Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
March 9, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Watchmen earned an estimated $55.2 million. Is this result better, worse or about what you had expected from the project?
Brandon Scott: I'll be honest, right or wrong, this is significantly worse. I thought with all of the hype surrounding the film, coupled with what Snyder's 300 did a few years back, that we could be looking at a figure close to the inverse of that, $75 million. I think that they have to be disappointed by this figure. Clearly, there was no crossover appeal to women, and the long 2:43 run time hurt it.
Max Braden: Three months ago in our Prophecy, I dismissed it as looking silly and predicted an opening in the low thirties. I only bumped that up to $58 million after I saw the movie and was impressed. I wasn't so impressed that I thought it would beat 300's record - Watchmen still seemed like it was more of a niche project and the massive length wasn't going to help.
Tim Briody: Despite what Max and Brandon said, I never buy length as a factor in box office. If people want to see something, they'll find the time. It's not like every single show sold out, either. That said, this was a niche product involving nearly 25-year-old source material that I'm sure was older than a majority of the audience. The opening is impressive but the studio shot themselves in the foot with the negative cost.
Daron Aldridge: It is lower than Wanted as I predicted in Prophecy. I agree, Tim, that length doesn't matter if you want to see the film but I think the running time is factor simply because theaters aren't able to milk an additional screening out per day. Unless the previous four showings were not even close to being sold out, a fifth showing would likely surpass the number of empty seats in the previous times. That's my take on the running time argument. It's more about the extra screening and not viewers being turned off.
Josh Spiegel: It's definitely lower than I'd have thought, even without any huge stars. Not only was Snyder behind 300, but this movie has been getting hyped ever since the big trailer in front of The Dark Knight. The length, however, is only a problem for the many people who aren't familiar with the source material. The Dark Knight was only a few minutes shorter, but Batman is a far more recognizable character; as has been mentioned below, it's a mixture of length and a lack of familiarity.
Sean Collier: I wouldn't look to the running time as an explanation if it weren't for the comparison with 300. Watchmen was better promoted than 300, and from more well-known (if slightly) source material. With the same release date, there's gotta be a reason why Watchmen didn't do as well as Zack Snyder's previous graphic novel adaptation, and I'd look to the run time. Whether it put audiences off or simply reduced the number of potential customers, I'd blame the run time, and call this a slight disappointment.
Pete Kilmer: Well, I'll take the tack that it is a successful not only for run time, but for the fact that outside of the comic book fans of the past 20 years, the general public may not have been familiar with The Watchmen name. Regardless of the fact that this highly regarded book has made best of lists for the last 20 years, there is still a majority of American movie goers that had never heard of it. And the fact that this was an R movie I think makes this movie a success.
Craig Hemenway: Tim is right. Run time is irrelevant. Screen count, on the other hand, matters. On 3,600 estimated screens, Watchmen took in over $15,000 per screen across the weekend. Solid but not fantastic and mostly reflective of a comic fan base. 8% of the weekend take came from midnight sneaks. That's a pretty impressive amount and, to me, is indicative of a very strong hardcore fan base. Overall this should be considered a win as it lacks the broader appeal of a 300 but look for weak legs and a sharp dropoff.
Daron Aldridge: Craig, it's duly noted that the massive screen count goes a long way to negate the run time shaving off an extra showing. Warner Bros. made it so that if you wanted to see Watchmen this weekend, you could. A few theaters near me had it starting every hour to hour and half.
My devil's advocate position was more from a place of not labeling run time as a nonfactor for films in general.
Reagen Sulewski: Think about this - they took a book known pretty much only in the hardcore nerd circles, with no familiar characters, no known stars and an opaque premise, and made it the third biggest opening film in March history - and we're debating as to whether they did as good a job as they could have in bringing the film to people? It's a triumph of marketing, from my standpoint.
David Mumpower: Here is another way to look at it. Watchmen had the best opening of the year by roughly $15 million. In addition to being the third biggest March opening ever, it is the fifth best opening for an R-rated film and second best IMAX performer with $5.5 million, trailing only The Dark Knight. This opening weekend beats long established comic book properties such as Superman Returns, Batman Begins, X-Men, Daredevil and Ghost Rider. It is more than the last two Blade films' combined openings. I understand why it's being viewed as a disappointment in some circles - it is $15 million less than I had predicted - but Reagen is right that they've gotten a *lot* of mileage out of a relatively unknown comic book property (outside that industry, anyway).
Kim Hollis: I feel the same way that David and Reagen do. It wasn't that long ago that we were all arguing Watchmen's potential and a number of us were coming in as detractors, saying that only a very small, devoted, fanboy audience would turn out. This is movie based on a comic book that is unknown to most people, with actors that are not well-recognized, set in the 1980s and featuring a big, weird blue guy. An outsider looking in would have to think it looks like a more depressing version of The Tick, especially with villains named The Comedian, Rorschach and Nite Owl. The fact that the movie did this much business is amazing when you take all that into consideration.
Watchmen Babies is an idea whose time has come
Kim Hollis: Do you believe Watchmen's box office reflects primarily fanboy demand or do you believe a much wider audience drove most of its box office? Would Warner Bros. have gotten the same result without as much marketing?
Brandon Scott: No, Warner's would not have gotten the same box office without all the marketing, but I do think that this is largely fanboy demand that drove this weekend's figures. I'm a little surprised at this (seemingly) low figure, when I usually seem to fall on the opposite side of the argument in these discussions.
Max Braden: Its midnight take indicates huge response from the serious fans, but this was also released on a spring break weekend with no competition. With no marketing it may have gone ignored by general audiences, but with just a little awareness it was pretty much the must-see movie for everyone.
Daron Aldridge: I know of several people, myself included, that intentionally did not see it this weekend because of the expected masses and the ads and coverage fueled that speculation. The marketing was huge and a worthwhile investment as it put a non-mainstream source material in front of many people that wouldn't have had the foggiest clue about it otherwise.
Josh Spiegel: The marketing was definitely a big part in keeping awareness high, I'd say. The midnight response, as Max said, is an example of how much interest there is, but the overall take leads me to believe that fanboys drove this thing to such a high number. However, I'm not sure that the critical reaction will help this movie have big legs, massive marketing push or not.
Sean Collier: I'd say it's a fifty-fifty split. The fans certainly turned out, but it was obviously the clear choice in theaters this weekend. Without the marketing, I think we would've seen more of a dramatic under-performance.
Pete Kilmer: The fanboy and fangirl base certainly did come out this weekend. I was totally concerned about word-of-mouth, but that seems to be generally positive so I expect this to have some legs for the next couple of weeks.
David Mumpower: There seem to be four main levels of opening weekend for comic book properties. There are the fanboy films that even the fanboys don't want (see: Elektra) that open low and are never a box office factor. There are the fanboy films that primarily appeal only to young males. Their box office is generally in the mid-$30s to mid-$40s range. Then, we have the titles that have a bit more appeal outside of the fanboy demographic but not a huge amount. The first X-Men, both of the Fantastic Four films and both of the Hulk films fall in this grouping and they have box office in the mid-$50s range. Finally, we have the comic book properties that are ubiquitous and excite almost all movie-goers. These are the Spider-Mans, the Batmans and (lately) X-Men. They open north of $70 million and sometimes break $100 million. It's pretty clear that Watchmen falls in that third category where it did garner enough attention outside the core audience to qualify as one of the bigger (but not biggest) comic book openings.