Did the Watchmen Movie Work?

Given that he is leading the way in DC’s own cinematic universe I thought this would be the opportunity to write something about one of his previous works ‘Watchmen’, perhaps one of the most divisive comic book adaptations ever. At the risk of inciting the rage of the internet (a rage unlike any other on earth) I have to say that I do not have any fondness of this film at all. The comic remains one of my favourite if not the single best comic of all time in my opinion. Though there are many interesting additions to the film there are several major flaws that in my opinion, not only make it a superficial adaptation, but maybe a mediocre film as well.
  I should immediately add that there are probably a few issues that are resolved with the Director’s Cut of the film, but I wouldn’t know as I have yet to muster the strength to sit through all 186 minutes of it, in short I know it patches up a few differences but even with them I believe my central point still stands on each issue, so for the sake of generalising, it’s theatrical cut only.
Before that though, history lesson. The comic by Alan Moore was published in 1986 and a movie version was instantly conceived by 20^th Century Fox, but the idea never came to fruition. Then in 1991 the rights went to Warner Brothers who hired Terry Gilliam to direct their version, but once again the concept fell through, with Gilliam himself declaring the project to be ‘un-filmable’, at the very least he felt it should have been a six hour miniseries. In 2008 Warner Brothers agreed to try again with Zac Snyder in charge and released the finished project in 2009.
The first issue is related to the lack of the comic within a comic from the comic (YES I KNOW IT’S IN THE DIRECTOR’S CUT) The Black Freighter comic is not included in the theatrical version and beyond the allegorical nature of it, the reader of the comic is a local youth hanging out at a newsstand and through this we get a glimpse into the everyday lives of normal citizens living in this world. We see their smaller dramas, fear of nuclear war and superheroes on a ground level. All of this helps to further draw a reader into Moore’s world, to become soaked in its culture and gain an understanding of what it means to live within it. Furthermore it heightens the tragedy of the final chapter of the comic in which New York is destroyed, we have known these characters and were given complex snapshots into some of the many lives that are instantly snuffed out.
But back to The Black Freighter. It is a horror story that draws a parallel to the actions of Ozymandias and questions the morality of his decision and the regrets he has to live with. The omission of the comic means that the film lacks the concept of Ozymandias regretting what he did. Speaking of regrets, the film also fails to include my personal favourite moment for the comic, and one that is also pretty important. When all is dealt with Ozymandias has a private and quiet conversation with Dr Manhattan in which the king of kings momentarily doubts himself and questions whether or not he was right to do what he did ‘in the end’ to which John replies ‘Nothing ever ends’ before departing forever. This takes away another notion of regret and the film tries to compensate by having John and Silk Spectre share a passionate kiss before he leaves, and then she repeats the quote, none of which is really consistent to the fact that she is supposed to be over him and in a relationship with Nite Owl (I mean has anyone ever gone ‘I know how to start this new romance, kiss your old boyfriend before quoting one of his famous phrases to remind me of his presence, yay).
   But Ozymandias’ regret is not the only way in which his character seems underdeveloped. He is basically a standard comic book villain, oozing with sociopathic tendencies and only seems mildly disturbed by his actions. Comic book Ozymandias is a symbol of hope for humanity, the best of what mankind can be, compassionate, intelligent and physically fit. This makes his betrayal and role as the villain all the more shocking.
Ozymandias is not the only character that endures a significant change. Though they remain aesthetically similar they all differ with their characteristics. Movie Manhattan seems much less compassionate and there is little sense of his struggle between losing his humanity and giving in to the chaos of the universe that he foresees. As opposed to being determined and headstrong Silk Spectre comes across as whiny and shallow, moving from one giant naked blue guy as a lover to another lover dressed as an owl on what seems to be a whim. Her resolute and commanding nature in the book (notice she is the only one that stands up to Rorschach from the start) makes her true parentage and upbringing more poignant, as someone who acts like she has total control and independence is revealed to be someone who in reality has a predetermined life that she only knows partially, with her mother pushing her into super-heroism, her father really being a murderous war criminal and her lover being incapable of displaying any emotion.
Her other partner is of course Nite Owl, who’s character arc is almost completely removed in the film. In the comic he goes from being a nervous man that lives in the past and fears the future, he lets Rorschach break into his house and steal food and is extremely nervous when Manhattan arrives back on earth (I mean he is two timing a guy that could separate every atom in his body by blinking). It is only at the end where he gains a sense of confidence and finally stands up to Rorschach, letting the vigilante know exactly what he thinks of him. But in the movie he is standing up to Rorschach from the beginning and still does at the end, nothing changes.
The comic also takes time to delve into the backstory of each character such as Rorschach’s crappy upbringing and Silk Spectre’s mother issues. This highlights how it is almost ludicrous to allow what are clearly severely damaged individuals that just happened to put on costumes. Rorschach’s psychosis is also much more severe, for example, instead of simply hacking the child murderer to death he chains him to the stove and sets the house on fire with the option of sawing off his arm or burning alive. The Keane act almost makes sense, and speaking of which the comic also goes into more detail of how society changed with the acts implementation, once again it draws you deeper into Moore’s world.
  Then there are the finer details that make the characters more human, such as Spectre reaching the truth of her parentage through unearthing suppressed memories instead of Mahattan manipulating her mind to remember (I mean if he can do that then why not just make the Russians and Americans like each other with his powers, or make everyone forget that they think he accidentally gave them cancer). There is also a scene in which Silk Spectre confronts The Comedian about the attempted rape of her mother in a flashback. When she verbally attacks him there seems to be a moment of insecurity and vulnerability, as if he is this close to revealing the truth but doesn’t, hinting that maybe he is not completely sadistic after all. It never happens in the film.
But speaking of The Comedian, what about his death scene, the event that kicks the whole saga into action. In that fight alone we see a character (who we can assume is in his late fifties) thrown through a table, smashing solid walls with his bare fists and having his head smashed through a marble countertop, yet he continues to fight. This ties in to perhaps my biggest issue with the film, Snyder essentially made all of the characters superheroes. They also seem to be more eager to engage in violence as instead of using their disguises as a way to expend vent up frustration and anger with their normal lives.
The only one with real superpowers is Dr Manhattan and this once again highlights his departure from humanity, his power, his place in the political world and how none of the other Watchmen know how to cope with him. Moore made a point to see beyond the abilities of his heroes, he wanted to expose their insecurities and personalities and the film failed to capture that. Hence the issue I have with it. It’s easy to make a superhero that easily dispatches their enemies but where Watchmen is unique is where it makes its heroes pathetically flawed and openly mortal. The point is further proven by how they don’t save the day and defeat the villain in the end, they must accept their failure and live with that guilt forever.
On that lovely note, what did you think of the film/comic, which one is better, did I have a point or am I an insane fool? Leave a comment below to let me know, I leave it entirely in your hands (reference).    

Why Do Movies Bomb?

Despite the undeniable brilliance of ‘Steve Jobs’ (and when I say undeniable I mean to essentially everyone other than Armond White, though I guess it’s fine if you hate it, but it would to fierce argument to convince me… anyway) the film has actually underperformed in America, whether it will do better in Britain and other markets is unclear, but so far the biopic has failed to even recoup its production budget. So this raises a question of why certain films bomb, and when I use the term here I mean purely on a commercial level, as many films have proven that critical acclaim is far from a guaranteed box office draw.
The first option might simply be that the film is simply not good. Though one can only cough in a manner that sounds like ‘Transformers: Age of Dark Moon and Revenge of Extinction of the Fallen’ (long cough) to highlight how sometimes awful films can still generate a large income. But do not doubt how quickly bad word of mouth and bad reviews can sink a film. This year alone we have had ‘Pan’ that may have gathered an audience had it not received universal hatred from anyone that either valued the original incarnation, or film in general. Then observe ‘After Earth’ despite a frankly excellent marketing campaign in which the advertisement never once mentioned the name of M Night Shyamalan, the poor quality of the film translated to such a bad audience reaction that having started out at the number one box office spot on its opening day, it dropped down by one spot the next day, another the next until it dropped off entirely within just a few weeks. Then look at ‘Tomorrowland’, certainly not a terrible film (depending on who you ask), it was fun and fine, but it did not set the world on fire and did not create enough media buzz or rave reviews to inspire anyone to go and see it.
  In a similar vein, a quick question. Who in Britain is looking forward to the ‘Jem and the Holograms’ movie? To the one person who said yes, bad luck because you probably never will. Universal pulled the film from distribution across the United States well ahead of schedule, meaning that they are unlikely to risk further financial setbacks by distributing it anywhere else and allowing it to bomb again. I can’t say whether the film is bad or not as I have not seen it, but what I do know is this, having been based off an animated series from the 1980s it tried to appeal to the nostalgic nature of the adults who had watched the show in their youth, but for some baffling reason they did away with multiple elements of the source material and shifted its focus to appeal to newer audiences. Instead of striking a balance between the two is alienated both parties, with new viewers having no idea who or what this film was about, and older fans experiencing anger over its disregard for the original series. Once again ‘Tomorrowland’ is an example of how the film eliminated its target audience, with various sequences that look like a fun children’s film in its marketing but still emphasising the role of George Clooney in the film who is an actor that most children will not recognise. Such a decision does not appeal directly to any potential audience member.
  But there is a theme running through this discussion though, marketing and advertising. Sometimes this can play a key part in the film’s gross regardless of its quality. It is ultimately down to the studio to decide how much they spend on advertising a film, and sometimes they do not know how to. How could you advertise something like ‘Cabin in the Woods’ as something unique without giving away the entire film? How could you sell ‘Kingsmen’ as anything other than a generic spy film in a two minute trailer? The answer is you can’t, ‘Cabin in the Woods’ displayed every cinematic cliché in existence but the trailer did not give it a chance to demonstrate how subversive and intelligent it would ultimately become, and the trailer for ‘Kingsmen’ made it look like something on par with Guy Ritchie’s ‘The Man from UNCLE’ when one is infinitely better than the other. As well as that a studio can have no faith in the film and want to release it as quietly as possible in order to minimise their financial losses, this year alone saw the disastrous opening of Adam Sandler’s ‘The Cobbler’ which received universal hatred and earned just $24,000 from a budget of $10 million.
  Marketing can also lack a hook to drag people in, or big names to attract others. Even original projects like ‘Cloverfield’ used the trailer to get people talking, ‘Inception’ used Christopher Nolan’s name as well as the fact that both were pretty good, and when I say pretty good I mean one of them is alright and the other is fantastic. Guess which one I mean. If your concept is too vague or you have no big names to attract attention you will struggle to draw a crowd, even more so if your film is not good.
Though of course big names can harm a film just as quickly as they can herald it. Some actors are pushed as big stars by the studio, only to fall out of public favour and be faced with a restricted gross for whatever movie they are in. Remember when Sam Worthington was the next big thing, or Taylor Kitsch? Then others have simply declined gradually and are now dragging down respective films just with their names attached, there’s Sandler and Murphy, who were huge box office draws a couple of decades ago. But one too many bad choices have left a slight scar on our subconscious. This can even apply to directors, we have already mentioned Shyamalan. Put it this way, if a new action film starring Channing Tatum comes out at the same time as Taylor Kitsch’s triumphant return, which would you see?
You would probably see whichever one was part of a franchise is the answer. Now look, I like and respect great franchises, it is not nearly as easy as one would think to make a reliable, entertaining and consistent story across as many as ten or even twenty films but it does seem as if an original film will struggle to compete amid the slew of franchises coming around year after year. Reboots can be even worse, no matter how much you complain when they make a ‘Back to the Future’ reboot, or a ‘Ghostbusters’ reboot or a reboot of Indiana Jones (though to be honest most studios would hopefully put a creative spin on it, as they have already done with ‘Ghostbusters’ and are hoping to do with ‘Indiana Jones’) you will still go an watch it, even if it is just to complain you will still watch it.
  There are few things sadder though, than a failed franchise. A film that is so obviously trying to establish a cinematic universe that it forgets to focus on the film they are currently making that audiences stand up and shout ‘enough’. ‘Fant4stic’ is one, ‘Amazing Spider Man 2’ is another, then you have painful continuations of old franchises well past their prime like ‘Die Hard’ and ‘Terminator’. Although some remakes are useful to draw crowds, others are not as we have seen with remakes of ‘Red Dawn’, ‘Total Recall’ and ‘The Wolf Man’.
The reason for this is that some genres of film just completely fall out of public favour, so a remake in that genre will stand little chance of succeeding. As for an original idea that tries to adopt the concept of, say, a western, god help them. There are exceptions and who knows, with the recent success of ‘Django Unchained’ and the sure to be success of ‘The Hateful Eight’ and ‘The Revenant’ maybe it could make a comeback. Until Adam Sandler comes along with whatever terrible western he is making next and ruins it for everyone.
But none of these reasons explain the commercial failure of ‘Steve Jobs’. The only answer I can give is that there are various exceptions to all of these reasons and every now and then something may come along to completely up haul the rules of why movies bomb. But until then you can look at a film or its trailer or its very concept and make some judgement, just prepare to be surprised.