The Hot Blog

Why not make it 40? I mean, it's all speculation, and there's nothing solid. Why not make 40, and stir up some real outrage? Again: 60. 10 over or 10 under were always locked in to being the number.

We might have an Ang Lee's Hulk type situation here with Watchmen.

Again; the complaints about the first HULK film are warranted. While the complaints about Watchmen are basiclally this; "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh duhhhhhhhhh." If it has a huge drop-off. The DVD will get here faster... HIYO, but I really do not get the "OH GOD, IT'S TERRIBLE" word of mouth vibe from this film. Especially in light that many of the negative criticism from the critics is so truly stupid.

Watchmen is right on the borderline of Rotten and Fresh with 66% at RT. But as Hulk knows, decent reviews do not mean much at the box office.

im with IO. fuck the box office, get the dvd here before 4th of July.

I really just don't understand the Hollywood business model at this point. I don't understand why movies cost $100M-200M and what you're getting for that budget. I think budgets that size pay for nothing more than inflated egos.

Robert Rodriguez keeps his budgets at $40M. Wanted cost $75M and it did $134M domestic. Even 300 cost only $65M.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the Hollywood business model. It's built so that unless a grand slam is hit, most movies either don't turn a profit or barely eek one out. This flies in the face of business common sense.

My understanding is that budgets have swelled ridiculously in recent years because of the huge DVD cash-cow. Who cares if your guargantu-budgeted hit is breakeven or a bit of a loss domestically when you're gonna rake it in on home video (and worldwide, if you have the rights there)? Unfortunately for the studios, it seems that model is obsolete now, and they're slow to adapt.

WATCHMEN really seems like a case in point about how to NOT give yourself a good chance at a solid financial return. WB ponies up anywhere from $120-150 million, but only retains domestic distribution, since Paramount has the foreign rights -- and, even nuttier, WB has to give Fox a small percentage of THEIR percentage because of their idiocy in not securing the rights properly. Add that to the fact that you have a treasured fan-based product that's relatively esoteric and unknown beyond the comic/geek crowd and in all likelihood won't be a huge breakout hit across all segments of the population. If ever there was a movie to keep to a taunt budget, you'd think this would be it. At a $75-100 million budget, this $55 million opening looks stronger. As it stands, WATCHMEN will probably end up around $120-135 million -- with WB ending up taking a loss and having to hope that DVD sales can push it into profit.... this when DVD sales are slumping.

Although I didn't like the movie, I do appreciate that Zack Snyder tried hard, and I also appreciate that WB essentially let him do his thing. But I think it was a poor business decision.

IOIO - you said the film was supposed to do 26m or more on Sat. Did the theatres close on Sunday?

Hey Reality meet IOIO, you guys have never met but I think it could be a start of a beautiful relationship.

WATCHMEN should have been a direct-to-DVD epic with a budget of 40m, released at the same time as the extended edition. And special downloadable additional chapters/scenes from itunes.

Re: Hollywood business model.
I am with you on that, Mutiny. And increasingly, I am wondering how long the studios can go before they too fess up and admit to crippling losses

"Especially in light that many of the negative criticism from the critics is so truly stupid."

Many will always be stupid no matter what the movie is, but as someone who's still dying to see the thing (if my friends would stop getting ill so we can GO already!), the reviews and comments I've read around the net come out on average in the middle range - a little higher over here, a little lower over there.

If you got the home run experience for yourself, congrats IOIOIOI. That's what we all go to the movies for (it's what I'm personally praying for with Watchmen). But it isn't really the average experience on this movie by a long shot.

I just wanna know...

Is this a successful opening weekend for THE ACTUAL MOVIE that was released or not?

I don't mean the superhero movie marketed... but the three hour, R rated, mega-budget art house film in theaters.

What does this weekend mean for the talent? Does Snyder's stock in town rise or lower? Or does it stay steady until next week's drop-off? (though if the answer is steady, I'd argue he had a good weekend)

If you wanna talk cynical numbers, Dave, let's talk cynical numbers. But don't just pointlessly compare them to other numbers... tell me what they mean. You know... how the "business" connects to the "show."

You know, I've wondered about the studio business model too, and I just figure that studios earn more off their releases, via ancillaries/DVD/international/TV rights/etc. than people like DP would have us think. But what the fuck do I know?

Marketing has to be huge on this movie. Plus, theater's take their percentage, which is what, probably at least 20%. Which is why DP quoted something around $400M (worldwide) as the breakeven for this.

Though if this movie does $150M, it will probably make money eventually withall ancillaries.

Re CrowT: Is this a successful opening weekend for THE ACTUAL MOVIE that was released or not? I don't mean the superhero movie marketed... but the three hour, R rated, mega-budget art house film in theaters.

Me thinks not. I believed they hoped for more. Sex and the freakin City had a bigger opening. Samantha's vag fucked the shit outta the blue penis.

They wanted the 70M, and the geeks thought they had another dark night. They don't. Watchmen will need some fantastic legs to not have the stank of 'disappointment' on it. Which is too bad. The world we live in now says that a $55m opening is a disappointment. My how that bar has been raised. But its also Warners fault. You spend $65M on 300, and that's a great ROI. Why spend $150M for the same level product? Its only a disappointment because of the budget. By any other standards its a success, iffy project, non-mainstream, no tv show tie-in, no big stars. They should have kept that budget down.

The movie that's marketed is the one that determines opening weekend grosses. The actual movie is what determines the rest of the run. That's always been DP's position. Is this formula always valid? I dunno. But he has always been consistent with it.

I've always heard that theater takes are more on the order of 45-50% for the first few weeks of a theatrical run. Could be way off though.

Cold numbers (in my opinion)...

Warner Bros. just opened a cult 2.75 hour R-rated comic book drama to a higher three-day take than Batman Begins, Superman Returns, or any other DC Comics film outside of The Dark Knight. This is good news for future comics films (Jonah Hex, Green Lantern), and it makes DC Comics look good. That it is right in the middle of the upper-end Marvel openings just tells you how much DC has struggled with their comics properties.

However, the word of mouth and likely trajectory will mirror The Incredible Hulk ($55 million opening, $134 million finish, on a budget of $150 million). Warner knew what they were selling vs what they had, which is why they hid the film for as long as they did (and likely why they seemingly played hardball with online-only embargoes). The best hope was either an opening weekend so huge that it could plummet by 70% and still crawl to $200 million, or that the fans would declare it a masterpiece and attempt to convert the general populace. Neither of these things happened.

Ironically, the film comes off as a male version of Sex & The City in so many ways that it's almost funny. Similar opening day/weekend and likely similar final take. The difference between these two gender neutral, R-rated, 2.5 hour Warner Bros. films is that one cost $65 million and one cost around $150 million.

Great opening weekend in and of itself, but troubling in terms of likely long term prospects.

The estimate confirmed my call from yesterday. I was down near Atlantic City today and it was just like that North Jersey AMC megaplex ... plenty of open parking, none of the shows sold out.

Smaller theaters are gonna dump "Watchmen" as soon as they can. Megaplexes will play it into Easter only because of product flow.

How does a picture shot in Vancouver cost $150 million? Must be all the hookers and blow.
It was fun seeing all those faces from Canadian TV like Stephen McHattie, Matt Frewer and even Robert Wisden as Nixon.

I just did some math as to why Watchmen was so expensive to make.

Apparently, the actual production budget was only about $75M. But the remaining $75M was the cost of film stock because the movie used so much slow-motion.

mutiny, that's a good one. Must be the same reason why John Woo is having trouble finding work these days.

I think the Sunday number is a bit low-the 12 noon IMAX in langley looked about 30% full.

You can't base expectations for an entire nation based on your one (or two, or three...) theatre (or city, or state)!!!!!!!

... something a lot of people on this blog should take into consideration before talking about parking lots and attendence, etc.

I think Snyder has to pick his next project very carefully. His stock, I'd argue, is still high, even if this movie underperforms. But if he makes yet another slo-mo, blood and guts comic opus next time, his days are numbered. I'd love it if he tries something a bit more down scale and mainstream. I think he's a talent and deserves a chance to broaden his palette.

Wreck, Snyder already has his next movie lined up. It's called "Sucker Punch":

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/03/zack-snyder-rea.html

Very true A_loco, it works both ways. I remember seeing the movie Soldier in the midwest and it was packed, I figured it made some decent money that weekend but it totally bombed. In that same theater I saw a couple romantic comedies that were fairly sparsely attended, but ended up with good opening weekends. I'm talking fri or sat nights in these cases. Chucky's funny because I'm also in Jersey and the multiplexes are notoriously hard to judge on a film's success or failure. I remember the film How High getting close to sellouts but very modest numbers in the national tally. This regional type of success-only is why I would never think to publicly state local attendance as indicative of overall numbers. That's just stupid IMO.

Considering the movie is terrible it's going to sink like a stone. I can't imagine one person who is not familar with the novel liking the movie or even understanding what the hell is going on. If you are a fan of the novel it makes it all the more painful. The movie is really bad. It is nowhere near as good as 300, and since that movie sucks, that's saying something. The best part of the experience was the Public Enemies trailer.

Crow.... I wrote it at the top... "There is nothing inherently embarrassing about the fifth best January - April opening in movie history."

But that is just one context. Another is the film being R-rated and 2 hours 40 minutes. (Reloaded, 2:20, $92m 3-day opening weekend after $43m siphoned off on Wed/Thurs)

But my context, which is where I start with both the business and the show is, "what was the creator attempting?" So... is this the movie that Zack Snyder hoped he was making. And is this the opening that WB was hoping to get when it financed the movie?

To me, the answer to both is, clearly, "no."

I don't think Snyder knows what doesn't work about the movie. He is too close to it and went into the project with a myopic goal. I think he achieved everything he saw visually as important about the book. He is, indeed, a next gen Tony Scott... both the good way and the bad way.

The box office analysis answers the WB side of it. They not only hoped for more... but they were desperate for more... because the math doesn't work otherwise. And they didn't make the film to invest in a filmmaker's vision. They made the movie to have a major hit that would make them money.

Ir's amusing how some people are just going all "WB's an art house that loves the artist" now that it seems clear that the film isn't going to do $400 million worldwide. But it's not true.

I will self-Leydon and bring up Matrix Rel & Rev... I LOVE the idea that The Wachowskis got a major studio to cough up an insane amount of money so they could expand their vision from the perfect circle of The Matrix into a 5-hour ramble about religion, which is what I feel the second two films are really about. (Oh, how people hate Buddhist ideology as movies! And I can completely understand that.)

So I feel about those films how many of you seem to feel about Watchmen. Getting past how well the film does or doesn’t work, the audacity of a studio paying a ton to make a film that is not completely audience-friendly is very exciting.

I agree.

But every time one of these things buries a studio for half of their year or longer, it chills the atmosphere for other audacious efforts that are, perhaps, not as self-indulgent on budget.

There may be other reasons than simple dollars and cents that kept Fox Searchlight from making Slumdog Millionaire in the first place. But it would be naïve to suggest that Millions – a picture the studio and many people love – and its failure at the box office was not a part of that call. (In addition, Searchlight’s complete disinterest in buying Son of Rambow is another reflection of that event.)

These are not just issues of “bad” movies. The smug use of Speed Racer as a whipping boy misses the point completely. WB took the same kind of risk there that they took on Watchmen in every way except that, in the end, some of you liked one more than the other. This thing where everyone thinks they are an expert in retrospect is dishonest as rhetoric. Either you support studios taking shots in the dark or not.

The answer, in my opinion, is rarely the artist getting everything they want… and almost never the studio getting everything they want. Somewhere around 70/30 is, most often, a pretty good balance. The thing some of you seem to miss is that the next Watchmen-like film will not get made – or will get made on a smaller budget… which will be seen as a big risk even then – if Watchmen loses a good amount of money for Warners.

What does this movie do to Zack Snyder’s career for the moment? Same thing that Speed Racer did to The Wachowskis or Magnolia did to PT Anderson or Ben Button will do for David Fincher. Everyone will want to work with them on the next film… no one will want to give them final cut (without contractual restraints) or budgets as high as they most recently worked with. Same thing as when a movie star has a couple of flops.

Same, by the way, as Ridley Scott or Michael Mann and their recent box office disappointments. Would Mann have gotten the budget he got for Public Enemies without Johnny Depp or 2 or 3 others? Probably not. If Robin Hood does the business that Body of Lies did, will Ridley Scott find a lot of partners who are willing to spend the kind of money he spends every 18 months? Probably not.

They wouldn’t stop working. But things would be harder. The pressure going into the projects by the studios would be greater. Paranoia would be higher. And none of that is, necessarily, good for the process of making films.

Or is it?

Want to know what makes me crazy? When great filmmakers who make films on budgets that virtually guarantee a profit can’t get the support of US studios. We are in a system where movies that are considered good or excellent by a majority of viewers cannot get distribution because there is not enough money in that kind of product.

So you want to celebrate Zack Snyder “getting away with it?” Go for it. But when Warners or any other major has the guts to take on Che’ for virtually no upfront expenditure, that’s when I will start celebrating. When top execs start getting hired and fired based on taste and skill and not relationships, then I will start celebrating.

And here’s one for good measure… had a chat with a high-ranking, unmotivated-to-bullshit member of the Wolverine team… and the take is that the movie is about 90% what Gavin Hood wanted as they finish up post. So… how evil does that make Fox and will the studio get a break? Or is 90% of his vision for the first-time action film director of a comic book film not enough? Or do you think you know what percentage of compromises that Zack Snyder and Chris Nolan (the first time around) and Bryan Singer really made when making their comic book films for Warners?

David Poland: SPEED FUCKING RACER! STOP YER FUCKING YAPPIN, AND REALIZE THIS ONE FILM PROVES YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT... wrong.

Boam: reality? Please. This blog does not deal with reality. Read Monco's response. I hear heavy breathing coming from it a mile-away, but I STILL GOT A FUCKING AWESOME WATCHMEN MOVIE! FUCK YEAH!

David, substitute HANCOCK for WATCHMEN.

'STOP YER FUCKING YAPPIN'

hey io, i for one found that last post from david poland rather interesting - i don't necessarily agree with everything he said, but why don't you take your own advice and ruminate a bit before striking out and spitting venom like a cornered rattlesnake

And there's Coraline, still chugging along defying expectations. This is the second week in a row Klady predicted it to get beat by Confessions of a Shopaholic and then it finishes ahead. It also makes me really excited that it's beating The Jonas Brothers after Jonas Brothers booted it from 3D screens. Quality prevails.

Leah: I did in the last thread. The following response to Poland in this thread represented my channeling of the PEOPLE'S CHAMPION in response to the second part of an argument, that's even sillier. If you remember that this is the same man who loved Speed Racer, but never brought up the enormous cost of Speed Racer costing job. It's a pompus douche post, that demonstrates what he has become.

"David, substitute HANCOCK for WATCHMEN."

A Will Smith movie in the summer which has a star that can hustle up bigger-than-domestic international sales doesn't seem like an equal sub here.

We have to be fair here, Hal? There's no FAIR here. David Poland has gone on another one of his damn fool crusades, and decided to attack me along the way. UT-UH! NO SIR. You want to throw Synder under the bus, Davey? Good for you. Too damn bad that he made the movie he wanted to make, the extended cut will sell DVDs, and this is what we call a KINGDOM OF HEAVEN situation.

David Poland is Nikki Finke in Jeffery Wells' BODY HEAT! Coming soon to a theatre near you. Check your local listings.

David: On a not-entirely-unrelated note: Today I watched a DVD of Enemies, A Love Story, a 1989 movie I’d somehow missed during its theatrical release. And about midway through it, I turned to my wife and said, “You know, this could not have been a cheap movie to make.” Not $150 million, mind you. But the production values suggested to me that someone had enough faith to put a respectable amount of coin into this project – and, judging from BoxOfficeMojo figures, likely got none of it back. Now I wonder: Would any major TODAY be willing to green-light a project like this for the budget – increased to allow for inflation, of course – that Paul Mazursky apparently got 20 years ago? And even if it were seriously considered for green-lighting: Is this the sort of project you think would be among the first to get junked by a studio in the wake of a disaster like Speed Racer or a (potential) under-achiever like Watchmen?

Taken and Paul Bart chug along...making more than Watchmen is likely to in domestic theaters.

I liked both but neither seemed phenomenal.

I am wondering with all the crap weather everywhere these two movies are the two "comfort foods" of the end of winter.

Bully for Coraline.

@Lota: It was in the 60's again today in the Garden State though a bit overcast. People will go out of doors if conditions are favorable.

@Martin: "How High" was an ethnic comedy, aimed at a black audience, playing in areas with a large black population. "Watchmen" is a fanboy flick with a carpet-bomb release and tons of hype by the Liberal Media.

Actually Joe, if this old report from Business Week is anything to go by, "Enemies, A Love Story" was made with a profitable budget in mind:

Named for Preston Sturges' 1944 movie The Miracle of Morgan's Creek, Robinson and co-founder Joe Roth pledged to keep their film budgets at or below $15 million. To avoid the failures of other startups, the company parcels out distribution to others and sells off video rights for new films up front. As a result, even when Morgan Creek's Enemies: A Love Story grossed a meager $7.8 million at the box office, the film's tight budget and overseas sales allowed the company to break even. "It was a simple formula to reduce risks and not lose money," says Roth.

today may have been nice Chucky, but the entire last month has dropped crazy weather in most parts of the USA.

Those two films seem like they might be good comfort food for the economy (escapist action, escapist harmless comedy)

"'Watchmen' is a fanboy flick with a carpet-bomb release and tons of hype by the Liberal Media."

Why would a Liberal Media care about "Watchmen"? Must be all those liberal homos who hyped "Milk" swooning in unison over the sight of a big blue cock...oh yeah...

to be fair, monco's post - opinion presented as fact - is also a silly anecdotal generalisation.

i still haven't seen the bloody thing myself, but i've talked to several people who have and it's a jar of mixed nuts, leaning toward positive: one guy who hasn't read it absolutely dug it like there's no tomorrow and has already seen it a second time; one guy who's a fan of the novel was mildly disappointed but still thought it was audacious and worthy of a second look; a married couple said it was 'pretty good', impressive visually but not particularly engaging; and yet another guy i know disliked it intensely, as a hardcore fan of the book; and finally, two of of my girlfriends - with whom i was supposed to see it but i was unable to go - went mainly because of the big blue penis and they both liked it, one quite a bit (neither of them are shrinking violets, tho, hard cases both), so there it is, my anecdotal wrap-up

What with BLUE COCKS being the tentpole of their neo-multicutural agenda! They wouldn't be pushing this hard for a big WHITE cock, right Chucky!

So a nearly 3 hour film, based on a cult graphic novel, with a hard-R rating didn't have a blowout weekend at the box office. So, why are we surprised? If there is a lesson here for every studio in Hollywood it's this: STOP THROWING BIG BUCKS AT NICHE "FRANCHISES". When the budget for this started even approaching $100 million someone should've raised a red flag (as they did before when previous attempts to film this fell flat). WB gambled huge and they lost bigtime (again).

I bet a bunch of execs of Fox are having a good laugh this weekend.

Hallick: Damn. You just happen to have that article lying around, or do you work for Business Week? LOL. In any event, thanks -- seriously. I was impressed by the film for several reasons, not the least being its ability to evoke the 1949 period ambiance without looking like there was any pinching of pennies whatsoever. Maybe whoever crunched the numbers on that one should work on a comic book movie or two.

BTW: Three Oscar nominations, all richly deserved. Don't know why I missed this one in theaters, but I'm glad I had to see it for a project I'm working on.

Big surprise that those impotent lib's would have such an affinity for a guy with blue balls...

"WB gambled huge and they lost bigtime (again)."

Is there somebody that can break down approximately how much Watchmen looks to make (or needs to make) domestically, internationally, and post-theatrically in comparison to the costs so we can tell if it's heading for a bigtime loss or a break even or who knows what? It would help us laypeople figure out who's closer to the truth when it comes to whether or not people are going to be raining down pink slips at Warner Brothers over this.

Hal: I think it's all subjective. Stating WB lost big on this film ignores DVD/BD. Which has seemingly been mentioned at almost every turn with the discussion of this movie. So they did not lose shit. They will make the money back. It just depends on when they make the money back, but it will be sooner than they did with SPEED RACER! HIYO!

Poland - Want to know what makes me crazy? When great filmmakers who make films on budgets that virtually guarantee a profit can’t get the support of US studios. We are in a system where movies that are considered good or excellent by a majority of viewers cannot get distribution because there is not enough money in that kind of product.

Amen, Amen. I say Amen.

Boam's Idea is good except it would be an accounting bitch and a piracy nightmare.

Snyder will be fine. Sucker Punch should work out for him well enough.

FWIW, my position on the auteur thing comes down to who created and owns the material. If you're a hired gun, you compromise on rating and length while agreeing on who the audience first and foremost. Watchmen is a great example of the studio not knowing who they were marketing towards so they shifted the responsibility onto the director.

What I like most is 300 spawned two of the most extravagant "visionary" productions in some time; Watchmen and The Spirit.

The opening credits were on-line for awhile today. Re-watching it, you can see why Snyder chose a direct adaptation. While a time-update would make the story more prescient for the audience, it would have been a PR firestorm.

Enemies: a Love Story is one of those movies that would not be mage by any major in the decade... unless there was a very big star in it. But it might well be made by a Dependent and it would almost certainly be funded with international money, built around a cast that had some heat at the time.... and then sold to a US Dependent for an awards run.

The reason that studios got 90% out of the drama business is a bit of a different issue.

Something more like "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" is the kind of movie that a studio suddenly decided it "could not make" because of the financial strain of a movie like Watchmen straining the overall studio budget.

The Soloist was pushed into April by Paramount because the cost of distribution was not a viable spend in the wake of the costs around Ben Button.

Cadillac Records is the kind of movie getting underdistributed because the return on investment is not clear on a studio ledger.

Releases for picked up films like Appaloosa - though there was probably a requirement under the NL deal it was made under - could well be cut back by a studio because of cash flow issues.

But really, it's the ambitious genre movies that we aren't really conscious of that may get the shaft.

Think more of Dick Tracy. Whatever you thought of the film, it was an attempt at a new kind of color palette, interesting make-up choices, etc. And it was a $100 million movie back when that meant something. (At the end of 1990, the year the film came out, there were a total of seventy-six $100 million films, all time. Eighteen years and two months later, there are now three hundred and seventy four.)

You have never seen a film like Dick Tracy made by a major since… until, to some degree, Sin City, 300, and now, Watchmen, though those were all done digitally. Jeffrey Katzenberg wrote his famous “Sophomore Slump” letter based around that film, which should be remembered in history as one of the first, if not The First, $100 million flop/major studio disappointment.

Think of Popeye. A decade earlier, in 1980, the film grossed $50 million in theatrical, the twelfth biggest film of that year. (#12 last year was Mamma Mia!’s $144 million, which also had an international market to exploit to mega-dollars, which none of Altman’s prime-of-his-career films really did.) But Altman’s masterpiece of a true Segar aesthetic and musical storytelling (one song was brought back for Punchdrunk Love), the film was derided as a flop.

Both films were relatively expensive. Both films had revenues that should have qualified them as hits. Both films pushed the aesthetic envelope. A decade after Dick Tracy (and 11 years after Batman), X-Men offered a new aesthetic and thanks to worldwide box office, the film turned a small profit, and X2 was possible. From that came Nolan’s Batman and from that 300 and TDK and, ultimately, Watchmen.

But just as 300 opened a door, Watchmen could close that door again for another decade.

That’s all I was saying.

(P.S. Martin S does something really important in reminding us about The Spirit. It is not an insignificant landmark.)

An interesting point: Might Watchman be just the very sort of visually impressive movie that could drive folks to shell out the bucks for a Blu Ray player? And then buy the BR eidtion(s)? Seriously -- I have no idea what sort of long-range planning is involved here, but wouldn't it be likely that WB figures to exploit all sorts of revenue streams with this expensive flick?

Poor Spirit. It deserved a hug, but only received a fist-pump. Watchmen is also not going to close any fucking doors. It will only only open them because there are stories out there, and they will be told eventually. They are called The Luna Brothers. Get to know their awesomeness.

"Hal: I think it's all subjective. Stating WB lost big on this film ignores DVD/BD. Which has seemingly been mentioned at almost every turn with the discussion of this movie. So they did not lose shit. They will make the money back."

This is why I'd like to see some estimates on what the DVD/BD numbers can expect to be. You're saying they'll more than make up for a shortfall at the box office, while I get the feeling that David believes otherwise. A "Kingdom of Heaven" scenario for the director's cut doesn't seem enough to hold out for when that disc opened in 13th place, even if only as a bolster to the standard version while will come out of the gates first.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/18411/1/DELLAMORTE039S-BOX-OFFICE-WRAP-UP-3609/Page1.html

Read that Hal, and I mean Kingdom of Heaven in terms of Director's Cut being the more favourable cut. Sorry for not explaining it that well Hal, but these things happen. Nevertheless; the DVD/BD mentions were brought up for a reason by everyone involved.

So I would side with them instead of Poland. Who thinks DVD/BD is dead, we will be fucking downloading every thing in a week, and our internet speeds will soon rival that of Korea. The DVD/BD are important. The selling of the Black Freighter DVD is important. The same goes with the action figures, various books, and so on.

Leydon - In a normal world, I'd agree 100% that this will be the movie to put BR players over with little incentive by WB or Best Buy/Amazon. Now though, that burden will be on the sellers.

You are right to say that this could be the movie. The Ultimate Edition reviews are going to be mind-blowing.

Poland - Popeye and Dick Tracy. Good calls.

RE: a making-of docu. That's crossed my mind a million times. But after the shitstorm WB had with the Salkin's over the Superman material, I'd bet the crazy stuff gets pushed aside.

An indie festival docu might be the way to go. Get a RED camera and start with Joel Silver and Gilliam.

"Read that Hal, and I mean Kingdom of Heaven in terms of Director's Cut being the more favourable cut. Sorry for not explaining it that well Hal, but these things happen. Nevertheless; the DVD/BD mentions were brought up for a reason by everyone involved."

That's what I wondering about KoH. Thanks for the clarification.

I understand that the DVD/BD sales are multi-pronged, but I'm looking for some estimates on what each prong needs to make to push the red into the black. Having several versions doesn't guarantee anything, and I don't know how much that Black Freighter/Under The Hood disc is going to help. How much do you think it's going to sell?

"Poland. Who thinks DVD/BD is dead, we will be fucking downloading every thing in a week, and our internet speeds will soon rival that of Korea."

Slap at me all you like, but don't make shit up about what I believe when I believe nothing like that.

DVD isn't dead... it just isn't the cash machine it was 3 years ago. I don't think we will be downloading anything in real numbers for a long time. And I have never spoken to internet speeds.

Just bullshit, IO.

Of course, I am setting myself up for another rage drama when I point out that The Dark Knight, which sold a lot of early Blu-ray to the audience that already has a Blu-ray player... the PS3 owner... who matches perfectly with the TDK buyer. And they may buy a big number of Blu on Watchmen compared to other Blu titles.

BUT... Dark Knight still will not sell as many discs as were sold for the top disc seller the year before, just as the top seller last year will not sell as many as the year before.

None of this means that DVD is going away. It will be nearly have the total revenue for Watchmen and most other films released in 2009 (many more than half). And there are still a few chances for Blu-ray, though this holiday season was another missed opportunity. It's still simple - CHEAPER MACHINES!!!

But look for Watchmen to sell around 8 million DVDs, including whatever percentage of them are Blu. That's a realistic (if a little generous) number.

No one was a bigger proponent of the Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven than I. But great as it was, it didn't turn the tide on that film. And non-Blu DVDs are still mostly out there in the original cut. Boo.

There is almost zero chance that Watchmen will move the Blu bar one inch. Like TDK, the PS3 owners will buy Blu first, fast, and furious. The same group will buy the Director's Cut when that comes out. But 90%+ of the discs will not be Blu and when it comes to a $400 machine - which the best Blu-ray players mostly are still priced around - the decision makers are not the audience for this film and those who were already bought Blu for TDK or The Godfather or Blade Runner or Close Encounters, etc.

But it is a lovely notion, which I am sure someone at WB will try to sell soon.

kinda off topic but:
all this 'watchmen' dvd talk got me to thinking that i'm a little surprised no one has mentioned last weeks dvd release of 'watchmen: the complete motion comic'.... i was dreading the chore of watching it but around chapt.3 found myself mesmerized... minimal animation, voice and sound to the book's panels....it was really entertaining...i ended up watching both discs in one sitting...hopefully, it'll get included on the big, fat final dvd product snyder promises....

For every Apocalypse Now there's a One From the Heart.

For every 2001: A Space Odyssey there's a Barry Lyndon.

Just make sure to follow up your Barry Lyndon with The Shining.

"P.S. Martin S does something really important in reminding us about The Spirit. It is not an insignificant landmark."

Did The Spirit's budget ever get released to the public? I cannot find the thing for the life of me.

YOU CAN'T SEE ME! GJ STYLE!

"'Poland. Who thinks DVD/BD is dead, we will be fucking downloading every thing in a week, and our internet speeds will soon rival that of Korea.'

Slap at me all you like, but don't make shit up about what I believe when I believe nothing like that."

BULLSHIT. Slap me all you want David, but you have posted countless fucking articles on this website siting storage capacity and downloading. Good times.

"DVD isn't dead... it just isn't the cash machine it was 3 years ago. I don't think we will be downloading anything in real numbers for a long time. And I have never spoken to internet speeds.

Just bullshit, IO."

Dude. We have had this argument before, and we will have it again. You cylon, me human, and bada-boom!

"Of course, I am setting myself up for another rage drama when I point out that The Dark Knight, which sold a lot of early Blu-ray to the audience that already has a Blu-ray player... the PS3 owner... who matches perfectly with the TDK buyer. And they may buy a big number of Blu on Watchmen compared to other Blu titles."

This is you once again justifying your perceived prejudice of geeks and what not. The first thing you can learn from any statistician is this: Numbers can be twisted. You are nothing more than a freakin fantasy sports analyst, that tries anything to fit your metrics. That's all they are: metrics. It does not make you right, it does not make me more right, but it just makes you nothing more than an analyst. That's it.

"BUT... Dark Knight still will not sell as many discs as were sold for the top disc seller the year before, just as the top seller last year will not sell as many as the year before."

It sold 1 million + BDs. Your point? Where does this fit into your metric?

"None of this means that DVD is going away. It will be nearly have the total revenue for Watchmen and most other films released in 2009 (many more than half). And there are still a few chances for Blu-ray, though this holiday season was another missed opportunity. It's still simple - CHEAPER MACHINES!!!"

On this we agree. On this we do agree.

"But look for Watchmen to sell around 8 million DVDs, including whatever percentage of them are Blu. That's a realistic (if a little generous) number."

So it's going to make money. Why would you think it's not going to make money? When it will make money? If anything; this negates your earlier argument in as much as you disagreeing with your own self.

"No one was a bigger proponent of the Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven than I. But great as it was, it didn't turn the tide on that film. And non-Blu DVDs are still mostly out there in the original cut. Boo."

Boo? Boo? Doesn't matter really because anyone who has seen the Director's Cut. Understands which version is the better version.

"There is almost zero chance that Watchmen will move the Blu bar one inch. Like TDK, the PS3 owners will buy Blu first, fast, and furious. The same group will buy the Director's Cut when that comes out. But 90%+ of the discs will not be Blu and when it comes to a $400 machine - which the best Blu-ray players mostly are still priced around - the decision makers are not the audience for this film and those who were already bought Blu for TDK or The Godfather or Blade Runner or Close Encounters, etc."

This is very reasonable, but there has to be a KILLER AP for the BD players. I'm still going with Star Wars, but Watchmen is an amazing looking film. So here's hoping Watchmen moves the bar.

"But it is a lovely notion, which I am sure someone at WB will try to sell soon."

They have been selling it for months. I cannot be the only who picked this up Synder and Co.

I also apologize for changing names left and right, but typepad is a wanker!

http://chud.com/articles/articles/18412/1/THE-DEVIN039S-ADVOCATE-WHAT039S-YOUR-DEFINITION-OF-WATCHMEN039S-SUCCESS/Page1.html

Mr. Farci FTW!

David and IO (and, jeez, I never thought I'd be addressing both of you in the same posting): What do you see as the tipping point for BR player prices? 'Cause I've already seen them for sale for less than $200 at supermarkets here in
Houston. And how many folks will seriously consider a BR player before buying a big ol' HD TV?

Blu-ray players in the supermarket? Do these models cook frozen pizzas too?...

Joe: whose making a 200 dollar BD? Apex? Seriously... I would like to know, but these players should be 150. Here's something I want to know: why on earthy are prices not going down for things? I want prices going down darn it.

That aside; I do agree that they will buy bigger TVs at first, but BDs are a quality product. They are not going anywhere. Neither is DVDs, but there will be a killer ap for BDs soon. If it's not a stunning film like Watchmen. It will be something for a galaxy far far away or maybe hobbiton. Who knows?

Mutiny: LOL. But seriously -- I knew the tipping point for DVD players had come when I saw them on sale at Target.

I thought The Spirit was born out of Sin City, not 300.

Nevertheless, Snyder will be fine. A movie like this will win enough fans to keep him making movies for a while, but they might just decide to cut the budget for Sucker Punch (which, from my minimal knowledge at the outset, looks like it could become another Grindhouse - something film geeks will love, but everyone else will never even consider it.)

Am I just imagining that Mamma Mia! is the highest selling DVD for a movie from 2008? Maybe not in America, but I think it is in the UK and Australia. I'm too lazy right now to research it thought, but I think I read it on an ad plastered to the side of a tram in the city.

As Dave said, Watchmen won't effect Blu-ray at all. People who will want to own this sort of movie will surely already have one in some capacity and many of the blu-ray holdouts are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with the movies themselves.

A question for all you Americans: Are they making a minor (if any) push for Friday the 13th since next week featured another one of the dates.

Oh, and also: The Reader will soon become the third highest grossing Best Picture nominee. Yes yes.

Kamel: we have no idea what will push BD. I would hope it would be Star Trek on a pure "HOT DAMN! PEOPLE STILL LOVE TMP!", but that's just me.

F13 is having a push to get to DVD/BD quicker. That's the push it's having, and the Reader is still the Reader. You know what that means?

people who dis APEX have never owned an APEX...that 'secret menu' and 'region disable' made the AD-600A legend...seriously, that APEX machine was epic.... i can't wait to see how they subvert blu-ray.....

Devin: "There's one element of Hollywood math to keep in mind: except in cases of true disaster (City of Ember last year, for instance), movies always make money."

Just not the case.

A concept from long ago... and in more recent history, three years ago.

If you have ever known anyone who actually had the real numbers, you will know that this just isn't true. And I'm not talking about the set of books that makes it look better vs the second set that gets written off.

For a short period of time, in the moment of DVD generating a ton and production costs not rising to meet them, no studio movies could really lose money. That lasted about 2 years.

If it makes you feel any better, you might want to know that I "spun" this long before the movie came out. My estimates are not precise because I don't have the exact figures on this film. But I am a lot closer to the hard, painful reality of it than Devin or IO. The argument that "this is great" is nothing but spin, even though I do think neither person knows that is the case. They believe.

Devin, like so many others, still believes the mythology of the "artist friendly studio." This is the kind of thinking, with due respect, that confuses so many discussions about this business. There is this naive wet dream about "how it should work." But while the fantasy does come true now and again, it is rarely for any reason other than "the artist" having leverage at that studio at that time, the studio not really knowing how to interfere with that material, or great respect for a particular filmmaker by the studio.

But the reality is that filmmakers go where the money is and where the projects they want are... same as it ever was (in the modern era). Shyamalan is on his fourth studio in four movies. Spielberg is spread all over town. Etc, etc, etc.

Of course, the great irony of Devin's argument and the argument of others in that camp is that it is not objective... it's about how important this film is to them and the fact that they like the work a lot more than anyone else. That's why, I presume, Devin is willing to assume blindly that the extended cut will show the light to all the critics who dislike the film. Uh... maybe... probably not. (See: Death Proof)

Anyway... I feel like I am kicking people when they are down, but they are SO ANGRY and they are so full of excuses and suddenly, SO SURE of how this business works. It's almost religious.

God is dead.

Sorry.

Real numbers? What real numbers? The most roguish accounting on planet earth, and you are going on about REAL NUMBERS? METRICS, DAVID! METRICS!

Bringing up M.Night is also goofy. The dude wants to make movies, he might still have something in the tank, and studio number four is hoping that he does. It's called a flyer. Negating the fact that M.Night is now a FLYER is silly, but it fits your METRIC. So you use it.

METRICS! METRICS! METRICS!

Ok, I saw Watchman, this evening - kind of liked it, far from perfect. Not a great movie, but more entertaining than I thought it would be given the lowered expectations I had from so many reviews.

A $55 million opening for this kind of movie is pretty good, but no doubt Warners was aiming for $70....not a number they would have needed, if they didn't spend so much. The marketing department did their job and I think we can all agree that the movie WILL lose money. BUT....

Dave, you're probably more inside baseball than any of us, but do you think you might be reading way too much into this with all of the doom and gloom that will come from this opening????

Come on, some good will come from this: Jackie Earlie Haley will get more interesting roles, Patrick Wilson will get more interesting roles and sorry, I think another project like this could easily get greenlit in the future by a major studio with the simple qualifier: "like Watchman, but cheaper....."

Is that really such a hard reach? I mean, last year, you had two comic book films - The Dark Knight and Iron Man - with enormous risks (with regards to subject matter for TDK and with regards to risky star, budget, and lack of brand name for Iron Man) that both easily DOUBLED what most prognosticators expected them to make! Do you think the studios are going to forgot those, so easily because of a wash for Watchman? Sorry, the studios are not THAT risk averse, even in this economy.

You mentioned that Dick Tracy taught the studios a lesson that they followed for a decade, but sorry, you're wrong....in the decade that followed major dough was spent on The Shadow, The Phantom, The Rocketeer, and Judge Dredd - each of those films came from "niche" properties, had large budgets, large marketing campaigns and each presented their own distinct "vision." All lost tons of money. But why did the studios keep rolling the dice? Because in '89, Warners cashed in BIG time with the first Batman. It took about four more tries for the studios to learn their lesson during the '90's and it will take several more after Watchmen.

No, lightning didn't strike again with Watchmen, but let's not read too much into it.

Except Dick Tracy was absolutely phenomenal... *runs away quietly*

[high fives Kamel}

Actually, I quite enjoyed The Phantom. It may be the only comic book movie I've seen in which the hero appeared to actually enjoy his work.

In the midst of all this Watchmania, is this a bad place to note STREET FIGHTER CHUN LI'S disappearance from the ten?

Anyone who's seen it, will I enjoy?

Chris Klein and Kristen K. OWN.

people who dis APEX have never owned an APEX...that 'secret menu' and 'region disable' made the AD-600A legend...seriously, that APEX machine was epic.... i can't wait to see how they subvert blu-ray.....

I'm guessing "not at all," since the BDA imposed a one-strike-and-you're-out rule for remote-hackable players after LG put out the BH200. And I have to say I've never heard anyone call the AD-600A a "legend" -- I can think of a few terms I would use for a region-free player that can't even perform proper PAL-to-NTSC conversion, but that ain't one of them...

perhaps the problem (Geoff) is that studios in wanting to create another tentpole were trying to force properties that are niche essentially on the wider audience who are just not entertained by them. Everyone knows who Batman is, comic read or not, due to the endless reruns of the silly enjoyable show.

There are very few comics/graphics that would have crossover appeal at all. Neil Gaiman's stuff since he has wide appeal as a writer, but other than him, not many. Marketing isn;t going to make people watch past the opening weekend and with giant budgets, that's a lose-lose situation unless they do adaptations that cost very little cash. They should be low budget...like the old Flash Gordon serials.

Iron Man was an exception due to the hipness of Robert Downey jr.

This could be a big moneymaker with very little money down (I'd pay to see it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK9L2HUEGZM&feature=related

If the film underperformed theatrically, you can bet the DVD/BD is going to perform to smaller numbers as well. Additionally, saying that "DVD/BD will make up the gap" ignores a crucial element, which is that the production on the DVD/BD which as we know, will include a longer cut, was probably more expensive than a standard DVD release. I would be very interested to find out the sales figures for The Motion Comics as well.

I think we're going to see every studio, slashing budgets for their comic franchises over the next year. Watchmen has got to be making studio heads nervous, and I will not be surprised if WB decides to bring Green Lantern back to the drawing board entirely. Suddenly the prospect of throwing Seth Rogen, who is still unproven as a lead (all the Apatow movies are sold on the Apatow collective brand) doesn't seem like a great idea, particularly if Observe & Report does only middling numbers (the question is if audiences are going to want to see a raunchier version of Paul Blart). Add to that, throwing an auteur like Gondry in the mix, who has never directed a summer blockbuster or done any film with anything approaching those kinds of numbers.

Oops, I meant Sony and Green Hornet for the above.

David, Paramount has 25% stake in WATCHMEN.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-watchmen16-2008nov16,0,4972856,full.story

(Paramount had also signed on the Fox settlement)

Nobody knows nothin'. Still.

Another set of rough numbers, assuming the 25% in by Paramount...

Production at about $180 million (including Fox cash payment, etc).

25% Paramount – in for about $100 million (w/ international P&A)
37.5% Legendary – in for about $67.5 million
37.5% Warners – in for about $135 million (w/domestic P&A)

GROSS guess
$150m domestic
$150m foreign

$165 million in rentals returned to studios

Off The Top
$15m to Par
$15m to WB
$24 million to Fox

$111 left

Worldwide marketing of about $120 million

$189 million in the hole.

8 million DVD units net about $88 million.
DVD rentals net another $40 million.
Other ancillaries net another $20 million.

Fox’s cut on post-theatrical, about $12 million.

$53 million in the hole

$13.2m of Paramount’s money
$19.9m of Warner’s money
$19.9m of Legendary’s money

Par ends up making a $1.8 million profit
Warner’s ends up taking a $4.9 million loss
Legendary eats $19.9 million

Fox walks away with $36 million, on top of already having been paid more than their whole development cost (plus interest) upfront..

Respectable reply, Dave. Thanks for that.
You're shaping up to be the Richard Dawkins of Hollywood bloggers. And there's nothing wrong with that.

You really should consider a video bit where you and a devout cinephile-type argue films from the "show" and "business" point of views. I'm guessing just about anyone here on the comment section would offer themselves to be the other guy. (raises hand)

Finally caught Watchmen. Was scared shitless, given all my favorite writers panned it. But I enjoyed it a lot... more than the hyper 300 but less than his Dawn of The Dead. Not sure what it adds up to dramatically, but it is the most passionately directed, aggressively cinematic film I've seen (studio or independent) in a while. And forget all this Speed Racer talk... the movie as product and art recalls Fight Club more than anything.

THE SHADOW (which I really liked, BTW) did not lose tons of dough. The budget was about $35 million, it grossed close to that, and did so well on VHS and LD that for a time Universal was considering a direct-to-video sequel.

What took so long for studios to start making comic book movies based on popular characters who younger audiences had some familiarity with?

You'd have thought that after the massive success of Batman '89, they'd have been scrambling over each other to greenlight film versions all the major titles. Instead, we got a decade of obscure stuff like The Shadow and The Rocketeer. It's wasn't until X-Men that the current wave got going.

They didn't make Spider-Man until 2002 because of issues involving the rights, but aside from that, why exactly did this happen? Was it really because of Dick Tracy?

don't know nothin' bout that, but one comic book adaptation i am keen for is 'drafted' - i've heard rumblings it might get made, it has huge potential, but some nitwit will likely fuck it up

Dave - that breakdown is why I come to this blog. Great work.

Frank - Shadow, Phantom, Judge Dredd, Tank Girl, Barb Wire, etc... had attainable rights. Marvel characters were locked up in ancient deals or short-sighted ones. The ones that were free to produce, like X-Men, languished for years due to budget costs and people simply not getting it.

X-Men had been in development since '92. The best draft still written was by AK Walker around '95, but it would have been a task only Cameron or Ridley could have pulled off due to the scale. So while Fox continually pared down, Blade took off, showing Marvel had worthwhile characters and The Matrix hit. X-Men was made as a Matrix derivative, not a superhero film. After X-Men, Marvel exploded.

The WB/DC relationship has always been a cluster, even though DC is part of the companies founder original bedrock. It goes back to what Dave used to refer to as the WB fifedom's and the lack of company synergy. Too many people attached to different characters making it impossible for the studio to line them up for successive release. Joel Silver, Jon Peters, etc...these guys should have never been given the property control WB allowed them to have. A Green Lantern movie would have been an F'ing breeze during the mid/late 90's. Flash was wrecked by the TV show because the WB outlook was still camp, until Blade and X-Men. So if the FX were too expensive and the concept unclear to everyone, outside of Mike DeLuca, it was safer to greenlight straight-up action films.

Hope that helps.

Quick Note - Marvel was also being bought and sold from the late 80's until around 2000. They were bankrupt at least one time during that period.

Thanks, Martin. Makes sense. And I had forgotten about Blade, which was really the first Marvel movie success, though it was a fairly obscure character.

Now I'm curious about that early X-Men script.

"Production at about $180 million (including Fox cash payment, etc)."

Where is that number from? And don't just say "everyone knows it cost _____" or try to act like you know something that we all don't. Where is it from? Haven't even heard it rumored close to that kind of money, and frankly with no $$$$ stars can't figure out where you're getting it.

Montreal, I'd venture to say it's exactly those sort of collaborations that provide the most fruit and notsomuch the Ben Affleck in Daredevil type of situations.

I saw that CHUN LI MOVIE,

and KRISTEN KREUK and MOON BLOODGOOD *both* GAVE ME A HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE BONER.

GOOD MOVIE.

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