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*.

12 of 771 comments (clear)

  1. Good? by berj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Watchmen was an overlong, overwrought, overly wordy, over hyped, over produced mess.

    It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, good.

    1. Re:Good? by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, good." - (Score:0, Troll)

      "For my part, it is one of the best movies I have ever seen." - (Score:5, Insightful)

      Neither of these comments is a troll or insightful.

      Who watches the watchmen? Clearly nobody mods the moderators.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    2. Re:Good? by sexconker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Watchmen was an overlong, overwrought, overly wordy, over hyped, over produced mess.

      It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, good.

      This is 100% correct. Mode me troll and flamebait, I don't give a fuck.

      Watchmen was a bad movie and it failed because it was a bad movie.
      Is Slashdot going to post an article next week about Scott Pilgrim and how it was actually a good movie?

      Being different, weird, and so against the grain to the point of being contrarian, doesn't make something unique, deep, or good. It just makes anti-social people feel better for liking it, as well as more inclined to like it in the first place because it's different, weird, and contrarian - just like them.

      The only things the general public saw when they saw Watchmen were an unnecessary blue dick, a bad plot, forced edginess in the form of "we're heroes, but we're so dark and moody we often act like villains and play out our own little soap opera in our secret club", and shitty costumes that screamed "Batman Ripoff".
      And you know what? This was one of the rare occasions when the general public got something right.

      If you liked it, fine. Enjoy your movie.
      But to say that it would have done better if it was PG-13 is a joke.

    3. Re:Good? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is long, but for very good reason

      I might be confused by the new Slashdot look mangling the threading - are we still talking about the penis?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. Re:It was OK by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That depends on whether you evaluate it as an adaptation of the comic or on its own merits, of course. Having not read the comic (and having no desire to, for that matter), I evaluated the movie simply as a movie, and in that regard I thought it was excellent. One of the best movies I've ever seen.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  3. Not the same thing by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Not the same thing by scot4875 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Translation:

      1) "I have no attention span; I need flashes of light and loud noises to enjoy a movie"
      2) "I can't follow a story more complex than 'good guy vs. bad guy' or 'guy wants to fuck/date/marry girl'"
      3) "Nuance is lost on me. Even when I have characters that are textured enough to sleep with someone who attempted to rape them, I still can't see anything interesting in them."
      4) see 1
      5) "In a 2 hour movie, I focused on maybe 5 minutes of narration"

      Please, give us more details on why you don't like this movie.

      Also, what do you recommend? The "Ow My Balls" channel?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  4. Most faithful adaptation != Good by RingDev · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  5. Re:Games Instead by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Or are you happy to see me? by Wumpus · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, what stuck out the most (to me, at least) was that the penis demonstrated better acting than anyone in that movie.

  7. Re:Or are you happy to see me? by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:It was good. by Synn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, from my perspective. Having watched the film on a 80ft or so tall IMAX screen, I left the movie feeling totally inadequate.