bunk
superhero fan
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
- Messages
- 9,483
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 56
What you tools don't realize is, what he said is true.
If this movie doesn't do well it's going to be a big setback again for studios to take chances with non safe material.
So as much as you hated this movie(Squid aside, it was accurate to the book)the fact that you are laughing that it may bomb is incredible stupidity. Especially coming from people with the nerd mindset that the book is untouchable and you feel smarter than others for having read and understood it. It's like you don't care when risk films like this bomb and the studios go back to financing unintelligent films again.
What you tools don't realize is, what he said is true.
If this movie doesn't do well it's going to be a big setback again for studios to take chances with non safe material.
So as much as you hated this movie(Squid aside, it was accurate to the book)the fact that you are laughing that it may bomb is incredible stupidity. Especially coming from people with the nerd mindset that the book is untouchable and you feel smarter than others for having read and understood it. It's like you don't care when risk films like this bomb and the studios go back to financing unintelligent films again.
Do people really think a serious sequel to The Dark Knight WON'T get made because Watchmen burns out at the box office...?
Spin....
figs,
again, for the right price....example sin city.
Watchmen had no business costing as much as it did, if snyder had come at the material correctly, instead of doing a panel for panel tracing job on the thing.
Rodriquez did, but it was how he did it that made that film profitable.
First of all, don't be insulting.
Lol, sorry Chosen1 has been a typical nerd/fanboy who needs to get a life since he obviously worships the graphic novel. I can't stand those types since they make the rest of us look bad. The kind that spaz out over a few changes in something and literally act like their life is over.
Secondly, you're wrong. A certain batman film (the name of which I have been told is inflammatory) did pretty well last summer and it's pretty obvious that it's success originated from the fact that it was inventive, bold and very, very high quality.
Once again, TDK wasn't nearly as risky as Watchmen(I'll say again, a film most of the general audience had never heard of until release). With TDK it has Batman a worldwide icon of pop culture, second it had the most talked about performance in a longtime.
There's Avatar on the horizon, which is the definition of non-safe material considering the hitherto lukewarm reception to 3D films and the ludicrous amount of money it's costing to invent new technology. Then we've got gay films like Milk and Brokeback Mountain making loads of money;
Um...what does that have to do with risky/mature comic films, or fantasy films that make you think. Both of those films weren't that risky considering how liberal Hollywood is and how more and more people are finally being more accepting of homosexuality.
an avante-garde R-rated fantasy (oh, with child-abuse) - Pan's Labyrinth making ridiculously high profit; documentaries starting to become very successful - Inconvenient Truth, Man On Wire, Waltz With Bashir. Sweeny Todd showed that an R-rated film can be a blockbuster (It cost 50 million and made back 150 million).
Excluding Pan's Labyrinth and Sweeny Todd, what do those documentaries have to do with comic/fantasy films that take risks and that are for mature audiences?
At the moment we're seeing films get the Batman Begins Syndrome - remakes of franchises for more edgy, more creative and more exciting new territory - Terminator Salvation, Star Trek.
Studios will also see that the attraction to Watchmen for a mainstream audience was that it was edgy, new, inventive, original, fresh, stylish - and that the reason a larger percentage of the mainstream audience aren't going to be drawn in for next weekend is because the film itself doesn't resonate with them - that it only resonates with fans of the material.
So, in terms of future film productions taking note, studios are going to realise that the reason Watchmen is a financial disaster is not because it's edgy and original.
I still don't understand how a film, with NO STARS, cost upwards of 150 million to make?
Figs,
Again, for the right price....example Sin City.
Watchmen had no business costing as much as it did, if Snyder had come at the material correctly, instead of doing a panel for panel TRACING job on the thing.
Rodriquez did, but it was how he did it that made that film profitable.
I still don't understand how a film, with NO STARS, cost upwards of 150 million to make?
What I'm saying it that Snyder should've figured out a way to translate the material and stay true to the essence and spirit of the thing, without doing a panel for panel recreation.
Figs,
What I'm saying it that Snyder should've figured out a way to translate the material and stay true to the essence and spirit of the thing, without doing a panel for panel recreation. I mean, if that was his only goal, then why go see the flick anyway? If we don't get anything new out of it going to a different medium, why not just read the book again?