Slashdot Mirror
How Watchmen Killed 'R'-rated Fantasy Movies
An anonymous reader writes "Of all the Hollywood properties consigned to development hell in the reductionist policy of the last 3-4 years of bad economy, the very last to have a prospect of a green light are expensive fantasy and SF projects that fall outside the 'family' remit. Not even the addition of James Cameron to David Fincher's Heavy Metal remake has stopped its begging-bowl passage from studio to studio; Robert Rodriguez's propriety of the Barbarella remake likewise toured the world in vain, apparently unmindful of the very unusual set of cultural and demographic circumstances that caused a major studio to back an 'erotic space opera' in 1968 — and to the fact that these circumstances are not likely to reoccur. David Fincher lamented in 2008 that the creation of dazzling artificial movie worlds is limited to family-friendly output — but in the long wake of the box-office disappointment of the 'R'-rated Watchmen movie, there seems no current prospect that the adults will ever get to play with the kids' toys again." The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
I wasn't very happy about the altered ending or the removal of the guy reading the comic book.
Summation 2
Watchmen was an overlong, overwrought, overly wordy, over hyped, over produced mess.
It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, good.
The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
Well, that was your opinion as a fan of the comic, I imagine. I am not a comic guy, saw the ads and didn't find myself particularly wanting to see it. I might Netflix it at some point, but it's not currently in my queue.
I strongly suspect the real issue is there aren't enough people with taste similar to yours to make the types of movies you want to see financially viable. I know it's frustrating - many of my favorite TV shows over the past 20 years have quickly withered - but that's life. There's no need to look for a broader conspiracy, although people do seem predisposed to finding conspiracies even when none exists.
#DeleteChrome
Really? I thought it was one of the most faithful adaptations of anything I've ever seen
I can get you a faithful adaptation short video of a dog taking a dump on the side walk. It could be the most faithful adaptation ever constructed. But you know what? It's still just a video of a dog taking a crap.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
But there's no reason that they couldn't make them and turn a decent profit. The real problem is that the studios think a 'big name' movie needs to have a $150 million (or more) budget. If you spend that kind of money of course you're going to have problems turning a profit on a movie that half your potential audience can't, or doesn't want to see simply because of the rating. But, if you can cut just a few corners, user lesser known actors (but then you might actually have to put some effort into casting! The horror!), and independent special effects companies you can make a movie for 1/5th the typical Hollywood action movie budget and it becomes much more profitable.
District 9 is the quintessential modern example. Unknown actors, small special effects company trying to prove itself, a cheap filming location, etc. Revenues of $210 million (barely enough to come out ahead for a typical action sci-fi movie), but because of the much smaller budget ($30 million) it was a roaring financial success. Because when you come down to it, the actors were surprisingly effective, special effects just shouldn't cost tens of millions of dollars anymore, and it is the story first and the action second that people want to see and the film delivers both very well; over hyped special effects and famous actors a distant 3rd and 4th in the action sci-fi genre.
This is as bad as the remake of Red Dawn, yeah for those who didn't know they are doing a remake of Red Dawn.
There was zero reason to Watchmen to have released as R rated. If anything I got the distinct impression they were after that so all those geeks who would see the film regardless of rating could somehow feel smug that they were seeing an serious "artsy" film, you know what I mean.
Who needs nudity to tell most of these stories? This is starting to sound like I am in MMORPG where every other word in chat is a cuss word or bigoted as if that somehow elevates the participants to a higher level of maturity or intelligence.
Just give me good stories. Nudity is a cop out, the examples all cited by the article are dwell on nudity. Sorry, Alien was rated R for violence and gore and it was a damn site better than Watchmen. It was story and the presentation of the story that mattered, not who was wearing what.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I liked Heavy Metal and Avatar was fun to watch, but Avatar's biggest problem was morality-driven plot simpler than "do good" books you'd give to a six year old. From a story perspective, Heavy Metal seemed more involved (and fairly non-linear given the segments involved different characters and animation styles).
IMHO, "good" movies for adults have plots that share the real world's complexities, moral ambiguities and trade-offs. Nothing in the real world is as straightforward and simple as the dumb plot in Avatar.
This is part of the problem with these R-rated fantasy/comic movies. Watchmen is pretty heavy stuff both from a philosophical and situational perspective. I saw the movie on a plane flying to my vacation and came off of it depressed and with a heavy heart despite the basic outcome. In that respect, the movie did its job. The adult comic genre is really a way for many artists to express themselves on very adult topics without having a huge production budget and just some decent drawing talent.
Watchmen wasn't too dissimilar to the bittersweet ending of Sin City. You liked the characters, but most of the "good" (read: likable) guys actually die. The key is that both of these comics explore the subtlety that what is good versus bad isn't cut and dried. Most people aren't really willing to spend their two hours of escape dealing with these subjects and want to see the bad guy lose because it represents their boss or ex or some other negative character in their lives.
Contrast Watchmen and Sin City with LOTR: ROTK where the ending was again turned into a much happier event than what was in the books. Now look at which of these three movies I discussed made the most money. That's what the studio execs are most interested in. I just hope the genre doesn't completely go away because of straight money concerns. Sometimes producing art for its own sake is a worth cause.
No, what stuck out the most (to me, at least) was that the penis demonstrated better acting than anyone in that movie.
You must be awfully insecure to be offended by having seen a penis in a movie. Like... omg? It was not in any way or form the main point of the scene, nor did it play any part in the actual story, it was just a person being temporarily naked. It's pretty common in movies and I can bet you wouldn't have been offended had it been breasts or vagina, it's only because it happened to be the male body part.
As a side-note: in Finnish movies it's common to have scenes where the actors are naked in some situations, like for example if they happen to be in sauna or come out of one, and no one gets a fit about that. It simply is so normal and a part of many people's daily lives. And then again, nudity isn't depicted as an erotic situation or anything like that. It's sometimes funny how foreigners have so mixed reactions to such scenes: some react like OP for having seen a male penis, some are just excited about how casual Finns are about it, some get enormously embarrassed and try to look anywhere else but the screen..
Meh, I've seen better blue wieners. I believe the real reason Watchmen tanked is that it came out a little bit too late. When times are good, people can enjoy gritty anti-heroes. When times are tight, they hate ambiguity in their heroes and want something a lot more black and white than Watchmen.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Well, from my perspective. Having watched the film on a 80ft or so tall IMAX screen, I left the movie feeling totally inadequate.
The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
And The Dark Knight, rated PG-13, was easily 10 times better than Watchmen. Why so hung up on ratings? Why so... serious?
Meh, I've seen better blue wieners
One of the most insightful comments in this entire discussion - but I have no mod points today!
I take it this is a warning not to bother reading the rest of the comments?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's not even that one particular movie can ruin the chances of other, completely unrelated movies. It's simply that the whole premise of 'rating' a movie based on specific content without any context is a stupid idea. So there is some nudity in Watchmen. So what? Do you think a pair of breasts is going break the fragile little mind of a 10 year old? Yes, I'm sure some people think that, but why should the nation as a whole suffer from it? Let them start their own, even more conservative rating system, one which the general public can ignore.
To compare things, I just looked up the rating for Watchmen in the Netherlands. It's 16, which is the highest rating we've got. (it's all, 6, 9, 12, 16) This isn't that unusual. For example, it was the same rating given to the Dark Knight. It's probably due more to violence than nudity.
However, there was no need for a full frontal Dr. Manhattan.
I simply do not get at all why people get hung up about this. The guy can't be bothered with clothes anymore and nobody dares to tell him otherwise anymore. What's the issue?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I'm not against seeing things that are giant and / or blue, but I prefer my movies without penis shots. Call me crazy.
Genuine question: Why do you care? This comes up everytime the Watchmen movie is discussed and I just don't get it. I watched the whole film without any particular reaction to his dick. It's just a dick.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
While Zoic Studios may be small, I'd say they've proven themselves several times over BEFORE District 9. Here's just a quick list of what they've worked on, starting from 2003 and going forward.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
I think it sums up everything wrong with Watchman, the whole film seemed to be trying to be edgy to an unnecessary degree.
What did seeing it do? The story for Dr M already showed him disconnected from reality several well aimed shots could easily show he was naked without having to see a bare ass or penis.
Its like Torchwood, Dexter or True Blood, the first time you see something edgy is cool but for example I've grown bored of the sex scenes in True Blood and skip through them. If I want to watch porn, I'll watch porn. Watchmen was edgy for edgy for edgy's sake.
The Dark Knight was far darker and adult when compared to Watchman.
I love adult sci-fi, however when you look at that list of examples, it's easy to see why they aren't going anywhere. They're all remakes of movies that have been done. Surly there is at least one original script floating around hollywood? Does every movie have to be a remake, or based on a comic book?
I think it sums up everything wrong with Watchman, the whole film seemed to be trying to be edgy to an unnecessary degree. What did seeing it do? The story for Dr M already showed him disconnected from reality several well aimed shots could easily show he was naked without having to see a bare ass or penis.
See, to me I have to question why you're starting from the position of his nudity having to be done for the sake of "edginess" or why other ways of showing his increasing detachment could be used without "having to see a bare ass or penis". You've taken for granted that we should not see such things without there being a special reason for it, and in the case of Watchman where there is a reason for it, you've expressed that another way of satisfying that reason should have been found. Implicit in your argument is an assumption that his nudity is a bad thing that should only be included in special circumstances. Whereas from my point of view, it's a complete non-issue not requiring any justification. What I'm curious about is why you see it differently.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.