Posted on 12/08/2007 6:17:51 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
No one in Hollywood quite knows where "The Golden Compass" is pointing, though it appears to be south of blockbuster status.
...Unlike "Narnia" or the "Rings" and "Potter" movies, most of which hauled in more than $60 million in their first three days, "Compass" may open in the $30-million neighborhood, or worse, according to market analysts.
[Yet] it's unlikely to spell financial catastrophe for New Line.
The studio admits to a production price of $180 million, though some industry insiders believe the true cost soared past $200 million...
Even so, the film was cofinanced by Royal Bank of Scotland, and British tax incentives and presales of foreign distribution rights covered about two-thirds of the production cost, New Line says. The deals may limit New Line's risk, but also cap its upside: Fantasy films usually take in the majority of their ticket sales abroad, and "The Golden Compass" is off to a jolly good start in Britain, where it opened Wednesday.
If the film becomes a hit, the studio will launch two sequels based on Pullman's series. That remains a big "if" ...New Line says it will wait to see how "Compass" performs before deciding on the follow-ups.
Reviewers have been dazzled by the effects, but many are underwhelmed by the story. The review compendium website MetaCritic.com listed 50% of notices as positive, while rival RottenTomatoes.com reported 47% were bullish.
Another headache for New Line is the ire Pullman's books have whipped up among some religious groups.
But the ruckus may actually end up boosting the movie, said Karen Covell, director of the Hollywood Prayer Network. "The more riled up everybody becomes, the more publicity the movie gets," she said. "It just ends up helping at the box office."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
As long as it was magical sheep placenta, you should be fine.
I really don’t know much about the compass but it is hard to get passed the following bit of ‘revelation’ in the book:
“The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty – those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves – the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself.”
Pullman is an avowed atheist and normally that does not bother me. I nursed my teeth on Asimov and others who weren’t shy in their dislike of religion. They however did not make as a central plot in their books the goal of killing God.
I do think there is something ugly in selling atheism to children. Even if one is an atheist there is something so very empty about it. What is the point? There is certainly no benefit to be hoped for, no salvation to be garnered but there is most certainly a bitter meanness to it. Like the mean kid who wants to end a little kids delight at Christmas time by telling them that there is no Santa Claus.
However we have great fictions being told our children everyday. They are told fictions like they are barely a percentage point different in design than a chimpanzee, they are told great fictions of the nature of the climate, they are sent off with the false belief that they are saving the world by replacing light bulbs, they are led down paths of utter confusion about something as straightforward as male and female sexuality, and told that indulging in great perversions is normal.
I don’t know much about the Golden Compass I didn’t read the books but whatever it is I don’t care or have the time to find out because the greatest threats to our children are not in a silly movie about Polar bears but in public schools filled with material and ideas that are molding our children to believe falsehoods and half truths as if they are indisputable facts. The Golden Compass is fiction and is sold as such if one finds comfort and entertainment in it then by all means enjoy it as you do all fictions.
I asked a question. I have received a multitude of responses. I try to respond in kind when possible.
That makes sense.
Pullman must be a fan of Michael Moore. Typical liberal carp.
The whole issue here is that this movie is specifically aimed at children. As are the books.
Why do you think the protagonists are children in rebellion? And why do you think their companions/souls are depicted as cute little butterflies/minks/bears? This whole thing is aimed at kids.
Pullman’s aim is to introduce kids at a very early age that the Church is repressive (specifically the Catholic Church) and that it is to be destroyed. Priests and the Church hierarchy are presented as Magisteriums, who are vile and cold-hearted.
The movie had to be tamed down to go onto the silver screen, but it’s hard to say what will follow, as parts 2 and 3 are supposed to be far more anti-religious. Pullman sees the concept of God as an outdated model that has served its use and must now be dispensed of.
But when you tame a movie like this down, you bring down guards. Which opens the door for parts 2 and 3 to be more poignantly vile or encourages kids to read the books.
There’s no way I’d allow my kids to see this stuff. And I had no problem whatsoever with Harry Potter or some other films others have been offended over.
I won’t have time to see the movie, so I’m just going to send my $8.50 directly to the church of satan.
ROTFLOL.
I read an article a week or so ago on being that Hollywood has made some “war” movies like Lion for Lambs, and no one wants to see them, they guess Americans don’t like war movies anymore.
I don’t know too much about this particular film. It sounds like it’s worth missing because it is junk. I appreciate your response. It gives more insight as to the vehement objections.
I don’t know too much about this particular film. It sounds like it’s worth missing because it is junk. I appreciate your response. It gives more insight as to the vehement objections.
It’s really amazing what happens here when you ask about certain topics!
I won’t have time to see the movie, so I’m just going to send my $8.50 directly to the church of satan.
Just be careful when you write the check. You might accidently sell your soul to Santa!
Here’s a hint for New Line Cinema: The only movie that you can make that will ever possibly come close to what LOTR did, will be “The Hobbit”; so let’s get on with it, shall we??
Your kids will see it eventually, perhaps years from now,and without your input and counsel. It is, after all, about you.
“I think the public is tired of...”
Exactly IMO, it is also IMO that all of the CGI stuff is killing the movie industry, it just is used to darn much and the “magic” of CGI has dwindled to -0-, complete yawner territory.
Don’t misunderstand, no tears here for the mediocre performance at the box office, to be frank, the “They kill god” stuff from the other is Side Show Bob material.
Children are people too FYI and depending on age, upbringing and maturity have minds that are pliable and inquisitive. These books are likely to germinate the questioning in young minds as to whether or not there is a God, and whether "God*" should be killed. It is by many critical reviews NO Lord of the Rings or Chronicles of Narnia.
*or the their projected interpretation of "God."
CGI isn’t a reason why movies are bad. It comes down to writing and acting. CGI is a production technique: you may as well blame the lighting and costume design while you’re at it.
Hmm, CGI has flopped at the box office since the “Christmas Express” or “King Kong”.
Harry Potter has done well because the characters are the story, the CGI is the background, not the whole film.
The issue here kinoxi is that this is not “construed” to be anti-Christian.
It IS by the author’s OWN admission, an ENTHUSIASTIC admission anti-Christian.
There is a difference, you can see that, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.