Comments about ‘'Watchmen' letdown at box office’

Actually, having seen the Jonas Brothers live in concert the 3-D movie was well worth the money we spent (and it wasn't anywhere near double in Utah). The whole family enjoyed it, several times in fact. And we can't wait to get it on BluRay. On the other hand we wouldn't go see Watchmen for free, don't really plan on seeing Disney's earth movie, guinea pig 3-d movie or Hannah Montana. Even with my opinion on Watchmen and Jonas Brothers 3-D, the only reason either was considered a let down is because the media totally overhyped it. The reviews by movie critics mean nothing to me.

Actually, when you factor in Watchmen's international box office, it has more than broken even. Add in the sure to be impressive DVD sales, and it'll turn a decent profit. No Dark Knight to be sure, but it'll make money.

It should be no surprise that Watchmen is a box office failure. This explicit display of violence, immorality, and self-gratification was doomed to failure. In fact, there was a time in this Country when no self-respecting studio would have produced such garbage. If studios wish to make a profit, they must produce movies that promote old fashioned values such as honesty, integrity, and respect for others.

I would have loved to have seen Watchmen, but it was rated R, so they sunk their own ship with me and probably many families with children.

Whenever I forget how self-righteous some people can be, all I have to do is listen to their views of a rated R movie

only in utah

You can criticize "self-righteous" people if you want, but the poor returns for this movie speak for themselves. Good quality family movies always make more money. This was aimed at an adult audience, and apparently there weren't enough adult fans of this kind of graphic novel to make it a big hit. I'm sure if it breaks even, the movie producers will be satisfied; whether they'll do a sequel is another question.

A sequel was never in the cards for Watchmen--it's not that type of movie or story. It's a stand alone piece.

Not every movie should be made to appeal to the widest possible audience. Watchmen is a much deeper movie than nearly any superhero movie ever made, with the possible exception of The Dark Knight. It certainly wasn't made for kids.

VVV, your criticism of those who oppose filth on film as "self-righteousness" is in itself, a form of self-righteousness or judgment. But you don't see that, because you're too busy judging Clare and John for judging. ;-)

Watchmen not making as much money as expected wasn't a symptom of it's content but it's length. It's much easier to pack a theatre full of more people if there's 8 showtimes in a day for a 90 minute movie. That being said, even though it was violent, Watchmen is a relevant film with a socially redeeming message. It had quite a lot of honesty, integrity and virtue in it. And it also explained how they could be twisted.

And a movie being rated R is a guideline, not a rule.

Also, Killer At Large was great. Thanks for the info, Mr. Vice.

Have you all ever read the Watchmen.
It was never intended for children. Just because it was based on a comic book doesn't mean it was for families.
It never ceases to amaze me at how ignorant some people can be.
The comic was dark and abrasive and explicit.
Go to the source and then decide.

"VVV, your criticism of those who oppose filth on film as "self-righteousness" is in itself, a form of self-righteousness or judgment."

Well, I guess the problem is that they aren't opposing filth. They're opposing R-rated movies. While some R-rated movies are filth, there are many others that aren't. "Watchmen" may or may not be "filth" (it certainly had some gratuitous elements), but the R-rated features of directors like Mike Leigh and Paul Thomas Anderson and Ingmar Bergman and the Dardenne brothers (and so on) certainly are not. In fact, they are actually wonderfully moral (and even spiritual) works of art. They may not be for everybody (and I'm sure many reading this newspaper would be offended by at least some of their films,) but anybody who classifies them as filth is seriously mistaken.

To clarify my previous post, I just want to emphasize that I'm not calling anyone self-righteous. I do think that people who consider "R-rated" and "filth" to be synonymous terms are misinformed - the MPAA is after all an entirely secular organization that most definitely does NOT judge the quality of the films they rate. A spiritual and moral and all-around beautiful (and most definitely not filthy or gratuitous) film like "L'enfant" can receive an R-rating for having one too many swear words (and nothing else offensive, other than some potentially "troubling themes") while many utterly amoral and trashy films receive lesser ratings.

I have no problem with people making the decision to not watch R-rated movies - many people that I respect have made that decision, and I don't think that it's at all self-righteous - but to claim that all R-rated films are trash is, as I stated previously, to be terribly mistaken.

"It should be no surprise that Watchmen is a box office failure. This explicit display of violence, immorality, and self-gratification was doomed to failure."

Except that many movies with all of those elements have done quite well at the box office.

As you yourself have pointed out in other stories related to the topic.

Watchman didnt fail (Debatable if it did or not) because of its rating... just like Wall-e didn't succeed because of its rating. Simple fact is, is that people will flock to a movie if it's good... if it's unimpressive they will stay home.

"Simple fact is, is that people will flock to a movie if it's good... if it's unimpressive they will stay home."

Except that lots of bad movies make money and lots of good movies make almost none. Hence the massive success of the sequels to "The Matrix", and the box office failure of such excellent movies as "Millions" and "Serenity". And I won't even start on the fantastic arthouse films that make almost no money (though of course their budgets tend to be very small, so it's relatively easy for them to turn a profit.)

Don't judge a movie until you know the background of it. Filth is what makes this country not worth living in. And filth is normally the people who think they know what they are talking about. Those who are judging this movie because of it's violence and etc do not know it is NOT a family movie. Not everything is meant for little timmy to go with mommy to watch. Grow up america.

Yes, I agree Hype (Thats I think the problem with most sequels) and a massive ad campaign (which independent films cant do, do to money issues) does play into box office success.

The problem with hype is if the movie doesnt back up the hype then the numbers will dwindle, this, I think, is what happened with The Watchman. I am also thinking of The Dark Knight, a lot of hype came with this movie, but the movie actually backed up that hype by being halfway decent.*IMHO*

When youre talking about artsy films nobody can go see a movie if they dont know it exists, or is out there, no matter how good it is major big budget productions have a leg up on this one. They can do a massive ad campaign, so unfortunately foreign, independent, ect films, who don't have the budget do get left behind.

John Charity Spring with the same rhetoric just spewed a different topic.

Do a sequel? Do you have even the smallest of ideas about that which you speak of? There can and never will be a second iteration because this is a singular story. All the complaints about the degrading nature of the story fail to understand that that material exists as a social commentary of the times in which it was published, despite it's setting in an alternate reality.

The story certaily isn't for everyone, and most assuredly not for kids. But anyone who held hopes of taking their kids to see it is a woefully ignorant parent at best and deeply stricken with stupidity at worst.