Dude, I don't want anymore superheroes period. Comics, let alone movies, can be so much more. I think what Snyder did is pretty impressive, whatever his shortcomings as a director, but honestly let go of superheroes guys; they're been deconstructed, they've been put back together again, they've been played straight and for laughs. They're done.

Parent of the Year awards go to the mouth-breathers who brought their young kids to an R-rated movie and were upset at the R-rated situations in it. Double awards to the ones who let their child watch the violent parts but covered Junior's eyes at the sight of the human body.

You know I don't care, and I will see the movie again but not because I want more movies that are this close the the real material because it will never happen, 99.9999999999% of directors don't have the balls to stand up for what they want in the movie and if they do they are not going to be the ones going out and making the next superman or the Flash Movie. We got lucky with The Dark Knight and Watchmen, but looking at the history of comic book movies we are doing better now then we did in the 90's and the 90's were better then the 80's.

Oh and the people that gave their experiences at the movies in the link, I call BS on the first one, because if they walked out after 45min then they would not have gotten to the part of the movie on mars. The second part, don't bring your kids to a movie that is rated R. Read up on it are you telling me no one mentioned the nudity, violence and sex in the film? Fuck you for being a moron, there were little kids at the screening I went to and I thought it was great watching their minds get violated and their parents looking like DCFS was going to jump out of the popcorn and toss them in jail.

Oh, goody! It's my chance to spend all of my hard-earned money to support somebody else's project in order to influence the decisions of people who have already been proven to be complete shitheads to begin with.

Why should I bother spending my money on something that would be useful to me when we, collectively, can add a hundredth of a percentile point to a figure that'll never be anywhere near the required amount that Warner Brothers needs to keep going?

But it's a _crisis_, people. Just like when Palladium games went broke due to its own stupidity, and then milked its loyal fans by exchanging worthless pieces of paper for actual cash money.

Look: Fanboys love the idea that they can change the world by spending their money. But the original creator of the Watchmen didn't want the movie made in the first place, and suggesting that a bunch of fanboys can influence the decisions of a vast multinational corporation by seeing it more than once is just folly of the worst kind - a way to spit into the ocean and declare that we're changing it in the name of Spider-Man.

Movie companies cannot afford to cater to fanboys because fanboys are either slavishly loyal or slavishly fickle. We are too untrustworthy to base financial decisions on - look at Serenity, for instance, or any number of films designed to appeal specifically to fanboys that flopped as soon as they failed to attract the majority's interest. Look at the Star Wars prequels - packed to the gills with stuff that the nerds loved (Jedi, Jango Fett, space battles), but without anything that a normal person could relate to.

This is a call to arms to waste money. See the Watchmen again if you want to, but don't get the impression that you're doing anything more than watching an entertaining film again.

-Darren MacLennan

I'll see it again - but simply because I thought the movie rocked.

Maybe what they'll take away is that there is an insane, rabid fanbase out there that will pay good money for a faithful adaptation - and we'll start seeing decent comic adaptations start cropping up as straight to DVD or on SciFi. That would be, in my opinion, the best outcome.

Why spend 50 million on marketing? The ads for this movie where overkill. It's not the fans fault that you had a bloated budget.

Great article, and thank you for bringing this dilemma to our attention. As an Australian, I'm not quite sure if The Watchmen has opened here yet, and truth be told, I'm I'm not all that into it due to the fact that I'm unfamiliar with the source material. But because of this article I'll be seeing it at least twice, for we just cannot let this concept of fan-appeasement fail. It sucks that the one time a movie is dedicated to being faithful to the source material, and all the battles fought between studios and creatives to achieve that goal doesn't get the pay-off it deserves. This must be supported even if you HATE Watchmen, because if you don't it may be you're favorite comic/game/novel that gets completely ruined because of a "we as a studio need to make drastic changes to this source material so we don't have some kind of Watchmen debacle" kind of attitude.

Great article, and thank you for bringing this dilemma to our attention. As an Australian, I'm not quite sure if The Watchmen has opened here yet, and truth be told, I'm I'm not all that into it due to the fact that I'm unfamiliar with the source material. But because of this article I'll be seeing it at least twice, for we just cannot let this concept of fan-appeasement fail. It sucks that the one time a movie is dedicated to being faithful to the source material, and all the battles fought between studios and creatives to achieve that goal doesn't get the pay-off it deserves. This must be supported even if you HATE Watchmen, because if you don't it may be you're favorite comic/game/novel that gets completely ruined because of a "we as a studio need to make drastic changes to this source material so we don't have some kind of Watchmen debacle" kind of attitude.

Yes, I'm going to go and spend my hard-earned money to see a film more than once that was only above average.

Darren has it right. Fanboys have done a lot more damage for the movie industry than good. And virtually impossible to get a good mature comic book movie made in the future? My ass. Give it 15-20 years and this whole cycle will start over, if the depressed fanboys haven't killed themselves from alcohol poisoning by then.

Good source material does not guarantee a good movie. Snyder's movie doesn't live up to the original book, and his slavish fidelity to the source only heightened the quality gap. It's not my responsibility to change a studio's mind about superhero movies just because staked all their hopes on an overhyped piece of crap. Next time, find actors who can, y'know, ACT and a filmmaker who can make, y'know, FILMS, instead of just animating scenes from comic books.

I knew about Watchman but never read the comic, or really any comics for years now, but I went to see it on opening day and I thought it was really good.

I will admit that I have seen movies that I was more excited to see going into, but this is one of only a handful I am excited to see again.

I will be going back this weekend and at some point in the near future I will pick up the graphic novel.

I have to agree with clever.name.here. I haven't seen the film yet but it looks like, to me, all of the main criticisms of the film come from the slavish devotion to the graphic novel but without giving it life and giving the one good actor (Billy Crudup) a role which involves less... well, acting, and more posturing, greenscreen, and dialogue of a sort which doesn't require mood acting. The rest of the cast, according to most reviews, is mediocre to bad. I feel like if Snyder had cast people with a little more talent and a lot less upon their faces, it would have come off much better.

Also, I don't understand why people think a word-for-word adaptation of a graphic novel is a good thing. V for Vendetta was a *terrible* novel to adapt directly, it was convoluted and quickly devolved into psychobabble and some weird rants about anarchism near the end which ultimately just pissed me off. Watchmen isn't incoherent, nor is it an ideological piece, but the story is still very hard to connect to and follow. I'm appreciative of the effort made by Snyder to really give service to the fans, but sometimes giving your own flair or taking creative liberties is a GOOD thing. It gives the movie life, it's not just a repetition of what has come before. Can you imagine how dull the Harry Potter films (which, fuck you all, I happen to like some of) would have been if they were line by line recitations of the book? Who wants to go to a theater to see verbatim what they've already read?

However, fear not. I will make my contribution next weekend, in all likelihood, but it'll be my first time seeing it.

This argument to see the movie is a bunch of crap.

WB didn't take risks on the source material, they took risks on the budget, rating, legal issues, and length of film.

Does it have to cost $150 million ($200 with advertising) in order to make a "mature" comic book film that slavishly follows its source material? I don't think so. 300 was made for half that.

Unadjusted for inflation, only 8 rated R movies have ever surpassed the $200M box office mark. Of those 8, the only two that had budgets north of $100 million were Matrix Reloaded and Terminator 2. Notice something: both were sequels with guaranteed film audiences.

They took a risk in the rating. As other people in other places have pointed out, this film didn't need to be rated R. The roughest parts were added or embellished from the original and they had no bearing on the "complex tale of morality". The Dark Knight was PG-13 and no Batfan is running around screaming that they didn't treat it as a "mature" comic book film.

WB is losing 8.5% of box-office receipts to Fox because they have a stupid legal team that didn't do their homework. That's a dumb risk to take.

The movie did not need to be almost 3 hours. Granted, that part did truly cater to the fans. But ask most people which Harry Potter they enjoyed, and it's not usually the first two which are arguably the most inclusive and literal to the source material. In the end, a different cut of the film could have made for a better theatrical movie. Likewise, adding an hour on special release DVD would have been as more popular.

When all is said and done, I'm still not convinced this movie won't make money. Foreign box office must still be considered as does home video receipts.

But arguing that you need to go see this movie to help WB make some money is a load of crap. They took risks on this film, but it wasn't because of the source material or its treatment, it's because of the other studio risks they took and which are evaluated on every major film.

Snyder did a good job of adapting, but did he make a great movie? The consensus here seems to be that we need to reward someone for picking a great source material over a great movie. I don't think that's the case.

I've seen it twice and I'm looking for someone to see it with again this weekend.

On another note, does anyone find that walking out of a movie after PAYING ten fucking dollars - especially in this economy - shows just how dumb this country is as a whole? People are losing their jobs left and right, and they go to watch a movie (which is already a pretty hefty expense if you go as a family - 40 dollars on the average!), and they don't even get their money's worth? Retards.

See it as many times as you want, won't make a difference. It missed what the studio was hoping to make in the opening weekend. They've already written it off.
I think the biggest problem was marketing, everyone I talked to thought they were going to see an action flick. That works great to get people in the first weekend, but if the movie isn't genuinely good, people won't come back.

and don't get me started on the dumbasses taking their kids to a rated R movie . . .

i was hatin on hayter for saying this stuff at first... until i went to his IMDB and saw that he's been voicing Captain America for years in TV cartoons. that makes him THE MAN in my book!

First off--wow, this movie elicits some strong opinions. The LA Times was right in calling it the "Fight Club" of superhero movies. You either strongly love it or strongly hate it. I fall somewhere in the middle, but still think Rob has a point.

If Watchmen tanks (though in this day and age when even something like Superman Returns is considered a flop, it was bound to be a box office disappointment) studios will be less likely to greenlight mature superhero movies. Yes, there will still be good comic book movies. But I can virtually guarantee you that something like, say, Kick-Ass is either having its violence toned down right now, or is in danger or losing distribution.

I think we'll see a push towards Iron Man-type superhero movies over Dark Knight. (The Green Lantern braintrust already said they're going in this direction.) Which is fine, except that it's a short jump from big, splashy, smart fun (Iron Man) to big, dumb and loud crap(Fantastic Four). Wolverine, for instance, looks to be falling somewhere in the middle.

To everyone saying we can't make a difference with our tickets--may I point out the increased voting results that landed America's Next Great Hope in the White House? Popular opinion DOES hold weight, people. The studio execs don't care whether or not a movie is good (*cough8SpiderMan3*cough*), they just care if millions of people want to see it. How do they know millions of people want to see it? Millions of people buy tickets. MULTIPLE tickets, many times.

This isn't going to save superhero movies one way or the other, but it IS going to turn the course of battle to favor the execs. They can't be allowed to have MORE control than they feel they deserve, so, yes, speak with your wallets. Spread the word.

And if you think Deadpool is the worst thing about the Wolverine movie, have you seen the synopsis on io9?

--How do they know millions of people want to see it? Millions of people buy tickets. MULTIPLE tickets, many times. --

Yes. _Millions_ of people go to see it. Not the local comic book and gaming club; the people who wouldn't normally go to see those films.

Look at how hard people pushed to get Serenity made; people are dressing up like Browncoats, marching in the streets, writing angry letters, mailing their testicles to the head of Fox - and the movie flops anyways. Studios know that they can't market to fanboys. It's been tried, it didn't work, it's not going to happen again.

And seriously, you'd be better off mailing your own testicles to the executives than you'd be spending your money. Your little $10 is less than nothing to these people, and your American election analogy is deeply flawed.

(This keeps reminding me of how Scientology used to buy up Hubbard's books in bulk, thereby propelling them to the top of the New York Best Sellers list. Think that more people were interested once they knew that the manufacturers were creating artificial demand?)

-Darren MacLennan

The movie was a paint-by-numbers kit you can get at any Wal-Mart. Zack Snyder stayed inside the lines and colored everything according to the color chart. But that's all it was, as pretending that it's anything more than that would be lying.

Alan Moore was right when he said that Watchmen was unfilmable. Even with this 95% faithful adaptation, he was proven right. Some comics should be left alone and enjoyed for what they are instead of making gazillion dollar live-action motion comics that will only please the comic book crowd, which, the last time I checked, was getting smaller every year.

And I should know since I own a few comic stores and see how the publishers try to hard to cater to the hardcore fans and not try hard enough to get new readers into the hobby. This Watchmen movie won't be helping in bringing in new comic readers. If anything it'll have them shaking their heads and wondering why every other comic fan has given the Siskel & Ebert equivelant of a blowjob to the Watchmen film. Bleh.

If you want to see faithful movie adaptations of comic book properties that don't suck, how about this - support the comic book industry FIRST. Support the comics that deserve your support. Shun the comics that are spinning their wheels. Get off the idiotic habit of buying every blasted Spider-Man or Batman comic that Marvel and DC pukes out when you know those comics aren't any damn good anymore. Put your money where it will do the most good. Pick your favorite comic. Pimp it out to all your friends, comic book fans or not. Take back the industry that the fanboys have soured the general public on.

Anyhoo, I sure as hell thing a movie series (or maybe a HBO or Showtime series) based on something like The Walking Dead series would be more profitable and have a healthy fanbase, as compared to most superhero comic adaptations.

And if Alan Moore is giggling like an idiot somewhere in the UK, good for him. I didn't want him to be right, but he was.

I'm going to see it again, this time on IMAX. I thought it was a great movie, and it has indeed sparked debate between friends and I, and in one case an ex and I, to the point where I remembered why I am married to my hubby and not to him. Everyone has a different opinion, some of my friends had been a fan of the GN and others not, some are now jonesing to read it and others, well, not so much, but in the end, it gave us all something to chat, text, IM and blog about, all week. For that alone I would see it again, but you know, I really want to see some of the stuff I was almost tense about the first time, all over again, with a more relaxed attitude. And I can't lie, I want to see JDM again on the big screen, not so nice guy that he is and all.

I'm sorry, this is bullshit. The success (or non-success in this case) of Watchmen is NOT going to determine if mature comic book films will be made in the future. Exhibit A: The Dark Knight. 2nd highest grossing film of all time. Yeah, they'll keep making mature comic films just as they keep making kid-friendly Happy Meal selling comic films (Fantastic Four).

Maybe if the Watchmen movie was an actual good movie to start with (which it wasn't) it would have earned more money.

"If you don't... well, understand that means you don't want any mature or authentic superhero stories being told in the movies in the future." Really? REALLY? THAT is bullshit, man. I hated the movie yet I still would like for there to be mature superhero films in the future and my not buying a Watchmen ticket a 2nd time does not mean I want these type of films to fail. Just because I think the Watchmen movie missed the mark doesn't mean I don't want to see other tries at these type of stories. So no, me not seeing Watchmen a 2nd time is not me saying "Man, fscrew future mature comic book movies!"

Us fanboys really have to get over ourselves. It's things like this that are the reasons we'll never get respect from the mainstream. Just saying.

I figured it would open big and then trail off, but I never stopped to consider the implications of that. I definitely see what he's saying here and it sort of makes me sick to think about. Warner Bros. has put a lot of faith in comic book movies lately, but I don't know if they quite understand that most will not have the mass appeal of Nolan's Batman films, particularly the properties they've been banking on.
This is also setting up to be the second time in a short period that they've been burned financially by making a big-budget film for a very niche market (I'm not comparing them in terms of quality, but Speed Racer, whatever you think of it, was indeed very faithful and very pricey.)

The people who worked on this film should be applauded for their integrity and dedication to the project and the fans, let's just hope fan dedication to them now/when the dvd comes out is enough.

WTF? Seriously. Why all the vitriol? I mean sure, maybe you didn't like the movie, but in every Watchman post on this site people sound like they'd pull a knife on the other guy given the chance.

So you hated the movie. Good for you. Don't see it again. In the end though, it's a freaking movie. Is it feasible that if it tanks we'll see crappy superhero movies in the future? Sure it is. Is it equally possible we'll get crappy superhero movies if it does well? Sure! I mean, LOTR didn't exactly open the flood gates of great Fantasy films.

So if you disagree, don't go see it. Or if you agree, go see it. Or whatever - sheesh. It's a movie for gods' sake. If this movie has the power to do anything, apparently it's to make people into raving psychos online (moreso than usual, I guess.)

I have yet to hear a nerd give a cogent argument about why Watchmen was a bad movie. Disliking the music isn't enough, people.

And for you all who think Dark Knight will somehow be the norm in Hollywood, and not a happy accident of timing, opportunity and talent, congratulations. You live in a world without Ghost Rider, Daredevil, the two Punisher films, Superman Returns, X-3, Spider-man 3, the two Fantastic Four flicks, and god knows how many others. I wish I lived there too.

I've been paying close attention to all this feedback and I have to say that they are all very valid. I have to say that I am a fan and adore the book. I enjoyed the story and its crazy twists very much. But, I was not super excited to see the film. And none of my frat friends were either also. They all flaked on me when I was trying to set up a movie night for this film. Eventually I lost the desire to go watch it this past weekend also. My lil bro who is 10 years old, said it best, "I really dont want to watch it, cuz I dont know any of the characters or the story".

But I will eventually go see it, most likely this weekend. And I will drag my lil bro with me, not matter how much he wants to or not. Cuz I know how much the morality of this film will benefit him. So Thank you Zack Snyder for the film and hopefully in the future this film will turn out to be a sleeper like BladeRunner...cuz nobody went to go see that film when it came out...but eventually it built a cult following.

I may be the only person who was totally lukewarm about the movie.

People need to get over the idea that a good adaption is one that is as faithful as possible to the material.

A good adaption is one that takes the core themes of the work and turns them into a movie. See L.A. Confidential, Fight Club, and Children of Men for movies that were actually BETTER than their novels. They were better because they purified the stories and exhibited their essences on screen, not because it tried to cram every detail into the movie.

The Watchmen was TOO faithful; it included too many minor details it didn't have time to explain just for the sake of having it in there. The thing that stuck out at me was the Comedians comment to Hooded Justice about how he liked beating guys. That related to the Hooded Justice is gay plot line, which was excised from the movie. Why have just that one line in the movie? It served no dramatic purpose.

So if this is the end of overly literal remakes, I can dig that. Trying to appease the fanboys is stupid anyway; they are the kind of people who will go see the Dragonball Z movie despite the fact its totally obvious its a turd sandwich. Make a good movie, period, not fan service or a mindless piece of pop garbage.

I the film doesn't make much money I think we should worry about whether we will get the director's cut DVD or not. If Warners don't think there's much interest in the film they could just cut their losses and dump out a barebones DVD and leave it at that. So, fingers crossed the film has legs with the hardcore fans, although given the hate I've seen for the film I don't think that can happen. (Personally I loved everything but the ending)

Y'know, is it wrong that the more people hate on this film, the more I like it? I didn't love it initially, but with all the spiteful ingrates bitching about it I think I'll pre-order the directors cut on DVD.......

I think the Dark Knight sucked and I won't be seeing whatever retarded sequel/threequel they have of that. Ditto Transformers. I am sorry I wasted $ on those pieces of crap.

I am seeing Watchmen this weekend. Pretending that Hollywood cares what people think beyond ticket sales is pretty naive.

And Rob, the first Punisher mocvie sucked? It's like I don't know you anymore man! That part where Lundgren opens the elevator and guns down all those ninjas? He was robbed by the Academy. Maybe if he had died they could have at least charity-Oscared him like the Bat-Tool.

matt, I think he ment the other Punisher movie that was out a few years ago with Travolta as the bad guy.

Arsenal, I sure hope that's what he meant. Dissing Lundgren is NOT COOL :)

You're right--if Watchmen fails, the studios are going to be extremely reluctant to fund any more far-reaching, intelligent comic/graphic novel films. But--and this is coming from someone who loved Watchmen, in both its graphic novel and motion picture form--is there any point in pushing to save it? Say we save Watchmen, it becomes a financial success. Then what? What about the next intelligent comic book film? Will the audiences be any more receptive to that? Ours is not a culture that is open to intelligent cinema, not on the blockbuster level, at the very least. When the next intelligent comic book film comes out, will we be forced to "save" that one as well? Attempting to spoon-feed Bergman to a society that wants Bay could be a futile effort.

I saw the midnight showing thursday night and, in spite of the multiple reviews and comments to its detriment, still thought it was a stellar movie. I will certainly be seeing it again in a few weeks and am looking forward to the director's cut DVD (which I am pretty sure will come out since 1) I do not think there is too much of an added cost compiling it 2) the LotR extended cuts were massively popular 3) DVD sales basically resurected Firefly and probably made Serenity profitable. Exec just won't leave money on the table if it is to be had.)

"Watchmen had the sixth-highest grossing R-rated start (though, again, adjusting brings it down to 14th), behind The Matrix Reloaded, The Passion of the Christ, 300, Hannibal and Sex and the City."
http://www.boxofficemojo.com

and

"Zack Snyder's hotly-anticipated graphic novel adaptation took $55.7m at the weekend, the third highest March opening of all time"
http://www.guardian.co.uk

I think that's a remarkable result, WB shouldn't complain...
Moreover, the film is long, so it has less projection per week of the usual films. And, finally, it's a period of crisis, so we can't expect the usual numbers.

Apart this argument, I think anyway that I'll go to see it a second time, if I'll find someone with whom watch it (and if I'll find some money).

I'll wait to see it again when it's on Blu-ray.

What's interesting is that my dad was talking to me about a radio discussion that he heard where a commentator mentioned that we as comic nerds are still young in our thinking of movies. For instance, people now accept that movies based on books can take liberties with the source, but we nerds are getting upset when a small change is made to a comic character or story (Deadpool notwithstanding).

You see, since comics are pictures, we expect those images to easily be put on-screen (this is a broad assumption, but a valid one). So Snyder did the smart thing and copied many images from 'Watchmen' to his movie because that's what the mass of nerds wanted.

In my opinion, he didn't expand on these images enough. The opening credits were fantastic (I immediately downloaded Dylon after that), but the rest of the movie relied solely on imagery Dave Gibbons had already created.

Frankly, I'm almost tempted to see it again before Blu-ray just because Solid Snake told me to.

echelon321 has it right - Snyder added the majority of the scenes that got the film an R.

He, along with a huge cohort of fans of Watchmen, seem to conflate hard-core action with maturity.

That's not the essence of the book at all. Read it again - how much action and gore is there? What, 4 fight scenes?

It was the addition of all the extraneous action and slo-mo superhero goodness that messed this up. Snyder could have made a film truer to the source material by not catering to the 13yo boy that thinks tits and 'splosions are the bee's knees! By doing so, he could have made a truly mature superhero movie - one that had drama at its core instead of action. One that was truer to the book. One that could have garnered awards for its mature look at the true nature of the superhero.

Jesus, guys- first of all, Hollywood makes movies to make money. They know a lot of us geeks have a fondness for the comics of our youth, so they slurp up the rights, if only to keep any others from making any bank off them.

Hollywood is all about that now- Christ, look at how many movies they want to remake just for the built-in audience! Somewhere, someplace, their are people who will get pissed off at the casting choices and scene-cuts for that "Gilligan's Island" movie!

I remember reading the Watchmen, thinking "huh, weird!", and then going to my backyard to blow up some G.I. Joe figures. Guys like Moore and Miller simply made the stories more adult to keep up with their aging audiences (and to make money), who eventually stopped reading those very comics because (YES I"M GOING TO SAY IT) they realized they weren't very good! Seriously, go and pick up some old issues of FF or the Hulk (DC included, big time)- they SUCKED!

They were for KIDS and we're NOT KIDS anymore! Still, we remember them with this distorted glow powered by Doritos, Saturday mornings and the simple power of being a wide-eyed child who saw the possibility, not the realities in our favorite superheroes and their ever-goofier villains.

Nothing, NOTHING, could ever live up to my memories of clutching some new issues, racing home on my bike from the 7-Eleven down the street, hoping that a Godzilla movie was going to be on the after-school movie...even if, for the life of me, I couldn't tell you what actually happened in those issues. I'll keep it just that way, thank you very much.

It's not the duty of people to see this movie more than once. If it doesn't make its money back, it doesn't mean the fans failed. It means that the movie A) didn't reach out to enough fans and B) it was too damn expensive to make.

I'll catch flak from the fanboys out there for this, but I'm going to say it anyway. It's in direct response to Darren MacLennan's post above.

Who gives a tin fuck what that washed up prick Alan Moore wants? His graphic novels are, at BEST, only moderately enjoyable. The films based on his novels are ALWAYS infinitely better than the novels themselves. You can disagree all you want, but V For Vendetta was fucking BORING, and the film was way better. Same with LXG. I haven't seen Watchmen yet, but I'm willing to bet the case remains the same.

I'm sick of Alan Moore romanticizing his mediocre work as "visionary" and his unwillingness to see it on celluloid because it employs some kind of crass commercialism he abhors. Lest we forget, Alan Moore lent his voice "talent" to The Simpsons, a commercial entity if ever there was one.

watchmen the movie was good. i've waited for this for a significant chunk of my life, and i applaud everyone involved with such a difficult movie to realize. what i don't get is the idea that i have to keep dumping money on this thing so some douche bag board of directors can deem it a "success". I sure as hell am going to buy the extended dvd cut, and probably have convinced a dozen people who normally could give a shit about this movie to go buy theater tickets. and i'm pretty positive i'm not the only one who can tell this same story. there is a long term financial story here that will make it a "success", so if movie honchos are afraid to take risks on these types of movies, they simply don't deserve to be workihg in this particular facet of the industry. go make a new "love boat" movie.

"...not everyone is Chris Nolan."

Am I the only cat in the nerdscape to think the last Batman film was an over-hyped, supersaturated, rather overly extravagant sans cohesiveness pass at wallets on par with Bad Boys 2? I appreciate it made a lot of people heaps of money. That fact alone doesn't mean the film should sit on shelves next to Citizen Kane or Blade Runner for real achievement or innovation or overall quality.

My point here is that the marketing and massive merchandising of Watchmen reeked of emulation of how the last Batman was handled. That sent up a red flag for me, either the film is tooled to suit LCD, or it's going to disappoint / infuriate a lot of corn fed Americans expecting some truck chases and explosions.

I plan to see the film again regardless, because I really enjoyed it. I would have preferred a less high profile miniseries that included Fight Club clever adaptations of the text segments and a live action version of the pirate story, much the way Master & Margarita has been adapted in Russia.

Any exec at WB that thought this was on the same wavelength as a Batman flick needs to return to selling cat food or Thigh Masters or styling celebrity mom coifs and stop setting trying to sell Wordsworth to Hannah Montana fans.

I'll do my part by seeing the film this weekend. But I fear it may be a losing cause. However, the issue with this film probably wasn't the R rating (though that didn't help) or the length (also not helpful), but the fact that The Watchmen series just didn't have enough name recognition. What the likely underperformance of the film will probably do most is discourage big budget adaptations of comic properties outside of the handful of well-known names.

All this blah blah blah over big studio bullshit, & nobody writes about Forry Ackerman's wake last Sunday, where Ray Bradbury, John Landis, Guilermo Del Toro and Joe Dante, among others, all stood up for the man (well, Ray's in a wheelchair, but ...). Well over a thousand people came out to honor the father of nerd fandom, the coiner of the term :"sci-fi," the founder of FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND ... What ignorant, self-possessed nerds this modern edition is comprised of.

Yak, yak, yak. "You should care, he followed the pages and made it for nerds!"

So fucking what? My 8th grade english class followed Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet word for word and it sucked.

Snyder's a horrible director who's execution is a cross between slow mo overkill and a tae-bo training video.

Well all I can say is i'm seeing it for the 4th time tomorow... And this scares me, Watchmen is a great watch, even a great *film*, in my opinion. The fact that Dark Knight made what, around a billion, and this might not even reach 100 mil in box...

Just... damn.

Also, People walking out? Jesus christ, that's depressing.

Well I actually did like the movie, it wasn't perfect, it could never be perfect, but I still enjoyed it and will be going to see it again this weekend.

we wont get another adult oriented movie based on a comic again????

uh, what do you call "white out"

not all comics are about super heroes

most of the adult oriented ones have nothing to do with super heroes

if adapting comics and being faithful to the source material, lived and died with watchmen...so be it.

hollywood is run by accountants...not the artists

Didnt' read all forty something comments. So sorry if this has already been said. I hope Hollywood isn't stupid enough to look at ONLY "Watchmen" as an example of whether or not following what fans want is good or bad. I mean, really all they have to do is look at "Iron Man" and "Dark Knight".(first two Spiderman films)All fairly faithful to the fanbase and successful. Despite that, they still mess with fan properties and make stuff like "GI Joe", "Street Fighter:Legend of Chun Li", "Dragonball Evolution". Almost all of them, regardless of evidence that its better to stick to the source material, still think they can make it more real, more appealing....blah blah blah. Also, one could say that supporting "Watchmen" will actually tell Hollywood its okay to change the ending on things and the fans will stuff love it. Even though I was okay with the change at the end, technically, its not COMPLETELY faithful is it now?

I don't agree with any of this. Stop giving Snyder credit for staying true to source material. He turned Watchmen into an unenecessarily violent pile of blah. We're all in agreeement it certainly could of been raped harder, but let's not shit ourselves, it was NOT a good movie. Production companies need to realize that you can still make obscene amounts of money while making a comic book movie. THE TRICK IS TOO JUST MAKE GOOD MOVIES. Dark Knight and Iron Man proved this. They need to stop attempting to inflate profit margins by trying to appeal to mass audiences. AND do not say Snyder's crew didn't attempt this. Remember the trailer? The film was marketed as an acton film, which the graphic novel is very far from. However, I don't think comic book movies need to be 100% true to their source material in order to be good. Just stop jerking us around and MAKE GOOD MOVIES. If it's truly good it will become timeless and make money no matter what.

We are just beginning to enter a golden age for comic based movies. Captain America, Thor, and the Avengers movies are on the horizon. In the mean time I'll pop in V For Vendetta on Blue Ray and kick my feet up.

I'll agree V for Vendetta, the movie was better than The Watchmen movie, but take exception to cKHAVIKk's comment that V movie was great, and the comic sucked. Alan Moore's comics are generally lauded, he's won several Eisners for his writing, and despite it being against his wishes, his fans wrong-mindedly demand film adaptations of his "boring" comics. Compare the Johnny Depp From Hell movie to the graphic novel- it's a retarded adaptation that was immediately forgotten. The graphic novel is a work of genius, and I'm not alone in useing that cliche. I like Alan Moore, and think he is wise to condemn the films.

"If Watchmen fails, but that mean we'll never get a good comic book movie again? No. But it will be virtually impossible to get a mature comic book movie made in the future."

If I may make a comment on this, Balls.

Lets look at, for example, movie's that came out before Watchmen.

TDK/Batman Begins.(2005-8)

X-Men 1 and 2 (debatably 3, lets not go there, I liked it, others didn't) (2000-2006)

Blade1-3 (1998-2004). No way you can say Blade was for kids.

All of them took the original story, put a bit of a spin, while all Watchmen does in embalm the (fantastic) book, doing nothing with it.

While we're on the subject of "serious" superhero films, remember when a few years ago when WB was going to release Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (which was a GREAT film in its unedited form), but then delayed the release to tone down the violence because of some school shooting or something?

I think the overall point here is that superhero fans shouldn't rely on the big studios for ANYTHING, let alone more mature superhero movies. In the end, they want to sell lots and lots of merchandise--that means lots and lots of toys, Happy Meals and other kid-friendly stuff. Even the very mature Dark Knight movie had plenty to toy tie-ins. You're better off supporting smaller film production efforts about superheros, such as Special (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0479162/) and Sidekick (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410603/), if you want the more mature movies, IMHO.

Quit being so general. "Studios" aren't going to stop making comic movies just because one tanked. And NO they're not going to stop making true to the source movies because this one blew either. The fact of the matter is there has been great success with Iron Man and Dark Knight. And that alone will keep them making comic movies for at least another 10 failures. Sure this particular studio might take some time off, and regroup. But as soon as another Studio pulls a blockbuster out of their ass, everyone will be reading scripts for graphic novels and comics alike.

I saw the movie and I liked it for what it was. I don't know if I will go back to see it in theaters if they are putting out a directors cut dvd. Why should I spend A LOT of money to see a movie multiple times, when I can pay for one movie ticket and one dvd sale to see it as many times as I want?

i'm pure nerd selfishness: if it entertains, i'll watch it, buy the dvd, recommend it to friends and family, sometimes buy it for friends and family, on and on...

if it doesn't, as 300 most certainly did not, and if i hear from critics similar problems with other movies, i'm out.

when cause trumps honesty, reputation, and entertainment, you get self-loathing, cliques, and moribund cliches.

when moviemakers feel passionately about the material and are themselves entertained by it, they'll find a way, regardless of other peoples' efforts and failures in the genre. believe it.

The sanest thing I've come across this entire thread is Neal Snow's comment that we should support the comic first before anything else. This, I believe, is the only way to ensure that in the greater scheme of things there will always be a way for a property of this scope and ambition to come to life on screen.

Now I'd hate to disagree with Solid Snake, but I really do have a strong gut feeling that it shouldn't be the nerds who should flock to theaters but everybody else. I don't mean to give a turdbrain studio exec leave to "broaden appeal," but the reality is simply that, surprise, there are more non-nerds than nerds on whose wallets rest the possibility of something like this ever being made again. So support a property first, tell friends about it, and hopefully some undeniable level of critical mass can be reached that it crosses over onto the screen.

Now all things aside, I felt more at ease with the film's changes after a second viewing. Would probably watch it again because Snake said so, but mainly out of a love for the source, not the film. I'm just really content that Snyder et al seemed to have struck a happy balance between film and source, the R-rated add-ons notwithstanding.

The real problem is that judging the general publics interest of adult, faithful comic book movies on Watchmen is kind of stupid, because it's got a complex narrative AND stars a bunch of heroes nobody is familiar with.

Upon a second viewing, I've decided that I place Watchmen in my list of favorite movies. It's packed full of things for the fans, and careful observers will see lots to keep them occupied and entertained.

I'm eagerly awaiting the DVD, and until then, two viewings in the theater is the most you'll be getting out of me. That's better than 99% of the movies that come out, because they get ZERO viewings in the theater while I wait for Netflix.

Is it wrong to think of Solid Snake reading that plea to fans? Just makes it sound awesomer.

I've seen the film twice, because I still don't know how I feel about it. Asking me a third time is going to be tough.

But if the Watchmen fails will it be a bad thing? Does anyone really want to see a bastard version of Y the Last Man and The Sandman? Watchmen was good, but it could have been better.

I'm still torn on this!

I direct you to a short story which I feel illustrates David Hayter's treatment of the Watchmen adaptation.

Based on a true story!

http://fathouseblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/bottomless-void.html

Well, there's a lot to cover here.

1)The main argument of this post is just straight-up wrong, and the panicked tone is ridiculous. The thought that our dollar is the key to taking the right road at the fork, and the assumption that this situation can only go those two specific ways, is misguided at best. Comic book movies are going to be as they've always been - mostly mediocre, with a slight upturn in quality now that Marvel's pretty much in charge of filming most of its own franchises.

2)Why should I support a movie that I thought was an artistic failure? So I can have more nerds make books I enjoy into films that aren't as deep as they think they are? Why should I support bad filmmaking, regardless of source material? Zack Snyder is a BAD DIRECTOR, and all the Alan Moore and Frank Miller adaptations in the world aren't going to make him into Wong Kar Wai anytime soon.

3)The Dark Knight has a great opening sequence, some interesting soundtrack choices, a couple of great performances, and that's it. And that scene with Tiny Lister, who is totally boss. The rest of the film is a mixture of poor cinematography, overbearing editing, speechifying, and confused morality.

4)Darren is entirely right about fanboys. I don't want nerds to make my movies, I want real filmmakers with their own visions, complexities and flaws. Slavish devotion is boring. When you make a comic into a film that's just a moving version of the book, what you are telling me is that you are primarily interested in making money and appealing to a group of people who generally shouldn't be given an opinion.

5)Neal is so, so right about the state of mainstream comics. DC just canceled a number of books I read, including two of my favorites, Manhunter and Blue Beetle. They have two Superman books without Superman, and a number of Batman books without Batman. They've killed off plenty of characters I enjoy, and marginalized numerous others. They've brought back concepts and characters from the Silver Age and taken away their charm by making them stupidly dark, and tied everything together on such a subatomic level that I can't imagine anyone with a newcomer's perspective understanding the majority of the books they release, at least not without some serious Wikipedia research. Their books are replete with needless bloodshed, creepy nerd sexual objectification, and poorly-written angst. Apologies for the fanboy rant, but this is what happens when inmates run the asylum. Aside from a late elementary school obsession with Busiek's Avengers, I didn't start reading comics regularly 'til my senior year of high school, and it's disheartening knowing that the people in charge of what could be a wondrous and compelling world are less mature than I was in 12th grade.

I'm going to look down into Hayter's eyes when he begs me to save his movie and say........... "No."

I blame the guy who decided it was a good idea to invite my cheating ex girlfriend to watch it with us on the opening night. I probably would've bought 20 million tickets or so, but no, "She totally wanted to come, and she loves The Watchers!", so I had to leave.

I should probably go see it already, but I've been a bit too busy angsting.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

I read Watchmen just before the movie was release. Maybe it was better in the mid eighties, but I don't think it aged very well. It's an interesting idea that never fully materialized. The dialog was pretty lame as well. And the ending was literally laughable.

When I finished the book, I thought it was going to be impossible to make into a good movie. The plot was already paper thin, it wasn't going to hold up to making it three dimensional. It also had the problem of balancing the wishes of hard core Watchmen fans with the expectations of a younger mainstream movie audience.

I think Watchmen would have been better served to take the original idea and let skilled screenwriters completely rewrite the plot and dialog. That might be the lesson Hollywood should learn from this movie.

There have been alot of bulls*#t talk about this movie after it dropped. I liked it alot beeing a fan of the graphic novel since the early 90s. I actually thought it was too short though, which kinda disrupted the flow of the storyline. But it had to be this short so normal people will go see it.
To get the whole experience, you have to buy the DVD. We all know this! Why people talk about the movie like it's the final cut, I don't know. We all know that Snyder have made at least 2 cuts. Maybe even many more.
Plus, I haven't really heard many "BAD" things about the movie. Alot negative, but not much "BAD". Only that people "didn't like it"! Critics say the same things as the haters online. "We don't like it! Snyder isn't good enough! It's too long! Blah blah blah!"
The problem was that everybody hyped it up as being the most perfect superhero movie ever made!!! Period! The fall from that is ofcourse pretty steep.
And then people have to compare it with other movies, especially "the Dark Knight" (ofcourse), witch is bullshit. It's like comparing Chocolate with Hamburgers. What is the Point?

But I did like it, and will like it even more when the DVD drops! I just know it!!!

I don't buy the premise of this argument. Why would I want to support a film I consider to be bad? To help a genre that hasn't produce anything better than "watchable/pretty good" (Dark Knight, Batman, uhh... Superman I and II, American Splendor, Ghost World and probably some others) If you think supporting this film will create more difficult and mature comic book movies, you're kidding yourself.

And as someone said earlier, studios look only at opening weekend (which is stupid, if you ask me) so it really doesn't matter what we do now unless you can start one huge word of mouth campaign (which you won't since not enough people liked it)

But still, it's a movie that didn't need to be made.

WATCHMENS SUCKS BLUE DONG

You're missing a major point here: there is NO SUCH THING as a 'mature' comic.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned "Batman and Robin" yet...

We all know (or should know) that Hollywood makes movies to make money, not to support fanboys. That's why producers look to comic books, toys (Transformers, GI Joe), TV series (yet another Star Trek), and sequels: all of these have established characters and a fan following.
Next, add in a star who spouts some witty one-liners and you've got yourself a blockbuster.

I forget where I read it, so perhaps someone can look it up, but a producer for "Batman and Robin" said the studio hired Arnold Schwarzenegger to play Mr Freeze so the film would appeal to the 10 million Schwarzenegger fans instead of the 100,000 Batman fans. Add in George Clooney, some sex appeal from Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone and you have yourself a can't miss movie... on paper, at least.

So, let's see...
-"Unfilmable" source material? Check.
-Dense source material that really requires multiple readings to fully understand? Check.
-No "brand name" stars? Check.
-Director with only one big movie to his credit? Check.
-Legal battle with another studio which drains some profit? Check.
-R-rated movie to further reduce the market? Check.

With all these things going for it, how could "Watchmen" not be a blockbuster?

Watchmen is falling down like a piece of shit that it was. It made only 17.8 million in its second week and is sitting at 85 million domestically.
Race to Witch Mountain beat it out at the box office this past weekend.

Ok, so it was made for the fans. Noble effort guys. You tried to do the impossible. You tried to bring Watchmen to the big screen. In a case like this i would like to call upon the wisdom of the Simpsons-

Homer :See Marge, I told you they could deep-fry my shirt.
Marge:I didn't say they couldn't, I said you shouldn't.

It does not matter if it was a film made for the fans. If at the end of the day fans are walking out and saying they they actually could not care about the characters, and that the newly initiated were so confused that they just kinda wished they had not wasted 3 hours of their lives... it means that all of that effort was a failure.

2008 brought us two of the greatest comic book movies in YEARS. That is where the bar has been set. Everything will be compared to Iron Man and The Dark Knight from this point on. Though now thanks to Zack Snyder we have a new comparison. "Could it be as much of a mess as Watchmen"