Slashdot Mirror
Watchmen 50 Days On, Was It Worth the Gamble?
brumgrunt writes "Friday marks the 50th day on general release for what was the long-awaited Watchmen movie. But how much money has it made, and how has it measured up to Warner Bros' expectations? Has it, bluntly, been worth the gamble, expense and hassle? "
When Watchmen shot out of the blocks to an opening weekend of $55m in the US back at the start of March, there were some mutterings of discontent that this wasn't quite the kind of number that Warner Bros was looking for.
Well, to be fair, stateside that puts it at #6 for opening weekend for a Rated R movie. And 64th overall. Worldwide so far it's sitting at $180+ million and, like the article said, DVD and Blu-Ray sales often make a big difference.
... so what is the problem exactly? You've made the #6 most popular R rated movie by opening weekend in the United States. Job well done. I assure you that DVD and Blu-Ray sales will net you a lot of money. Especially with that Curse of the Black Freighter stuff you withheld from the movie.
I've heard that the estimated budget was $100 million. So they've made $80 million over that
It was always going to be a harder sell than a Batman or Spider-man movie ...
For the love of all things binary, I thought it was common knowledge that you cannot compare rated R movies to PG-13 movies. Every single Batman & Spider-man movie has been rated below R.
The movie did well and I'm sure it was worth it.
My work here is dung.
Warner Bros made money. If they make a good director's cut they will make a boat load of new money.
>I've heard that the estimated budget was $100 million. So they've made $80 million over that ...
>so what is the problem exactly?
The usual rule of thumb is that a film needs to make 2.5-3 times it's budget before it's profitable - that allows for everyone in the chain, cinemas etc to get their cut. As such, Watchman needs to make around $300m before it makes the studio happy.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Totally worth it. A bunch of my friends who had never read Watchmen, and really aren't the reading types, made it out to see the movie and we all had a long discussion about Rorschach and the Comedian, and how much we loved Dan Dreiberg.
Movie was good, Watchmen is good to make a movie about, end of story.
You're ignoring the opportunity cost. Sure, it'll end up returning 3 times the amount it cost to make, which is a decent profit, but could the studio have spent that money making another (or two, or three other) films that would have done better? If so then Watchmen was the wrong choice. In this case would they have been better off making a couple of PG-13 films?
http://twitter.com/onion2k
I am one who rarely buys a DVD and even rare-er buys a bluray.
I will in fact be buying Watchmen. and a LOT of others I know will be as well.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It was argued that movies like TDK showed that a darker, more serious summer movie could fill seats and rake in cash, and likewise a few years ago The Matrix Reloaded was making money hand over fist long after the hype train was derailed, in spite of an R rating and a relatively cerebral (most would say pretentiously so) story. Both successes challenged conventional wisdom about the summer blockbuster and probably opened the door for Watchmen to a degree.* I worry that Watchmen's unimpressive gross will convince studios to close that door again and be more conservative with content and tone on their big-ticket movies. Where then for Iron Man 2's mooted alcoholism subplot?
*I know Watchmen was in production by the time TDK arrived in 2008, but a lot could've been left on the cutting-room floor if the studio had seen that year's adult superhero movie flop.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Has it, bluntly, been worth the gamble, expense and hassle? "
It's not worth the gamble, expense, and hassle to go see a movie in the theater any more. Speaking as part of the core audience for this movie (as in, I actually own the graphic novel) there is no fucking way that I'll go to a theater to see much of anything any more. I actually found it cheaper to buy an HDTV than to go to the movies once a month for a year. Unfortunately for the Blu-Ray wankers, I also find that an upconverted DVD looks fucking fantastic. If I were the kind of person who paused stills so that I could bitch about compression artifacting maybe I would feel differently. Finally, I find that I rewatch movies less and less these days, so I won't buy the movie on any form of media. At this point it looks like I'll be renting a DVD from Netflix.
The distributors have been ratcheting up the price of getting the print in your movie theater to the point where diminishing returns are in full effect. My understanding is that pretty much none of the ticket price typically goes to a theater. For the price of two people going to see the movie, you can buy the DVD. Or better yet, get netflix for a month. If they want asses in theater seats, they're going to have to drop the cost to the theater. And if they want people to spread buzz about their movies, they're going to need those asses in those seats. The movie industry is going to slaughter itself, and it can't happen soon enough for me — not because I want less movies to be produced, but because I think that moviestars have too much influence in our culture.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Talk about scraping the bottom for story submissions. Are we going to start getting updates to see whether Marley & Me was worth it too?
This movie is going to shine on the home movie market â" for one really good reason. It's a move a lot of us geek men love but not really one to take a date to. (sure, some of you have that type of woman, but face it, those are a rare type) The guys who had to miss the theatrical release because they didn't want to go to the movies alone because that's just lame are going to buy the DVD, because you can watch that alone, and you have have your to cheap to buy a movie ticket friends watch it with you. (BTW â" I watched it alone, after work, I got off of work at 11:00 PM)
The theatre I usually go to in Baton Rouge had a sign clearly displayed saying have your ID ready for Watchmen, we will be checking. I don't know how many theaters checked ID's nation wide, but face it, it's easier for under aged comic fans to buy a DVD than it is to get into an R-rated movie in some places. Granted in some other places it's the opposite, but never mind that.
Let's not forget, some movies just shine on DVD anyways. Who here honestly watched Office Space in the theatre when it premiered? Everyone saw the home release! (I think it went back to the theaters once, but I'm not certain) Tarintino movies, how many did you see in the box office? Probably more at home than in a theatre seat. I wouldn't be surprised if the home release take rivals the theatrical take.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
>Still - I'll bet that DVD sales are good.
Yep. It will be Serenity all over again.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I've heard that the estimated budget was $100 million. So they've made $80 million over that ... so what is the problem exactly?
The problem is that Hollywood Execs are not looking to be successful on a scale of 'job well done', and nor should they, from their paradigm. Their paradigm is manufacturing success, through advertising, TV spots, trailers, awareness campaigns, viral marketing, celebrity whoring, and as many other nefarious tactics as they can get away with, in order to absolutely 100% guarantee a certain level of success.
Just doing alright is a failure, from that paradigm.
A success would be the biggest opening weekend of all time. And that's what we see, again and again. Look, and you will see that this record is broken by every other truly triple-A blockbuster, probably happens a couple of times a year or more.
The real sign of failure is that video games now have even bigger opening weekends - Halo 3, followed hotly by GTA 4, really showed Holywood what an opening weekend could be.
Let the whoring begin!
I've heard that the estimated budget was $100 million. So they've made $80 million over that ... so what is the problem exactly?
Opportunity cost. $100m invested in The Watchmen can't be invested elsewhere, and if $100m invested in another movie would have given higher profits, then they didn't make as much money as they could have.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
that moviemakers gut the mythology of a work in order to bring it onto screen
they didn't do that here
sure, they got rid of the squid, but peter jackson also got rid of mr. bombadil from lotr and no one seems to give him that much flak for that. both the squid and mr. bombadil are kind of completely out of context of the stories they inhabit, so really, no big deal
obviously, the filmmakers, directors, writers: they had passion for the work. but that's actually the source of the criticism they get: that it was TOO committed to the material. the issue was that they made the movie a slavish devotion to a frame-by-frame reading of the material, which was a herculean task, and also mostly successful, but only on that measure
and yet they get flak for it: that it was hollow, eeriely emotionally empty for being a frame-by-frame remake. that's been the substance of a lot of critical reviews
the lesson: you can't satisfy everyone. if you are adopting a major literary work to film, just go with your gut, be prepared to piss off the fanboy fundamentalists, and be prepared to go over the heads of a lot of the audience. because if you pander too much to the fanbots or the general public, you either water down what makes the material great, or you make a cult movie that you will still be hypercriticized for, because, in the end, there just is no satisfying the fundamentalist fanboys
the best anyone can do is hope for success like peter jackson and lotr. he's pretty much the gold standard now for adapting much loved literary works to screen. meanwhile, watchmen was received lukewarm critical, and lukewarm popular
so the final commentary is: meh, its ok, whatever
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This the sort of feature that will be able to have about 5 different DVD releases, with the niche market running out to buy every version. You can have the theatrical release, which will occur in the next few months, and about six months after that then you can have your director's cut release, and then a year after that you can have your "Ultimate Director's Edition!" which will cost 3 X as much as the Theatrical release and include inane commentary and material that was left on the cutting room floor for a reason.
The studios will be fine, they just won't make the killing that they'd like too on it!
Silly Dr. Manhattan. You could've just remembered you watching it in the future, and not bothered going. Except then you wouldn't have seen it, so you'd have to go, and then you would have seen it, so you don't have to go and...
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
There was a significant amount of back story missing from the movie. I did not read the graphic novels or any of that stuff and instead watched it without any previous knowledge or experience. There was quite a curve to overcome with regards to character development and the background stories. While most things were answered in some way eventually, the flow was still more confusing than it needed to be and they should have realized that prior to opening day. It wasn't just another "super hero" movie.
What SHOULD they have done? Easy -- release and play some mini episodes that show off the characters in their glory days while promoting the movie itself. This would have built more enthusiasm for the movie and would have given viewers who would not have otherwise been familiar with the characters a greater level of comfort and more ease getting into the story. This could also have resulted in better story development without having to flash back too much.
Fuck the studios' happiness. These are the same people who claimed to the author of FORREST GUMP that there were no net profits to share with him. You remember that bomb, doncha? Only made $330M domestic in theatres. How anybody at that studio could afford to feed a family after that disaster is beyond me. And by "family" I mean "cocaine habit."
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Has it, bluntly, been worth the gamble, expense and hassle?
Bluntly, it's not my money, or my time, or my movie, so why are you asking me if it was worth it ?
It would be cool if the producers read slashdot, but I doubt it.
There's already three announced.
You got your vanilla release, your director's cut and your director's complete cut which'll have Black Freighter interwoven with the Watchmen story.
I for one can't wait till they release the Watchmen Babies edition... V for Vacation sounds awesome
"In this case would they have been better off making a couple of PG-13 films?
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll eventually make the money back off the animated series :)
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
You think that's bad? Lucasarts is still telling David Prowse (the guy who wore the Vader suit) that Return of the Jedi still hasn't turned a profit.
Made my wife sick to her stomach.
I loved it. I'll catch it on HBO like 6 times...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Oh please, step down from your high horse. You just look like an ass.
There's nothing wrong with wanting an intelligent movie. I enjoy them as well. But sometimes I just want something that's just fun to watch, no matter how much the story lacks.
I find it funny how much a penis really bothers people.
Love that is was Long.
You mean the movie, or....?
You're seriously comparing a movie that did $180 million worldwide to a movie that did $34 million worldwide?? And don't tell me to look at the budgets, granted Serenity's was less but it didn't even make it up.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the hell out of that movie, but using it to predict Watchmen's performance is a little fallacious...
I believe with marketing, and the fact that FOX wanted their pound of flesh, it was closer to 200 million.
That's 38 million, sorry for the typo.
Sorry but that is fucking ridiculous. If you can't make a profit off a 180% return on your investment something is seriously flawed with the business model, and you need to figure out what you did wrong.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
And this is why I don't go to the movies anymore.
Why the fucking hell would I pay 10$ to see an INCOMPLETE movie? And it's VOLUNTARY incomplete too?
Fuck you, studio executives.
No way. Theaters usually get to keep between 25% and ZERO percent of ticket proceeds. Yes, sometimes it's zero; for really big films that people are sure will pack the theater, often the theaters have to agree to turn all ticket proceeds over to the studio, and make whatever profit they can off the overpriced popcorn etc.
Worst case, a film might need to make 50% over its production cost in box office revenue to turn a profit, but usually it's more like 20% over production cost.
Where is this rule of thumb? This is Hollywood accounting by the way where Forrest Gump with a budget of $55 million grossed over $670 million at the box office but was declared "unprofitable" by Paramount in order to avoid paying royalties to Winston Groom who wrote the novel. Mr. Groom unfortunately did not know that most of Hollywood write their contracts to get a cut of the gross not the net revenue because the infamous Hollywood accounting. Paramount later settled their dispute with Winston only because they really wanted to make the sequel.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There is a reason for this, the expectation of watching in a Movie Theater is different from watch at home on DVD
For Movie Theaters there is an expected time span, expected content (enough "backstory" so people who just decided on a whim to see it will understand what's going on, but not all the small nuances that true fans enjoy), and rated low enough to grab the widest audience.
For DVDs there is an expectation for in-depth information (commentaries, blooper reels, featuretts, etc.), more freedom given to time span (put it on pause for a bathroom break, or sit down tomorrow night and select the chapter you left off at), and a bigger market for rated R or 'unrated' material (Unrated editions of just about every movie ever made, and they're selling them at Wallmart!)
So, while it is an 'incomplete' movie as far as comparing it to the directors cut, it is complete as far as Movie Theater expectations.
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
My moma always said that watching a movie sequel is like eating an entire box of chocolate, just after you finish eating an entire box of chocolate. It usually makes you sick to your stomach...
Apparently the Extended version will run up to an hour longer than the Theatrical cut.
While the Watchmen movie wasn't perfect, and while it might not have earned as much as they wanted it to; I fully expect the DvD version of the movie to sell very very well.
The Long Now Foundation
But I'm also glad that I didn't have a stake in it - It had to be an unsettling investment for those who did. It's got to feel good to have participated, but it was obviously a gamble from the beginning. Watchmen is definitely aimed at a niche market.
On the contrary, it was probably a pretty predictable quantity compared to other movies. Not that any new release is predictable, but this one wasn't anything like 300 or Sin City where they were hoping to pull in people who knew nothing about the source material, or like Persepolis where it was unknown whether the enthusiasm for the books would last through the release of the movie (and where there was probably a lot of doubt that fans of the books would even bother to see the movie.) It was a so-so movie based on a popular and prestigious graphic novel. They knew the size of the niche. They knew that the readership of the graphic novel would contain more movie fans than the general population, and, having test-screened the movie, they knew it wouldn't break out to a broader audience or inspire massive rewatching.
Assuming that the broadcast and rental rights were sold before the film screened, the DVD sales are probably the riskiest part -- how many people want to see it again? Will fans of the graphic novel want to buy a movie that failed to do the source material justice (inevitably and maybe blamelessly, but still)?
You may have seen an advert for it, but not realised. The advert for Watchmen was just dramatic music and silent clips and didn't describe the movie at all.
Kevin Bolk is drawing "Watchbabies" strips on his art site. They're actually quite funny.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
What about the extended and expanded editions, not to mention character-specific editions, the Gold edition, and the Super edition?
And the McDonald's Special Edition, which includes a short badly animated cartoon about Ronald McDonald teaming up with Roscharch and Doctor Manhattan to catch hamburger thieves.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
How is it that marketing costs don't figure into the budget?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I often prefer the theater cut to the "extended" or "unrated" or "special" edition. Most of the time, the material that I see in the extra scenes drags on, and it is readily apparent WHY that material was left out in the first place.
Oh they profit from the investment, it's only on paper that they don't profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Basically if you give all the money to other companies that arent your company but really are because you are both owned by the same people, you've on paper lost a ton of money (they call it gross), but that's only on paper.
Whats funny to me is that after screwing over the author of Forest Gump, the studios approached him for rights to the sequel. As the wiki page mentions, he told them he "he cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure." So, good job guys, you've ensured you're never going to make money from the second movie.
I swear if people across this country put half the thought into their buisness that they do into how to cheat their way into more money, we'd have no economic troubles and would nationally be 10 trillion in black rather than in red. And we'd have much better movies.
You're missing the math, not on budget, but on earnings. The film "brought in" that amount to theatres, not to the production company.
If you make widgets at $1 a piece, and sell them at $2 a piece, you're not making as much money as people think if the local store is buying them at $1.25 from their distributor and the distributor buys them off you at $1.05 each.
In this case, the movie tickets sold value is what we're seeing, not the price WB got from its distributors who got that money from theatres who are themselves probably making a killing.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
It would have been groundbreaking. 20+ years after it broke ground, everyone alerady has been playing in it's territory. There is nothing (on the face of things) that is new or fresh 20 years later. Dont get me wrong, I worked at a comic book store in 1986 and I was reading the comic as it came out. I understand what it did for comics as a whole but in the movie business these things are not new for 2009. The movie is just too late to be the blockbuster it could have been.
Come on... really? $180M at the box office does not mean $180M for the studio. Cinemas split the box office proceeds 50/50 with the Studio. So, 90M for the studio... they haven't broken even yet.
Was one mention of the blue penis not enough? Did we needed another, more descriptive, big blue penis?
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
"hamburger thieves"?
You're obviously referring to Hamburglars...
They made a better action-adventure story, but a worse work of literature.
I re-read the book right after I saw the movie, and I hadn't realized how many character details they had cut.
They left in visual details, plot details... I honestly thought the plot adjustments were fine. But they skipped on so many of the little character lines that made them people with depth.
I will probably be buying the ultra-extended black freighter dvd anyway, though, just to see what they managed to add back in.
So the cited budget includes what exactly?
It doesn't work like that: the studios don't hand out "cuts" like thugs after robbing a bank. Profits of the marketers, distributors, cinameas, etc. are included in the budget, because all those people don't get "cuts" - they offer services and the studio buys them. It is not the job of the studio to ensure they get profit.
Sorry, but this sort of talk is just a weak attempt to cover up the fact that big studios are literally wading through cash, and their arguments about piracy hurting them stem from pathological greed.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
You do not want this movie to be financially successful, otherwise the studio will insist on producing a sequel.
That would be LucasFILM... not LucasARTS. Lucasarts makes video games and were one of the best studios around until they started churning 100% Star Wars crap....
Lucasfilm once had some of the best films under its belt until it started churning out Star Wars "prequel" crap..
Hmmm... I see a pattern emerging.....
I don't know how those deals work now, but back when I was in the theater business, this was not true at all. Big blockbuster movie like that, all of the box office went to the studio. Cinema made their bundle from concessions. Think about what the markup is on soda and popcorn.
OK, I'm one of those "cranks" who remembers how moviegoing USED to be, and considers the current "experience" extremely inferior.
It used to be, you'd go to a big, beautiful PALACE with thousands of seats and a gorgeous environment. Even if you lived in a small town, the local movie theatre was a glamorous, special place.
This was before mobile phones. And there would be a special room for mothers to take squalling babies or toddlers having a tantrum, called the "women's lounge."
In the 1960s, theatre owners, in an industry maybe didn't DIE because of TV but took a big, big hit, came up with the concept of the "cinemaplex." More choice! More people can go see movies suiting THEIR taste, not the programmer at the local movie palace. I live near where one of the first American multiplex theatres, The Americana 5 in Panorama City, CA, was built in 1964. It had one "big room" for what was then known as "road show" releases, the big movie expected to be the blockbuster of the moment. It also had four smaller rooms...and I really mean smaller. 200 seat shoeboxes as opposed to the 1,000 seat "big room." People went anyway, and the theatre chains realized they could make more money because they'd go to the movies regardless of the amenities or lack of them. They didn't really have a choice in the pre-home video and pre-HBO/Showtime days. You either saw the movie in the theatre or you waited for it to come on TV, and that wait would be literally years.
Eventually the "big room" was subdivided in two in the mid '70s, and the Americana 5 became, for a time, the Americana 6. It was only due to the decline of the neighborhood and the competition of cable and home video that the Pacific Theatres knocked down the thin subdivision barrier and turned the two theatres back into "the big room" again. Amazingly enough, the Pacific Americana underwent a bit of a renaissance for a while. They would have events, geared towards the local predominantly Latino populace, where Spanish-language movies, free concerts after the movie and appearances by local Spanish-language radio personalities would be part of the fun. Selena did one event and the immediate area surrounding the Americana was mobbed. The LAPD had to be called in to do crowd control.
Eventually the Mann Theatres chain put in the Mann's Plant 16 a couple of miles down the road at the big-box mall that replaced the long shuttered GM assembly plant. This was what killed the Americana. The Pacific Theatre Group unloaded it on a couple of locals who went indie. It got more and more run down, started playing second-run movies in both English and Spanish for bargain prices, and when things broke, they stayed broke. The last movie I saw in the "big room" there was Prince of Egypt. The movie theatre that every year around Easter would play "The Ten Commandments" had its swan-song with another retelling of the Moses myth. It was sad to see the place go. The area where the four small theatres stood is now a school of cosmetology. The old "big room" was once an indoor futbol arena where people would play pickup soccer games, and is now a banquet hall which, ironically, boasts a nice big movie screen. It is also more ornate than the "big room" at the Americana ever was.
Anyway, huge digression. The multiplex movie theatre encouraged a degradation of movie theatre etiquette. Going to a little shoebox theatre was less special than going to the community movie palace. People didn't have the same sense of "occasion" going to the movies. In a lot of respects, the experience of going to one of these theatres was like the drive-in experience. Often a theatre chain would knock down a drive-in and replace it with a mega multiplex. They could show more movies to more people and it was a more intelligent use of land. And with the competition of cable, home video, "sell-through" home video, and finally the DVD, there were now real choices about how to see a movie.
So yeah, theatres are not exactly
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Lots of people went to see it. As stated elsewhere, it was the 6th biggest R-Rated opening ever. It also is the 3rd best performing movie so far in 2009. It perhaps underperformed against what Warners HOPED it would be, but it will be one of the bigger films of the year. There might be 5-10 movies that do better this year. It's not a flop, and it will turn a profit.
Nudity is never unnecessary. What is wrong with viewing the human body?
"But this one goes to 11!"
For the love of all things binary, I thought it was common knowledge that you cannot compare rated R movies to PG-13 movies. Every single Batman & Spider-man movie has been rated below R.
Let's compared it with Sin City then. Data from imdb:
Watchmen
Released: March 6, 2009
Budget: $100,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend
$55,214,334 (USA) (8 March 2009) (3,611 Screens)
£3,243,001 (UK) (8 March 2009) (419 Screens)
Gross
$106,418,446 (USA) (12 April 2009)
Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/business (TFA data may be more current than this)
Sin City
Released: April 1, 2005
Budget: $40,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend
$29,120,273 (USA) (3 April 2005) (3,230 Screens)
£2,452,299 (UK) (5 June 2005) (395 Screens)
Gross
$74,098,862 (USA) (7 August 2005) <- 129 days after opening
$12,300,000 (Worldwide) (5 June 2005) (except USA) <- 66 days after opening
Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401792/business
What part of the tags "bluepenis" and "bigbluepenis" makes you think this wasn't the porn version? ;-)
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Indeed. I have read several reviews before seeing the movie and they all spent a full paragraph talking about blue swinging schlongs throughout the movie. I expected that Dr. Manhattan had bludgeoned several people with his penis, or that it had some speaking scenes. In reality there are a couple of shots that briefly show full frontal nudity. Maybe reviewers were shown some un-edited version of the movie?
Why is a penis obnoxious? Inwhat way does it make it not PG-13? Does it work like nipples?
Maybe the rating system is broken? Or viewers are idiots?
I was most pleased to watch the Lord Of The Rings extended DVD editions, because, unlike the theatrical cuts, they had enough of the plot to actually make sense.
(I am likely an outlier, as I loved the LOTR movies but have read the books precisely once and never plan to again.)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Not that I know if that 2.5 factor is correct, but "Make a profit" doesn't mean "no losses"... it means having the move perform adequately as an investment given its risk. Investors need at least as much money as they would have gotten in some other comparable (risk-wise) investment. If the returns are too low it would have been better to put the money in safer investments that would have yielded the same profit.
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
Well hi there!
I'm the web admin for Interrobang Studios. We're grateful that people have been interested in Kevin's work doing Watchbabies comics. Since a lot of folks are interested in this strip, we'll be publishing a comic of the Watchbabies strips in the near future.
Right now we're actually in the process of a major site re-org (specifically to get more content like Watchbabies on-site). Anybody who's interested in watchbabies updates can e-mail watchbabies@interrobangstudios.com or subscribe to the Interrobang Studios RSS feed (http://www.interrobangstudios.com/rss.php)
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
Ok ok, balance this... 5 minutes of full frontal of Dr. Quad Cock vs. 0 minutes of full frontal of Silk Specter.
Yah. Fair.
I find it weird the way people are obsessing about this. I barely noticed it. Dr. Manhattan was clearly intentionally depicted at the very trough of the uncanny valley, barely even human. He looked no more naked than a horse.
Not read the comic, so will not comment on that.
But the best part, for me, was the parents storming out with their pack of 8-15yr olds from the film and screaming (you could hear them over the cinema sound, so they were loud) at the ticket clerk for their money back, just after the rape scene.
Seriously, why the fuck would you take children to an R rated movie, regardless if the source was "a comic"?
...