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 ...
I haven’t read the book, script, nor seen the movie. I’ll take your word for it. :)
Best thing to do with most movies these days is just don’t!
If you don't want your children to see a movie...don't take them to it. Sounds simple enough.
You don’t have to take my word for it, take the author’s word for it.
I haven’t seen any of the three movies you’ve listed, so I can’t comment one way or another.
I will say that CGI is a necessity in the era of huge production costs, and it’s a pretty versatile tool. Star Wars Episode I didn’t suck because CGI was prominent, it sucked because of bad writing and bad acting. Meanwhile, The Patriot had CGI, but it also had (somewhat) good writing and (usually) good acting.
But give me movies like Payback over movies like Jurassic Park any day.
Not spending good money on a junky movie.... heard there are several good ones getting ready to hit the screens soon.
Nobody really cares if he threatens your faith, kinoxi. That is not the point. It’s your own business.
Blow your money on the movie and support people who wish to deconstruct anything that is good about western civilization.
You can rest comfortably in your little cocoon and not fight back against these people. Let everyone else do the fighting, and know you are secure in your faith.
In fact, the Roman Catholic Church requires two miracles for that exact reason. Someone sold their soul to the devil, and it fouled many people into believing the person was endowed with special graces from God.
This is a reference to the rules of how a Saint is canonized by the Roman Catholic Church.
For example, Mother Theresa of Calcutta is not considered a saint [yet]. She has had her first miracle (which occurred one year after her death almost exactly).
But the process is still going on to the final level for her canonization...
Just cause you got a part in the movie doesn’t mean you have to support it.
What part of my claim do you find interesting?
This should be interesting.
They cut out my song and dance routine in scene 3 act 5.
I don’t really feel like discussing it right now.
You answer your own supposition without realizing it: The very same crappy movies that sucked so hard would NEVER have been made if real production costs would have been incurred.
This movie (The Golden Compass) is just the latest in a long series of assaults against basic Christian morality and faith. That it arrives at Christmas time is NO accident, in my estimation.
I shall not be watching this movie on a big screen, or on my 52" entertainment centre even if it comes on TV for "free".
Whether the author threatens YOUR faith is not the issue: the author’s stated goal is to shake and remove the faith of those weak enough to believe his lies.
In other words, he wants to corrupt the weak of faith, those whose faith is not yet strong.
This is the ONE time when “think about the children” is a legitimate concern for any Christian. After all, they are his declared prey!
If you are going to argue a point, do it logically.
This has nothing to do with your faith.
I don’t hate the movie. I never said I did. Where did I say that? I haven’t seen the movie.
I have an issue with the author, his agenda, and the agenda of liberals like him.
You, on the other hand, seem to be defending their viewpoint, and it seems like you agree with more than freedom of speech. Explain.
Jurassic Park was the first real CGI blockbuster, then LOTR and Star Wars (the new stuff).
Since then though, the real big hits have a mix of both, with actors doing much more of the work then a Green Screen does.
This film seems to have Sam Elliot and Nicole Kidman as the major actors, and a ton of CGI including talking polar bears, and they are based on books that to honest, I’ve never heard of, so the film comes down to the add campaign and making it look “cool” but the Talking Polar Bear bit is becoming a touch trite to the average movie goer IMO.
LOL! If the Peter Jackson Hobbit movie had come out this year, it would have grossed a half a billion internationally, easily.
GOOD.
Maybe Christian Americans are finally thinking.
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.