'Watchmen' box-office reporting: Not a pretty picture

A wise old Hollywood hand taught me ages ago that the only way you can even begin to figure out a film's profit potential on its opening weekend is by knowing how much it cost to make in the first place.

So, if you were trying to write a halfway knowledgeable story about the opening weekend box office for "Watchmen," you would surely want to mention somewhere how much the movie cost. With that in mind, while most of the buzz in Hollywood today was about whether "Watchmen's" $56-million weekend take was a boffo opening or a bust (since the Zack Snyder-directed film didn't come close to the $70 million Snyder's "300" made on exactly the same date two years ago), I was eyeballing the showbiz media coverage to see if anyone got to the real issue -- was $56 million a good opening for a movie that cost roughly $150 million to make?

I hate to say it, but most of the media flunked their Hollywood math quiz. I've had my beefs with my own newspaper's box-office coverage over the years, but today's piece -- written by David Pierson -- aced the exam. The story not only had the $150-million figure but mentioned a key detail, noting that "Watchmen" actually outpaced "300's" Friday numbers, but then fell off badly afterward, something that bodes poorly for the film's performance in days to come. Pierson also noted that this drop-off came despite an aggressive marketing campaign amid "scant competition and an uptick in U.S. movie attendance."

The Wall Street Journal also passed the test, since its story included a budget figure (though it had the budget at only "more than $120 million"). But virtually everyone else flunked. The New York Times, for example, had room in its story to offer a hilarious quote from a Duke University professor (sorry about that tough loss to the Tarheels, big guy) who went to see the film and announced that "Everyone around me liked it a lot more than I did." But the Times didn't bother to dig up a budget number.

The weakest story, sadly, was from Variety, the showbiz trade whose reporters are incredibly knowledgeable but rarely show off their inside-dope in their reporting. So Variety's story had all sorts of arcane information about "Watchmen," including its running time, ratings history, theater count, etc. -- but no budget figure. Since it's apparently impossible for any Variety scribe to describe any showbiz event as "disappointing," the story decided to call the film's performance "lower than expected," though it immediately added the upbeat assessment that the film was "still scoring the best opening of the year and one of the best showings ever for an R-rated film." But a budget figure? Not a chance.

And what about Deadline Hollywood's Nikki Finke, who last week ran a post saying her box-office experts were predicting that the movie would do $70 million? Well, Nikki flunked the test -- twice. First off, her post on the box-office results, which claimed that the film had a "blockbuster" opening, never mentioned a budget number. And secondly, she took down her original $70 million prediction post, simply clicking a key and making it vanish into thin air. When she's right, she trumpets her scoops with a huge "TOLDJA!" headline. But when her sources are off the mark, she gets rid of the damning evidence. When I e-mailed her, wondering what happened to the original post, she said that her writing over her wrongs was completely transparent. Actually, I'd say it's the complete opposite.

But for the record, here is her response, just the way she e-mailed it to me: "As usual Patrick, and other Monday morning quarterbacks, you don't know what you're talking about. Every weekend I do box office, and some of the time, I leave up the predictions by my box office gurus. And some of the time I refine the predictions as the box office comes in. My goal is to keep up the most accurate box office in real time, and I accomplish that."

So how did "Watchmen" actually do? We'll know for sure next weekend. If it only drops off 30% or 40%, it could hold up well enough here and overseas to turn a profit. But if the drop is closer to the collapse the "Matrix Revolutions" sequel suffered, everyone who has a lot of money in the picture -- starting with Warners -- will be battening down the hatches, since its hard to believe that "Watchmen's" extreme violence and strange Nixonian-era American politics will make it a much bigger winner overseas than here.    

Photo of Matthew Goode, left, as Ozymandias and Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian in "Watchmen" by Clay Enos / Warner Bros.

Comments

[Scott Mendelson]

For a detailed analysis of Watchmen's opening weekend performance...

http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2009/03/watchmen-opens-to-25-million-friday.html - Friday night numbers

http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2009/03/weekend-numbers-estimated-030809.html
Weekend numbers

[brian mckoruic]

Surley the bigger question is: who cares?

[Tony LaRocca]

I saw it in a packed theater this weekend. It's not a blockbuster, but it's certainly not a flop. Why is the news media insistent on convincing people it is?

[Shoegal]

I am tired of everyone crapping all over this movie. It's the #1 movie in the country, and it got a lot less buzz (and a lot less positive buzz, at that) than 300 did. The movie has very few big stars, and still managed to pull in over $50M in ONE WEEKEND! Considering the economy and how ticket prices are $10+, I think these are great numbers. This is not Batman, this is Watchmen. Everyone is so hung up on money, that they are not reporting about how amazing the movie actually was. Tell us something we can relate to! I am sick of people (like the person who wrote this article) waiting for the movie to tank.

[Dan]

The glee for this movie "failing" is a bit unseemly. Especially since it didn't.

Look, you can use any metric you want, but the reality is: it's a hard-R movie based on difficult source material with a downer ending, no A-list stars, opening in early March.

And it made $56 million in a weekend.

If this were ANYTHING else, everyone would be talking about the surprise success. Hell, that's a damn good number for the middle of summer, forget a nothing weekend in March.

As for its future prospects, well, the next two weekends look fairly open to me. Unless you think "Last House On The Left" is going to do better than your average horror flick.

[Alan Fakas]

All I can say is that I really love this movie. It was damn long, coming in at about 2hr 45 minutes. However, the movie really kept my interest from start to finish. I thought the story was gritty, seedy, unpredictable, thoughtful, nostalgic, and interesting. The story did jump around a lot. But I did enjoy learning about the origins of each of the Watchmen, through the various intercut flashbacks.

I also loved the fact that most of these characters were not your typical super heroes. Instead, these were anti-heroes with some pretty major character flaws.

At the end of the movie, you are left asking yourselfl if the world was in a better place or not because of these super-heroes. I liked that as well.

My only advice: Don't drink 2 diet cokes right before sitting down to watch this movie!

[Lori]

Nikki Finke really is a vile human being, isn't she?

I stopped reading her during the WGA strike.
She all too often puts herself in the story.

You are correct Patrick, she ALWAYS deletes when she's proven wrong.
Thought she would have stopped doing that by now, it
strips whatever integrity she had left.

[Ricardo]

If this is an unprofitable case, remember "Blade Runner", "Children of Men", "The Insider" or "Munich". They didn't set the box-office world on fire, but what great films they are. "Watchmen" rocks too!!!

[John Johnson]

Even if it doesn't rake in the dollars at the box office this movie will become a cult favorite and will have much bigger long-term earnings than "300". This movie has depth approaching the first "Matrix" movie. It is obvious why liberal-leaning reviewers want it to fail -- but they will again be proven wrong. The general populace are not so easily manipulated.

[Observer]

I believe that rocknrico's post alludes to a real 'issue' for this movie, and it is this: there are a LOT of homophobic males in this country. A flaccid phallus makes many a man uncomfortable; the straight male has been conditioned only to feel comfortable with the sight of another's member if it is turgid and involved with a female. It is 'taboo' to see a penis in a non-sexual fashion; it means you're 'gay' if you don't recoil at the sight of it.

Of course, a rational individual might be able to see it outside of the binary framework of gay/straight... but the world is awash with the irrational.

In the (paraphrased) words of Dr. Manhattan, I neither condone or condemn this... but I understand it.

That being said, I loved the movie and am not at all concerned with how well it plays in Peoria. Commercial success does not equal, nor negate, artistic success, no matter how many times we are led to believe otherwise.