TDFFFreak Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Still, a $26 million (I was off a bit in the first post) gets it halfway to recouping the budget; if it falls off the standard 50% in the second week, it only needs $10 million more domestic to break even, so with foreign box office and DVD money, it will at least be profitable - which hopefully means good things for Watchmen. But it all depends - good word of mouth may give it some legs; I wouldn't bet on that happening, though. 1377782[/snapback] Nope. I think middle America (and maybe I am underestimating Joe Movie-goer) won't like this film too much. These are not the hard core film geeks, these are the people who go to the movies to be entertained and shut their brains off for a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat1 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Still, a $26 million (I was off a bit in the first post) gets it halfway to recouping the budget; if it falls off the standard 50% in the second week, it only needs $10 million more domestic to break even, so with foreign box office and DVD money, it will at least be profitable - which hopefully means good things for Watchmen. But it all depends - good word of mouth may give it some legs; I wouldn't bet on that happening, though. A $26 mil opening really isn't that bad of an opening weekend this time of year, esp. with the NCAA Tourney going on. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much of a dropoff next week. I wanted to see it this weekend, but the weather was too bad. I'll definitely be going this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukdown Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I know one area of the movie where I felt uncomfortable, was the forced assumption that we should be rooting for the guy who's planning on blowing everything up. I thought that was pretty heavy-handed, and translated into a fairly heavy-handed almost propoganda-type feel. I mean, it's a guy like this who bombed the World Trade Center, a guy with this kind of anarchistic politics, and we're supposed to automatically put that aside and root for his success. That was one of the main objections that I had. Unlike in a movie like Munich, where the revenge is so primal and fundamental, this movie I didn't feel the backstory. It was too over-the-top, like, see, it's all really really really bad, and so, we've got to blow it up. So, in that sense, all the action seemed too easy, too pre-meditated. And I just never was really ever surprised, except for the end of the jail scene. And that was about the most poignant sequence of the movie. Otherwise, maybe I was expecting too much. So in that regard, possibly another viewing wouldn't be out of the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 No he's not like the WTC bombers, because he's not doing to it another country, but his own, to bring about change for the good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I know one area of the movie where I felt uncomfortable, was the forced assumption that we should be rooting for the guy who's planning on blowing everything up. I thought that was pretty heavy-handed, and translated into a fairly heavy-handed almost propoganda-type feel. I mean, it's a guy like this who bombed the World Trade Center, a guy with this kind of anarchistic politics, and we're supposed to automatically put that aside and root for his success. That was one of the main objections that I had. Unlike in a movie like Munich, where the revenge is so primal and fundamental, this movie I didn't feel the backstory. It was too over-the-top, like, see, it's all really really really bad, and so, we've got to blow it up. So, in that sense, all the action seemed too easy, too pre-meditated. And I just never was really ever surprised, except for the end of the jail scene. And that was about the most poignant sequence of the movie. Otherwise, maybe I was expecting too much. So in that regard, possibly another viewing wouldn't be out of the question. 1377811[/snapback] And, I do feel this makes a difference, he gives warning about the targets he's going to hit so people can avoid them. I'm not saying that it's right... it's not. But what I am saying is that he's not killing innocents. This makes him at least a bit more sympathetic in my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Oven Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 ... unless she just really wanted to shave her head. Some polks find that attractive... 1375141[/snapback] Well played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukdown Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Well, some would argue that we were told ahead of time about the WTC Bombing, but some people forgot to pass it along. But of course, that's for another 20 page thread. Just wonder if our emotions would have been different if say, he was blowing up the Statue of Liberty or something a little closer to our heart, to get his point across, if we would have been rooting for ol' V then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Well, some would argue that we were told ahead of time about the WTC Bombing, but some people forgot to pass it along. But of course, that's for another 20 page thread. Just wonder if our emotions would have been different if say, he was blowing up the Statue of Liberty or something a little closer to our heart, to get his point across, if we would have been rooting for ol' V then? 1378659[/snapback] If the government was set up as it is in London in the movie (evil, restrictive, corrupt) for the U.S. and the Statue of Liberty were the target, I think I could still find some sympathy for V from a filmviewer's perspective.* * I do think that anyone who resorts to violence and destruction as a form of protest is at least somewhat deranged and messed up. What level of loony/messed up is what is up for debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 If the government was set up as it is in London in the movie (evil, restrictive, corrupt) for the U.S. and the Statue of Liberty were the target, I think I could still find some sympathy for V from a filmviewer's perspective.* * I do think that anyone who resorts to violence and destruction as a form of protest is at least somewhat deranged and messed up. What level of loony/messed up is what is up for debate. 1379194[/snapback] But, to play devil's advocate here, what if you have unresponsive, totalitarian state that will either completely ignore/cover up or smash down any peaceful protests? For example - do you thinks the students in Tiananmen Square would have been less heroic or courageous if instead of passive resistance they had fought back with some Molotov cocktails? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 But, to play devil's advocate here, what if you have unresponsive, totalitarian state that will either completely ignore/cover up or smash down any peaceful protests? For example - do you thinks the students in Tiananmen Square would have been less heroic or courageous if instead of passive resistance they had fought back with some Molotov cocktails? 1379270[/snapback] They got the government's attention without blowing up buildings and harming innocents to my knowledge so it was unnecessary in that case. I understand the "by any means necessary" thing, but there is a line where some become no better then those they are trying to prevail over. It's a fine line, but there is a certain level of "crazy" that you have to use explosives no matter how just it seems when you look at the circumstances. throwing things = questionable, but understandable at times blowing up things = a little extreme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 They got the government's attention without blowing up buildings and harming innocents to my knowledge so it was unnecessary in that case. I understand the "by any means necessary" thing, but there is a line where some become no better then those they are trying to prevail over. It's a fine line, but there is a certain level of "crazy" that you have to use explosives no matter how just it seems when you look at the circumstances. throwing things = questionable, but understandable at times blowing up things = a little extreme 1379304[/snapback] Okay, so I see the line is to avoid harming innocents (which is completely understandable) - what about violence directed solely against those deserving of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 (edited) Okay, so I see the line is to avoid harming innocents (which is completely understandable) - what about violence directed solely against those deserving of it? 1379344[/snapback] A gray area for sure. I think we can't have people running rampant performing vigilante justice everywhere. It's all in the definition of "deserving of it". I think most of us agree that a bullet to Hitler's head after what he did isn't a bad thing, but where do we put someone such as Bush? Edited March 23, 2006 by TDFFFreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 A grey area for sure. I think we can't have people running rampant performing vigilante justice everywhere. Very true. It's all in the definition of "deserving of it". I think most of us agree that a bullet to Hitler's head after what he did isn't a bad thing, but where do we put someone such as Bush? 1379614[/snapback] If only his daddy had given him a few more spankins..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 They got the government's attention without blowing up buildings and harming innocents to my knowledge so it was unnecessary in that case. I understand the "by any means necessary" thing, but there is a line where some become no better then those they are trying to prevail over. It's a fine line, but there is a certain level of "crazy" that you have to use explosives no matter how just it seems when you look at the circumstances. throwing things = questionable, but understandable at times blowing up things = a little extreme 1379304[/snapback] Depends if you really want to win: the students didn't stand a chance without weapons in the end. And lest we forget, we fought the British for much the same reasons.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Depends if you really want to win: the students didn't stand a chance without weapons in the end. And lest we forget, we fought the British for much the same reasons.... 1383603[/snapback] Absolutely. Like I said, it's one big gray area.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggamer3 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 it's by the wach brothers who brought us the matrix. the V character (played by hugo weaving, a.k.a. agent smith), rebels against an oppressive government and takes natalie along for the ride ... 1375150[/snapback] as you may not know they dont go by the name "the wachowsky brothers" because one of them has undergone a sex change operation. i swear i aint making this up, so they know are credited as the "wachowskys" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 That being said I went in with an open mind, looking forward to seeing the movie and walked out thinking day-yum! That was a good freakin' movie! But that's just me. 1377694[/snapback] I had the same reaction. I thought it was a great movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I had the same reaction. I thought it was a great movie. 1386836[/snapback] You know, I told my wife earlier today that I'd like to see it again. She told me "Not with me you don't!" I said, :forgettingtoengagebrainbeforemouth:, that I could out-source a wife for one evening. No sir...she didn't like that suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 EDIT - it was attached to Paramount, who dropped it; the producers are shopping it around to see if they can generate any interest. 1377763[/snapback] Watchmen is apparently back on Warner Bros, who have gotten the rights to the project, is interested in making this happen, in no small part thanks to the tireless work of producers Lloyd Levin and Larry Gordon. When I visited the set of United 93 a few months ago I tried to get Lloyd to give me the scoop on who they were talking to, off the record. He wouldn’t, but he did tell me he thought we might be happy with some of the people they were talking with. Now Moriarty over at Aint It Cool has a big scoop – Zack Snyder is in talks to direct the film. He’s currently hard at work finishing up another difficult comic book adaptation, Frank Miller’s 300. I visited that set in December and I can tell you from what we were shown that the film will, at the very least look incredible. I think Snyder did a good, but not great job with Dawn of the Dead (although the opening ten minutes of that film are incredible), and if he shows that he’s matured on 300, I think this could be very good news indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 As to V, it took in a bit over $12 million this weekend. Doesn't look like it will have too much in the way of legs, but the drop wasn't anything unusual. I'd expect the standard time cycle for the film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 As to V, it took in a bit over $12 million this weekend. Doesn't look like it will have too much in the way of legs, but the drop wasn't anything unusual. I'd expect the standard time cycle for the film. 1388797[/snapback] I think long term this makes money, just not a killing like the studio might have hoped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 Just saw this today and thought it was an excellent movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 And you dug up a year-dead thread to say that? Sure, why not ? Are you concerned about bandwith ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 An excellent use of the search function on this site if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted May 29, 2007 Share Posted May 29, 2007 What would have been a better format to express his opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.