Who watches the Watchmen? Apparently the bean counters at Warner Bros., who spent a lot of money to make Zack Snyder’s “Watchmen” and gave the “300” director all the leeway he asked for, and then some. All for naught, it would appear, as the film has yet to break through the $100 million mark at the box office in its third week. The film was Rated R, and was nearly three hours long. That, says WB, is the reason why they’re losing money.
A source deep within the bowels of the Warner Bros. headquarters in Big Movie Studio Land tells IESB this:
How much of the movie going market – specifically those that go to see superhero/genre films – is cut out by rating a film R versus a PG-13? Warner Bros. thinks too much and is said to be focusing solely on PG-13 rated superhero/tentpole films only, definitely harder than the “family friendly” superhero films of Fantastic Four but not in the R rated range.
The fact that “The Dark Knight” was PG-13 and has already made a gazillion buckaroos probably doesn’t hurt WB’s thinking. Of course, I thought “The Dark Knight” was MORE violent than “Watchmen”, at least in the “disturbingly violent” area. How it ever got away with a PG-13 rating still boggles my mind.
To be perfectly honest with you, I think Snyder didn’t really need to make “Watchmen” an R movie in the first place. Sure, we’re all very appreciative of Snyder showing us Malin Akerman’s T&A during her late-night friction action in the Owl Ship, but I think the movie could have done without the gratuitous bone breaking violence or head-chopping via meat cleaver. Then again, those were kinda cool, so maybe it did have to be R-rated. And anyways, although seeing Doctor Manhattan’s schlong wasn’t completely necessary, I’m sure the ladies appreciated it. Talk about blue balls.
Below: Should “Watchmen” have been R-rated? Which part of “Malin Akerman’s T&A” didn’t you understand?