Watchmen Does $55 Million Over Opening Weekend -- Why this is Good News and Bad News
Watchmen indeed played like a mid-range Marvel entry and opened to $55 million. The weekend multiplier ($55 million divided by the opening Friday $25 million) for this one is a dangerously low 2.2x. This puts it in the same territory as Friday The 13th, Twilight, and Sex & The City. In fact, when you factor in the money earned, as well as the gender neutral demographics, Watchmen comes off as a male version of Sex & The City. Both are R-rated 2.5 hour epics distributed by Warner Bros. Both were specifically tuned to the stereotypical desires of its gender. Both opened to about $25 million on Friday then closed with about $55 million. And both, according to eye witness accounts (ie - myself, my wife, and our daughter), had huge opening night lines with only a token representation of the other gender, none of whom seemed to be there by choice (my 18 month old pointed and laughed).
First off, let's take a moment to acknowledge that this opening weekend number, in and of itself, is terrific. Watchmen, based on a comic book that only the hardcore had even heard of, had a bigger three-day weekend than Superman Returns. It had a bigger three-day weekend than Batman Begins. Heck, Watchmen has the second biggest DC Comics three-day opening weekend of all time, behind (obviously) The Dark Knight. Any thoughts that this would equal or surpass the $70 million opening for 300 were ones not based on logic. Aside from a few token similarities (release date, director, and being based on a cult comic book), they were vastly different films and different properties.
300 was a 100 minute action adventure film with a clear and simple premise (that it was based on a comic book was pretty irrelevant to the marketing campaign). It promised (and delivered) fantastic visuals and ripped muscle men armed with sharp objects, slaughtering other muscle men with sharp objects in 480 BC for at least 2/3 of the running time. It was primed to be enjoyed by men and women as well as young and old. Watchmen was a 2.75 hour character drama with superheroes, whose complicated premise had to be explained, in detail, to the uninitiated. Plus, the marketing was severely male centric, and there was no stereotypical appeal for women. And, as we damn well know by this point, a superhero film with women in the audience, as well as general audience appeal gets you Iron Man. A superhero film just for cultish comic fan guys gets you... well... Watchmen.
So, all told, a $55 million opening for this glorified cult film is a huge short term win for Warner Bros. It's a show of unparalleled marketing might and is a good omen for the upcoming DC properties (Jonah Hex, Green Lantern). My concern with the number is one of long term prospects, and the unexpected developments concerning the reactions to the movie. To put it bluntly, even the hardcore geeks are mixed to negative on this one. This means that Warner more or less needed a record opening to ensure profitability. At this point, the performance feels like, at best, a repeat of X-Men (57% first weekend drop, big drops afterward, opening with $54 million and closing with $157 million). Tragically, the more likely reference point is The Incredible Hulk, which opened to $55 million, dropped 60% in weekend two, then bottomed out at $134 million on a $150 million investment. And that's assuming that word of mouth isn't truly poisonous and it doesn't perform like Ang Lee's Hulk (which plummeted a shocking 70% in weekend two, ending up earning 47% of its $132 million in its opening weekend). Obviously, we'll know the final story by next Saturday morning. Again, if I'm wrong, and this thing displays Batman Begins-style legs, you'll hear it here first.
For the complete article, including what other films did at the box office this weekend and how Coraline got screwed by The Jonas Brothers, go to Mendelson's Memos.
For more Watchmen box office analysis, please read my write up on the Friday night numbers, which goes into more detail about the film's long term prospects.
Scott Mendelson
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
After filing its lawsuit, Fox was awarded up to $10 million in development costs and legal fees, in addition to 5.0 to 8.5 percent of Watchmen's worldwide box office gross. Clearly, the film won't be as profitable for Warner Brothers as its other comic book adaptations were.
P.S. Edward Norton bragged about how the Incredible Hulk would outperform Hulk. However, if you adjust the returns for inflation, Hulk made $287.10 million compared to the Incredible Hulk, which made $263.43 million. Take that!
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
I was making fun of Marvel all last summer for that bonehead play. "Gee, let's take a franchise that bottomed out and made $245 million on a $137 million investment from someone else's money (Universal footed the bill last time). Ok, now let's spend $160 million of our own money, dumb it down to try to make it more commercial, then watch as it reaps in... uh... $263 million. Crap, no wonder we went bankrupt in the mid 90s!".
I want to know which marketing executive was responsible for calling Zack Snyder a "revolutionary" director in Watchmen's preview. I never thought his Dawn of the Dead remake or 300 was that brilliant -- entertaining on some level but definitely not genius. You must be "excited" to know that there's a sequel to 300 being planned...
Nothing for the women? How could one have missed Dr. Manhattan's (or to a lesser extent Nite Owl's) goods. There was more male full frontal nudity then female in this one. Then there's Silhouette who stood as a beacon for women's rights in a post WWII era (it got her killed though). But, Silk Spectre I's character was a bit weak from a women's rights perspective, as she went back and slept with (and became impregnated by) someone who tried to rape/beat her up.
There's plenty out there for both women and men in this one from a purely 'eye-candy' perspective.
Part One- I agree that if the argument is women require male nudity (we had plenty), romantic subplot (we had a tangled one!) and a female vision of empowerment (check), then Watchmen should have appealed. I don’t think that’s all women require though, and the movie serves up plenty of in the areas of mystery, style, thought provoking questions, and amazing action. However, I’m not sure the trailers really got this across. I’m not sure they could have, to be honest. It’s a hard movie to market, to each demographic, in my opinion.
I agree about Silhouette being a model for women’s rights, and after she outed herself, one for gay rights too. But I disagree with you on Silk I. There was some context from the novel left out from the movie, so let me fill you in a bit. In the novel, it’s highly implied that she was raped by him, and that rape resulted in her pregnancy and retirement. Silk I was in a staged relationship with a man from the minutemen to cover up the men’s gay relationship (which would have been career ending). In the movie this man comes in and ‘saves’ Silk, becomes angry on her behalf and beats her attacker. In the novel, when the scene is discovered, the attacker is stopped but it’s SILK who is reprimanded by her comrades, told to ‘cover herself up’ and made to feel ashamed.
Whoops, my bad- it's been years since I read the comic and I could have sworn during a later scene Sally seems to admit to Laurie she was conceived through the rape...and I know I saw debates on whether the assault was completed or not, but I thought the general opinion was affirmative. I'm wrong...I just checked and Hooded Justice did stop him in time, and Laurie was conceived in a later affair that was consensual. Per popular understanding.
I suppose I read too much into the details, but I do think most of what I said still applies as far as what it was trying to illustrate re women's issues. Not one thing in this is simplistic! I take back what I said about the movie wimping out here; they DID take the risk and I need to stop posting late at night.
watchman at best was ok
300 is an historical fact not a comic book invention.
The Battle of Thermopylae was the only true historical event in the movie.
300 wasn't based on the works of Herodotus or Themistocles. It's an direct adaption of a Frank Miller comic book. Most of it was pure fantasy.
Box office is only part of the story.
DVD sales are going to be huge on Watchmen, especially when the 4 hour "director cut" is released.
agreed.
It's too soon to say whether Watchmen will be a smash hit. The major studios are worried that DVDs won't be as profitable as they were in the past; after all, DVD sales fell by 6.3 percent last year.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_09/b4121056770437.htm
I'm a fan of the genre, and in fact anything fantasy that is not about touchy-feelings, angst or relationships. My women friends used to give me those are-you-a-closet looks when I asked them to attend anything remotely comic book or superhero. My gay guy best friend of nearly 20 years is my favorite movie companion - although I did have to take him to task for making me sit through Confessions of a Shopaholic. Love clothes, but the lady was TSTL. I played with my iPod through that one.
Mr Mendelson, I love reading your articles, keep on doing what you're doing
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
Appreciated the compliments. Thank you.
I loved the Graphic Novel and was excited to see the movie. I have to say that I liked the movie and thought it was very thought provocking. My wife knows nothing about the Watchmen and got interested enough from the movie to discuss the themes. With that being said I feel like the movie couldn't decide who to pander to: The Fanboy or the Moviegoer. At times it felt like it was adhering too closely to the Novel, then at other times it almost felt over stylized to the point of camp ( in suburban theatre with alot of teenagers, there was laughing and giggling at any nudity and sex scenes. They nearly lost it at the blue peen). The movie is without a doubt worth seeing. I can't accept any negative review. It had its problems, but it is still very much worth the price of admission.
Now about the Blue Peen. It was in the comic so it should translate over to the movie. The problem is that they kind of made it overpronounced in the movie. The comic was Statue of David, the movie was ummm... bigger. It was a slight distraction and something to laugh at for some, but overall it wasn't that big of a deal (literally) and you forgot about it after a while.
Overall the movie is good go see it, but be prepared for 2 hours an 40 minutes.
While I appreciate Scott's use of the caveat "stereotypical appeal," I still can't help but be annoyed by the overall cultural assumption that movies like Watchmen inherently appeal more to men than women because women don't like action/won't get the fanboy references/don't care about themes explored by comicbook stories/won't care about said costumed superheroes unless they're pretty eye-candy in spandex. It's hardly helpful to those of us girl geeks as the implication is that our interests somehow make us less feminine (or, by extension, that straight men who enjoy Sex in the City are less masculine).
When I went on opening night, the audiences seemed to be a pretty even mix between men & women, and personally, my husband fell into the category of "attending only because significant other really wants to see this movie."
Watchmen had its share of issues but it's still the closest anyone is going to come to touching the spirit of the comic and it's refreshing to see a director finally treat Moore's material with the reverence with which is it due (as opposed to the monumental disappointment that was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). Is it more cult than mainstream blockbuster? Sure, and why does that have to be such a bad thing when we have films like Dark Knight and Iron Man to appeal to broader audiences? Hopefully the movie will make enough money so that studios won't be discouraged from taking on similarly less mainstream material.
I was in an airport recently and noted an adult woman reading Alan Moore's Tom Strong graphic novel. This gender thing is becoming a less valid stereotype as the comic/graphic book increasingly penetrates the main stream of pop culture. To keep referring to it as an unquestionable given is just lazy reviewing.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
It's a tough thing to talk about. While I'm usually the first to decry gender specific stereotypes in regards to movie going (I've written a few very long essays about just that), the numbers seemed to bear out the stereotypes, if only for this particular film. Even if you're just talking actual numbers and anecdotal evidence, and even if it's just one film in question, you're still only a short distance from 'oh, women don't like complicated action adventure story lines without any girly subplots, just give em Confessions Of A Shopaholic'.
And, on the other hand, I don't want to talk down to my readers, so I resist the urge to insert blanket 'apologetic' explanations such as 'oh, of course women don't dislike movies like this in general' or 'women are different and like different things just like men'. I take concepts like that as already established fact, and I hope that my audience does too.
For more on this very topic, I suggest an essay I wrote last September dealing with the differences between male and female escapism, as it relates to the Sex & The City movie (ie - why did male film critics come down so hard on the female-centric fluff, but not the male-centric fantasy?).
http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2008/09/sex-and-city-movie-and-difference.html
I think you could have just said ‘…superhero film for cultish fans’ and left off that exclusionary ‘fan guys’. You mention gender demographics…source? You also mention you made your eyewitness account comment based on what the women you saw at the theater were wearing, or what they seemed to be thinking, etc. I usually wear some kind of comic book paraphernalia when I go see a comic book film. I got tired of lame guys trying to hit on me with ‘trivia’ they assume I’d have no way of knowing. After I made it clear I’m a guru, they always sputter ‘…but you’re hot!’ Of course! Hot girls *really* don’t read comics. Wearing super-heroine baby tees from Hot Topic helps marginally. But when I saw Watchmen I went out with no easy-to-spot geek marker. I was quite agitated at the line, as well as being VERY agitated at the number of children waiting in that line. I was practically snarling. So please consider there are many reasons a woman might not be wearing a Watchman button, or might be upset that have nothing to do with her not wanting to see the movie. I think you have to admit a tad bit of assumption on your part there. I appreciate that your blog was more about the numbers, but I also feel it’s not enough to label something a stereotype and carry on with it. You’ve got to do away with the stereotype altogether at some point.
"Hollywood is in exactly the same position with these comic book movies - they made a bunch of money in the first flush of them, but now they're increasingly derivative and familiar feeling - as they should be because they're based on COMIC BOOKS, the world's simplest form of story-telling, next to cave painting."
One man's opinion. I would hope that people would be able to tell the difference between a graphic novel and the run of the mill comic book. They blend the best of both worlds of story telling and pictures. People tend to try and lump them into the "Kiddie corner" just because the charcters are in costumes, but forget that graphic novels gave us "V for Vendetta," "The Road to Perdition," and "A History of Violence." Each movie had great storylines and were far from being "the worlds simplest form of story-telling, next to cave painting"
One of the best stories and best movies in 10 years. I'll have to see again to fully take in all the nuances used to tell the story and the details but never the less a thinking graphic novel fan product. Finally !!!
When can we expect the directors cut DVD ??
I got the sound track yesterday.
This post reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of comic books and Watchmen's position in that world. Trying to compare and draw conclusions about movies like the Batman, X-Men, Hulk, Iron Man, etc., to Watchmen, is like trying to draw conclusions about public reaction to a film adaptation of, say, Anna Karenina based on how the last Harry Potter movie did. I mean, they're both adaptations of novels, right? But those two books have MORE in common, probably, than Watchmen and any upcoming Jonah Hex or Green Lantern film.
If Watchmen is a huge success, it does not necessarily bode well for other comic book movies, and conversely, if it nosedives from now on, it does not necessarily bode ill for the next comic book adaptation. Although the story first appeared in comic form, Watchmen is a different sort of thing from other comic books and other comic book movies.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
Regardless of what our opinions of Watchmen are, it is still considered a big budget superhero comic book adaptation. Thus, when discussing the business side of the film, that is how it must be dealt with. Yes, comic books are a varying art form, but superhero stories that originated in comic book form are compared with each other. It's not like the success or failure of Watchmen has any impact on something like Maus or Cancer Mom, but it does have an effect on superhero adaptations that may come down the pike. It does have an effect on whether something like Powers gets a big screen treatment, and the budget and casting freedom that said film might have.
This heterosexual male and recovering fanboy didn't see it. I'm already ODing on comic book movies, I get too much full-frontal male nudity at the gym as it is, the concept's been done already for greater comedic effect, and it looked like it was trying to be the very movie it was denouncing.
I've already told hubby I want to see this movie. I see women are outnumbering you on this one.
If this movie IS at best a repeat of X-Men, it can't be all that bad, because the 3rd X-Men is coming soon.
I thought the movie was quite gender friendly. I went in a group with 4 women and they all loved it. I was a little disappointed in some of the standard cliches, but I'm not a comic book person.
It's actually the fourth X-MEN, and WATCHMEN strikes me as a more brooding repeat of MYSTERY MEN.
If you haven't seen it, you shouldn't make judgments about it. How it "strikes you" is irrelevant, under the circumstances.
I read the graphic novel several years ago, so much of what I remembered has faded into oblivion. I enjoyed the film, and even though some spots felt padded, in the end even those "padded" parts added up to a more fulfilling whole. My only criticism would be that by slavishly adhering to the 1985 setting, it drained some of the relevance from the film. I read Alex Tse's version of the screenplay in which he'd updated the setting to present day, and it definitely amped up the tension. I guess it was really a no-win situation though...if the word of mouth is "poisonous" now from fanboys, it probably would have been even moreso had they changed the timeline...although it might have been offset by a more positive word of mouth from those who aren't devoted to the original graphic novel.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
