The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

The Golden Compass Movie Discussion

16781012

Posts

  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Well, it was blandified by the dull flame of Hollywood. Her begging to stop before he did anything was the equivalent.

    And I too was bothered greatly by everyone's great fuckign trust of everyone.

    Lyra: "I'm a random little fucking girl and you've got no reason to trust me or find me credible or intelligent at all. Your armor's there."

    Iorek: "Thanks, brb."


    Sure, the bears did sense truth well. Where was that even mentioned, though?

    Coulter: "I'm your mother."

    Lyra: "OK"


    Seriously... Maybe she just sensed it, but... Coulter could have at least given her a reason to believe. A picture... something. And, since you're here, I'll ask. I"m bothered by my memory again. I thought it wasn't revealed to Lyra that Coulter was her mother til later? And I certainly remember thinking Coulter hadn't shown any good or redeeming qualities until that scene in the cave. I'm thinking I'm probably just batshit crazy, but... I must ask.

    You're pretty much spot on...

    In the first book it is only revealed that Lord Asriel is Lyra's father - and it is revealed by Ma Costa or Faa when they reveal that Costa raised Lyra when she was a baby. I can't remember who does it, but I know for a fact that it isn't revealed that coulter is Lyra's mother in the first book. I want to say late 2nd or early third book. We know for sure by the time she gets to the cave.

    Also - yes, Coulter is essentially a villain until the cave scene - we really get a sense that she cares for Lyra at that point and in many ways, Lyra has inherited the remarkable talent of lying from her mother. Before that, Coulter is VERY manipulative of others. We don't really get a sense for her outward love for Lyra and only get tid bits like when she spares her daughter from the intercission.
    What? No.
    John Faa tells Lyra her mother is Mrs. Coulter in the first book, when she meets him. He also tells her Ma Costa was the housekeeper who cared for her.

    tofu on
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Perhaps. In any case, it was stupid that she slapped her own monkey. It was also funny, but a "bad for the movie" kind of funny.

    And oh god, yes! We got almost no sense in the movie of how bad the touching of the daemon was. One line, one line the precludes the scene, where she makes a comment early on about "worse than touching a daemon with your bare hands!" We when it happens she just passes out. Granted, extraordinarily traumatic events would knock you unconscious, but there was no indication or feeling at all of whether... I mean, hell. For all anyone knew, touching someone's daemon with their bare hands was bad because it put you to sleep. Or Lyra was just weak and couldn't handle it. It could be just socially reprehensible with no real physical consequences. It could just tingle.

    JamesKeenan on
  • DelzhandDelzhand Registered User, Transition Team regular
    edited December 2007
    Delzhand wrote: »
    I just thought of a way to put down the Athiest/Christian fight! Get the guys from ILM on the phone.

    ASLAN vs. IOREK

    Fight!

    Man, once finals are over, I'm going to photoshop an old-timey boxing match poster...

    I think we know who'd win.

    ivamq3.jpg

    Iorek would win, but then three days later Aslan would be walking around like nothing ever happened.

    Delzhand on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I'm sorry, but there are few things on this earth that can outfight a polar bear. Even a talking Jesus lion.
    Book-Aslan is a lot bigger than a normal lion, though. Varies from the size of a horse to the size of an elephant, depending on how he feels, as I recall.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    This movie was lukewarm shit.
    Book-Aslan is a lot bigger than a normal lion, though. Varies from the size of a horse to the size of an elephant, depending on how he feels, as I recall.

    Yeah, but Aslan is God, which means he doesn't exist. So Iorek wins by default. :)

    Qingu on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    This movie was lukewarm shit.
    Book-Aslan is a lot bigger than a normal lion, though. Varies from the size of a horse to the size of an elephant, depending on how he feels, as I recall.

    Yeah, but Aslan is God, which means he doesn't exist. So Iorek wins by default. :)

    Bad news about the whole talking bear thing...

    jothki on
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    This movie was lukewarm shit.
    Book-Aslan is a lot bigger than a normal lion, though. Varies from the size of a horse to the size of an elephant, depending on how he feels, as I recall.

    Yeah, but Aslan is God, which means he doesn't exist. So Iorek wins by default. :)

    Bad news about the whole talking bear thing...

    Shut up.

    shutupshutupshutupshutup Shut up!

    JamesKeenan on
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    This movie was lukewarm shit.
    Book-Aslan is a lot bigger than a normal lion, though. Varies from the size of a horse to the size of an elephant, depending on how he feels, as I recall.

    Yeah, but Aslan is God, which means he turns to Dust when exposed to the atmosphere. So Iorek wins by default. :)

    Fixed!

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I don't know if posting a link to a facebook group I made is considered advertisement or retarded, but here you go

    Boycott the Very Ending of The Golden Compass

    Ethan Smith on
  • GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Delzhand wrote: »
    HF-kun wrote: »
    Pullman... ...freely admits his trilogy is propaganda to encourage atheism.
    I keep hearing this. Source please? I'd Google, but finding nothing is inconclusive, whereas you providing a source would be definitive. I'd like to think you saw this in print somewhere, rather than just parroting what you've heard with a healthy dose of what you think you heard.

    I'm not calling you a liar. I've just heard this same comment from a large number of people who were grossly ignorant on other issues and have history of just presenting supposed "common knowledge" as indisputable fact.
    From what I've gathered it's mostly a combination of Pullman being unapolagetic about his opinion and religious blogs gloriously misquoting him. Some time back I spent a couple of hours trying to dig up the origins of that "killing God in the minds of children" quote and failed; it's always used in anecdotal terms, or linked with true (but out of context) quotes that come from interviews that don contain said quote. As far as I'm concerned it was made up.
    I do recommend people dig up some actual interviews with the guy, he really has some interesting opinions.

    Glal on
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Oh, about that false "I want to kill God in the minds of children" quote: It doesn't appear to have ever been said by Pullman and seems to be a corruption of his quote in that Australian paper about how his books are "about killing God" - I've seen that interview cited as the source for it in places.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • MatthewMatthew Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I am an conservative christian, and I have no intention of seeing this movie, and no, it's not for the reason you people are thinking. Everything i've heard about the movie states it's bad. That the CG gets in the way of the movie, that the acting is wooden, that the script is rushed, and does nothing with the characters.

    All of this has convinced me that I will get no entertainment out of this. Just the same as when I heard the premise for "His Dark Materials," recognized it as something i'd seen a thousand times before, ("I don't believe in God, I'm such a brave edgy rebel.") and put the thing aside.

    That's all I have to say on the matter.

    Matthew on
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    :|

    The books are not at all about believing or not believing in God and are profoundly original in that respect. It doesn't even get pretentious about its so called "edginess" until maybe the end of the third book, when all the shit hits the fan.

    Hakkekage on
    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Plus, the book version of The Golden Compass certainly doesn't glorify Lord Asriel.

    jothki on
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    :|

    The books are not at all about believing or not believing in God and are profoundly original in that respect. It doesn't even get pretentious about its so called "edginess" until maybe the end of the third book, when all the shit hits the fan.

    The books are the opposite of edgy. In the following spoiler I am going to quote from the last page of the last book (warning!) to demonstrate just how very un-edgy they are.
    I'm not kidding!
    Pantalaimon murmured, "That thing Will said..."
    "When?"
    "On the beach, just before you tried the alethiometer. He said there wasn't any elsewhere. It was what his father had told you. But there was something else."
    "I remember. He meant the Kingdom was over, the Kingdom of Heaven, it was all finished. We shouldn't live as if it mattered more than this life in this world, because where we are is always the most important place."
    "He said we had to build something..."
    "That's why we needed our full life, Pan. We would have gone with Will and Kirjava, wouldn't we?"
    "Yes. Of course! And they would have come with us. But--"
    "But then we wouldn't have been able to build it. No one could if they put themselves first. We have to be all those difficult things like cheerful and kind and curious and patient, and we've got to study and think and work hard, all of us, in all our different worlds, and then we'll build..."

    Her hands were resting on his glossy fur. Somewhere in the garden a nightingale was singing, and a little breeze touched her hair and stirred the leaves overhead. All the different bells of the city chimed, once each, this one high, that one low, some close by, others farther off, one cracked and peevish, another grave and sonorous, but agreeing in all their different voices on what the time was, even if some of them got to it a little more slowly than others. In that other Oxford where she and Will had kissed good-bye, the bells would be chiming, too, and a nightingale would be singing, and a little breeze would be stirring the leaves in the Botanic Garden.
    "And then what?" said her daemon sleepily. "Build what?"
    "The Republic of Heaven," said Lyra.

    I feel almost as though I could make an inspirational poster from it. In my opinion, His Dark Materials is not interesting because it offers atheism to children; it is interesting because it exemplifies for the broader culture a sort of atheism that is not best described as edgy--that is warm and moral and caring and good.

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • Lave IILave II Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Oh completely, Mahnmut. The books are answering the question that atheist are posed time and time again. With no God/Afterlife/Judgement how can you lead a moral life? What is the purpose to life? Why bother?

    And of course they may be a little heavy handed at times, but the fact stands that they are the first succesful attempt to explain that secular, scientific, renaissance, wonder at the world, with all it's love and compassion and beauty. It shows that, the wonder of the universe can remain in a rational outlook.

    And it succeeds much more than "unweaving the rainbow" - a book by Darwkins that attempts the same things.

    They are extremely important because they present "children" and "adults" with a good example of this mindset. Clearly it has what people might call an agenda, like any good piece of literature has, and it's better for it.

    I could wax lyrical about it's excellence for a long time (don't worry I won't), but i do want to say that I think it will go down in history as one of the most important books of our age. I really believe it marks a turning point in our culture. Unless we retreat backwards once again.

    Talking of turning points, I think one of the strongest memories most people have is when the first time they realised that their parents were fallible. And that adults in general were often wrong. I remember the day clearly. I had a terrifying evening when I realised, everyone was bumbling through the best they could, no one was really evil, and everyone thought they were right and that they were good.

    There are a pitiful amount of novels that really takle that issue and HDM stand above them all. No one in the book is truely evil, everyone has motives, and believes they are doing the right thing. And you can't look to authority figures to tell you the truth. As such Lyra and Will flit between them all on their path to find the truth.

    Thats a huge step forward in [strike]childrens[/strike] any literature, and puts in miles ahead of the Narnia books, and LoTRs. It's a massively important book for preparing anyone for the real world.

    Lave II on
  • Lave IILave II Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Oh and on the case of the film - which I haven't made my mind up on yet:
    (v.minor spoiler about daemons)
    I find it interesting that they had to tone the religous aspects down so much, but it was fine for it to be as violent as it was. I found it quite shocking that so many people were killed. Because unlike traditional movies, where they could just be 'hurt' for all you know, whenever you saw their daemons 'puff' away, you knew they were dead.

    I found that quite shocking.

    Lave II on
  • GoatmonGoatmon Companion of Kess Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I dunno. Was it an American studio that produced the film? That would explain why they were extremely hesitant to allow much of the anti-religious fluff into it, what with Christianity having as much influence as it does here.

    Death and violence doesn't really present that problem.

    Goatmon on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • Lave IILave II Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Which is exactly why an accurate version of the books is needed.

    Lave II on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Goatmon wrote: »
    I dunno. Was it an American studio that produced the film? That would explain why they were extremely hesitant to allow much of the anti-religious fluff into it, what with Christianity having as much influence as it does here.

    Death and violence doesn't really present that problem.

    It's kind of ironic how they also cut out the one part of the book that made the whole thing not solely anti-religion.

    jothki on
  • marz_1982marz_1982 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Something else that was changed - maybe my memory isn't too great...
    In the book, doesn't the master of the college actually give the order to poison Lord Asriel's drink? Later on his motives are explained. In the movie, I got the impression it was a magisterium agent trying to kill him?

    I particularly liked this in the book as I felt the character was complex, and had his own faults/agendas etc.

    Also, a significant time is spent in the book with Lyra agonising over what the master's last words were to her regarding the compass... I was disappointed this was left out.

    marz_1982 on
  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lave II wrote: »
    Oh completely, Mahnmut. The books are answering the question that atheist are posed time and time again. With no God/Afterlife/Judgement how can you lead a moral life? What is the purpose to life? Why bother?

    And of course they may be a little heavy handed at times, but the fact stands that they are the first succesful attempt to explain that secular, scientific, renaissance, wonder at the world, with all it's love and compassion and beauty. It shows that, the wonder of the universe can remain in a rational outlook.

    And it succeeds much more than "unweaving the rainbow" - a book by Darwkins that attempts the same things.

    They are extremely important because they present "children" and "adults" with a good example of this mindset. Clearly it has what people might call an agenda, like any good piece of literature has, and it's better for it.

    I could wax lyrical about it's excellence for a long time (don't worry I won't), but i do want to say that I think it will go down in history as one of the most important books of our age. I really believe it marks a turning point in our culture. Unless we retreat backwards once again.

    Talking of turning points, I think one of the strongest memories most people have is when the first time they realised that their parents were fallible. And that adults in general were often wrong. I remember the day clearly. I had a terrifying evening when I realised, everyone was bumbling through the best they could, no one was really evil, and everyone thought they were right and that they were good.

    There are a pitiful amount of novels that really takle that issue and HDM stand above them all. No one in the book is truely evil, everyone has motives, and believes they are doing the right thing. And you can't look to authority figures to tell you the truth. As such Lyra and Will flit between them all on their path to find the truth.

    Thats a huge step forward in [strike]childrens[/strike] any literature, and puts in miles ahead of the Narnia books, and LoTRs. It's a massively important book for preparing anyone for the real world.

    And gee, here I thought this was just some Harry Potter rip-off.

    And here, this is precisely why the Vatican is fucking stupid. Here I was, ready to write this movie off as a clone and probably never see it. And they go and make their idiotic declarations about how a silly movie made baby Jesus cry. Now I'm curious about it and will very probably go see it in the near future.

    VoodooV on
  • GoatmonGoatmon Companion of Kess Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Uh, yeah. Golden Compass was published in 95, as opposed to HP & The Philosopher's Stone which was in 97.

    But I still would advise against the movie. Having not read the book, much of it seemed out of place and difficult to understand (mostly small details; The primary plot was so densely thrown at you that it's impossible to misunderstand) such as how the book ends before it should. Even having not read the book (and thus not noticing that it was ending 5 chapters too soon) The credits before you get any sense of closure or finality, or even a sense of "Oh okay, this is a good place to properly stop and pick up the next film" No, it just abruptly goes to black and the credits roll.

    The reviews, both by critics and ordinary folk alike, seem to agree that this was a bad film.

    I've been reading the novel lately and I'm enjoying it quite a bit now that things have picked up speed.
    (I just got to the part where Lyra runs away from Ms. Coulter)

    Goatmon on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • GoatmonGoatmon Companion of Kess Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Also.
    marz_1982 wrote: »
    Something else that was changed - maybe my memory isn't too great...
    In the book, doesn't the master of the college actually give the order to poison Lord Asriel's drink? Later on his motives are explained. In the movie, I got the impression it was a magisterium agent trying to kill him?

    I particularly liked this in the book as I felt the character was complex, and had his own faults/agendas etc.

    Also, a significant time is spent in the book with Lyra agonising over what the master's last words were to her regarding the compass... I was disappointed this was left out.
    THat's exactly it. They rewrote it so that the Master of Jordan College has shown no signs of being anything but a good guy, whereas in the book he was obviously trying to murder Lord Asrial. Of course, we learn later that Asrial is not the cool admirable guy he's made out to be, and that the Master had valid reason to want him killed.

    In the movie, they took out that element, using the Magisterium figurehead as the attempted-murderer, and removed the event of Asrial revealing himself as a selfish zealot willing to go as far as to murder one of Lyra's friends in order to achieve his goals.

    They basically took out the shades of gray, and reduced it so that the only bad guys in this are the magisterium at this point. This kind of goes completely against what the Author was getting at with his stories.

    Goatmon on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I also haven't read the books, but I'd say the movie plot was overly simplistic, if anything. Not very much happens except
    the cutting facility gets shut down
    and many characters are introduced. Other than that, nothing. I wasn't even sure the movie was over until the credits started rolling.

    Really though I was just disappointed that the bears-in-armor scenes weren't cooler.

    Derrick on
    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • marz_1982marz_1982 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Goatmon - well said, exactly what annoyed me about the movie.

    My 2 cents otherwise is that although the movie managed to show the plot skeleton, it had none of the meat of the book (Starting on the next 2 soon :P). It just felt like they rushed the audience through each event just so they could have it done.

    It also didn't have the oomph of other recent fantasy movies, I even enjoyed Narnia more.

    I did like the CGI animals though, Iorek was an awesome sight, even if the dialogue with Lyra was stilted (Lordy, was it just me or was the voice actor terrible in that scene??)

    Good enough for a rental, but otherwise meh...

    marz_1982 on
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Goatmon wrote: »
    Also.
    marz_1982 wrote: »
    Something else that was changed - maybe my memory isn't too great...
    In the book, doesn't the master of the college actually give the order to poison Lord Asriel's drink? Later on his motives are explained. In the movie, I got the impression it was a magisterium agent trying to kill him?

    I particularly liked this in the book as I felt the character was complex, and had his own faults/agendas etc.

    Also, a significant time is spent in the book with Lyra agonising over what the master's last words were to her regarding the compass... I was disappointed this was left out.
    THat's exactly it. They rewrote it so that the Master of Jordan College has shown no signs of being anything but a good guy, whereas in the book he was obviously trying to murder Lord Asrial. Of course, we learn later that Asrial is not the cool admirable guy he's made out to be, and that the Master had valid reason to want him killed.

    In the movie, they took out that element, using the Magisterium figurehead as the attempted-murderer, and removed the event of Asrial revealing himself as a selfish zealot willing to go as far as to murder one of Lyra's friends in order to achieve his goals.

    They basically took out the shades of gray, and reduced it so that the only bad guys in this are the magisterium at this point. This kind of goes completely against what the Author was getting at with his stories.

    Yeah. I also noticed that they axed the Master's reading of the alethiometer which said
    that Lyra would betray someone and it would hurt her terribly. Obviously they couldn't really leave it in, with the ending deferred to the next film, but between this, that, and the other the film is missing most of the book's dramatic tension and character development.

    It's also going to look really weird when film-Asriel, who is apparently a stand-up guy, murders Roger. That was kind of an OH SO THAT'S WHAT THEY MEANT moment in the book; in film 2 it will more or less come out of nowhere.

    Overall, thumbs down--and this is from someone who generally enjoys book-to-film adaptations. LotR and Narnia got good films; the Golden Compass just didn't. :(

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • TigressTigress Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think the movie might have been a lot better if they had tacked on another 60 - 90 minutes to give them time to explore the plot events a little further. However, I think Disney didn't believe that the movie would be able to hold people's attention if it was longer than two hours.

    Tigress on
    Kat's Play
    On the subject of death and daemons disappearing: arrows sure are effective in Lyra's universe. Seems like if you get shot once, you're dead - no lingering deaths with your daemon huddling pitifully in your arms, just *thunk* *argh* *whoosh*. A battlefield full of the dying would just be so much more depressing when you add in wailing gerbils and dogs.
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I enjoyed the movie, and I read the books a few years ago. However, reading all the complaints above has made me realise that I either missed or have forgotten most of the details of the books when I read them - I blame the fact that I read them on holiday and had turned my brain off, much like I do with movies.

    Basically, I remembered a truth compass thing, armoured bears, daemons and Oxford, so I wasn't disappointed. My girlfriend hasn't read the books, but she seemed to follow the story, which I was glad of because I wouldn't have been able to fill in any of the details. The only thing that pissed her off was the ending, but I was already expecting a Fellowship of the Rings-esque pan out to scenery.

    On the subject of death and daemons disappearing: arrows sure are effective in Lyra's universe. Seems like if you get shot once, you're dead - no lingering deaths with your daemon huddling pitifully in your arms, just *thunk* *argh* *whoosh*. A battlefield full of the dying would just be so much more depressing when you add in wailing gerbils and dogs.

    Also, needed more daemons. So it just happened that every guard had the exact same breed of dog as a daemon? Lazy. A guard on the end with a cocker spaniel or Old English sheepdog would have pleased me no end.

    Rhesus Positive on
    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    That was actually correct according to the book: Tartars have wolf daemons. Servants usually have dogs.

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • NeelixNeelix Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    And if I remember correctly, the servants at Oxford all had different breeds of dog.

    This can be seen most easily when Mrs. Coulter and Lyra walk out to the airship and pick up their luggage.

    Neelix on
  • hesthefastesthesthefastest Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    whoa, do others agree with Lave II's claim that His Dark Materials rivals Lord of the Rings?

    hesthefastest on
  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I personally prefer it (HDM).

    L|ama on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    So I saw this over the break. Wow it was awful, and I read the book about a year ago so some of the minor details were fuzzy. Visually it was appealing but the plot was lightning fast and they skipped from event to event without giving any of them any meaning.

    And now I'm almost done rereading the book and I'm just really surprised at all the minor little details they changed for apparently no reason, and all the cool stuff they left out. Are there any interviews or articles out there where the movie makers talk about why they adapted it the way they did? i.e., terribly?


    And as to the question above, I would say that LOTR is superior in pretty much every aspect, but that doesn't mean HDM isn't terrific itself.

    Medopine on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Are the other movies going to get made?

    Shinto on
  • GoatmonGoatmon Companion of Kess Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Shinto wrote: »
    Are the other movies going to get made?

    Considering that this one is getting pretty bad reviews, I doubt it. Normally being a shitty movie doesn't remove all chance of a sequel, but this little trilogy is going to have a pretty hefty SFX budget one way or the other so I doubt it would be seen as a safe investment.

    Goatmon on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Goatmon wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Are the other movies going to get made?

    Considering that this one is getting pretty bad reviews, I doubt it. Normally being a shitty movie doesn't remove all chance of a sequel, but this little trilogy is going to have a pretty hefty SFX budget one way or the other so I doubt it would be seen as a safe investment.

    But did it make money? That's the real question.

    Medopine on
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah. I finished the book a couple days before seeing the movie. Definitely not the way to go to see this movie. Fmeh.

    Jragghen on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    whoa, do others agree with Lave II's claim that His Dark Materials rivals Lord of the Rings?
    Lord of the Rings is overrated.

    Even for its time. It came out in 1954. That's several decades after the Wizard of Oz, which I feel is less deep but more creative.

    I also have serious problems with the black-and-white moral universe of Lord of the Rings, where cutting down thousands of disfigured animalistic enemy troops is the epitome of heroism. Yes, I understand they were mostly Orcs, but Tolkien's style is drawn heavily from medieval epics that celebrate mass killings of rival tribes and religions. The Catholic overtones in LoTR also piss me off.

    I think Tolkien's major achievement was crafting a huge fantasy world with a detailed and cohesive history that extends off from the pages of the story. He probably took his fantasy world more seriously than any other author. But I'm not convinced that necessarily makes for better literature.

    Qingu on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Goatmon wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Are the other movies going to get made?

    Considering that this one is getting pretty bad reviews, I doubt it. Normally being a shitty movie doesn't remove all chance of a sequel, but this little trilogy is going to have a pretty hefty SFX budget one way or the other so I doubt it would be seen as a safe investment.

    But did it make money? That's the real question.

    The budget was 180 million and the revenue so far is 257 million dollars as of January 3rd, 2008. The DVD release should earn it some more money.

    Couscous on
Sign In or Register to comment.