The Golden Compass

[Watashi]

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/382/goldencompassjj8.jpg (http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/goldencompassposter2big.jpg)

Final Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/thegoldencompass/large.html)

Anyone planning to read the books before the film comes out? I am. I'm seeing it for mainly:

A. Sam Elliot
B. Christopher Lee
C. Dueling Polar Bears

[Kurosawa Fan]

I read the first one and don't remember a thing about it. I was very unimpressed. I won't be bothering with the film.

[Rowland]

My sister owns the books (which I bought for her last Christmas). I suppose I'll read them before seeing the movies too.

[lovejuice]

contrary to the conventional, the first book is my favorite. i think the movie looks ok. my guess is it'll be slightly better than narnia, but not on par with potter film.

[Sven]

I've only read the first book, loved it, saw the trailer, it looks all kinds of awful.

[DSNT]

I'm not sure about the movie, but the controversy is going to be a blast.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'm not sure about the movie, but the controversy is going to be a blast.

Unless they chicken out, and really downplay it. That's my worst fear for the film, that they ignore what made the books so great and really put all the attention on the fantasy instead of the ideas about theology.

[DSNT]

Unless they chicken out, and really downplay it. That's my worst fear for the film, that they ignore what made the books so great and really put all the attention on the fantasy instead of the ideas about theology.
From what I understand, the movie is highly sanitized and contains little of the anti-religion rhetoric from the books (which I haven't read), but religious organizations, especially the Catholics, are already chomping at the bit to protest.

[Philosophe_rouge]

From what I understand, the movie is highly sanitized and contains little of the anti-religion rhetoric from the books (which I haven't read), but religious organizations, especially the Catholics, are already chomping at the bit to protest.
I wasn't aware of that, and it's a big turnoff for me seeing the film. I still hope it's good, but not much so far has given me any indication that it'll be anything more than mediocre. I hope I'm wrong.

[Watashi]

Isn't the first book the most religiously unoffensive book anyway? I don't see the big deal.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Isn't the first book the most religiously unoffensive book anyway? I don't see the big deal.
It is, but it establishes a lot of it, so it means it's less likely that the following films will delve deeper into that aspect of the books. That being said, I'm waiting to be proved wrong because I'm actually anticipating the film.

[SpaceOddity]

The girl is perfect.

[MadMan]

That trailer reminded me of Narina and LOTRs. Of course fantasy films these days are (often unfairly) compared to those two series, but it can't really be helped. In any case the cast is pretty good and yeah dueling polar bears are cool. But I can't see myself viewing this in theaters.

[Sycophant]

I started reading the book the other night. I'm not very far in, but I'm liking it. The word that I've heard on the movie has made me wary, but I believe I'm going to see it. At the very least, I'm curious about how Chris Weitz is going to handle a fantasty film.

[[ETM]]

The book is not that great but it is good, and several of the concepts should be wonderful seen on screen - especially the daemons and the panserbjorne. The trailer looks pretty much like I imagined the world so I'll enjoy this.

[Doclop]

Saw it last night. Just okay. I was so fascinated by the premise and world of the story that I'm sure the book would be a great read. In fact, the film is at its best when establishing the fantasy world's internal logic. The plot unfortunately wavers often and feels a little confused or, more appropriately, overwhelmed. The thematics certainly seem to have been broadened, but I still think it's easy to tell this is a story created by an atheist.

Also, I really liked Nicole Kidman and Eva Green. Daniel Craig's hardly in it and Dakota Blue Richards is perfectly fine and not at all annoying. Some of the CGI is iffy and the plot often feels tangential, but the world is successfully established and a more focused story could really bring the fascinating background dynamic more to the forefront, ultimately creating a better film. Bring on the sequel.

[Sycophant]

Now that I've read (and rather loved) the first book, I'm actually quite looking forward to this. I suspect that it won't be too jarring at this point in the story's development to soften the religious implications (particularly if the end of the book is moved to the hypothetical second film, as it's supposed to be). Most of all, I'm intrigued to see how Weitz handles material like this. It seems from early reports (including Doclop's, which seems to assure me that at least I'll be... entertained), it overwhelms him. The trailer I saw didn't do much to inspire faith in the project, but my curiosity will ensure that I see this.

[Rowland]

I'm still not interested in this at all. I mean c'mon, the co-director of American Pie directing an epic fantasy? He was clearly a hired gun so the studio and special effects guys could have free reign. The lukewarm critical response isn't helping either.

[Mal]

I'm still not interested in this at all. I mean c'mon, the co-director of American Pie directing an epic fantasy? He was clearly a hired gun so the studio and special effects guys could have free reign. The lukewarm critical response isn't helping either.

Excuse me... but American Pie has a lot to do with fantasy.

[lovejuice]

I'm still not interested in this at all. I mean c'mon, the co-director of American Pie directing an epic fantasy? He was clearly a hired gun so the studio and special effects guys could have free reign. The lukewarm critical response isn't helping either.

not that i think he's a great director or suitable for the project but from what i have read, he's actually expressed a lot of interest in doing this film for while a while. i don't think he's a hired gun.

the early words are bad, so i don't think he'll pull it off either.

[KK2.0]

I love the trilogy (the second, Subtle Knife, being my favorite), and I've followed this film with a mix of anticipation and caution, i'm almost sure i won't like it but i can't wait to see how it will turn out.

Haven't watched Chris Weitz "About a Boy", i have no idea if he can handle this, but from what i've read, the film butchered so much of the story that i'm trying to keep low expectations, the ending was entirely cut off and it became the opening of the second movie (if it ever gets greenlighted), it seems to have another chunk from the middle of the book missing, and i didn't even got started at the removal of religious references, which was actually one of my favorite aspects from the story although it's much lighter on The Golden Compass than in the following two.

Speaking about the religious controversy, the catholic organizations raising boycotts against the film are only going to bring it free publicity, and probably more spectators.

[MadMan]

The fact that the Catholic League is already hating on this movie only gives me a slight desire to see it just to spite them. Seriously why do Christians take this shit seriously? Maybe it has to do with the fact that I'm a relatively moderate Lutheran, but I don't understand any of this fuss. I'm actually wondering if kids should go see it as it does look sort of violent, but beyond that I could care less. So what if a movie bashes religion? Comedians do that plenty already.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The fact that the Catholic League is already hating on this movie only gives me a slight desire to see it just to spite them. Seriously why do Christians take this shit seriously? Maybe it has to do with the fact that I'm a relatively moderate Lutheran, but I don't understand any of this fuss. I'm actually wondering if kids should go see it as it does look sort of violent, but beyond that I could care less. So what if a movie bashes religion? Comedians do that plenty already.

My Lutheran church urged its members to avoid this film. It's not just Catholics. The novel paints the church in a very unfavorable light. It's not surprising that they would not want their members to support it.

[MadMan]

My Lutheran church urged its members to avoid this film. It's not just Catholics. The novel paints the church in a very unfavorable light. It's not surprising that they would not want their members to support it.Huh. I think actually they should be urging their members to see it, as it would spark a healthy debate. But I guess they'd rather full fill the supposed sterotype of being close minded. According to one review I read today in one of my local papers the church isn't even mentioned in the film, although apparently its alluded to in a subtitle way. *Shrug*

[KK2.0]

Critics seem to be split about it, Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/REVIEWS/712060302/1023

[Rowland]

Critics seem to be split about it, Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/REVIEWS/712060302/1023Ebert has been really soft lately... but then maybe he always was.

[Sven]

Ebert has been really soft lately... but then maybe he always was.

He always was. Now, I think he's just happy to be alive. Good for him!

[SpaceOddity]

The fact that the Catholic League is already hating on this movie only gives me a slight desire to see it just to spite them. Seriously why do Christians take this shit seriously? Maybe it has to do with the fact that I'm a relatively moderate Lutheran, but I don't understand any of this fuss. I'm actually wondering if kids should go see it as it does look sort of violent, but beyond that I could care less. So what if a movie bashes religion? Comedians do that plenty already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1

[Ezee E]

No idea what to think of this. I want to see it for Nicole Kidman's performance, but it looks so Narnia.

[Spinal]

No idea what to think of this. I want to see it for Nicole Kidman's performance, but it looks so Narnia.

Based on what I've heard, it sounds like a direct response to the Narnia books, so the resemblance is probably not coincidental.

[Sycophant]

Walter Chaw, apparently, believes the film to be utter pants (http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/goldencompass.htm).

[Mr. Valentine]

Walter Chaw, apparently, believes the film to be utter pants (http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/goldencompass.htm).

that's the first Chaw review i've ever read and that is one childishly written review.

[Watashi]

Walter Chaw, apparently, believes the film to be utter pants (http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/goldencompass.htm).

He does realize this is a fantasy film based on a book right?

[Rowland]

He does realize this is a fantasy film based on a book right?"...without a good working knowledge of the Pullman books upon which the film is based, I can't imagine anyone having a chance with this stuff. Impenetrable ain't the least of it. Weitz is completely outmatched by the material, trying too hard to cram all the gobbledygook about daemons and dust and witches and armoured bears he possibly can into every crevice available between the CGI sequences while leaving out huge, gaping expanses of necessary exposition in the process."

[KK2.0]

Mr Valentine, you gave it an 8.5, please share your thoughts.

[eternity]

http://icine.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=668873#668873

[Sxottlan]

I'm on the fence about this one, but in general I liked it. Flow and logic were very choppy at times. For example, Azrael says he's leaving to head north and then we don't see him for what seems like half an hour. Then we do and he's already up north. Or how the cowboy has the gypsies lug around parts of his airship and then a few scenes later they're flying around in a completed ship. Wouldn't that have been more practical if they just built it earlier? There's also a moment when a character's fate is more or less told to us instead of shown and then sort of hangs there for the rest of the movie.

So really, lots moments that felt like they should have been in the film, but weren't.

The film also suffered from the arbitrariness of the genre. The seeming randomness of flying witches, armored bears, gypsies, modern skyscrapers and animal companions. It's like I could just turn around and write a fantasy classic that includes Amazons, space ships, medieval castles, talking llamas and fairies. It might make for a great book, but it sure doesn't feel very organic. Doesn't feel like they're all part of the same world or that they'd all have a common history. What I think has always set Lord of the Rings apart from the others is the sense of history and how everything develops.

Decent acting all around. Dakota Blue Richards was winsome.

The ending implies they're pretty confident that this will be a hit that demands a direct follow-up because it pretty much ends in mid-story. Alas that just drew comparisons to FOTR and this film doesn't come close to that one.

[Wryan]

I'm on the fence about this one, but in general I liked it. Flow and logic were very choppy at times. For example, Azrael says he's leaving to head north and then we don't see him for what seems like half an hour. Then we do and he's already up north. Or how the cowboy has the gypsies lug around parts of his airship and then a few scenes later they're flying around in a completed ship. Wouldn't that have been more practical if they just built it earlier? There's also a moment when a character's fate is more or less told to us instead of shown and then sort of hangs there for the rest of the movie.

So really, lots moments that felt like they should have been in the film, but weren't.

The film also suffered from the arbitrariness of the genre. The seeming randomness of flying witches, armored bears, gypsies, modern skyscrapers and animal companions. It's like I could just turn around and write a fantasy classic that includes Amazons, space ships, medieval castles, talking llamas and fairies. It might make for a great book, but it sure doesn't feel very organic. Doesn't feel like they're all part of the same world or that they'd all have a common history. What I think has always set Lord of the Rings apart from the others is the sense of history and how everything develops.

Decent acting all around. Dakota Blue Richards was winsome.

The ending implies they're pretty confident that this will be a hit that demands a direct follow-up because it pretty much ends in mid-story. Alas that just drew comparisons to FOTR and this film doesn't come close to that one.

I agree for the most part. It's passable fare, but subtlety is mostly absent. There are far too many moments where the filmmakers scream out "WE KNOW THERE ARE YOUNG CHILDREN AND LIKELY IDIOTIC ADULTS IN THE AUDIENCE, SO WE'RE GONNA MAKE THIS MOMENT AS BROAD AND CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, K?" And it gets irritating. It has a few great moments, but I don't need to see it again. Ever, really.

Chaw's review is childish, a bit, though he was clearly offended by the utter lack of vigor and viscera that he perceived in the film. The sincerity to speak lines about "Gobblers" and "Dust" (always delivered to ENSURE that we understand that it is capitalized) is absent; I have not read the books, and I am an atheist, but there's nothing in the film for me to hang my hat on, for it's not about religion much at all.

A resounding "Meh" with a few well-placed jabs of majesty.

[Mr. Valentine]

Mr Valentine, you gave it an 8.5, please share your thoughts.

here's my thoughts from the film discussion thread i posted on wednesday.

i was able to catch an advance screening of The Golden Compass last night and was very pleasantly surprised. Some of the preview trailers had me worried but the movie managed to capture most of the greatness of the book. I wish it could have been at least 45 minutes to an hour longer so they could have fleshed out some more stuff but they did a pretty good job condensing it down. The big action scene near the end (don't want to ruin anything for people who haven't read the book) was very well done and i've never seen an audience reaction like it before. it was a full 300 seat theater and people actually yelled out "oh shit!!!" and were cheering, etc.

[Mal]

Kind of anemic at times, while rather lovely and refreshing otherwise. Weitz isn't the right person for this project- but the actors and composed production is just right. I'd love to see the next film- the actors can stay, but get rid of Weitz (and his meh writing). This kind of movie needs a director who understands how to hold a camera and let the events speak for themselves; with an understanding that less is more doesn't always apply to fantasy films.

P.S... Polar Bears are awesome.

[Watashi]

My god... this film was hideous. Even as a kids fantasy film, it's far below any Potter or Narnia film. This was an insult to Pullman's fantastic novel.

[Watashi]

I pretty much agree with Chaw's review. The film barely resembles the book outside of heavy exposition and nonsensical writing (and horrible editing). The only thing I don't agree is his notion that Beowulf is "anti-Christian" (which it is anything but).

Man... whoever thought that fighting polar bears would be so lame.

[Ezee E]

I pretty much agree with Chaw's review. The film barely resembles the book outside of heavy exposition and nonsensical (and horrible editing). The only thing I don't agree is his notion that Beowulf is "anti-Christian" (which it is anything but).

Man... whoever thought that fighting polar bears would be so lame.
From day one I was curious about why a guy like Weitz is behind the camera on this. He doesn't seem suited for this type of project. Looks like he wasn't.

[lovejuice]

i am on a "pleasantly surprise" camp. i like it more than narnia, but not as much as the first harry potter film. (although weitz has a decency to keep it under two hours.) i don't think too highly of the book either. in fact, northern light is my favorite, so i don't really care if the franchise continues or not.

[Watashi]

i am on a "pleasantly surprise" camp. i like it more than narnia, but not as much as the first harry potter film. (although weitz has a decency to keep it under two hours.) i don't think too highly of the book either. in fact, northern light is my favorite, so i don't really care if the franchise continues or not.

:|

Northern Light is The Golden Compass.

[Winston*]

:|

Northern Light is The Golden Compass.

His post doesn't say otherwise.

[Watashi]

His post doesn't say otherwise.

I know, he just worded it oddly.

[number8]

Holy shitbomb.

This movie made a whopping 9 mil Friday, and not expected to break even 30 opening weekend.

[Watashi]

This film might feature the most wasted potential of Christopher Lee ever.

He's in the film for a mere 5 seconds.

[Boner M]

Poor Kidman.

[Mal]

My god... this film was hideous. Even as a kids fantasy film, it's far below any Potter or Narnia film.

Dude... Narnia is garbage.

[Watashi]

Dude... Narnia is garbage.

Not when you side it next to this film.

[Doclop]

I think Narnia and The Golden Compass are pretty comparable. Although, I do find the likability factor much higher for Compass. Feels less clunky, I guess.

[Mal]

Not when you side it next to this film.

Um no.

[Rowland]

This movie made a whopping 9 mil Friday, and not expected to break even 30 opening weekend.And that's the end of that chapter. The adventure ends. This is Remo Williams all over again.

Bye Shaye.

[EvilShoe]

This sucked.
I can't believe this looked so bland, with such a high budget.

And yes, this was a terribly rushed version of the (lovely) novel.

Sam Elliott was great though (in his limited screentime).

[KK2.0]

26 mil weekend estimated on RT, i don't see it doing much different when the actual numbers hit. I hope it performs better overseas like King Kong did, but i'm afraid I'll never see Will (the other major character introduced in the second book, for those that never read it) arriving at Cittagaze...


I suggest to those that liked the film or actually saw some potential to the story to get the trilogy, unlike LOTR it's an enjoyable reading. :P

*run*

[Raiders]

unlike LOTR it's an enjoyable reading. :P

Indeed.

[[ETM]]

Indeed.

LOTR is the most enjoyable book I ever read.
Although, people enjoy various things.

I've read The Golden Compass and most of The Subtle Knife, and I like the books quite a lot. The first book in particular needed a director who could focus the narrative and make one of those "much better than the book" films, which would have been marvelous. Sadly, this hasn't happened.

[number8]

26 mil weekend estimated on RT, i don't see it doing much different when the actual numbers hit. I hope it performs better overseas like King Kong did, but i'm afraid I'll never see Will (the other major character introduced in the second book, for those that never read it) arriving at Cittagaze...

Apparently, it did in the UK.

Biggest box office opening in the country ever outside the LOTR trilogy.

[Qrazy]

I find most of the time when critics have problems with exposition in fantasy, sci-fi and other imagination-centric genres it's usually because they have shit for brains and/or weren't paying attention.

I was a fan of the books when I was a kid, but based on the creds of the director I'm not expecting much. I'll wait for DVD.

[number8]

I find most of the time when critics have problems with exposition in fantasy, sci-fi and other imagination-centric genres it's usually because they have shit for brains and/or weren't paying attention.

?

Exposition in any genre is terrible 99% of the time.

[Qrazy]

?

Exposition in any genre is terrible 99% of the time.

I mean when they don't understand the narrative and wish there was more exposition to help them do so.

[Sycophant]

Sadly, I think Weitz was never convinced he could actually handle this material. The lack of surety is pervasive. There were a couple of well-executed scenes (despite what I see as miscasting for the two panserbjorne, I found the duel quite effective).

Strangely, what had a lot of people (and most of my friends) all buggered was this perception that they were going to rip the soul out of the film by removing its anti-dogmatic stance. That's actually intact and, while euphemized, actually comes off overwrought, particularly at the outset. That fits with the rest of the picture, though, which completely eschews nuance.

I wonder if there was pressure put on the creative team to give the bigger names more screen time (that Craig's Asriel is the first character we encounter is, I believe, a serious misstep and had me worried). The story works a lot better when seen solely through Lyra's eyes, methinks. I wish there'd been more time for us to marvel alongside Lyra, as I think the film forgot to acknowledge the fact that this is not routine existence for Lyra, but rather something exciting.

I could've stood a slightly longer running time if it meant the film slowed down for a minute. The plot moved along too quickly (Jesus. It seems to have unfolded in the course of a weekend.) and was laden with that horrible exposition dialogue throughout. Exposition for a fantasy world--especially an alternate reality to our own--is rough, but I think it would have actually been served better in some sort of prologue or primer, because as awkward as it would've been, it wouldn't have given the rest of the picture such a burden.

Since they had a PG-13 rating, I wish they'd played up the violence a bit more. The book's quite violent and sometimes surprisingly graphic. That would have done a lot, I suspect, to ground the film. And wow! Are humans ever easy to kill!

That Kate Bush song was risible, which followed an almost equally ridiculous closing scene.

Also, I kind of suspect that I should have read the book before I did (I just finished it like two or three weeks ago and rather liked it, and it's been on my mind since--I've even been considering how I'd manage my own adaptation). I did appreciate that it wasn't as literal an adaptation as, say, the Potter films tend to be, though I'm not sure that the plot point it ends on is really a satisfactory one.

[Sven]

(that Craig's Asriel is the first character we encounter is, I believe, a serious misstep and had me worried).

He's in the very first scene of the book, though. The very first conflict in the very first chapter is exclusively about him.

[Sycophant]

He's in the very first scene of the book, though. The very first conflict in the very first chapter is exclusively about him.
He is in that first scene, but the first word in the book is "Lyra." That conflict is still pretty much the opening conflict of the film, but it takes the focus off Lyra, which I consider an error in judgment.

[lovejuice]

And wow! Are humans ever easy to kill!

i really hate that special effect of daemon's disappearing which accompanies every death. the movie will move up a few echelons with that lame f/x removed. same goes with the compass reading.

[Sycophant]

i really hate that special effect of daemon's disappearing which accompanies every death. the movie will move up a few echelons with that lame f/x removed. same goes with the compass reading.Agreed. Though my biggest problem with the death effect wasn't so much the effect itself but how anyone who got shot in the gut or had an arrow to the throat died instantly. WTF?

[Sycophant]

One more thing that bothered me a lot that I haven't yet kvetched about: the music. It was decent music, maybe even good music. But it was in EVERY GODDAMN SCENE. Seriously, is there a second of image without music behind it? This kind of overscoring is a particular source of irritation for me and only served to make bad scenes worse.

[[ETM]]

Yeah, you need at least LOTR-quality music to get away with that.

[Qrazy]

One more thing that bothered me a lot that I haven't yet kvetched about: the music. It was decent music, maybe even good music. But it was in EVERY GODDAMN SCENE. Seriously, is there a second of image without music behind it? This kind of overscoring is a particular source of irritation for me and only served to make bad scenes worse.

I hate overscoring too.

[EvilShoe]

Short article on Chris Weitz's original script, and Tom Stoppard's version:
http://www.hisdarkmaterials.org/news/the-golden-compass/film-compared-with-weitzs-original-and-stoppards-initial-scripts

[[ETM]]

Apparently, the ending that was obviously cut from the film ended up in the video game (since it's hard to believe we'll ever see the sequel) and it's on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIE1hb2-2A4

[KK2.0]

That's not the entire thing though.

Later, Asriel uses Roger in another guillotine to open his own portal, Lyra cries for her friend but can't stop Asriel, who enters the passage through the skies, Lyra follows him and the book ends.

Glimpses of that scene are in the trailer.

I don't remember if the first book reveals this, if not, here's even bigger spoilers:

Why Asriel reacts angry when he sees Lyra in that clip? He was waiting for a kid he could use in his guillotine and he gets desperate thinking that the kid would be Lyra, because she's in fact his daughter with Ms Coulter. When he sees Roger he realizes he can sacrifice him instead.

[[ETM]]

I have read (and liked) the book, but I'm not sure what was shot or not.