DC Comics Announces WATCHMEN Crossover Series

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by aaronfirebrand, Feb 2, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. aaronfirebrand

    aaronfirebrand Well-Known Member Thread Starter


    I wish that Moore had done some standalone books for the WATCHMEN characters after finishing that series. Something like what he did with Image's "1963" issues, or what Bongo did with the "Radioactive Man" issues.

    "Whatever Happened To The Man of Steel" is one of my favorite stories, and I was thinking that it might make a good film (that would never be made, I know).
     
  2. aaronfirebrand

    aaronfirebrand Well-Known Member Thread Starter


    Something with magic fingers, I'm sure.
     
  3. Bender Rodriguez

    Bender Rodriguez RIP Exene, best dog ever. 2005-2016

    For the Man Who Has Everything and Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? are two of my favorite Superman stories.

    Both appear in DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore which I recommend.
     
  4. aaronfirebrand

    aaronfirebrand Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    That's right, man of tomorrow, not "steel". Been awhile since I looked at it.
    That two-parter has been reprinted in different formats, but this is my favorite:
     

    Attached Files:

  5. The studios view the comic book divisions as cheap sources of ideas and incubators for films and brands with licensing potential. DC Comics is in no danger of being killed off by Time Warner.
     
  6. aaronfirebrand

    aaronfirebrand Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    Wouldn't Time Warner own the characters regardless of whether DC folds or flies?
    Seems like screenwriters could develop ideas for film as well or better than comic writers. Or studios could just hire comics pros to do what they already do for the books, as with Frank Miller.
     
  7. Frank Miller is only Frank Miller because he became famous working at Marvel and DC on their icons in comic books. The studios consider the comics market like a test run for concepts, to weed out the less interesting properties for mass consumption. It's cheaper and more effective than throwing a bunch of screenwriters at the process.
     
  8. blind_melon1

    blind_melon1 An erotic adventurer of the most deranged kind....

    Location:
    Australia
    :agree: I really enjoyed it too! I own the Blu ray, and have watched it far more than any other comic book based movie in my collection.
     
  9. aaronfirebrand

    aaronfirebrand Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    I didn't realize screenwriters were more expensive than publishing empires.

    I only used Miller as an example because he went from comics to film, and I think there are a lot of comics writers who could do well with that transition.

    Instead of cherry-picking concepts developed in comics to use in film (which only sporadically succeed), the studios could use comics writers to create with film in mind.
     
  10. JDistheone

    JDistheone Forum Resident

    Location:
    Denton, TX
    :thumbsup:

    When I sold of my comics I kept 2 titles: Watchmen and 1963 (Image comics), both by Alan Moore. I understand his bitterness toward Hollywood, but he has become a total hypocrite regarding other people using his creations.

    But I do love the characters and want to read the new stories, but the cost is what? ($3.99 each?) $140 for all the issues? sheesh, I think I'll wait for the bound set.
     
  11. smilin ed

    smilin ed Senior Member

    Location:
    Durham
    "give 'Tamara Drewe' a whirl - great writing"

    Read it when it first appeared and didn't like it at all.
     
  12. Would have been much higher if they hadn't shot most of it in Canada.
     
  13. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    A movie that costs $130,000,000 to make and $50,000,000 to promote, and then grosses $181M... that is a flop. Contemporary Hollywood movies need to make a minimum of 2 to 2.5 the negative costs just to break even. Even $300M wouldn't be enough.

    On the other hand: longtime Hollywood pundit Nikki Finke has evidence that Harry Potter 5 didn't make a profit, and it made $800M. The road to profitability is not easy.

    The surest sign of profitability is when they make sequels. Famously, some thought that Superman (1978) wasn't that successful, and the producers fired the director because of cost overruns and other disputes... but WB still made a lotta sequels.

    Comic book movies are tough these days. Don't expect any sequels to Watchmen, Green Lantern, or Green Hornet. In the case of the latter, Howard Stern asked Seth Rogan in a recent interview, "hey, any chance of a Green Hornet II?", and he quickly answered, "no way will that happen." He had no illusions after the movie cost $120M + marketing and only made $227M.
     
  14. Willowman

    Willowman Senior Member

    Location:
    London, UK
    That article you linked to shows that Warners made a chunky profit on HP5, they just distributed across their various subsidiaries.
     
  15. Didn't I read somewhere recently that they were rebooting "Green Lantern" (possibly with Reynolds) with a different director and writer? I'm sure that I read that somewhere because despite the fact that the film didn't do well at the box office relation to cost between home video and merchandise tie-in's, the franchise still had some potential.

    I'll have to look for the article. Of course that doesn't mean it will happen but I don't think Warner is going to completely give up on a possible franchise film that made that much money. If they could produce a sequel for less they might be able to do decent business on a sequel.

    Edit: Ah, here's the articles:

    http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011...tern-2-will-be-edgier-flash-has-solid-script/
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-pursue-green-lantern-205703
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/the-green-lantern-sequel-_n_916279.html
     
  16. I doubt we see another Green Lantern film with Reynolds as the star. The film was a bomb for Warner. It's much more likely we will eventually get a Justice League movie that heavily features Green Lantern.
     
  17. That would be too bad because I thought the casting was quite good for the film--the problem was more with the writing and direction of the film.

    I believe that they had Reynolds signed up for two possible sequels so they may have to do a play or pay with him.
     
  18. Scott Wheeler

    Scott Wheeler Forum Resident

    Location:
    ---------------
    Watchmen did not cost WB 130,000,000 dollars. not even close. When you account for Canadian subsidies and internal "costs" the real cost is substantially lower. Then you have to consider other revenues. Watchmen grossed nearly 50,000,000 in DVD sales alone. when you consider merchandising licence fees, cable fees, netfix etc etc we have a lot more revenue than just the box office.

    This movie made money. I don't care if WB is hiding that fact with creative book keeping. Watchmen was a disappointment only because Zack Snyder's previous effort, 300 was ridiculously profitable. They just figured Watchmen would be more of the same.
     
  19. The real problem with WB is they tend to spend way too much money on promotion and advertising for their tentpole pictures. That ends up leading to massive disappointment for the executives when the movie is not a huge blockbuster. Warner does it on every single comic book property they release as a movie and most of the time it doesn't work.
     
  20. Maggie

    Maggie like a walking, talking art show

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I found this on YouTube today. What is it? Uploaded in 2012.



    Claims to be an "early animatic" for the 2009 film. It's definitely not an animatic (animated storyboard) but it does look professional and includes a credit to Revolution Studies. Perhaps it's a screen test or proof of concept reel for one of the abandoned versions of the film? It has a late-90s/early 2000s look to it and the script is not the same as the 2009 movie (or the comic, for that matter).
     
  21. vince

    vince Stan Ricker's son-in-law

    At the "Hollywood Babble-On" podcast in Vegas, Kev Smith said that 'they' were working on "Watchmen" as a series for HBO!
    That was a few months ago.
     
  22. DreadPikathulhu

    DreadPikathulhu Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    It could work if it were done similar in style to Daredevil on Netflix (i.e. brutal and realistic), but I'm getting tired of superhero movies and TV shows.
     
    Complier and Bender Rodriguez like this.
  23. Maggie

    Maggie like a walking, talking art show

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    He wasn't confusing it with Preacher, was he?
     
  24. vince

    vince Stan Ricker's son-in-law

    Not that I remember.....
    They started by talking about HBO's soon-to-be-seen' re-boot of "Westworld", then ... maybe... 'talks' about "Watchmen".
     
  25. HBO has been plotting a possible Watchmen adaptation for a while. Each episode would cover one issue of the comic, resulting in a 12-episode series.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine