After last weeks great, but (lets admit) less than expected haul for Watchman, a sort of post-mortem has begun. But was it doomed from the start? Could a film adaptation of one the most popular graphic novels of all time crossover from fanboy adulation to mainstream audience? And while Watchman hauled in a pretty $55 million, it’s take was reduced by the fact that the last R rated film to open big was Synder’s 300, which captured $70 million two years ago, and on less screens. 300, perhaps, was unique. But its success made Synder a household name with the fanboys, and may have doomed him in the end.
His near faithful take, the 2 hour 42 minute run time and the fact it was rated R could also be factored in, but I think the real reason here that Race to Witch Mountain might over take it this weekend, is because despite all the marketing Warners did with the film -and they supported it - they failed to take in the fact that mainstream audiences had no idea what the story was about.
And they don’t go to web sites that these fanboys and girls go to. They still will rely on mainstream reviewers, no matter what. So, even though Roger Ebert gave it a good review, along with Rolling Stones guru Peter Travers, there were many more who thought it was absurd masturbation fantasy. Even Entertainment Weekly rated it a B, but it still noted that the film had many flaws, mostly pacing, long periods of exposition, unnecessary graphic violence and cardboard acting -which seemed to a thread woven through many of critics reviews I’ve read.
Go to other sites, like Sci Fi Wire, and you get “This was the best graphic novel adaptation ever, and a pretty well-done R-rated action movie on its own, source material aside.” Then there’s this: “I just saw the movie and I thought it rocked! they did a superb job at interpreting the graphic novel.”
So, as penguin said in Batman Returns, what one person throws in his toilet another puts on his mantle. Try taking half these guys to Slumdog Millionaire, and I’m sure they say its just Forrest Gump. And it is, but its one helleva good film.
Is it apples and oranges, or is this further proof that these type of films, and adaptations are still, essentially cult followed products? That the reason studios get wary of throwing tons of money into this genre, is that its main audience is still a small group of comic book lovers who bristle at being called comic book lovers? I mean, one reason the TV networks fail to produce sci fi on regular basis is that they do consider this type of genre to have a limited audience appeal, plus the inescapable fact that these types shows tend to have higher budgets, thus must have higher ratings to justify them. Even the Sci Fi Channel has found that producing high quality genre shows like Battlestar Galactica and Farscape have not made the network more noticeable to mainstream viewers. Battlestar Galactica can get all the rave reviews it wants, but it would’ve never survived on ABC, NBC, CBS or even the mini-networks like FOX and the CW.
To me, its no surprise the fanboys are embracing this film, but I’m also not surprised the film did not, and will not, cross over to mainstream audiences. In the end, Zack Synder has broken no new ground here. The film is essentially an Agatha Christie murder mystery with super heroes. It leaves behind Alan Moore’s satirical skewering of American superheroes, in favor of graphic violence, pseudo-psychological babel and style over substance.
Call me a cynic, but Snyder’s resume - a remake Dawn of the Dead and that silly, homoerotic 300 - don't exactly qualify you as the man to adapt what is arguably (or so I’ve heard from my friends) the greatest work in the history of the graphic novels. He wants to be the next Christopher Nolan or Peter Jackson, yet he is no where near there being them.
But maybe its biggest flaw in crossing over from the fan geeks is its lack of familiarity for everyone else. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the X-Men have been around for decades while Watchmen’s characters are known only to its fan base. And while the graphic novel has sold well since the first trailer popped up on The Dark Knight last year - along with Time Magazine’s choice of the graphic novel for its list of the “100 Greatest American Novels”- it has shown that fickle moviegoers still know more who Bruce Wayne’s alter ego is than know -or care, apparently - who are the Watchman.
His near faithful take, the 2 hour 42 minute run time and the fact it was rated R could also be factored in, but I think the real reason here that Race to Witch Mountain might over take it this weekend, is because despite all the marketing Warners did with the film -and they supported it - they failed to take in the fact that mainstream audiences had no idea what the story was about.
And they don’t go to web sites that these fanboys and girls go to. They still will rely on mainstream reviewers, no matter what. So, even though Roger Ebert gave it a good review, along with Rolling Stones guru Peter Travers, there were many more who thought it was absurd masturbation fantasy. Even Entertainment Weekly rated it a B, but it still noted that the film had many flaws, mostly pacing, long periods of exposition, unnecessary graphic violence and cardboard acting -which seemed to a thread woven through many of critics reviews I’ve read.
Go to other sites, like Sci Fi Wire, and you get “This was the best graphic novel adaptation ever, and a pretty well-done R-rated action movie on its own, source material aside.” Then there’s this: “I just saw the movie and I thought it rocked! they did a superb job at interpreting the graphic novel.”
So, as penguin said in Batman Returns, what one person throws in his toilet another puts on his mantle. Try taking half these guys to Slumdog Millionaire, and I’m sure they say its just Forrest Gump. And it is, but its one helleva good film.
Is it apples and oranges, or is this further proof that these type of films, and adaptations are still, essentially cult followed products? That the reason studios get wary of throwing tons of money into this genre, is that its main audience is still a small group of comic book lovers who bristle at being called comic book lovers? I mean, one reason the TV networks fail to produce sci fi on regular basis is that they do consider this type of genre to have a limited audience appeal, plus the inescapable fact that these types shows tend to have higher budgets, thus must have higher ratings to justify them. Even the Sci Fi Channel has found that producing high quality genre shows like Battlestar Galactica and Farscape have not made the network more noticeable to mainstream viewers. Battlestar Galactica can get all the rave reviews it wants, but it would’ve never survived on ABC, NBC, CBS or even the mini-networks like FOX and the CW.
To me, its no surprise the fanboys are embracing this film, but I’m also not surprised the film did not, and will not, cross over to mainstream audiences. In the end, Zack Synder has broken no new ground here. The film is essentially an Agatha Christie murder mystery with super heroes. It leaves behind Alan Moore’s satirical skewering of American superheroes, in favor of graphic violence, pseudo-psychological babel and style over substance.
Call me a cynic, but Snyder’s resume - a remake Dawn of the Dead and that silly, homoerotic 300 - don't exactly qualify you as the man to adapt what is arguably (or so I’ve heard from my friends) the greatest work in the history of the graphic novels. He wants to be the next Christopher Nolan or Peter Jackson, yet he is no where near there being them.
But maybe its biggest flaw in crossing over from the fan geeks is its lack of familiarity for everyone else. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the X-Men have been around for decades while Watchmen’s characters are known only to its fan base. And while the graphic novel has sold well since the first trailer popped up on The Dark Knight last year - along with Time Magazine’s choice of the graphic novel for its list of the “100 Greatest American Novels”- it has shown that fickle moviegoers still know more who Bruce Wayne’s alter ego is than know -or care, apparently - who are the Watchman.
No comments:
Post a Comment