Watchmen in 1994- A Pop-culture TL

[vultan]

Major Issues with a 1994 "comic book" movie

1. Too long
   • To stick to the book one needs a lot of time, and in 1994 few people made three hour+ films.
   • Studios and audiences will not stand for a comic book movie taking so long
2. Not for kids?
   • "Bob I want to make a movie about superheroes who are depressed, lonely, murders, and ends with a massive genocide!"
   • Expect the 1994 studio controlled film to be sent through a series of rewrites so it can meet marketing, and censor approval.
   • The 90's was the time of stuido mega-pics not director control
3. Too depressing, dark, violent
   • Given the common type of superhero movie at the time would anyone want to see such a downer?
   • A movie about nuclear holocaust, ending in millions dead and no real happy ending?
   • I fear a reedit would occur, which makes people like Watchmen, but the directors cut making nerds love watchmen.

So we get what with all this taken into account?

First I can see a studio head asking Nite-Owl to be taken out of the picture. "We just did a Batman movie! If we want a hooded guy with gadgets why not make another Batman movie?"

Next Rorschach cannot be the pyscho we like him to be. "What parent will buy little Bobby a Rorschach toy if he comes with a dead dog, and a vat of grease?" So we can seem him be brooding, but he makes jokes.

Silk Spectre is a girl, and will have to be attractive so no issues there. However I see her needing to be saved a few to many times.

Comedian works, but his back story is limited so he just becomes this heroic, if flawed man who dies.

Dr. Manhatten really does not fit into the film, unless you up the budget, and increase its length. If you work on an hour and a half to two hour film working in how a man turned into a god, and slowly lost his interest in humanity eats up a lot of screen time. So like before he would get cut.

Ozymandias works, yet his goal for everything may have to be changed. No artic base, and alien invasion. Perhaps he just plans to destroy New York and blame the Soviets. It would be so easy to turn this rounded character into a simple corporate villian.

So you get a film about a washed up hero named Rorschach, brought back to avenge the death of his friend the Comedian. Some times he visits an older man who was once a hero for guidence, as well as this attractive former hero he has the hots for. Rorschach deals with an ex-hero turned psycho, and stops his plot to "trick" the world into peace. The film ends with the Soviet Union falling apart by the people peacefully protesting, and Rorschach gets to be a hero full time again knowing people will accept him for it.

While I get the urge to make Watchmen popular I do not think the people are ready for it. People in their thirties will recall Batman and Robin tv show, as well as Superman with Christopher Reeves. They will have skipped the dark brooding comics, and think of more mainstream ideas of what a superhero is. Worse off you will deal with the Warner Bros. studio heads due to the large budget the film has. Studio heads want to make money, not make good movies. In the 1990's everyone was waiting for the next Home Alone (small budget massive returns) which can attractive the target family audience.

In defense of a darker Watchmen, this was an era where massive budgeted, R-rated action films were still considered viable (Terminator series, Alien series, True Lies, Total Recall, et al). The fact that it IS darker and edgier than the normal superhero film may have some plus to it (advertising to the angsty 20 year old "THIS ISN'T YOUR DAD'S SUPERHERO FLICK! WE GOT MOTHAFUCKING NUKES!!) I'm assuming, for the sake of the POD, the studio takes the risk.
Do you believe there's no way it could actually pay off?

 

[Fenwick]

In defense of a darker Watchmen, this was an era where massive budgeted, R-rated action films were still considered viable (Terminator series, Alien series, True Lies, Total Recall, et al). The fact that it IS darker and edgier than the normal superhero film may have some plus to it (advertising to the angsty 20 year old "THIS ISN'T YOUR DAD'S SUPERHERO FLICK! WE GOT MOTHAFUCKING NUKES!!) I'm assuming, for the sake of the POD, the studio takes the risk.
Do you believe there's no way it could actually pay off?

Terminator: The second film was made in 1991. Its budget of $100 million was based on the returns the first film made.

Aliens: The third Alien film was in 1992 and was seen as a commerical failure in all things.

True Lies: Was and action comedy! It was a mixture of action, but it also stressed humor. I doubt anyone can call it a "dark" film.

Total Recall: Not intended for families.


Really I keep seeing Warner Bros. the guys who did the Batman movies not following the directors vision of a dark film. Watchmen would be the Batman Forever in TTL and not the exercise in utter pointless film making it is today. Also in regards to that angsty 20 year old if yo are in charge of a movie do you want that small section of the public or do you want a family going to see a film? One ticket or three?

 

[Redem]

Terminator: The second film was made in 1991. Its budget of $100 million was based on the returns the first film made.

Aliens: The third Alien film was in 1992 and was seen as a commerical failure in all things.

True Lies: Was and action comedy! It was a mixture of action, but it also stressed humor. I doubt anyone can call it a "dark" film.

Total Recall: Not intended for families.


Really I keep seeing Warner Bros. the guys who did the Batman movies not following the directors vision of a dark film. Watchmen would be the Batman Forever in TTL and not the exercise in utter pointless film making it is today. Also in regards to that angsty 20 year old if yo are in charge of a movie do you want that small section of the public or do you want a family going to see a film? One ticket or three?

I think the only way it could work is if Batman returns managed to do a sh*t load more money at the box office leading to some breathing place to be establish

according to Box-Office Mojo Gladiator did $187,705,427, it probably did 400 milions but that's oversea, I think Watchmen doesn't have a lot of appeal for that market

 

[vultan]

Okay, lemmee make some concessions here, in order to make the concept more feasible without killing it outright: Ridley Scott wants a nice R-rated action flick, but Warner Bros wants a nice family-oriented feature. A compromise ensues: the film will be PG-13 rated and with the most mature elements taken out. This will translate into the movie as:

-The Squid appears, but his minute devoted to the destruction of NYC is no more graphic than, say, Godzilla a couple years later. (which won't be made ITTL)
-Dr. Manhattan, being a great pan-dimensional being, will just be portrayed without genitalia. His skin is more liquidy blue (think T-1000 from T2) than the comics would probably imply, but that's okay, because it'll keep the budget down.
-The Comedian's assault of the first Silk Specter is reduced (yes Fenwick) to the Comedian trying to kiss her while drunk, she slaps him, they quarrel a bit, and just as things are about to get ugly, Hooded Justice steps in and diffuses it.
-The sex scene, of course, is merely implied.

Maybe that, some smaller, stuff, and you can get a film with the sensibilites of say, the Dark Knight. Michael Keaton's Rorschach will be to this film what Heath Ledger's Joker was to the Dark Knight (yes, Keaton will unfortunately perish in post-production). How are we able to bulldoze this through?
Batman Returns troops it out in '92 and manages to make about $50 million more than in OTL. While the third Batman will probably still go more-or-less OTL, as Burton will inevitably have gotten tired with the series, and Warner Bros attaches someone else to direct the third one (which will be terrible ITTL, a true bomb), they still have enough confidence in the gritty superhero to go through with Watchmen.
Howzat? I'll get a third (and hopefully final) rendition of my first posts up soon with very minor changes- please?

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Here are several problems:

* Demi Moore, at the time of pre-production of the film (c.1991/1992) is considered an unbankable star with 3 flops ( The Butcher's Wife, Mortal Thoughts, and Nothing But Trouble).

* Second, with Arnold Schwarzenegger, his bankability was also questionable with the films Christmas in Connecticut and Last Action Hero. This despite the fact that he is going to ask for c.$12.0 million paycheck...

* Third, Bruce Campbell is definitely not going to be approved as a major star, considering the biggest film he made was Army of Darkness with Sam Raimi. All of his other films are straight-to-video "crap" pieces that no studio would respect...

* Fourth, consider that there is also going to be a concern that too many comic films have flopped already (e.g. The Punisher (1990); Captain America (1990); The Rocketeer (1991); and the dailies for The Fantastic Four (1994) are looking terrible....

* Fifth, with the World Trade Center bombing on February 26th, 1993, there are going to be many studio heads who will say that the destruction of New York City is "exploitative". Along with the April 19th, 1993 Branch Davidian case in Waco, Texas, there are going to be calls during pre-production to alter the script....

* Sixth, many studio heads are going to question production on an obscure graphic novel, especially since they see more bankability in reviving the Superman franchise with Nicholas Cage and Kevin Smith....

 

[vultan]

Here are several problems:

* Demi Moore, at the time of pre-production of the film (c.1991/1992) is considered an unbankable star with 3 flops ( The Butcher's Wife, Mortal Thoughts, and Nothing But Trouble).

It's flexible, who would you go for?

* Second, with Arnold Schwarzenegger, his bankability was also questionable with the films Christmas in Connecticut and Last Action Hero. This despite the fact that he is going to ask for c.$12.0 million paycheck...

They need a star in their somewhere...

* Third, Bruce Campbell is definitely not going to be approved as a major star, considering the biggest film he made was Army of Darkness with Sam Raimi. All of his other films are straight-to-video "crap" pieces that no studio would respect...

I'm gonna try to stick for Campbell as much as possible. Remember, not all of the actors in OTL Watchmen (in fact, none really...) were huge stars, and this would be after a lengthy audition process, with potential bigger actors demanding too much or leaving due to scheduling.. I'm not saying he's a good actor, but Bruce will probably make an interesting Comedian.

* Fourth, consider that there is also going to be a concern that too many comic films have flopped already (e.g. The Punisher (1990); Captain America (1990); The Rocketeer (1991); and the dailies for The Fantastic Four (1994) are looking terrible....

...while the Batman movies did GREAT, the second one even moreso than OTL.

* Fifth, with the World Trade Center bombing on February 26th, 1993, there are going to be many studio heads who will say that the destruction of New York City is "exploitative". Along with the April 19th, 1993 Branch Davidian case in Waco, Texas, there are going to be calls during pre-production to alter the script....

I was thinking about that. This will be well into production though, perhaps it will be "less" exploitative if they move location of the plot to, say, Los Angeles. It will certainly make filming easier, being close by.

* Sixth, many studio heads are going to question production on an obscure graphic novel, especially since they see more bankability in reviving the Superman franchise with Nicholas Cage and Kevin Smith....

Preproduction for that Superman film (Superman Lives, I think?) was mid-90's, not late 90's. And if you can get some "hype" going, say, a little teaser trailer in Jurassic Park, it could generate some interest.

 

[Fenwick]

I agree with Bondoc. When you look at how Watchmen got to be filmed you get the impression it was due to studios buying up all comic book franchises as possible, and a few people seeing it was the time to film the thing.

Mind you int he 1990's no one gives a crap what a comic book nerd wants. Nothing shows a studio that they are an untapped market. What they do know is that a movie is one block of marketing, stacked upon cross promotions, toys, t-shirts, and collectors items.

Watchmen is hindered by having this core group of people who refuse to watch anything but what they read in the comic. Like how LOTR fans complained how the Dwarf looked, here we will have the division between fans, and producers. Fans want the story from the comic, while producers want something to make money. In 1994 nothing says risking an unknown comic is going to make money.

Really I see this as three to four script rewrites before entering development hell. Possibly we get some film out of this but I do not see it as interesting. For the major flaw in playing to the family values crowd is the possiblity that some newscaster shows the Watchmen comic on 60 minutes.

Can you picture that?

"I'm Morley Safer, and they say its a family film but tonight we look into the film called The Watchmen." Cue image of Rorschach chopping up a dog, or tossing hot grease on a man.

 

[vultan]

I agree with Bondoc. When you look at how Watchmen got to be filmed you get the impression it was due to studios buying up all comic book franchises as possible, and a few people seeing it was the time to film the thing.

Mind you int he 1990's no one gives a crap what a comic book nerd wants. Nothing shows a studio that they are an untapped market. What they do know is that a movie is one block of marketing, stacked upon cross promotions, toys, t-shirts, and collectors items.

Watchmen is hindered by having this core group of people who refuse to watch anything but what they read in the comic. Like how LOTR fans complained how the Dwarf looked, here we will have the division between fans, and producers. Fans want the story from the comic, while producers want something to make money. In 1994 nothing says risking an unknown comic is going to make money.

Really I see this as three to four script rewrites before entering development hell. Possibly we get some film out of this but I do not see it as interesting. For the major flaw in playing to the family values crowd is the possiblity that some newscaster shows the Watchmen comic on 60 minutes.

Can you picture that?

"I'm Morley Safer, and they say its a family film but tonight we look into the film called The Watchmen." Cue image of Rorschach chopping up a dog, or tossing hot grease on a man.

Well, you think I should just stop right here then?

 

[Fenwick]

Well, you think I should just stop right here then?

No, you are doing fine. I think the issue is that you are viewing this as the best film ever.

It is both very popular, and made close to a billion dollars. So if you go that path think about films in that time period. You will see they suffer from studio control, and that is not always a bad thing, but it rejects things like dark, gritty comics are profitable.

Or if you want the comic to stay true to form cut the budget, and make it an early indy film. Really the number of films which make money and are popular you can count on one hand.

To be honest if you want a good example look to Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. It was an utter flop but became a classic due to the indepth story.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

It's flexible, who would you go for?

Probably someone younger and/or with more acting talent. Jennifer Conelly, Ashley Judd, Juliette Lewis, Sharon Stone, et al....

They need a star in their somewhere...

How about Bruce Willis as the Comedian? Consider that he was available considering his string of film failures prior to Pulp Fiction (e.g. Last Man Standing, Hudson Hawk, et al.). Also Sylvester Stallone wanted some dramatic roles (e.g. Copland). He could also look the part of the Comedian....

I'm gonna try to stick for Campbell as much as possible. Remember, not all of the actors in OTL Watchmen (in fact, none really...) were huge stars, and this would be after a lengthy audition process, with potential bigger actors demanding too much or leaving due to scheduling.. I'm not saying he's a good actor, but Bruce will probably make an interesting Comedian.

Unfortunately, not if you look at his resume through 1994....

...while the Batman movies did GREAT, the second one even moreso than OTL.

For studios, that is 1 in 4 chance of success. Also Batman had the name recognition factor from the many comic books, cartoons, memoribilia, and TV shows (e.g. Adam West). Prior to 1994, The Watchmen was known only by comic book afficianados. The article by TIME magazine proclaiming it one of the "top 25 novels of the century" will not be written for another 6 years....

I was thinking about that. This will be well into production though, perhaps it will be "less" exploitative if they move location of the plot to, say, Los Angeles. It will certainly make filming easier, being close by.

And you lose 1/2 your audience of purists who will point out that the graphic novel is a New York story. This spells flop all over the story....

Preproduction for that Superman film (Superman Lives, I think?) was mid-90's, not late 90's. And if you can get some "hype" going, say, a little teaser trailer in Jurassic Park, it could generate some interest.

For characters that only c.5% of the known audience actually knows about? Consider that was the cause of the flops of Bulletproof Monk, The Losers, The Shadow, et al.

 

[vultan]

No, you are doing fine. I think the issue is that you are viewing this as the best film ever.

It is both very popular, and made close to a billion dollars. So if you go that path think about films in that time period. You will see they suffer from studio control, and that is not always a bad thing, but it rejects things like dark, gritty comics are profitable.

Or if you want the comic to stay true to form cut the budget, and make it an early indy film. Really the number of films which make money and are popular you can count on one hand.

To be honest if you want a good example look to Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. It was an utter flop but became a classic due to the indepth story.

Well, what do you think the best case scenario with a Watchmen movie would be?

 

[vultan]

For studios, that is 1 in 4 chance of success. Also Batman had the name recognition factor from the many comic books, cartoons, memoribilia, and TV shows (e.g. Adam West). Prior to 1994, The Watchmen was known only by comic book afficianados. The article by TIME magazine proclaiming it one of the "top 25 novels of the century" will not be written for another 6 years....



And you lose 1/2 your audience of purists who will point out that the graphic novel is a New York story. This spells flop all over the story....



For characters that only c.5% of the known audience actually knows about? Consider that was the cause of the flops of Bulletproof Monk, The Losers, The Shadow, et al.

Okay, firsts problems noted. How would YOU segway out of these problems?

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Okay, firsts problems noted. How would YOU segway out of these problems?

You either need independent directors who can create good work with a limited budget (e.g. Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Sam Raimi et al.). Something that unfortunately is not possible with Gilliam (e.g. The Brothers Grimm, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, et al.).

Either that, or a director who can churn out a summer film, which will most likely P.O. the purists (e.g. McG, Don Simpson, Jerry Bruckheimer, et al.). If you go with this route, you have actors like Nicholas Cage thrust into roles...

Also you need people with a good ear for dialogue. Just remember that Joss Whedon and Quentin Tarantino both got their big breaks through script-writing...

 

[vultan]

You either need independent directors who can create good work with a limited budget (e.g. Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Sam Raimi et al.). Something that unfortunately is not possible with Gilliam (e.g. The Brothers Grimm, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, et al.).

Either that, or a director who can churn out a summer film, which will most likely P.O. the purists (e.g. McG, Don Simpson, Jerry Bruckheimer, et al.). If you go with this route, you have actors like Nicholas Cage thrust into roles...

Also you need people with a good ear for dialogue. Just remember that Joss Whedon and Quentin Tarantino both got their big breaks through script-writing...

Remember (and this is hoing to come by in the next edit) I changed the director to Ridley Scott. You think he can push out a sufficiently dark Watchmen?
Secondly, how could the climax be changed, to make it tasteful, keeping the story in New York and the ending essentially the same.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Remember (and this is hoing to come by in the next edit) I changed the director to Ridley Scott. You think he can push out a sufficiently dark Watchmen?
Secondly, how could the climax be changed, to make it tasteful, keeping the story in New York and the ending essentially the same.

First, consider that Ridley Scott has also made some pretty bad films, consider 1492 (1992) which was universally panned by the critics. This means that expectations are going to be high for him to have a blockbuster.....

Second, maybe have Ozymandias do the routine of every Bond villian and explain his plan in a fashion that is revealed to the whole world. The idea is that he is using himself as a sacrificial lamb, to act as the fallguy. Have him die a Lee Harvey Oswald-type death.... Or Doctor Manhattan and Nite Owl have to continue the masquerade that Ozymandias has turned into a supervillian...

 

[vultan]

Second, maybe have Ozymandias do the routine of every Bond villian and explain his plan in a fashion that is revealed to the whole world. The idea is that he is using himself as a sacrificial lamb, to act as the fallguy. Have him die a Lee Harvey Oswald-type death.... Or Doctor Manhattan and Nite Owl have to continue the masquerade that Ozymandias has turned into a supervillian...

I don't really get what you're saying here. Care to elaborate?

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

I don't really get what you're saying here. Care to elaborate?

In an effort to prevent the Soviet Union and the U.S. from going to war against each other, Ozymandias molds himself into the "ultimate enemy" for the sole purpose of establishing peace. Just like every James Bond-villian, he publicly announces his plans to destroy America and the Soviet Union.

Ozymandias only creates the threat to unite the two factions...

 

[vultan]

In an effort to prevent the Soviet Union and the U.S. from going to war against each other, Ozymandias molds himself into the "ultimate enemy" for the sole purpose of establishing peace. Just like every James Bond-villian, he publicly announces his plans to destroy America and the Soviet Union.

Ozymandias only creates the threat to unite the two factions...

Interesting. What action would he take to announce himself? Also, I'm assuming, true to Watchmen, he gets away...

 

[Fenwick]

Interesting. What action would he take to announce himself? Also, I'm assuming, true to Watchmen, he gets away...

Nuclear missiles, some movie weapon, does not really matter. Hell make him use a freeze ray.

 

[vultan]

Nuclear missiles, some movie weapon, does not really matter. Hell make him use a freeze ray.

But should he get away or not?