Is Warners Nuts for Backing Snyder's 'Sucker Punch'?

I was all for this until Amanda Seyfried was forced to pull out. If it can be delayed a bit until she can in fact rejoin and shoot it, I'd be willing to go. And that is my only reason, because of a favorite actress appearing.

I think that is what may draw a small crowd to this film, which is of course not what they want. It sounds like a niche film, and they and Snyder just don't have the name recognition to draw in the overwhelming crowd. He would be better to make this an indie film I think than a blockbuster.

Reply

I'm intrigued, Seyfried or not, and I think it's ballsy of Warners in a totally great way. I think it is terrific that a major studio has even considered doing things like Watchmen, TDK, and this...and Watchmen was risky material any way you cut it, because you were always going to piss somebody off, someone wasn't going to like it...it will find it's home on DVD. I think Warners should use that as more of a leap of faith, that if they show their willingness to do different things that people outside the norm can appreciate, it will come back to them. I know I will.

Reply

Was Watchmen's modest boxoffice really a surprise? The source material- which Snyder made no secret of being faithful to- is DARK. Like 1,000 times darker than The Dark Knight. Frankly I'm surprised it made a dime...

Reply

First off I don't know why people are saying that watchmen was a box office failure. Sure it didn't make the kazillion of dollars that TDK made but it made back the budget used to make the damn thing and then some. Plus the dvd sales will push it furthur making it still a modest success. I know I will buy the directors cut once it comes out because I still enjoyed the theatrical cut...Anywho...Bring on Sucker Punch, I know I'll see it because Zack Snyder is a worthy director by any means. There are some hardcore cynics out there....

Reply

I like that Warners are spending 100 million dollars on a film with a wild premise. Why should we be afraid of another a risky R-rated film? This make Warner Brothers one of the best studios in Hollywood!

Reply

Looks like Watchmen will finish it's North American theatrical run at about 115$M, with probably just as much internationally as well, so close to 250$M. When did a 250$M box-office start qualifying as a flop?
The DVD sales are likely to be quite solid if WB puts out the rumored director's cut with all the deleted scenes and Tales of the Black Freighter.
So again, I ask, is Watchmen really a flop? Only people not familiar with the material would view it as just another superheroe movie that failed (in comparison to last summer's huge movies like Dark Knight and Iron Man). Like a previous post said, considering the material and the general public's lack of foreknowledge of the caracters, its a surprise its made so much money. This is a serious and complex movie in any genre, made by serious people for serious people. This isn't Twilight!

Reply

Never make its money back? Come on dude, you're a blogger for a movie site... you should know better than to say something like that.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=watchmen.htm

Let's not forget the DVD / Blu-Ray sales.

Reply

By this point, I LOVE Warner Brothers. With THE DARK KNIGHT, SPEED RACER, WATCHMEN, and A TALE OF TWO DICKS and WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE on the way they don't care about throwing money at projects with no motive than art for arts sake. They're gutsy, man, and I love them for it. More studios should be willing to throw money at high-concept risks.

Reply

Yeah I don't consider Watchmen a flop. I'm sure they would have loved TDK numbers, but I think they won't be in the red over it. They can always just use some of the profits off of 300 to pay for Watchmen.
I think Watchmen will be watched years from now moreso than a lot of boxoffice hits that have been out lately.
I do think that Sucker Punch may be risky. It sounds like it could be done cheaper.

Reply

I don't think a respectable film blogging website should go around calling a film a flop when #1 the film is not even out on DVD yet, and #2 this is not a confirmed reality and is pure speculation.

This happens all the time, mainly because of Heaven's Gate and Waterworld. The best recent example was Hulk. Everyone went around calling it a flop simply because it wasn't a huge hit and they didn't like it.

So Watchmen wasn't The Dark Knight? Move on. It will make money, and Zack Snyder will continue to make great daring films.

Reply

Truthfully with Seyfried out, he might need to go for a big name young actress to star. This will cost 100mil and I don't think it will break even with the rest of the cast that is potentially named. Does it need to cost 100mi?

I

Reply

I was all about it when Amanda Seyfried was signed on, but now that she's not, I couldn't care less about it.

Reply

Spending 100 M on this movie makes no sense. Take the 100M, grab 10 good scripts and hand 10 million to 10 directors. You'll make more in the long run....

Reply

Warner and Legendary pics need to keep the ball rolling on pushing out R-Rated stuff. I love it, and frankly they seem like the only ones with balls!! We need more R-Rated stuff, and not some movie that was held back from its potential by making it a PG-13 shitbag! Not saying all R-Rated stuff is always a good thing, but it leaves the movie open for so much more! I hope they back Snyder on his movie, and i see no reason why they wouldn't frankly. Snyder is the man and on of the hottest up and coming talents we have, who isn't affraid to be himself and make movies the way he wants and always push the bar on that R-Rating! Watchmen was a huge success! I don't know what people are saying. A source material that only like 5% of people were familiar with thats going to end up making a better part of 300 million WW, and a shit load off merch and DVD sales. Its not syders fault that the company over marketed this bitch wrong. They tried to make something that wasn't mainstream, mainstream.

Reply

Watchmen will make money -- just not the crazy amount that Dark Knight did.

What baffles me is why Snyder's next movie will cost $100 million to make. Based on its premise, it sounds like it could be made for a lot less.

Reply

Mr. Davis, I apologize but how exactly is "WATCHMEN" a box office failure?

Despite being a very hard R-rated, nearly 3-hour long, fight-light, philosophically talky, bleak, period-set opus with absolutely no marquee names adapted from quite literary and challenging graphic novel source material that's audience is comprised mainly of niche comic/movie geeks such as myself and somewhat mismarketed as an action-packed "300: Superheroes" due to it being such a hard sell, the film still managed to open bigger in a tougher economy than either of Warner Brothers' universally beloved icons did in "Superman Returns" and "Batman Begins", both also typical summer blockbuster tentpoles, mind you.

Additionally, the movie's opening weekend stands as the 3rd highest ever for the spring season and the month of March, behind only Snyder's own WB juggernaut, "300", and the family-friendly animated sequel, "Ice Age: The Meltdown".

At the time of this comment, "WATCHMEN" is right about to cross the $100-million barrier domestically. Combined with current overseas grosses, the film has surpassed its reported $150-million budget by several million dollars now.

Add to this the fact that "WATCHMEN" has myriad ancillary revenue streams along with being a ridiculously brilliant, guaranteed powerhouse contender with an endless shelf-life on home video through what is sure to be far too many versions on DVD and Blu-ray, including the touted, highly-anticipated Director's Cut.

At any rate, comparing "WATCHMEN" to "The Dark Knight" phenomenon is unfair and fairly idiotic. "TDK" was a summer extravaganza, rated PG-13, an action-heavy sequel in a now firmly established franchise, features a well-known cast (including Heath Ledger and all that his considerable and posthumous presence entails), and countless kiddie-centric merchandising opportunities. Not to mention its plot and advertising revolving around some of the most iconic, famous characters in pop culture history.

Seriously, come on now.

As for "Sucker Punch", count me in. I absolutely love that all the principals in this dark, big-budget, stylized blockbuster are going to be female. A very fresh, bold move, indeed. It's truly sad that that is the case in Hollywood even today but I have to applaud WB's recent fearless efforts to mix things up and push forward creatively.

Warner's newfound staunch support of difficult, mature, iconoclast, dark, intelligent, high-concept, original and/or highly unconventional material like "Sucker Punch", "A Couple Of Dicks", "Observe & Report", "WATCHMEN", and "The Dark Knight" is quickly cementing a sterling reputation as the most artist-friendly, risk-taking, trend-setting major studio on the block. Bravo!

On a side-note, as undeniably talented and staggeringly gorgeous as Amanda Seyfried is, she is in not yet a proven box office draw, at all. Out of the announced/rumored cast for "Sucker Punch", she isn't even the most popular and experienced. Her unfortunate departure, while certainly a negative blow to the project, is hardly crippling. Any of the other lovely, gifted ladies attached could presumably easily fill her vacated shoes and, barring that, it isn't as if there is a shortage of beautiful young actresses with the dramatic/physical chops to tackle this leading role.

Hey, wait! Isn't Lindsay Lohan looking for a little career rehabilitation?

Reply