE. He pulled it off successfully. "Watchmen" could only work onscreen like this when it's allowed to be what it is, with only a few changes as needed. Snyder gave us the closest adaptation we were going to get of the book. Other directors(Paul Greengrass) were trying to turn it into a comment on the "war on terror". That's not what Watchmen was at all.

I agree with Fubarthepanda. I was bored to tears by the movie. I wasn't interested in seeing a pastiche--I wanted to see a film that worked on its own. This one did not. Nothing about it felt alive. None of the characters were believable. The extreme overuse of the super slow motion effect grew tedious very quickly. The festishizing of the violence was also annoying. Zach Snyder, in his attempt to be faithful to the book, hit all the beats, but to what effect? All of the fanboys who demanded extreme fidelity to the source material got their wish, and in so doing got a lifeless corpse, paint-by-numbers of a movie in return. The entire time I was watching it I kept thinking of how much better it would have been if Paul Greengrass had been allowed to direct this film and actually make it his own and actually breathe some life into it. What a disappointment and missed opportunity.

From what I hear of studio expectations, this is considered a bomb.

Yep, these aren't good numbers at all, and with these opening weekend results it'll probably end up with no more than $150 million in the US. A poor showing, considering it has to make at least $300 million to just break even.

Batman Begins netted $48,745,440 during its opening weekend. It was a PG-13 film and opened in 3,858 theaters in June of 2005, during the height of blockbuster season.

Superman Returns netted $52,535,096 during its opening weekend. It was a PG-13 film and opened in 4,065 theaters in June of 2006, during the height of blockbuster season.

Watchmen netted an estimated $55,655,000 during its opening weekend. It's an R-rated film and opened in 3,611 theaters in March of 2008, well before the height of blockbuster season.

The reason box office matters is that if the movie does well, we are more likely to get more movies like it (i.e. complex and mature). It also lends credibility to the idea that you don't have to completely change and bastardize a piece of work in order to bring it to the screen. Also, the better it does the more money Dave Gibbons might get.

I think the movie's length did make a pretty big difference because it means you can only have one showing a night unless you put it on multiple screens.

An approximate 56 million ain't bad at all for a March opening, especially in the pre-summer blockbuster season. I do hope this flick is well received by the public, especially those who went without having read the book, but just went out of curiosity. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and the Spider-Man movies (despite whatever criticisms that exist about the 3rd Spidey flick),are actually exceptions to the Hollywood standard when it comes to comic-based adaptations. The standard being a lack of regard or respect for the source material. Of course, it's expected that some aspects should be changed when adapting these projects,so that they fit within the movie-goers sense of "suspending disbelief", but often you get a re-working that is quite unwatchable or has little to do with the character. Remember the FIRST Punisher (starring Dolph Lungren)circa 1989, Captain America circa 1990? The Batman franchise from 1989-'98, although it paved the way for big budget attempts at comic based movies, was more star-driven than plot driven. People were more concerned with which stars would show up to "play" than with having a gripping plot. In that era, it seemed an adaptation could only be done if the film or t.v. show (like '93's Lois & Clark) WINKED at the audience with that self-aware, "yes,we know it's from a comic-book" sarcastic humor. Let's remember how long it took to GET to a place where a riveting, thought-provoking, Oscar-winning (best supporting actor Heath Ledger,R.I.P.) Dark Knight, or an ambitiously faithful adaptation of Watchmen could even be attempted, let alone released into theaters! Let's put some of our APATHY away. From as complex as Watchmen is in it's original form, I believe Zack Snyder, from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons work, pulled off the climate of an alternate timeline 1980's Cold War era, where costumed "vigilantes" existed, along with the ramifications of there existance, RATHER WELL.

An approximate 56 million ain't bad at all for a March opening, especially in the pre-summer blockbuster season. I do hope this flick is well received by the public, especially those who went without having read the book, but just went out of curiosity. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and the Spider-Man movies (despite whatever criticisms that exist about the 3rd Spidey flick),are actually exceptions to the Hollywood standard when it comes to comic-based adaptations. The standard being a lack of regard or respect for the source material. Of course, it's expected that some aspects should be changed when adapting these projects,so that they fit within the movie-goers sense of "suspending disbelief", but often you get a re-working that is quite unwatchable or has little to do with the character. Remember the FIRST Punisher (starring Dolph Lungren)circa 1989, Captain America circa 1990? The Batman franchise from 1989-'98, although it paved the way for big budget attempts at comic based movies, was more star-driven than plot driven. People were more concerned with which stars would show up to "play" than with having a gripping plot. In that era, it seemed an adaptation could only be done if the film or t.v. show (like '93's Lois & Clark) WINKED at the audience with that self-aware, "yes,we know it's from a comic-book" sarcastic humor. Let's remember how long it took to GET to a place where a riveting, thought-provoking, Oscar-winning (best supporting actor Heath Ledger,R.I.P.) Dark Knight, or an ambitiously faithful adaptation of Watchmen could even be attempted, let alone released into theaters! Let's put some of our APATHY away. From as complex as Watchmen is in it's original form, I believe Zack Snyder, from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons work, pulled off the climate of an alternate timeline 1980's Cold War era, where costumed "vigilantes" existed, along with the ramifications of there existance, RATHER WELL.

The criticism that it sucked because it was too loyal to the source material is an odd one, I think.

It makes sense. Some people didn't think the pacing worked in the movie because they think movies and comics should have different pacing. I disagree, since I was never bored during it, but one of my friends (who loves the comic) found parts very boring.
While the numbers are disappointing, placing matters more for gauging interest. The #2 movie was I think half the gross, if that. People are just too busy to see a movie in March. I expect that numbers from subsequent weeks will be much higher than normal, but lower than Batman in the end.

I despair of this kind of thinking. Just because the film didn't break the record for a March opening weekend, that makes it a failure?
Ian's post above shows the $56m figure in a more realistic context.
Besides which, regardless of how 'bad' Watchmen does at the box office, the length of the film, the extras already announced and the overall nature of the film pretty much ensure it'll put up HUGE numbers for the DVD release.

Quality will tell. This is a damn good movie, smart and action-packed and faithful to its source. I don't doubt that everyone involved will make plenty of money. If Friday the 13th can stay in the top ten damn near a month, this movie will have legs to spare.

I think it's both sad and hilarous that anyone would find this "too faithful to the souce" , "too cartoony" and/or "too boring.

God, I wish the people who "project" openings for movies would just shut their traps. This film had a fine opening, but because it didn't meet a totally arbitrary out-of-thin-air estimate, it's in trouble.

Bit of a shame. Not a great film, but a good one.

What matters is Week 2 numbers. A 60% drop is going to be troublesome and hard to spin positively.

Althou, My comic COBALT 60 that i co created with my father Vaughn Bode is on Zacks Snyders movies to do list I may be a little bias but my family is known for our more then interesting characters, i must say i loved what Zack did Watchmen and the characters as many as there was were all developed quickly but efficianly as the flim could easily been 5 hours long ... it was a daunting task for anyone and i left the theater daunted as to what my film with him will be like. I think negative and positive feedback shows a strong presence in any cutting edge production as in any art form a" reaction" is better then no reaction at all.. I am very proud of Zack and his crew. Im glad Cobalt 60 doesnt have a lynch mob of fans ready to hate the film we do, Cobalt 60 has more of a cult following in comics and the general public will be unknowing and can just go on a ride to another place and time and get lost in our world without pretention. Im looking forward to seeing what Zack will do. he truly loves the properties he works with.. Comic artist, Mark Bode

This movie will end up being profitable after DVD sales. I am sure the studio is a little disappointed in the box office performance, but between overseas market and HUGE dvd sales to all of us in fandom--they will be fine