[kevin]

Originally Posted by MonsieurHood

"Watchmen" was so good, so faithful to it's origins. I wish it well in the annals of graphic novel adaptation history. But it's so like it's graphic novel counterpart that it's popularity is dividing up along the same lines. I do believe the film will eventually be as honored and as praised as it's literary namesake. It just might take a while for it to happen.

And at the end of the day, that matters more than it's short term box-office haul.

[MissionTrek08]

There's a hitch in comparing box office 'drops' for films: not all films are released in the same theatrical environment, not against the same competition, and not in the same economic framework.

Thus comparing one film's drop off to another strictly on numbers and percentage can but quite misleading, since that is affected by so many other factors.

TITANTIC became the #1 box office draw (still a mystery to me) because a select portion of its original audience went to see it again. And again. And again. Forever. That's box office dollars via longevity, not by staying the #1 film each week for 52 straight weeks. It just didn't stop making money, so profits accrued accordingly.

WATCHMEN was released in a fairly tepid theatrical market on its opening weekend, so it would be expected that it's first weekend would be huge (by either the anticipation or curiosity factor) and then it would drop off considerably the next week. Few if any audience members were having to choose between top opening films that first weekend, so few had to wait a week to go see it on weekend #2. But those factors still do not determine the film's eventual profitability or overall success, because it's too early to see where the film will end up.

It's bad enough that critics have bought into the percentage 'handicapping' of films as a measure of their artistic or commercial merit, but now audiences have to. Again, that's playing fantasy football with filmmaking, which isn't an artform spawned by numbers at all. Those who reduce it sheerly to those proportions should have no complaints when they're inundated by films which are 'paint by numbers' dreck and nothing more.

[kevin]

But it did stay the number 1 film for 15 consecutive weeks, as well as having the basic longevity via repeat business! It's longevity blasted everything else out the water, including several other potential top draws.

Although Titanic was such a box-office freak that it probably shouldn't be used in comparison, that's a fair point.

Personally I find box-office stats to be incredibly interesting (I'm weird, but what can I say!), but they don't mean a film itself is good or bad. So I don't judge a film on how it performs. But I like looking at the info about that.

[jla1987]

Originally Posted by kevin

Personally I find box-office stats to be incredibly interesting (I'm weird, but what can I say!), but they don't mean a film itself is good or bad. So I don't judge a film on how it performs. But I like looking at the info about that.

I'm the same way. I look forward to analyzing the new Trek's numbers And hopefully, they'll be REALLY good!

[That Metal Beastie]

Originally Posted by jla1987

I'm the same way. I look forward to analyzing the new Trek's numbers And hopefully, they'll be REALLY good!

Fingers crossed!