Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media

Watchmen 50 Days On, Was It Worth the Gamble? 448

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-i-enjoyed-it dept.
brumgrunt writes "Friday marks the 50th day on general release for what was the long-awaited Watchmen movie. But how much money has it made, and how has it measured up to Warner Bros' expectations? Has it, bluntly, been worth the gamble, expense and hassle? "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Watchmen 50 Days On, Was It Worth the Gamble?

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .nhojovadle.> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @10:55AM (#27687491) Journal

    When Watchmen shot out of the blocks to an opening weekend of $55m in the US back at the start of March, there were some mutterings of discontent that this wasn't quite the kind of number that Warner Bros was looking for.

    Well, to be fair, stateside that puts it at #6 [boxofficemojo.com] for opening weekend for a Rated R movie. And 64th [boxofficemojo.com] overall. Worldwide so far it's sitting at $180+ million [imdb.com] and, like the article said, DVD and Blu-Ray sales often make a big difference.

    I've heard that the estimated budget was $100 million. So they've made $80 million over that ... so what is the problem exactly? You've made the #6 most popular R rated movie by opening weekend in the United States. Job well done. I assure you that DVD and Blu-Ray sales will net you a lot of money. Especially with that Curse of the Black Freighter stuff you withheld from the movie.

    It was always going to be a harder sell than a Batman or Spider-man movie ...

    For the love of all things binary, I thought it was common knowledge that you cannot compare rated R movies to PG-13 movies. Every single Batman & Spider-man movie has been rated below R.

    The movie did well and I'm sure it was worth it.

    • by clickclickdrone (964164) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @10:56AM (#27687517)
      >I've heard that the estimated budget was $100 million. So they've made $80 million over that ...
      >so what is the problem exactly?
      The usual rule of thumb is that a film needs to make 2.5-3 times it's budget before it's profitable - that allows for everyone in the chain, cinemas etc to get their cut. As such, Watchman needs to make around $300m before it makes the studio happy.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by gnick (1211984)

        Yeah - I'm glad they made it and I'm glad I saw it. But I'm also glad that I didn't have a stake in it - It had to be an unsettling investment for those who did. It's got to feel good to have participated, but it was obviously a gamble from the beginning. Watchmen is definitely aimed at a niche market.

        Still - I'll bet that DVD sales are good. TPB be damned, I'll have a boxed copy here.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          >Still - I'll bet that DVD sales are good.
          Yep. It will be Serenity all over again.
        • by CFTM (513264) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:11AM (#27687755)

          This the sort of feature that will be able to have about 5 different DVD releases, with the niche market running out to buy every version. You can have the theatrical release, which will occur in the next few months, and about six months after that then you can have your director's cut release, and then a year after that you can have your "Ultimate Director's Edition!" which will cost 3 X as much as the Theatrical release and include inane commentary and material that was left on the cutting room floor for a reason.

          The studios will be fine, they just won't make the killing that they'd like too on it!

        • by try_anything (880404) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @12:12PM (#27688809)

          But I'm also glad that I didn't have a stake in it - It had to be an unsettling investment for those who did. It's got to feel good to have participated, but it was obviously a gamble from the beginning. Watchmen is definitely aimed at a niche market.

          On the contrary, it was probably a pretty predictable quantity compared to other movies. Not that any new release is predictable, but this one wasn't anything like 300 or Sin City where they were hoping to pull in people who knew nothing about the source material, or like Persepolis where it was unknown whether the enthusiasm for the books would last through the release of the movie (and where there was probably a lot of doubt that fans of the books would even bother to see the movie.) It was a so-so movie based on a popular and prestigious graphic novel. They knew the size of the niche. They knew that the readership of the graphic novel would contain more movie fans than the general population, and, having test-screened the movie, they knew it wouldn't break out to a broader audience or inspire massive rewatching.

          Assuming that the broadcast and rental rights were sold before the film screened, the DVD sales are probably the riskiest part -- how many people want to see it again? Will fans of the graphic novel want to buy a movie that failed to do the source material justice (inevitably and maybe blamelessly, but still)?

      • by Bemopolis (698691) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:16AM (#27687827)
        Fuck the studios' happiness. These are the same people who claimed to the author of FORREST GUMP that there were no net profits to share with him. You remember that bomb, doncha? Only made $330M domestic in theatres. How anybody at that studio could afford to feed a family after that disaster is beyond me. And by "family" I mean "cocaine habit."
      • by Repossessed (1117929) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:43AM (#27688285)

        Sorry but that is fucking ridiculous. If you can't make a profit off a 180% return on your investment something is seriously flawed with the business model, and you need to figure out what you did wrong.

        • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @12:34PM (#27689277)

          Oh they profit from the investment, it's only on paper that they don't profit.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting [wikipedia.org]

          Basically if you give all the money to other companies that arent your company but really are because you are both owned by the same people, you've on paper lost a ton of money (they call it gross), but that's only on paper.

          Whats funny to me is that after screwing over the author of Forest Gump, the studios approached him for rights to the sequel. As the wiki page mentions, he told them he "he cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure." So, good job guys, you've ensured you're never going to make money from the second movie.

          I swear if people across this country put half the thought into their buisness that they do into how to cheat their way into more money, we'd have no economic troubles and would nationally be 10 trillion in black rather than in red. And we'd have much better movies.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by homesnatch (1089609)
          Come on... really? $180M at the box office does not mean $180M for the studio. Cinemas split the box office proceeds 50/50 with the Studio. So, 90M for the studio... they haven't broken even yet.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nasor (690345)
        No way. Theaters usually get to keep between 25% and ZERO percent of ticket proceeds. Yes, sometimes it's zero; for really big films that people are sure will pack the theater, often the theaters have to agree to turn all ticket proceeds over to the studio, and make whatever profit they can off the overpriced popcorn etc.

        Worst case, a film might need to make 50% over its production cost in box office revenue to turn a profit, but usually it's more like 20% over production cost.
      • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:52AM (#27688431)

        The usual rule of thumb is that a film needs to make 2.5-3 times it's budget before it's profitable - that allows for everyone in the chain, cinemas etc to get their cut. As such, Watchman needs to make around $300m before it makes the studio happy.

        Where is this rule of thumb? This is Hollywood accounting [wikipedia.org] by the way where Forrest Gump with a budget of $55 million grossed over $670 million at the box office but was declared "unprofitable" by Paramount in order to avoid paying royalties to Winston Groom who wrote the novel. Mr. Groom unfortunately did not know that most of Hollywood write their contracts to get a cut of the gross not the net revenue because the infamous Hollywood accounting. Paramount later settled their dispute with Winston only because they really wanted to make the sequel.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by pete_norm (150498)

          Paramount later settled their dispute with Winston only because they really wanted to make the sequel.

          My moma always said that watching a movie sequel is like eating an entire box of chocolate, just after you finish eating an entire box of chocolate. It usually makes you sick to your stomach...

    • by onion2k (203094) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:00AM (#27687563) Homepage

      You're ignoring the opportunity cost. Sure, it'll end up returning 3 times the amount it cost to make, which is a decent profit, but could the studio have spent that money making another (or two, or three other) films that would have done better? If so then Watchmen was the wrong choice. In this case would they have been better off making a couple of PG-13 films?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lumpy (12016)

      I am one who rarely buys a DVD and even rare-er buys a bluray.

      I will in fact be buying Watchmen. and a LOT of others I know will be as well.

    • by wild_quinine (998562) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:07AM (#27687679) Homepage

      I've heard that the estimated budget was $100 million. So they've made $80 million over that ... so what is the problem exactly?

      The problem is that Hollywood Execs are not looking to be successful on a scale of 'job well done', and nor should they, from their paradigm. Their paradigm is manufacturing success, through advertising, TV spots, trailers, awareness campaigns, viral marketing, celebrity whoring, and as many other nefarious tactics as they can get away with, in order to absolutely 100% guarantee a certain level of success.

      Just doing alright is a failure, from that paradigm.

      A success would be the biggest opening weekend of all time. And that's what we see, again and again. Look, and you will see that this record is broken by every other truly triple-A blockbuster, probably happens a couple of times a year or more.

      The real sign of failure is that video games now have even bigger opening weekends - Halo 3, followed hotly by GTA 4, really showed Holywood what an opening weekend could be.

      Let the whoring begin!

      • You also have to look at from the perspective of "were we successful enough to whore it for sequels."

        Maybe not.

    • by chebucto (992517) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:07AM (#27687683) Homepage

      I've heard that the estimated budget was $100 million. So they've made $80 million over that ... so what is the problem exactly?

      Opportunity cost. $100m invested in The Watchmen can't be invested elsewhere, and if $100m invested in another movie would have given higher profits, then they didn't make as much money as they could have.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by VShael (62735)

      I believe with marketing, and the fact that FOX wanted their pound of flesh, it was closer to 200 million.

    • by YourExperiment (1081089) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @01:06PM (#27689873)

      You do not want this movie to be financially successful, otherwise the studio will insist on producing a sequel.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by teko_teko (653164)

      For the love of all things binary, I thought it was common knowledge that you cannot compare rated R movies to PG-13 movies. Every single Batman & Spider-man movie has been rated below R.

      Let's compared it with Sin City then. Data from imdb:

      Watchmen
      Released: March 6, 2009
      Budget: $100,000,000 (estimated)

      Opening Weekend
      $55,214,334 (USA) (8 March 2009) (3,611 Screens)
      £3,243,001 (UK) (8 March 2009) (419 Screens)

      Gross
      $106,418,446 (USA) (12 April 2009)

      Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/business [imdb.com] (TFA data may be more current than this)

      Sin City
      Released: April 1, 2005
      Budget: $40,000,000 (estimated)

      Opening Weekend
      $29,120,273 (USA) (3 April 2005) (3,230 Screens)
      £2,452,2

  • yes, worth it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dan667 (564390) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @10:56AM (#27687507)
    Warner Bros made money. If they make a good director's cut they will make a boat load of new money.
    • by tuxgeek (872962)
      Agreed
      I enjoyed the movie. Will look for the extended cut blueray version when it comes out.
      Profitable ??? ... we'll see but still a classic to have in the library
  • by GMonkeyLouie (1372035) <gmonkeylouie@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @10:59AM (#27687547)

    Totally worth it. A bunch of my friends who had never read Watchmen, and really aren't the reading types, made it out to see the movie and we all had a long discussion about Rorschach and the Comedian, and how much we loved Dan Dreiberg.

    Movie was good, Watchmen is good to make a movie about, end of story.

    • Totally worth it. A bunch of my friends who had never read Watchmen, and really aren't the reading types, made it out to see the movie and we all had a long discussion about Rorschach and the Comedian, and how much we loved Dan Dreiberg.

      Movie was good, Watchmen is good to make a movie about, end of story.

      I couldn't disagree more.

      An hour too long, dull and unsympathetic characters, suspension of belief overchallenged, lame ending. I don't see how anyone who wasn't already a fan could have possibly enjoyed it.

      • by anonicon (215837)

        I wasn't much of a fan of the book at all, but after seeing the film, the relationships between the old and new Watchmen made a lot more sense. I'll be re-reading the book because of it.

        Frankly, I enjoyed it a lot. It won't end up in IMDB's all-time Top 10, but IMO it was a good movie.

      • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

        Ditto for me. Mostly it was the absurd violence and sex that just got in the way, and I'm a big fan of violence and sex. The whole time I was thinking "seriously?". It was almost like a spoof, only it obviously wasn't intended to be. And before you go saying "Watchmen the GN had lots of violence and sex", everybody I've heard from who has read it says the movie went way over the top on the violence.

        Plus, the ending sucked. Again, I was just thinking "seriously?"

  • But I greatly enjoyed it, felt it resonate with me and felt better for having seen it.
  • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:01AM (#27687585)
    It was argued that movies like TDK showed that a darker, more serious summer movie could fill seats and rake in cash, and likewise a few years ago The Matrix Reloaded was making money hand over fist long after the hype train was derailed, in spite of an R rating and a relatively cerebral (most would say pretentiously so) story. Both successes challenged conventional wisdom about the summer blockbuster and probably opened the door for Watchmen to a degree.* I worry that Watchmen's unimpressive gross will convince studios to close that door again and be more conservative with content and tone on their big-ticket movies. Where then for Iron Man 2's mooted alcoholism subplot?

    *I know Watchmen was in production by the time TDK arrived in 2008, but a lot could've been left on the cutting-room floor if the studio had seen that year's adult superhero movie flop.
    • by Sockatume (732728)
      Please excuse the double-post of this below, I clicked away and didn't see the comment come up when I revisisted so I assumed I hadn't gone past "preview".
    • While darker than previous Batman movies, The Dark Knight was still PG-13. Makes the target audience much, much larger. Especially amongst teens with disposable income and time to see the movie 3 times in the cinema.

  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:02AM (#27687591) Homepage Journal

    Has it, bluntly, been worth the gamble, expense and hassle? "

    It's not worth the gamble, expense, and hassle to go see a movie in the theater any more. Speaking as part of the core audience for this movie (as in, I actually own the graphic novel) there is no fucking way that I'll go to a theater to see much of anything any more. I actually found it cheaper to buy an HDTV than to go to the movies once a month for a year. Unfortunately for the Blu-Ray wankers, I also find that an upconverted DVD looks fucking fantastic. If I were the kind of person who paused stills so that I could bitch about compression artifacting maybe I would feel differently. Finally, I find that I rewatch movies less and less these days, so I won't buy the movie on any form of media. At this point it looks like I'll be renting a DVD from Netflix.

    The distributors have been ratcheting up the price of getting the print in your movie theater to the point where diminishing returns are in full effect. My understanding is that pretty much none of the ticket price typically goes to a theater. For the price of two people going to see the movie, you can buy the DVD. Or better yet, get netflix for a month. If they want asses in theater seats, they're going to have to drop the cost to the theater. And if they want people to spread buzz about their movies, they're going to need those asses in those seats. The movie industry is going to slaughter itself, and it can't happen soon enough for me — not because I want less movies to be produced, but because I think that moviestars have too much influence in our culture.

    • by abigor (540274)

      Try going to matinees, like the first matinee of the day on a Monday or something. They are generally much cheaper and there is just a smattering of people, if anyone at all. So it's almost like a private showing for you and your friends.

      In fact, I'm going to see Observe and Report today at 12:30 pm, and it will only cost $7.75.

    • The movie industry is going to slaughter itself, and it can't happen soon enough for me -- not because I want less movies to be produced, but because I think that moviestars have too much influence in our culture.

      After the rest of your quite cogent argument, this one strikes me as a total non-sequitur.

      How much influence do you think movie stars have over the cost of a theatre ticket? Only a handful call any kind of shots, and even those are subject - entirely - to the whims of the players in the industry.

      Celebrity culture is a major irritation, don't get me wrong. But those glossy idiots are just puppets, held on a string and doted on with a somewhat generous allowance.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Maxo-Texas (864189)

        Everyone involved with movies makes more money these days.

        You see it in the way movies have less of everything real (smaller sets, fewer extras, fewer real stunts, simulated exotic locations).

        IN the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's, most hollywood types were paid salaries a lot closer to the rest of the country. And they made a *ton* more movies as a result.

        Each movie was cheap- the audience paid the same percentage of their income to see a movie a week that we pay to see a movie a month. An actor might be in 15

  • Saw it in Imax, and I'm sure it'll be on my xmas list in Blu-ray. I honestly don't know how it would play to someone who hasn't read the original, but I enjoyed it with relatively minor quibbles. I'm kind of curious about the stuff that didn't make it in.
  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by sunking2 (521698) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:03AM (#27687619)
    Talk about scraping the bottom for story submissions. Are we going to start getting updates to see whether Marley & Me was worth it too?
  • by pecosdave (536896) * on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:06AM (#27687659) Homepage Journal

    This movie is going to shine on the home movie market â" for one really good reason. It's a move a lot of us geek men love but not really one to take a date to. (sure, some of you have that type of woman, but face it, those are a rare type) The guys who had to miss the theatrical release because they didn't want to go to the movies alone because that's just lame are going to buy the DVD, because you can watch that alone, and you have have your to cheap to buy a movie ticket friends watch it with you. (BTW â" I watched it alone, after work, I got off of work at 11:00 PM)

    The theatre I usually go to in Baton Rouge had a sign clearly displayed saying have your ID ready for Watchmen, we will be checking. I don't know how many theaters checked ID's nation wide, but face it, it's easier for under aged comic fans to buy a DVD than it is to get into an R-rated movie in some places. Granted in some other places it's the opposite, but never mind that.

    Let's not forget, some movies just shine on DVD anyways. Who here honestly watched Office Space in the theatre when it premiered? Everyone saw the home release! (I think it went back to the theaters once, but I'm not certain) Tarintino movies, how many did you see in the box office? Probably more at home than in a theatre seat. I wouldn't be surprised if the home release take rivals the theatrical take.

    • by Gizzmonic (412910)

      I mostly agree with you, but Tarantino movies are a bad example. Those movies are made for the theater, especially Grindhouse.

  • The success of The Matrix Reloaded and TDK challenged conventional wisdom about the tone (character-led, cerebral, and dark) and content (R-rated) that a big-budget movie could have and still draw the crowds, arguably opening the door to the Watchmen we saw in theatres. Had TDK flopped, I suspect Watchmen would've gone back for reshoots or had heavy cuts. Watchmen's own flop is likely to justify conventional wisdom to movie executives, closing that door and leading to more conservative production in future.
  • Any time a film makes back less than its budget in domestic gross, it's considered a commercial failure by the studios. It's close enough that they'll probably get past the break even point once DVD sales kick in, but it's by no means a success.

    This isn't really a surprise to me. I had no connection to the source material, so I had no built-in excitement about the film. The reviews were mixed when it opened, so I skipped it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way, though I may be in the minority h

  • I'll buy the extended edit DVD that's coming out this summer. I wasn't crazy about the "book" but liked the movie. I was disappointed that they chose to change the ending, but thought they did a fine job of it.
  • that moviemakers gut the mythology of a work in order to bring it onto screen

    they didn't do that here

    sure, they got rid of the squid, but peter jackson also got rid of mr. bombadil from lotr and no one seems to give him that much flak for that. both the squid and mr. bombadil are kind of completely out of context of the stories they inhabit, so really, no big deal

    obviously, the filmmakers, directors, writers: they had passion for the work. but that's actually the source of the criticism they get: that it was TOO committed to the material. the issue was that they made the movie a slavish devotion to a frame-by-frame reading of the material, which was a herculean task, and also mostly successful, but only on that measure

    and yet they get flak for it: that it was hollow, eeriely emotionally empty for being a frame-by-frame remake. that's been the substance of a lot of critical reviews

    the lesson: you can't satisfy everyone. if you are adopting a major literary work to film, just go with your gut, be prepared to piss off the fanboy fundamentalists, and be prepared to go over the heads of a lot of the audience. because if you pander too much to the fanbots or the general public, you either water down what makes the material great, or you make a cult movie that you will still be hypercriticized for, because, in the end, there just is no satisfying the fundamentalist fanboys

    the best anyone can do is hope for success like peter jackson and lotr. he's pretty much the gold standard now for adapting much loved literary works to screen. meanwhile, watchmen was received lukewarm critical, and lukewarm popular

    so the final commentary is: meh, its ok, whatever

  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:12AM (#27687781) Homepage

    There was a significant amount of back story missing from the movie. I did not read the graphic novels or any of that stuff and instead watched it without any previous knowledge or experience. There was quite a curve to overcome with regards to character development and the background stories. While most things were answered in some way eventually, the flow was still more confusing than it needed to be and they should have realized that prior to opening day. It wasn't just another "super hero" movie.

    What SHOULD they have done? Easy -- release and play some mini episodes that show off the characters in their glory days while promoting the movie itself. This would have built more enthusiasm for the movie and would have given viewers who would not have otherwise been familiar with the characters a greater level of comfort and more ease getting into the story. This could also have resulted in better story development without having to flash back too much.

    • by RobBebop (947356) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:27AM (#27688033) Homepage Journal

      I did not read the graphic novels or any of that stuff and instead watched it without any previous knowledge or experience. There was quite a curve to overcome with regards to character development and the background stories.

      While reading the graphic novel... it takes a long time to truly figure out who the characters are and what their motivations are. The story benefits by keeping you guessing while they investigate and dig deeper into the crime. I imagine introducing Rorsach as the "just-the-fact idealistic investigator" and Dr. Manhattan as the "emotionless super genius" would have taken something away from the story.

      Caveat emptor... I read the novel and still haven't seen the movie.

  • by mbone (558574) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:18AM (#27687879)

    Has it, bluntly, been worth the gamble, expense and hassle?

    Bluntly, it's not my money, or my time, or my movie, so why are you asking me if it was worth it ?

    It would be cool if the producers read slashdot, but I doubt it.

  • They did what I feared they would; they turned it into a superhero movie.

    Because of time limitations they had to cut parts, and of course the parts they cut are all the non-action scenes which set 75% of the mood. The newstand? The Tales of the Black Freighter? Long developed characters and interactions that drive home points a little more involved that BIFF! and POW!

    And don't get me started on how they completely removed the alien and inserted a bomb instead. Ugh.

    • by Reason58 (775044)

      The more I think about it the less I like it. There was practically zero character development. In the comic each and every mask is real. No matter how flat they may seem on the surface, they have rich pasts and experiences. The movie barely scratches the surface of the Comedian, Doctor Manhattan, Ozymandias, Silk Spectre, etc.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mdarksbane (587589)

      They made a better action-adventure story, but a worse work of literature.

      I re-read the book right after I saw the movie, and I hadn't realized how many character details they had cut.

      They left in visual details, plot details... I honestly thought the plot adjustments were fine. But they skipped on so many of the little character lines that made them people with depth.

      I will probably be buying the ultra-extended black freighter dvd anyway, though, just to see what they managed to add back in.

  • I wanted to see it translated to the big screen. I still like the comic better, but they did an amazing job on the film and I absolutely enjoyed it. I'll be buying the DVD too.

    When did money become the primary criteria for determining the merit of an artistic project? Sheesh, what a stupid society we live in.

    • When did money become the primary criteria for determining the merit of an artistic project? Sheesh, what a capitalist society we live in.

      Fixed that for you.

  • I loved it. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rickb928 (945187) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:27AM (#27688027) Homepage Journal

    Made my wife sick to her stomach.

    I loved it. I'll catch it on HBO like 6 times...

  • by revco_38 (657452) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @12:40PM (#27689401)
    It would have been groundbreaking. 20+ years after it broke ground, everyone alerady has been playing in it's territory. There is nothing (on the face of things) that is new or fresh 20 years later. Dont get me wrong, I worked at a comic book store in 1986 and I was reading the comic as it came out. I understand what it did for comics as a whole but in the movie business these things are not new for 2009. The movie is just too late to be the blockbuster it could have been.
  • by Mr. Beatdown (1221940) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @12:45PM (#27689479)
    Was one mention of the blue penis not enough? Did we needed another, more descriptive, big blue penis?
  • by Barny (103770) <bakadamage-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @06:56PM (#27695591) Homepage Journal

    Not read the comic, so will not comment on that.

    But the best part, for me, was the parents storming out with their pack of 8-15yr olds from the film and screaming (you could hear them over the cinema sound, so they were loud) at the ticket clerk for their money back, just after the rape scene.

    Seriously, why the fuck would you take children to an R rated movie, regardless if the source was "a comic"?

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.

Working...