M: Deborah Forte refuses to give up...

[jessia]

New Line's foreign distribs would certainly snap up the sequels, if offered. If Warner gives the greenlight, the overseas indies won't get a look-in, but should Warner put the rest of the trilogy into turnaround, there's a ready-made independent market for the pics.

Am I the only one who doesn't want Warner to make the rest of the trilogy? At least, not after those awful Plodder movies (with the exception of Azkaban). They'll put a time limit of under two hours for the remaining HDM flicks and they'll certainly love Peter Honess' editing...

Heck, they might even mistake directors and give the movies to the other Chris - you know, the one whose ancestors first discovered America.

warner is a really big company and the fact that the exception of HP+PoA exists means they can turn out a good adaptation. it was them who put out my favourite film/adaptation every by the same director (cuaron) in a little princess in the mid-90s. likewise, chris columbus made the goodnies, he's not all bad.

even though the special effects neccessary for TGC won't exist on the same magnitude TSK, i still think it'll be a pretty expensive production and it'll be difficult to sustain the franchise from an "independent" studio. also, warner bros. isn't consistent in the way it chooses to take adaptations. i think it was established from very on what the goal of the harry potter film franchise should be with no qualms at all from rowling and that has informed the manner in which it has been made. it could very well be a different case with HDM depending on what they plan to do with it once the box office numbers and the fate of the new line merger are settled. looking at WB films since 2000 it looks like there have been many co-productions with independent studios as well as WB's own independent wings (since the 1990s also): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wa ... ilms#2000s

i think it's more a matter of the producers who are assigned to the project, especially those with a creative role (otherwise an interfering role as it may be the case), than simply the name or commerical, profit-oriented nature of the studio.

[ihatethis99in]

warner is a really big company and the fact that the exception of HP+PoA exists means they can turn out a good adaptation. it was them who put out my favourite film/adaptation every by the same director (cuaron) in a little princess in the mid-90s.

Yes, they can, but it's more the exception, rather than the rule and I guess that's what has me worried, very worried for TSK, which is my favourite book from the HDM series.

likewise, chris columbus made the goodnies, he's not all bad.

The Goonies was directed by Richard Donner. Columbus simply wrote the screenplay based on a story by Steven Spielberg: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089218/

even though the special effects neccessary for TGC won't exist on the same magnitude TSK, i still think it'll be a pretty expensive production and it'll be difficult to sustain the franchise from an "independent" studio... ...looking at WB films since 2000 it looks like there have been many co-productions with independent studios as well as WB's own independent wings (since the 1990s also):

Well, let's hope for the best!

[namster]

I don't think she was saying all that--and in the same vein, as fans, some of us defend the movie more than it deserves.

Fans are more than willing to acknowledge the film's flaws, in general. Positive reviews from fans are often mixed-positive. Like, "I wished they kept the ending! GAAA! But it was alright" or "The film was rushed, I hates you New Line, but all in all I was happy" are the typical observations made. Very rarely are fans giving the film more credit than it deserves, more often fans are mixed-positive about the affair, or mixed-negative, or plain simply mixed. And I respect that.

I found it a frustrating movie with much that was bad and much that was shiningly good, but I definitely think it's time we stopped giving Hollywood the "Oh well, it's a Hollywood adaptation, what can you do?" pass. The usual "Hollywoodian" urges are what ruined a movie that had the makings of something rather special.

I understand, and I agree. I too abhor Hollywood, as much as I abhor Nixonian health insurance!

But the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings series were arguably Hollywoodian adaptations, and Star Wars was made to be Hollywoodian. So even I give Hollywood some credit if it manages to entertain me, and then some more. And frankly, The Golden Compass smashes (some of) the Harry Potters and the Matrix sequels and Lucas' prequels to atoms. It manages reasonably well against some its strongest competition. Even the worst Harry Potter installments got more glowing reviews than this movie. And the fact that The Golden Compass has more negative accolades to its name than the Matrix sequels and the Star Wars prequels in on-line internet reviews makes sense only as an act of outright vendetta.

My point it, The Golden Compass is being treated unfairly in the context of other worse movies that were reviewed glowingly by other reviews, and it's either because people like us had too high an expectation OR conservative religiosos wanted smear the movie, or something. God knows. I'm mystified.

Context.

And happy Hollywood endings have no place in His Dark Materials.

I think you've hit the nail in your last sentence.

Agreed.

Actually I think that 95% of the book fans here have been very kind to the movie and to Weitz specifically. I've seen few truly negative comments here. Rossie has been away from this part of the boards for months, and I've mostly shown scepticism about the sequels, but haven't made any overt comment against TGC, which I consider a good movie. Not extraordinary, but good. Certainly much better than what we've been seeing from Harry Potter recently.

Like I was telling Mockingbird, I respect mixed-negative reviews. And your observation is very reasonable. But comments from other posters like "This film is just plain bad, simply bad, it's just bad, they should take Weitz or whoever was responsible out onto the city square and feed him until we have foie gras for all" are lacking perspective, I think. I find it hard to believe that some fans don't find things to love about this picture, and people from the opposite camp claim that "namster is not a true HDM fan because he likes the movie", which is very un-Republic of Heaven.

I respect that people don't like this movie, but I disagree with your observation: far more than 5% of posters dislike the movie. And often these reviews lack perspective. I feel that we're getting so caught up in the "How dare they diminish Pullman's work!" frenzy that we're starting to judge it worse off than Jean Claude Van Damme's Timecop (Rottentomatoes, anyone?), and we need to step back from that and take a breath. Perspective...

[Burek]

The more I think about it, the more I think that the movie should've ended in Asriel's hut with Roger and Lyra going to sleep. The current ending doesn't make that much more sense either. It's still a bit of a cliffhanger, although not as big as with Lyra walking over to C'gazze.
That way you could still have the chronological order of Bolvangar 1st and Svalbard 2nd and not the other way around.

[Radrappy]

Like I was telling Mockingbird, I respect mixed-negative reviews. And your observation is very reasonable. But comments from other posters like "This film is just plain bad, simply bad, it's just bad, they should take Weitz or whoever was responsible out onto the city square and feed him until we have foie gras for all" are lacking perspective, I think. I find it hard to believe that some fans don't find things to love about this picture, and people from the opposite camp claim that "namster is not a true HDM fan because he likes the movie", which is very un-Republic of Heaven.

I wanted to love this movie regardless of whatever negative reviews I read but had my heart dashed against the rocks when I saw it opening night. It was choppy, poorly paced, and concepts were jammed into the audience's skulls awkwardly and relentlessly. The film honestly credited its viewers with the intelligence of a stupid toddler. I had gathered a huge group of friends to see it, only to be humiliated and embarrassed as they tore it apart afterwards. I hate to say it but even "Harry potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" had a better paced, more followable narrative than The Golden Compass. And I hate Harry Potter. So what if some worse movies got better reviews? It doesn't change how good TGC is. You say that those being harsh on the film are lacking in perspective but no perspective is necessary to identify a wreck. Sure, there were some nice things about the movie, but they all seem so irrelevant when compared to the monumental failure of simply telling the story.


Does the media pick favorites and have prejudices? Absolutely. I agree that it seems like every critic in creation had no sympathy for Pullman's work and jumped at the chance to tear it down whereas the harry potter movies are treated like media darlings. I'd probably be more angry about it if I thought Compass was a good film but as things stand it merely adds insult to injury.

[green ink]

I hate to say it but even "Harry potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" had a better paced, more followable narrative than The Golden Compass. And I hate Harry Potter. So what if some worse movies got better reviews? It doesn't change how good TGC is. You say that those being harsh on the film are lacking in perspective but no perspective is necessary to identify a wreck. Sure, there were some nice things about the movie, but they all seem so irrelevant when compared to the monumental failure of simply telling the story.

Considering that Philosopher's stone is a much shorter book and a longer film, it's no surprise that it was easier to follow. The Golden Compass had about 45 minutes cut and had to suffer the addition of many last minute reshoots. It's no surprise it suffered in quality. Golden Compass did however have more style,
more guts and more drive, than Columbus bedside story.
I wouldn't call it a wreck either, it was an extremely muddled movie that has the makings of a decent film in it. A different cut could go a long way in rectifying some of the problems. And objectively there were so many different opinions in the reviews that you can't call it an unmitigated failure.

Why there was such a strong dislike to the film is odd though. Perhaps it has to do with what the Variety article pointed out, it was marketed too much to the young adult male crowd, whose reaction seemed to be either 'gay!' or 'lame!'. And seeing as they do seem to be the loudest group of people on the internet it's no wonder many people got the wrong impression.
Well, that and the whole boycott thing of course. Which seems to have thrived on rumour and misinformation. The mother of a friend of mine in the u.s. hadn't bought the books when she had asked them as a christmas present because she had heard that they were supposed to be a bad influence on children.

Still I hope Deborah Forte manages to get the sequels made properly, I doubt she's that happy with the way the film turned out in the end. But if the film makes it's odd record of making 300 million abroad, there could still be a chance.

[Blossom]

I wanted to love this movie regardless of whatever negative reviews I read but had my heart dashed against the rocks when I saw it opening night. It was choppy, poorly paced, and concepts were jammed into the audience's skulls awkwardly and relentlessly. The film honestly credited its viewers with the intelligence of a stupid toddler. I had gathered a huge group of friends to see it, only to be humiliated and embarrassed as they tore it apart afterwards. I hate to say it but even "Harry potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" had a better paced, more followable narrative than The Golden Compass. And I hate Harry Potter. So what if some worse movies got better reviews? It doesn't change how good TGC is. You say that those being harsh on the film are lacking in perspective but no perspective is necessary to identify a wreck. Sure, there were some nice things about the movie, but they all seem so irrelevant when compared to the monumental failure of simply telling the story.

That's exactly how i feel about it. I liked the acting and the special effects, but it's not enough to carry a movie. The dreadful editing of the whole thing just overshadowed any of the accomplishments.

[namster]

I had gathered a huge group of friends to see it, only to be humiliated and embarrassed as they tore it apart afterwards.

I'm sorry to hear that. I had an identical experience taking three adolescent males to see the latest Terrence Malick picture. They blasted me for weeks afterwards, but I didn't feel embarassed or humiliated. There were a lot of great points about the Malick film that made the experience worthwhile that my friends just didn't appreciate.

Golden Compass did however have more style, more guts and more drive, than Columbus bedside story.

Boy you said it, Chewie.

Does the media pick favorites and have prejudices? Absolutely. I agree that it seems like every critic in creation had no sympathy for Pullman's work and jumped at the chance to tear it down whereas the harry potter movies are treated like media darlings.

At least we're in agreement with that. We may disagree on liking/disliking The Golden Compass, but it's probably a universal truth that critics and the public at large hold an unfair vendetta against this picture. Reading snit-bits of reviews would give you the impression that The Golden Compass is the greatest disaster since Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth. These kind of inflammatory observations are an insult to the collective human intelligence of the entire population of the Earth. There's almost no balance in any of these reviews, it's as balanced as a trebuchet. People it seems -- not necessarily anyone on this board -- wanted to hate this movie and found every excuse to. People gave George Lucas' prequels more lax than with The Golden Compass.

People on the message boards often say, "I was expecting Eragon, but luckily it didn't turn out that way at all." Phew. But why does everyone believe that The Golden Compass is as poor quality as Eragon? Who started this rumour? Movie critics? Catholics with a grudge? Little mischievous gnome leprachauns?

Why there was such a strong dislike to the film is odd though. Perhaps it has to do with what the Variety article pointed out, it was marketed too much to the young adult male crowd, whose reaction seemed to be either 'gay!' or 'lame!'. And seeing as they do seem to be the loudest group of people on the internet it's no wonder many people got the wrong impression.

That's a correct observation. It's what people on IMDB have been suspecting for months now. Weitz's picture has some of the dearest on-screen character moments, it has heart and there's a lot of earnestness in its filmmaking style, and this unfortunately goes right over the head of audiences expecting the next epic like The Lord of the Rings. Lay people didn't say that The Golden Compass was "disappointing" or "fell short", they said "It's the sorriest 2-hours of my life since I was ran over by a stallion and kicked in the head with an iron boot."

You say that those being harsh on the film are lacking in perspective but no perspective is necessary to identify a wreck.

I disagree. Perspective is always helpful. It brings us closer to justice.

[Radrappy]

Golden Compass did however have more style,
more guts and more drive, than Columbus bedside story.

Style yes, guts absolutely not. The executives behind this movie were explicitly clear that they were taking the least amount of risks as possible so as not to offend the most sensitive 90 year old Christian fundamentalist from Kentucky. Not only that but they were so worried audiences wouldn't get the complex themes at hand that they created something overflowing to the brim with obnoxious exposition. How can you watch the characters on screen casually mention that it hurts when your daemon is touched and that there are ice bears in the land of svalbard at least ten times each and still tell me the movie has guts?

Had the film actually have had guts, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Why there was such a strong dislike to the film is odd though. Perhaps it has to do with what the Variety article pointed out, it was marketed too much to the young adult male crowd, whose reaction seemed to be either 'gay!' or 'lame!'. And seeing as they do seem to be the loudest group of people on the internet it's no wonder many people got the wrong impression.

This seems to be absolutely the case. It's just so damn cool these days to be the first person to scream "THIS LOOKS GAYYYYYYYY" on an interwebs forum or blog.

I won't deny the slightest that it seemed like everyone and their mother wanted to hate this movie. There is also no denying that for some reason, most of the US consists of god fearing men, women, and scarily enough these days children who are very vocal.

[green ink]

Golden Compass did however have more style,
more guts and more drive, than Columbus bedside story.

Style yes, guts absolutely not.

I'm sorry, I meant guts purely in the sense that Weitz didn't sugarcoat a lot of the harshness and violence. For a family film The Golden Compass was surprisingly brutal. You're right though, in terms of content and on an intellectual level one could definitely, like an eighties-movie bully, cry: "Chicken!"
The inane exposition and lack of daring content they foisted on us were pure and simple the result of producers affraid that people wouldn't want to see a children's film critical of organised religion or one that didn't talk down to its audience.

Why there was such a strong dislike to the film is odd though. Perhaps it has to do with what the Variety article pointed out, it was marketed too much to the young adult male crowd, whose reaction seemed to be either 'gay!' or 'lame!'. And seeing as they do seem to be the loudest group of people on the internet it's no wonder many people got the wrong impression.

This seems to be absolutely the case. It's just so damn cool these days to be the first person to scream "THIS LOOKS GAYYYYYYYY" on an interwebs forum or blog.

I won't deny the slightest that it seemed like everyone and their mother wanted to hate this movie. There is also no denying that for some reason, most of the US consists of god fearing men, women, and scarily enough these days children who are very vocal.

Add to that a large group of people who simply had never heard of the books, and who now only got a very bad impression of it. As one friend of mine said, after she finished the books a while ago: "Now I understand why you want to spend your time writing on the internet about it".

But yes, the web is filled these days with slightly autistic young men, who think that the pinnacle of moviemaking is Indiana Jones, Terminator, LOTR and Star Wars. Anything that dares to be different, doesn't fit neatly into their parameters of cinematic preferences automatically gets dismissed as bad. And worse they seem to regard bad films as somehow a personal affront. Just look at all the posts on forums like "I want my money back! New Line stole two hours of my life!" etc. It's the dark side of geekiness I'd say.
A petulant whining disguised as fake macho bravado.

The worst thing is that Hollywood considers them a target-audience.

[namster]

Golden Compass did however have more style, more guts and more drive, than Columbus bedside story.

Style yes, guts absolutely not. [...] How can you watch the characters on screen casually mention that it hurts when your dæmon is touched and that there are ice bears in the land of svalbard at least ten times each and still tell me the movie has guts?

Che?The Golden Compass does have more guts than Columbus' bedtime story. It's got more criticism of organised religion than all hours of all the other fantasy franchises combined. It's got heresy, original sin, and even thematic references to Galileo and the bible ("...it would contradict centuries of teaching!"). It's got a tyrannical priest saying that he will get rid of all heretics once they "deal with the root of the problem!" And the religious bits are not overdone like the conservative-bashing in V For Vendetta -- however much I may love V For Vendetta. The Golden Compass involves the preferential experimentation on children who are poor or orphaned or ethnic, for anyone who wants class struggle. And it's got the youngest on-screen feminist in Hollywood ("Nobody can make me a lady!" "But you never do what you're told!").

This compares very favorably to Lord Voldemort's Star Wars-like proclamation that he will bring order to the galaxy, you do not understand the power of the dark side, and so on. Likewise it also compares very favorably to the motives in the original Star Wars, that they must bring order to the galaxy, you do not understand the power of the dark side, and so on. The Golden Compass' themes are probably on par with the first Matrix movie (which suggested that modern humans act like biological parasites on the ecosystem).

The Golden Compass has guts. A lot of the credit goes to Philip Pullman in the first place, but I felt that Forte and Weitz had good intentions when signing on and it shows. They kept (basically) all of their promises and bothered to inform us about the changes that did take place.

You're right though, in terms of content and on an intellectual level one could definitely, like an eighties-movie bully, cry: "Chicken!"

And I agree. I winced too. I winced.

It's just so damn cool these days to be the first person to scream "THIS LOOKS GAYYYYYYYY" on an interwebs forum or blog.

I won't deny the slightest that it seemed like everyone and their mother wanted to hate this movie. There is also no denying that for some reason, most of the US consists of god fearing men, women, and scarily enough these days children who are very vocal.

There was a dedicated bias against this movie from the most vocal demographic groups in the country. It's like when McCarthy pounced upon the commies in the 50's (or, inversely, when Mao began witch-hunting for intellectual material in China). You could travel back in time to post-war America, label this film "communist" and you'd get the same reaction from the public: "This film is the toilet of the year, of the century, of all time. You will contract a disease from watching this movie. If you take your kids to The Golden Compass they will automatically be part of Al-Qeada (thank you Family Guy...). Are there Bolsheviks in your bathroom? With The Golden Compass you can never be sure. Don't take that chance."

I have no quarrel with you, Radrappy, and I'm glad we all agree on that point. It's an important point.

It's the dark side of geekiness I'd say.
A petulant whining disguised as fake macho bravado.
The worst thing is that Hollywood considers them a target-audience.

Sigh.

And that's almost a haiku...

[green ink]

There was a dedicated bias against this movie from the most vocal demographic groups in the country. It's like when McCarthy pounced upon the commies in the 50's (or, inversely, when Mao began witch-hunting for intellectual material in China). You could travel back in time to post-war America, label this film "communist" and you'd get the same reaction from the public: "This film is the toilet of the year, of the century, of all time. You will contract a disease from watching this movie. If you take your kids to The Golden Compass they will automatically be part of Al-Qeada (thank you Family Guy...). Are there Bolsheviks in your bathroom? With The Golden Compass you can never be sure. Don't take that chance."

Now, now, let's not exaggerate. This didn't involve black-listing or labour camps.
The trouble is, it wouldn't even be necessary. People are simply too apathetic, too lazy and anti-intellectual to want to see anything that isn't 300 or Transformers, if I may oversimplify a bit. But the studios do seem to be afraid of producing anything out of the ordinary. Before Pirates of the Carribean, Terry Gilliam couldn't even get 25 million from any studio for making Good Omens with Johnny Depp; because he only did those european arthouse films. Not to mention the fact that the project was a comedy about the apocalypse.

McCarthy is involved though, I recently saw a documentary about atheism in America, and it was in the fifties that patriotism and christianity became very much linked. And anyone who is an atheist couldn't be a good american citizen.
Even today, a study recently showed, many americans would prefer their child to marry a muslim rather than an atheist.
So a film that's constantly marked as 'the atheist's narnia' definitely has something going against it in the states.

[Blossom]

Golden Compass did however have more style, more guts and more drive, than Columbus bedside story.

Style yes, guts absolutely not. [...] How can you watch the characters on screen casually mention that it hurts when your dæmon is touched and that there are ice bears in the land of svalbard at least ten times each and still tell me the movie has guts?

Che?The Golden Compass does have more guts than Columbus' bedtime story. It's got more criticism of organised religion than all hours of all the other fantasy franchises combined. It's got heresy, original sin, and even thematic references to Galileo and the bible ("...it would contradict centuries of teaching!"). It's got a tyrannical priest saying that he will get rid of all heretics once they "deal with the root of the problem!" And the religious bits are not overdone like the conservative-bashing in V For Vendetta -- however much I may love V For Vendetta. The Golden Compass involves the preferential experimentation on children who are poor or orphaned or ethnic, for anyone who wants class struggle. And it's got the youngest on-screen feminist in Hollywood ("Nobody can make me a lady!" "But you never do what you're told!").

If you're going to give it guts points for its hardly visible criticism of religion then surely it gets minus points for pretending Billy was going to be just fine after having his soul cut away...add to that the cut off ending because it might be just too confusing for the brain-dead people in the audience, then I'd say you have a movie very devoid of guts.

[Radrappy]

I think I'd rather have an ending that confused some of the audience than one everyone thought was stupid. There will always be people to help those a bit slow on the uptake while walking out of the cinema.

Also, I suppose everyone's heard that Harry Potter 7 is going to be made into not one, but two whole movies. I think I vomited a little in my mouth when I found out. Harry Potter is just too complex and awesome to have a normal three hour conclusion. No my friends, it's going to take six. While our poor HDM is just too gay/lame to even justify two hours, much less three movies.