comment #1

George Prager says ...

Basically, it's a TWILIGHT for fanboys.

comment #2

Colin says ...

A) Twilight is Mormon propoganda for women to remain subservient

B) Watchmen won a Hugo award for literature, Twilight sold a lot of copies to mormons, tweens and stay at home moms with mental deficiencies.

comment #3

Chase Kahn says ...

'Twilight' quietly had a good legs -- although its a pretty valid comparison since I sat three seats over from a group of five 14-year old's boys yesterday.

Those aren't very good numbers, though. Like everyone else is predicting, I think it's going to drop significantly. Just look at the midnight numbers: it doubled '300' for midnight sales, yet fell below it in terms of Friday numbers -- that's not a very good sign.

comment #4

George Prager says ...

"Watchmen won a Hugo award for literature"

The movie?

comment #5

George Prager says ...

"Twilight is Mormon propoganda for women to remain subservient "

And this is something to condemn, because...?

Just looked up the Hugo Award. Now that is some geeky shit. How embarrassing for "Colin" to bring it up.

comment #6

actionman says ...

honestly -- WHO FUCKING CARES how much this movie -- or any movie for that matter -- makes? Unless you're running a studio, what does this matter?

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

I called it when I said it'd be lucky to make $50 million. That's pretty good, though, considering... But it might be really hellish for it in international markets, where there's no star to sell the flick.

comment #8

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

George - Watchmen was also named one of the 100 best novels of the 20th century by Time magazine. Need to "look up" that "geeky" award, too?

D.Z. - You foolishly compared it to V for Vendetta, saying it would be lucky to make $50 million for its entire run ($75 million was its "ceiling"). Say it with me now, Daniel, "I was wrong"...

comment #9

corey3rd says ...

does this mean things would have been better if Fox had prevented the film being released

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Kane: I said $75 m domestic. Unfortunately, I might be right, as the horror-remake crowd might end up splitting for "Last House" next weekend, while Race to Witch Mountain might capture the younger audiences.

comment #11

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Race to Witch Mountain might capture the younger audiences."

Which would take away the audience for the R-rated Watchmen how, exactly?

If this thing ends up with a $75 million gross, I will eat my fucking hat.

You were wrong, D.Z. And I want to hear you say it when it passes that "ceiling."

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

Kane: I'd imagine it'd take away the 12-13 year olds turned off by the brutality and nihilistic overtones of the film. But even if you're right, it'll make $5 million more than my prediction, max.

comment #13

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

75 wasn't your prediction, it was your ceiling. Even then, you say Watchmen won't clear $80 million domestic? I'll take that bet right here and now.

Just so you can be wrong twice.

comment #14

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Also, since when is a $60-70 million opening on an R movie in early March considered disappointing?

comment #15

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Yet more proof of Jeff's "Watchmen Takedown" agenda.

If noteworthy box office was an issue, where is his take on the fact that Taken has had remarkable legs, with kind of drops not seen in 15 years. A film that seems to be drawing a more mature audience. The kind of audience that everyone knows is not being served by the studios.

comment #16

Josh Massey says ...

God, I loved Taken. It was stupid, awful, trite - but I fucking loved it. Every second of it.

comment #17

K. Bowen says ...

You know .... whatever about the book or the film. But lord, are its fans annoying.

The Hugo Award ..... Time Magazine ..... do fans of Gravity's Rainbow have to try this hard?

comment #18

BurmaShave says ...

If I had to be honest with myself, TAKEN is my favorite film so far this year. And yes Massey it's all those things and more.

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

Kane: "Also, since when is a $60-70 million opening on an R movie in early March considered disappointing?"

I'd imagine it's disappointing, since WB owes a quarter of that dough to FOX? That, and it costs at least double that amount of money, not counting P+A? Not to mention the only competition is another Tyler Perry joint and the Jonas Bros.

comment #20

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Shut the fuck up, D.Z.

The fact that WB handled the property idiotically and lackluster "competition" has nothing to do with the fact that a $60 million March opening is impressive in and of itself.

And stop mentioning P+A, the only people that care about that bullshit are the accountants.

comment #21

Gordon27 says ...

"I called it when I said it'd be lucky to make $50 million. "

"Kane: I said $75 m domestic."

DZ, what about Jeff's statement "a grand domestic tally of $145 million" makes you think that you're correct? And how is it that think that nobody will notice that you just inflated your prediction by a full 50%, and still haven't made it halfway to what the post you are pointing to as confirmation actually states?

comment #22

Gordon27 says ...

Kaned - I would argue that this high a gross for an R-rated movie is a good haul for any month. Especially given that it's not a sequel to anything and is as long as it is.

I think people are underestimating the horror movie crowd, which I think is going to eat up all the 'Saw' type stuff in this movie. They'll add to the grosses.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

Kane: It's impressive for a front-loaded flick, but then again, as I said before, there's not much competition.
Plus, there should be more good-will from the 300 crowd in the same way that the good will from Batman Begins helped TDK. I don't doubt the studio wasn't thinking that way, either, since that's what it went for in the ads.

And personally, I'm beginning to wonder if WB didn't manufacture that whole lawsuit to increase demand for the film, since no major studio would be that stupid to infringe on another major studio's contract, when so much money for a niche title would be at stake-unless it thought it would contribute to some free publicity for the film in question.

Gordon: "DZ, what about Jeff's statement "a grand domestic tally of $145 million" makes you think that you're correct?"

I dunno. The financial returns of the other Alan Moore adaptations so far?

"And how is it that think that nobody will notice that you just inflated your prediction by a full 50%,"

Because it's still in the same ball park, despite how you're trying to inflate my prediction yourself?

"and still haven't made it halfway to what the post you are pointing to as confirmation actually states?"

The reason I haven't made it to that point is that the guesstimate is based on the highest possible return, not the most probable return.

comment #24

Renfield says ...

Saw the film last night. I knew absolutely nothing about it beforehand and walked out really liking it.

comment #25

Gordon27 says ...

"I dunno. The financial returns of the other Alan Moore adaptations so far?"

Ah, so something that has nothing to do with this movie. Fair enough. Stupid, but at least you're honest about it.

"Because it's still in the same ball park"

Not really; if your ballpark estimate is "give or take 50% of my estimate", that's not much of an estimate.

"despite how you're trying to inflate my prediction yourself? "

You're right; how unfair of me to use your specific quote to show exactly what you said. That's inflation!

"The reason I haven't made it to that point is that the guesstimate is based on the highest possible return, not the most probable return."

DZ - you predicted it would make "at most 50 mil". You then, when you noticed that it had already, before you affirmed that, made more than that, you revised to "definitely not more than $75 mil"... and, in its opening weekend, it has already come close enough that nobody in their right mind could possibly believe it won't exceed that figure by Wednesday. YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Gordon: "Ah, so something that has nothing to do with this movie. Fair enough. Stupid, but at least you're honest about it."

It has nothing to do with it, even though they're all from the same creator, and thus they all incorporate some aspect of his style of writing? Brilliant.

"Not really; if your ballpark estimate is "give or take 50% of my estimate", that's not much of an estimate."

I said give or take $5 million, not $25 million.

"DZ - you predicted it would make "at most 50 mil". You then, when you noticed that it had already, before you affirmed that, made more than that, you revised to "definitely not more than $75 mil"... and, in its opening weekend,"

Actually, someone quoted me as saying that $75 million was its ceiling, so...

comment #27

jamesD says ...

I strongly suggest you guys a H - O T site for tall chix and guys-- ____Tall kiss C om ____ Im sure it will work for-- you. End your loney life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!