The Hot Blog

God, David. You come off so full of yourself sometimes.

You should try a very simple journalistic exercise and try writing a piece every now and again where you don't use the word "I."

Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen! Watchmen!

Thanks for adding something else about ME, boltbucket.

He's right, though. The amount of navel-gazing is excruciating sometimes.

Yet another entry about ME.

If you wonder why I look for lint, it's because I am all some of you seem to ever want to talk about. This causes an excessive - and boring - amount of introspection.

If you don't want to read me about me, try actually adding something to the conversation... something "boltbucket" really never does... the comments from her/him are almost always about me.

We have a website full of Not Me. Please enjoy it.

Meanwhile, the only insight into anything BUT me so far is from The Big Perm, who used a total of 9 different characters to express an idea rather insightfully.

Posting about what a writer writes is out of line, unless you happen to be David, then, well, it's an obligation.

There's a defensiveness on the part of the militant geek contingent that comes of its desperation to transcend niche.

If you say you liked The Dark Knight, but didn't think it was one of the five best movies of the year, then you're out of touch and your opinion is "irrelevant" (they love that word, btw). It's impossible to tell if some of these folks even saw another movie last year.

I agree with David, they should be thankful that they're part of a well-served niche. Try being a gay moviegoer - we get one piece of well-made Oscar bait every three years, with a million no-budget soft-core sex comedies and sensitive Mormon-themed dramas in between.

So you're saying you'd like to see more soft-core sex comedies about gay Mormons?

I wish I were a gay moviegoer. I think I'd have a better chance of getting a blowjob in the theater from another dude. The women I go out with are always too shy but the best part about men is, we're a bunch of fucking pigs.

This piece is about you defending your credibility with the screening tonight, Dave. It's very honest. I respect that. And it's a good, if typically egocentric, read. But it is about YOU.

What you need to get through your thick head is that every now and then you put yourself in a position where your honest opinion of a movie and your journalistic credibility go in two different directions -- where the only reliable review of yours of a certain film MUST be positive or negative based on your coverage of it. I forgot the last one I said this about -- but it was fairly recent (maybe the Tom Cruise Nazi thing).

I CAN suggest that you're better off writing a glowing Watchmen review before you even see it tonight (if you hated it, you won't be able to after). It may make you a liar. It may not. A 50/50 chance of that. But either way your credibility can only rise now with a good reaction.

I won't suggest that seriously. You'll call me a punk or something.

But people do need to see with hard evidence that a "show and business guy" can separate his "show" self from his "business" self for integrity's sake. That's the uneasy position you've put yourself in.

And anyway, go easy on some of us here. "Who David Polands The David Poland?" right?

Although, Rob, when a well-made gay movie comes out, it gets rightful acclaim almost immediately. Milk won the best actor Oscar, and Brokeback Mountain was heavily nominated. And Gus Van Sant's other gay-related movies are usually critically well-received.

In terms of critical acclaim, there's a sense that comic-book movies, no matter how well made, still have to transcend the baggage of their genre to be seen as equal to the year's best movies.

It's only an impression, but I feel like there are some people (not necessarily anyone here) who can't let themselves admit the Dark Knight is one of the year's best because they feel guilty that they enjoyed a Batman movie more than some more serious work.

Notice you rarely heard people mention that Road to Perdition and A History of Violence were adapted from comics.

God, I hope Watchmen's good. After all this pre-emptive defending I'll feel lousy if it turns out crappy.

I second your thoughts DP. I am glad you cover all of these details (layers as you say) because they are interesting. TDK was great and was a huge commercial success. The banter about how big an opening, the profit, how high will DM go was interesting as is here for Watchmen.

Every studio would love each of their movies to have a profit like Titanic but would settle for Kutcher in vegas profits. I think we should continue to banter back and forth about what those will be (as well as opening, DM, ROW, etc) and rejoice that WB gave Snyder a decent budget and allowed him to make the picture he wanted.

Road to Perdition was sort of boring. Good enough, but not all that. History of Violence was great though! But Batman was better than any of them.

Once again, Crow, an entire post of you knowing more about what I think and what my intent is than I do.

Your parameters are yours. They are not mine. Kindly keep them in perspective.

Or don't.

Just know that I have no interest in your respect if your respect is based in some idea you have of what I am doing and much at all in what I am doing.

"Just know that I have no interest in your respect if your respect is based in some idea you have of what I am doing and much at all in what I am doing."

I have read this sentence five times, and now my head hurts.

"So you're saying you'd like to see more soft-core sex comedies about gay Mormons?"

*raises hand

[Katherine Heigl, Amy Adams and Eliza Dushku would have to be involved, no?]

I know I gave it to DP yesterday about his assertion that there is no way 3 million people read the book, but some of you are just ridiculous in your comments (yes, you boltbucket and Crow). This is DP's blog! For better or worse, blogs are journals of the individual, to write about themselves and their thoughts. This isn't a news blog and never has been. If you don't like it, or the man's thoughts, don't read!! It's excruciating having to read attacks on the individual for writing about what he thinks on his blog.

Check out MCN if you just want news and journalism. The links provide all sorts of useful information.

But I thought Zack Snyder's movies were aimed at gays? Between the barely clothes musclemen in 300 and having a giant naked guy walking around in Watchmen you could do worse...

[Katherine Heigl, Amy Adams and Eliza Dushku would have to be involved, no?]

Change Adams to Isla Fisher and this would OWN. DOUCHE-KU = CHARMING.

I've been thus far too lazy to look it up, but can I safely assume that in L.A., Watchmen WON'T be at the Arclight, but rather the tourist trap and thug-packed Chinese? It's WB and it's a movie people actually WANT TO SEE, so no way in hell it's playing at the Arclight. 3 hours of looking at the back of someone's head = bullshit.

The only reason gay-niche movies do better with awards than superhero-niche movies are because superheroes are a powerless minority in Hollywood.

David, did I misread you? You're saying WB made GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK for money? Unless you mean that in the most indirect fashion (i.e., Clooney doing an OCEAN'S sequel in exchange), I'm finding that difficult to believe. Even Warners thought it was a "medicine movie"--I totally disagree, but I can see how many people perceived it that way (period biopic in B&W).

Paul Blart is a niche? It's just a plain ol' broad comedy, right? I'd think Taken would just be called a suspense thriller. Is anything that has a specific genre a niche? I'm trying to think of what movie would NOT be considered a niche?

I think historically niche has been used to define films as limited. Whether budget, appeal or revenue potential. Which is why the heated backlash when Watchmen is labeled one. Iron Giant, Searching for Bobby Fischer could be classified as niche films under that header but other films within their genres have had mega grosses that I’m not sure most people would classify as niche. Whether the book definition of niche fits Scream or The Blair Witch Project, classifying either as such seems to go against a working definition of the term.

Not always when a film’s released do we know what the studio’s in for and what they’re expectations are. Sometimes when you do hear you never know if it’s truthful or PR spin. When a film opens to over 3200 screens, it’s hard to believe the studio is looking for just the film’s niche to carry the day. Maybe tween girls and 18-24 males demand that but when niche films have larger requirements across the board, screens, prod budgets, p&a costs, opening gross expectations, than 4 quad films, it seems like it’s an antiquated title.

I am with Triple on this one. I am also down with this being another way for you to marginalize certain movies. It's a ridiculous use of marginalization on your part, and you astonish me with this this stance. Good points by LYT as well.

Rob: you marginalized your own people with that response. Seriously.

Lex: Watchmen will be showing at both Arclights (Hollywood and Sherman Oaks). So far, the first Thursday midnight show and the Friday 10:30 pm show in Hollywood are sold out.

OK, I've asked this before, but still haven't figured it out. What is the box office expectation for Watchmen? Is $150 million domestic enough? Let's clearly define a win before the noise begins. Watchmen could make 25 million this weekend and they could still run "the #1 movie in America ads". I say anything over 200 million is a big win. Agreed? What's the word from the studio insiders?

I agree with DP's sentiment that this movie is based on a niche title. I disagree that others have made HIM the issue. Much of his analysis has been flavored with heaping helpings of snark, making the marginalization personal.

I'd agree the opinion that anything over 200 million is a big win. 150-200 million is a success but not great. 120-150 million not good. Under 120 million = flop. I'm just a regular movie fan though. I have no idea about anything the studios are expecting.

FANTASTIC FOUR did 56 mil opening weekend, in a busy summer season; I think this'll open somewhere around that or higher (higher due to lack of competition), because to the unaware viewer (ie, 99% of all people, who don't pay attention to reviews, ratings, or alarmist content warnings), this looks like a FANTASTIC FOUR-esque Family Superhero Movie.

I know all the graphic novel fans have chimed in time and again to say BUT-BUT-BUT IT'S SO EDGY AND DARK, but NONE of that is apparent from the ads, and my ongoing theory is that Parents Don't Give a Shit Anyway, at least not when it's kind of a fantastical superhero movie.

Head out to some 'plex in the sticks this weekend and you will see GIANT FAMILIES going en masse to see Watchmen, parents loading up their kids with sugar and popcorn and whooping right along without batting an eye. Hell, go to the Burbank theater and you'll probably be able to count on one hand the number of people in attendance who are OVER EIGHTEEN.

So it IS essentially a four-quadrant movie, regardless of MPAA rating.

Maybe in Nebraska or something parents heed that and don't let their kids watch certain stuff... but in big cities NOBODY CARES about content. NOBODY.

This is more of a kids' movie than Hotel for Dogs.

By the way, David, what time tomorrow can we expect your review to go live?

Because I want to make sure I have popcorn and beer ready so I can sit back and watch the inevitably hostile back-and-forth complete with IO rantings and Poland owning everybody.

The way Poland's been laying laws this week, I imagine he's gonna be bringing the fucking THUNDER tomorrow when people start nitpicking his review.

Its pretty clear that the box office expectations are higher than they were with Sin City, but why? Has there been any comparison of the two (that I missed)? Both are faithfully adapted from celebrated graphic novels, visual-striking, R-rated, opening around the same time of the year with limited competition. Sin City had the benefit of bigger stars. Watchmen may have more acclaimed source material, but that doesn't mean its sold more than Sin City (I don't know).

Are the heightened expectations due to the attachment of a "visionary director" hot off a huge smash hit? Is it the superhero angle? Sin City opened just under 30 mill and ended its run around 74 mill. Watchmen cost over twice what Sin City did, so obviously, hopes are higher. Should they be?

If Crow's still around: I agree with you in your last post.

Oh - and what's "Downloading Nancy"? I thought I had heard of every 'controversial' modern horror title.

Mystery: the trailer debuted in front of the second biggest film of all-time, and it got people excited. It's from the director of a movie that a lot of people like. It's also a movie from a beloved graphic novel, that's 23 years old. While also being a movie that's been hyped up for eight months. So, yeah, the expectations are higher for a reason. It should do 80 even if it does not do 80. Which will lead to me stating some R rated film during the Summer will do Watchmen money. Everything is rather circular around here.

Douche McGoo: you will get drunk soon enough, and piss off the same people ago. Which will lead to me being in the position you think you find yourself in now. Remember: you are the devil for wanting young cooze. How dare you? HOW DARE YOU!

Here's a math question for you, Dave. I borrowed Watchmen from a friend of a friend in the 1980's. When I heard the movie was coming out, I bought the graphic novel at Costco. I was so geeked out my wife started reading it. She's actually STOPPED reading it because she doesn't want it to ruin the movie. My math gives me geek + geek + woman hanging with geek = at least 3 fans. I've been talking up Watchmen a bit at work. Most geeks know about it, but I think it hasn't hit saturation yet.

Jeff, it's a festival film (as in it didn't get a normal release... I don't think so, anyway) starring Maria Bello. That's all I can help ya with without IMDb-ing.

I have to agree with Rob about everything he said. For every Milk or Brokeback Mountain or Beautiful Thing there are five Not Another Gay Movies or Tan Lines ugh. It's quite depressing looking through the program of a queer film festival, actually.

I have nothing to add about Watchman other than I'm seeing it Friday night (so, Thursday for you guys).

IOI:

Huh?
I have no idea how to structure your last post, either grammatically or otherwise, to make any sense.

I hope there's a part in WATCHMEN when Akerman and Gugino scissor their legs and grind clam.

That would be hot.

P0WNED: what made you think that I was referring to you? Douche McGoo is not you, but you are as bad as him on occasion. I mean really. It's terrible. Go and re-read it, realize it's not about you, and you might understand. It might help if I were all white, but we can only be who we are, superstar.

"I have to agree with Rob about everything he said. For every Milk or Brokeback Mountain or Beautiful Thing there are five Not Another Gay Movies or Tan Lines ugh. It's quite depressing looking through the program of a queer film festival, actually."

How many movies are there with gay lead characters that aren't ABOUT homosexuality? That are just movies with protagonists who are also gay? It seems like a number that would struggle to reach the level of a "list".

IOI, since Lex frequently refers to me as 'Douche' and since my last name starts with 'Mc' I think my assumption that you were referring to me can be said to be reasonable. Your posts not making sense also wasn't out of character.

IO, are you going to be firing all cylanders, going MCWEENY STYLE and invoking THE BAT tomorrow when D-PO unveils his review?

I am totally banking on it.

I expect nothing but full-out, balls to the wall YOU SHOULD PLAY insanity.

Who gives a shit if Watchmen is playing at either Arclight? Why the hell would I want to sit with a bunch of bourgeois fuckers?

There's a midnight showing at the Vista, a.k.a. The Best Theatre In Los Angeles, where you can see it with a much better crowd, and save about $5 on top of it.

Laz, I love that theater too but sometimes the sound system or the acoustics there render the dialogue so muddy I'm straining to even comprehend what is being said.

(Again, love the Vista but when I saw POTC 3 there I couldn't make out 60% of the dialogue.)

Hallick, they're all ABOUT homosexuality in some way. Telling a story about gay people is to be about homosexuality in some way. We're not at the stage where we can have a movie with a protagonist who just happens to be gay and have it not really be remarked upon or be a major point of the movie.

Jeff, I don't think we should bother trying to follow IO's new name regime. It's all over the place.

I'm sure someone will think this is offensive or me being an asshole, but I always thought some great Hitchcock/Toback-style audience fuckery would be if someone made a completely straightforward big dumb action movie, then 45 minutes in, the action hero leading man goes home and like bangs a dude or something.

Lex: It's not a big dumb action movie, but have you ever seen "Deathtrap" with Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve? Not to get into spoilers too much, but let's just say that a certain twist really freaked out the less enlightened members of the audience. A guy sitting in front of me LITERALLY fell out of his chair.

DP is correct: Targeting a niche audience works. It was true for Fox in the summer of '98 and it was true for all in the winter of '09.

"Watchmen" is a summer movie released in late winter -- Hollywood pandering to mouth-breathing fanboys and the Liberal Media. Name-checking another comic book movie doesn't help.

lex -- gugino and akerman play mother/daughter...grinding clam would be a bad thing (even by alan moore standards)...but there is another fun lesbian reveal you might enjoy...

Yancyskancy, I want to see Deathtrap if it has such a shocking twist. However, knowing that it has a twist sort of spoils it ;). Do you have any more recommendations? My friend told me about Seul contre tous which really shocked her. Anyone seen it?
For those interested, I looked up 'Downloading Nancy'. It premiered at Sundance in 2008. Here's the link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411323/

Jeff: it made sense in response to what Mutiny stated. I responded to him. I also stated you were P0WNED not Douche McGoo. P0WNED does not seem to fit you. So I will just go with Ryan. Nevertheless; I will only unless the power of McWeeney. If Scorcher gets all pissy about calamari.

How on earth is Watchmen's March release "pandering to the Liberal Media"?
And I think it's painfully obvious that reminding people of Zack Snyder's last comic-book movie is an essential keystone of the marketing campaign for this movie - if it was 'Watchmen, from the visionary director of a George Romero remake' it wouldn't have nearly as much interest. To suggest that the marketing not reference his past hit movie? That's, in a word, stupid.

I'm sure DP will be able to help with the profit threshold (he's good at that), but I bet we can generally say, with the info out there, that this movie cost $150M, right? If that's the case, anything over $200M DM will be generally considered a sucsess, no? Don't comic book movies do generally worse than others rest of world, as a percentage of total?

And the reason so much is riding on this is a) the notoriety of the originial product, b) the fanbase (however big or small), and that c) this movie cost a lot to produce.

The comparison is not Sin City, that movie probably cost 1/2 to produce versus Watchmen.

ployp, i saw 'i stand alone' (seul contre tous) on dvd, a deeply disturbing little piece of work that follows a man called 'the butcher' (there's your fist clue!) as he descends into a deranged, delusional rage, bent by hatred and the desire for revenge (the sickest part for me is the butcher's constant bile-filled interior monologue that drives the movie, profoundly unsettling, tho sometimes hard for me to keep up with in the subtitled version i saw). and ---SPOILERY--- it does indeed have a shock ending. i'm guessing from what i've seen of gaspar noe's work that he has some serious demons he attempts to exorcise in his films!

oops, meant to add, if you don't have delicate sensibilities and you feel like getting down and dirty and bloody with a deranged loser, check it out!

It's safe to say that jeffmcm is one of those mouth-breathing fanboys. Otherwise he wouldn't act like Bill O'Reilly every time I comment.

Hollywood is pandering to the Liberal Media with "Watchmen". Newspaper supplement USA Weekend just ran a big spread on the flick, something you see only for summer and holiday releases.

Name-checking is the lazy way to promote a movie. Why was this winter so successful? No name-checking -- people weren't reminded about what was in the past. Besides, if "300" made any money it was with the help of overseas theatrical.

Chucky, please explain in detail exactly how Hollywood is pandering to the Liberal Media. USA Weekend running a big spread on a rather hyped movie is nothing new.

I bet Watchemn will make more money domestically than those winter movies that were so successful. Which ones specifically do you mean, so we have some numbers to work with? Frost/Nixon at 17 million? Gran Torino at $138 million? The reader at 20? I think Watchmen will make more than all of those combined.

Have your excuses ready for after the weekend!

"Hollywood is pandering to the Liberal Media with 'Watchmen'. Newspaper supplement USA Weekend just ran a big spread on the flick, something you see only for summer and holiday releases."

!!!707 (that's me rolling upside down on the floor doing an LOL at this chestnut of comedy).

"Hallick, they're all ABOUT homosexuality in some way. Telling a story about gay people is to be about homosexuality in some way. We're not at the stage where we can have a movie with a protagonist who just happens to be gay and have it not really be remarked upon or be a major point of the movie."

Realizing this fact is more than a little depressing. What's the closest a movie has gotten to that stage anyway?

So action movie fans (and, yes, Superhero movie fans) only deserve movies during the summer? That's stupid and from the same idiotic brain factory as movie studios who think people only want serious Oscar-bait titles in December. What an idiot.

K: you mean people want Oscar-bait pictures in MARCH? THIS IS MADNESS!

"NO! THIS IS THE ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE ARTS AND SCIENCES, AND WE HAVE BAD MEMORIES! WE ARE OLD! SO WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE MOVIES RELEASED IN LATE FALL/EARLY WINTER, OR WE FORGET ABOUT THEM!"

That's still madness, and are you okay?

"YES! I JUST HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO USE A REGULAR SPEAKING VOICE! DO YOU WANT TO GO AND GET SOME TACOS?"

Sure. Let's rock it.

"YEAH! DEF LEPPARD! YEAH!"

Chucky, the reason why I pounce on your comments is because, almost without exception, they're insane. And the above are no exception. If you ever, and I mean ever stuck around to explain what you mean and why you feel as you do, instead of just reiterating the points and reinforcing the crazy, maybe things would be different.

For one thing, I don't understand what you mean by 'Liberal Media' - do you mean this unironically (as in, you hate liberals), ironically (as in, you think they're actually right-wing corporatists) or double-ironically (you figure it out)?

Next, there is no logical connection between a movie 'pandering' to any media, and said media running a spread on the movie - if anything, they're pandering to the movie, not the other way around. Also - USA Weekend? Looking at their website, I see things like "Star-Spangled Banner Singing Contest", "NASCAR meets Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Models" and something to do with the Jonas Brothers. Pretty unsurprising that they would also run a spread on what will be the highest-opening movie of the year after this weekend.

Last, your irrational, never-fully-explained hatred of name-checking. People like to be reminded of 'what was in the past' if what was in the past was a movie that they liked. Like, for example, 300, which was a smash hit. Even without the help of 'overseas theatrical' - it made $210 million domestic on a relatively modest budget. To argue otherwise is straight-out foolish.

Also, html is fun.

leahnz, many thanks. I'll see if I can find it in Thailand (I highly doubt it though, but it's worth a try).

The students at the high school I am teaching at are going crazy about Watchmen. This is mainly for one reason. They are excited because it's from the "visionary director of 300," which all of them adore.

Haven't been keeping up, but on the niche issue, Triple, the dynamic has changed draamtically and yes, Paul Blart is a niche film. It's a big niche, but it's a niche... family.

It's not, say, a Jim Carrey comedy or a Ben Stiller PG-13 comedy chasing everyone over 10 years old. It is a family film, sold to the family market, with less concern for what has been seen as the prime market, 18-34, or older. There are enough family ticket sales to generate $150 million for every crappy DW animated film that hits the market.

Taken is a niche - boys of all ages... little for women - that obviously is big... and crossed over enough with the "daddy getting the daughter" thing, I suspect.

If you are looking for movies that are not niche, you pretty much have to look at summer and holiday films that are actually expecting 4 quadrant action. Those titles have changed over the years with the success of all the Batmans and Spider-Man and Independence Day, etc. So Transformers and Iron Man go from being clear niche to something more.

It is very rare to see a big title in the spring or early fall that sees itself as 4 quadrant... or it wouldn't be there. But yes, things change. Witness the Coen Bros biggest opening, mid-September, with a broad comedy. Focus figured out that it was possible. Flip side, WB trying to niche sell Gran Torino until it (or Eastwood himself) realized that what it had was a 4 quadrant character hit, kitsch for the younger crowd, memory-spin for the older.

Watchmen is a classic strong niche player, right out of the Tarantino handbook. But they are going for a lot more than that, as they budgeted it for a lot more than that. And now they have to chase 4 quadrants... which is significantly more expensive to do. They will open the film and then we'll see how it holds. But in the end, it will either have been a great strategy or good money after bad. That's why the open-huge-then-watch-it-die gambit isn't such a clear win on a movie of this cost... though it does mean that the marketing dept can't be blamed. On the other hand, you'd be surprised how often the marketing budget on a movie like Valkyrie, which they pulled out of the fire but spent a ton to do it, is discussed around town.

But yeah... almost everything is niche now. Which means bigger niches... but niches nonetheless.

"But yeah... almost everything is niche now. Which means bigger niches..."

Which means on Monday, if Watchmen makes enough money at the box office, I want WB to bring Dave Chappelle out of retirement just to scream "I'M RICH, NICHE!!!"

Or ni'atch...

But Halick, WB is trying to make it appear that Watchman is a 4 quadrant film... that's been my central point about their marketing.

Still, funny thinking of Chappelle...

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)