| Author |
 Topic  |
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
 Posted - 12/10/2007 : 21:13:18
|
I made my judgement on this movie while watching the trailer....Shite, I won't be paying to see it. Mite catch it on TV one day.  |
 |
|
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 12/10/2007 : 21:37:50
|
#1 on an off weekend and way below expectations...
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "The Golden Compass," a $180 million family fantasy starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, failed to direct the masses to movie theaters.
The movie underperformed at the North American box office, opening at No. 1, but with weekend ticket sales of just $26.1 million, distributor New Line Cinema said on Sunday.
The struggling unit of Time Warner Inc had hoped the film would pull in between $30 million and $40 million during its first three days.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/10/2007 : 22:02:40
|
Nearly every review I've read in the U.S. can charitably be called mixed. I'll wait and catch it on DVD. As pointed out above, you can be #1 for the weekend and still be a grave financial disappointment. Case in point: THE GOLDEN COMPASS!
I have in fact read the books, and while I'd definitely quibble with Baffy's [and, below, Mr. Salopian's] contention that they're better written and more cleverly conceived than the Potters [I find the Rowlings to be bursting with invention and delight, and they even take us to some rather dark and anti-authoritarian places themselves], there's no reason why MATERIALS shouldn't make a smashing movie series. The "anti-religion" aspect has been overblown in the media; take it all away, and if you still have a ripping yarn, you have a movie. Religious nutjobs don't even like Harry's perfectly innocent sorcery, for goodness' sake.
But if people are complaining that they don't understand what's going on, that's serious mojo. My spider sense tells me that there will be no #2 or #3. This could even cost Bob Shaye his job; watch and see.
EDIT: Baffy, I salute your stalwart defense of this flick against a bit of opposition. You and I know perfectly well that nobody can ever tell us what to like or dislike, and thank God for that. [Sorry, Mr. Pullman.] But maybe if things are getting too dark for further MATERIALS adaptations, you might want to grab a ray of sunshine by giving ENCHANTED another try! |
Edited by - randall on 12/11/2007 21:50:57 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/10/2007 : 23:22:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Yeah, I think you, too, are kind of proving my point re which professional critics judged tGC harshly or not. It's got a better press over here and - as I've suggested above - that's probably due to cultural expectations.
I do hope nothing I've said about the film indicates anything personal about those who may not agree with my assessment. That's never my intent. Besides, who cares who agrees with whom ... film criticism ain't no popularity contest.
It's hard to "unread" something. I read the books, no I devoured the books, when a pal whose judgement I rate told me about them. Long before there was a whiff of film deal. And I suspect Pullman's agent would have secured the proper contracts when the time came. Of course, studios have been known to reneg, do buy-outs, whatever. But everything I know about PP indicates he could care less what the movie machine decides. Though it would be a shame if the rest of the story -- which for those who know is integral and synchronous rather than sequential - if the rest of the story remains untold on film.
What Hollywood will have found toughest about Pullman is his different attitude toward the movie biz. He ain't young, hungry and willing to eat crap for their benefit. His shelves of awards, his acknowledgement by such as the BBC, his book deals ... well, you know, he's not exactly been ignored as a literary figure. I've heard him interviewed on numerous occasions and he was entirely sanguine during the whole "walking in Rowling's shadow" era.
I'm really not defending the film per se ... I know why I like it,though, I admit were it my script I hope I'd have found a better way to tell the non-linear complexity of the story.
Mentioning Kidman's acting wasn't me trying to justify anything ... the concentration I think is needed to be a more active movie-goer, has nothing to do with singling out her portrayal of a complex woman whose character constantly develops throughout the entire story. The concentration is to mirror that of Lyra's - presented with real threats to a world she's learning to understand, tossing all she's known back into something unknown. This first film bit is about her being tested, by herself, by others, and by the end she's got the knowledge of her own ability to face ... whatever is coming.
MguyX - I'm not quite sure what you mean about the UK accents. The conceit of the story is that it seems as though it's set in England until you realize it isn't. Actually the books handle this whole aspect of where you are at any given moment in a far more clever way than the more linear film. But I guess some smoothing out was needed for any attempt at a mass appeal. As I said, I believe the film's flaws stem from that decision - and since PP controlled the screenplay, it must be down to him.
But in terms of accents, I'm not sure what the problem is. Surely you wouldn't have wanted the imposition of the kind of irrelevant American element that killed The Seeker: The Dark is Rising?
I imagine whoever put together the finance for this package really had to work the room. And even Pullman knows the debt he owes Rowling. But in discussing the merits or otherwise of tGC it's not fair to it or any film to mix US bo receipts with quality.
Hannibal? Gimme a break, dude!
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/10/2007 : 23:57:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
But in discussing the merits or otherwise of tGC it's not fair to it or any film to mix US bo receipts with quality.
Remember that earlier you were quoting the US box office to suggest that people went to it? Nope: the point is only to mix those receipts with the potential for sequels. Even though much of the dough was gathered outside the US, I nevertheless stand by my prediction. Save this message to taunt me when #2 becomes a mammoth hit. |
Edited by - randall on 12/11/2007 00:00:32 |
|
|
|
MguyX 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 00:58:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
MguyX - I'm not quite sure what you mean about the UK accents.
Nope, not UK accents (which are quite varied): English accents. What I'm focussing on in particular comes from my general aversion to overly precocious child characters in the first place, coupled with what appeared to me to be an attempt to manipulate the viewer's perception by relying on a hackneyed image of the English-accented wunderkind. Given another item you mentioned, however, I realize that my ire (while genuine and no less so as to that conceit) might not have been engaged had I been aware that ...
quote:
The conceit of the story is that it seems as though it's set in England until you realize it isn't.
You've got me there.
Though I will observe that, if the story is not actually occurring in England, then I don't see the purpose of giving it distinctly English overtones.
(Thus, nearly without detection, I quite sneakily have reinstated my criticisim of the superfluous English accent -- Shite! I'm bloody clever.)
("'Shite'? 'Bloody'? Is he speaking with an English accent?") quote:
Actually the books handle this whole aspect of where you are at any given moment in a far more clever way than the more linear film.
Yadda yadda yadda, have to read the book, yadda, different media, yadda yadda, no argument there.quote:
But I guess some smoothing out was needed for any attempt at a mass appeal.
I'm not Catholic, so I'm not sure why we are invoking mass, but the issue really is "general understandability": smoothing out is necessary so that people can understand the danged thing, either by the masses or by me.
("Did he just say 'danged'? What's with that? He was cursing with an English accent a second ago.") quote:
As I said, I believe the film's flaws stem from that decision [which one? ] - and since PP controlled the screenplay, it must be down to him.
Don't know why there's a break here. May as well get some tea.quote:
But in terms of accents, I'm not sure what the problem is. Surely you wouldn't have wanted the imposition of the kind of irrelevant American element that killed The Seeker: The Dark is Rising?
Didn't see it, so I'm not sure what you mean (though I have an idea, and I'm pretty sure I'd agree with you if I were to see it, which I'm now not going to, and mostly because of its irrelevant American element, mind you.)
("Did you hear that? Didn't that sound vaguely 'English-accented' to you?
I mean, he's criticizing its irrelevant use, but he's using it irrelevantly himself.
And a few seconds ago, he went and got some 'tea'. I mean, that's really English.
What's with this guy? X?").
But please don't think I'm advocating that the characters should have spoken in hip-hop slang.
Your observation punctuates the point: the "irrelevant" element is the base of my concern. My ire is directed at the habit of throwing in English accents for no good reason. To understand this issue even better, just listen to Madonna speak these days: when the fuck did she become British, and why is she speaking with a British accent?
("I heard him say 'fuck' this time!") quote:
Hannibal? Gimme a break, dude!
No freakin' kidding?!?!
I already said it was a crappy film! But I did love the novel, which had a Nabokovian flavor (Back off, Randall! We've already had this discussion, so I've already tempered my remark!) 
("'Freakin'. Who is this dude kidding? He's got a gutter-mouth, but apparently only with an English accent. Go figure.")
|
Edited by - MguyX on 12/11/2007 01:17:12 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 03:47:02
|
Ain't seen it (will see what the IMDb score is when the DVD comes out), but thought I'd weigh in on accents. There's no such thing as a neutral accent, any accent is gonna sound foreign to somebody.
LOTR Anglicised most accents (leaving some Welsh and Scottish ones in there), but American ones were removed. Did Americans object to that? I think it was a good idea at any rate. When I watch any of the Star Wars episodes I'm always conscious of the US, English, Kiwi accents etc cropping up at random, to the detriment of the movie.
I think when a 'neutral' accent is needed it's good to aim for something like Frodo or Arwen in LOTR, it sounds right to my ears anyway, although I suppose it'll sound quite foreign to those from the US. Accents are a problem without solution I think. |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 05:14:02
|
Just for the record: there is nothing wrong with the English accent. It is most often positively charming (unless spoken by Madonna).
What I was saying was simply that, in American film, it often invokes a sense of high culture and intelligence. My objection is to the use of this invoked characteristic in an attempt to redeem characters and scripts that otherwise fall flat. In such situations I find the occurrence (to paraphrase BB) unattractively irrelevant: shit does not smell better just because it's pronounced "shite," and I feel like I'm being duped when a director tries to mask his failing with the pretty sounds of the English accent's luxurient vowels and precision of consonant phonemes. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 08:34:40
|
Ah, gotcha. So a poncey accent does not redeem a vacuous character in the same way that CGI/FX doesn't redeem a shit shite plot (although some movie-makers believe it does). I agree.
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 13:03:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I have to admit, I'm baffled by your definition of storytelling, Ali. What you say makes no sense to me.
quote:
Lyra has to go to the North Pole to save Roger. That's it. That's all you need to know.
So it really doesn't matter to you:
1) What Lyra is saving Roger from
2) Why these mystery people are attacking Roger to begin with
3) How Lyra knows where Roger is
4) How she found out that she needed to save Roger
5) Why Lyra cares about Roger
6) Say, who the hell is this Roger guy anyway?
7) For that matter, who is this Lyra girl?
These are all the things you need to know for the movie to make any sense, and most of them are unanswered. I'm not asking for voiceover or long windy speeches (show, don't tell!), I'm just asking for a movie to take the time to answer these simple questions. Characterization, you know. Storytelling. Imagine if Frodo was taking the ring to Mordor for no established reason.
There are two main gripes I have with the above. First of all, "show not tell" has become a cliche, which not many people seem to understand. Narration is narration, and it's shit: it's no better if you do it by showing.
What is a film? It is a story told by the juxtaposition of uninflected images. If you find that a point cannot be made without narration, it is almost certain that the point is unimportant to the story, i.e. the audience. The audience requires not information but drama. So who requires this narration? Bottom feeders and studio executives (most of the latter also fall into the former category).
Character, you say? Horseshit. You never, never, NEVER have to establish character. Besides, and as Aristotle tells us, there is no such thing as character other than the habitual action. "Character" is merely what the person literally does in pursuit of the superobjective, the objective of the scene in particular, and the movie in general. The rest doesn't matter.
Here is a page from Mamet, one of our foremost playwrights, and a pretty good director, as well. A man goes to a brothel and says; "what can I get for five quid?" The madam says, "you should have been here an hour ago, because..." We, as members of the audience, want to know why he should have been there an hour ago. That's all you want to know. Now the same story full of characterisation:
A horny, yet gentlemanly, fellow, obviously enamoured of the good things in life but not without a certain somberness and ennui for his existence, which might speak of a disposition to contemplation, goes to a gothic whorehouse on a quiet residential street, somewhere in a once elegant part of the city. While walking up the Edwardian steps, he takes out his billfold (which has a crest on it that reads "esse quam videri"), and ...
This is exposition: ponderous, meandering, plodding narrative. By always establishing something (a place, a character, the director's own hubris), it completely kills off the drama. Put the audience in the same position as the protagonist, because as long as the protagonist wants something, the audience will, too. Film is not about establishing a character or a place, the way television does it.
The model of the drama is the dirty joke. And the fairy tale. They are both told in the simplest of images and without elaboration, without any attempts to characterise. As Bettelheim says in The Uses of Enchantment, the characterisation is left up to the audience.
The only MacGuffin in The Golden Compass is that Lyra has to go to the North. Her journey itself is what moves the film along. Anything more than that, the audience will supply it, each one for themselves. If you are that concerned about minutiae, read the bloody books.
---
The rings trilogy would have worked just as well without the Council of Rivendell. Frodo has to get rid of the ring because Gandalf told him so. That's good enough. The problem was, of course, the maniacal fanbase, of which Jackson et al were also members. The rings films break one of cinema's most important rules: Never do the same thing twice. Circularity, repetition of the same incident in different guises, is antithetical to the dramatic form. It is the signature of the epic and the autobiography. Which is the reason both are adapted into drama with much difficulty and little success. As was the case in The Lord of the Rings.
|
Edited by - Ali on 12/11/2007 14:36:00 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 13:51:25
|
Wall Street type guy walks by a panhandler.
"Spare some change, mister?"
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be: William Shakespeare."
"Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you: David Mamet!" |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 13:55:07
|
The Golden Compass [Please add a link if you start a thread about a film.]
B.B. is right - it's a good film.
My experience is that I read Northern Lights (called The Golden Compass in the States for some reason; don't know why the film has that name here or why in it people repeatedly say that the alethiometer's alternative name is a golden compass when it is only described as being like one once) just a few days before seeing the film. It's a really great book - more originally imaginative than the Harry Potters and with a much better central character - which does not patronise children by assuming that they cannot understand quite sophisticated concepts.
A large number of details were changed: while I normally do not approve of that kind of thing, I felt that the vast majority of such choices worked very well. (I didn't like Billy Costa's daemon being called Ratter - that just does not seem right to me.)
So I must assume that I incorporated my knowledge of the book into my viewing - but so what? Several people seem to be taking for granted that a film has to be a stand-alone entity - but why should this be so in every case? As with (though not to quite the same degree as) Harry Potter, the majority of children in the audience will have read the book, and so they should. And parents should have read what their children read according to time permitting (and this book would be a high priority) so that they can engage with them about the stories (as well as checking that they are morally and intellectually suitable - but that's a secondary reason). So this film isn't a coincident and independent piece of work: it's a complement to the book and that's just fine.
Most of the specifics that M.B.I. says are missing are present in the film - he obviously wasn't watching properly. The details of the story are also meant to be confusing - so long as it is clear that Roger is mysteriously taken and Lyra wants to rescue him then that is clear enough.
It is set in England (it's explicitly stated in the book) - it's just a different England. It's not an unrelated one to ours, but one which has diverged. This can also account for English having spread to other countries than those in our universe. (Admittedly, since diverging the fictional universe has gained people with daemons, which one would have expected to happen at a much earlier stage than the development of English, but this is the only problem with the accents/language.) |
Edited by - Salopian on 12/11/2007 13:58:40 |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 14:05:56
|
The reason the title of the book is different in the US is a bit complicated. You can read about it here.
It most definitely IS England. You can even spot 30 St Mary Axe, aka The Gherkin Building, in a couple of the shots as Lyra and Mrs Coulter arrive in London. Also, you can hear Tartar, Norwegian and a gibberishised Samoyedic language. The gyptians speak English because they are from Oxford.
I, too, loved the book, by the way. And I am on BB and Salopian's camp with regards to the film.
|
Edited by - Ali on 12/11/2007 14:21:56 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 14:13:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
It most definitely IS England. You can even spot 30 St Mary Axe, aka The Gherkin Building, in a couple of the shots as Lyra and Mrs Coulter arrive in London. Also, you can hear Tartar, Norwegian and a gibberishised Samoyedic language.The gyptians speak English because they are from Oxford.
Yep, I guess the idea is that even after diverging, universes may develop along the same lines in many ways; this covers their English being very similar to our English. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 14:57:57
|
Okay, my original point was that I couldn't understand what the hell was going on in this movie. To illustrate that point, I made the comment that it felt like large chunks of exposition had removed. Somehow this has turned into a debate about the pros and cons about narration.
This is NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'm talking about the fact that the film makes no goddamn sense. And that the film needs much, much more (not necessarily exposition, though it would certainly help) put into it to be considered good storytelling in any way, shape or form.
I mean, I did not give a shit if she saved Roger or not because I couldn't understand what was going on. I had to go look up who Roger even was for this thread; I thought she was trying to save Daniel Craig. Like, when she finds the notes in Kidman's trash -- she connects the notes to the Gobblers, even though they never bother to explain who the Gobblers are, what they're doing, never had a previous mention of them. When we find the kid lying down without his daemon, it's NOT shocking because what the fuck does it matter? They never bothered to make the daemons important to anything; all Lyra's did was hover in the background and make useless comments like "I don't like this place, Lyra."
I've never read any Tolkien, but I was able to follow the trilogy without any problems. The first movie did need the Council of Rivendell, partly because it established why everyone was banding together, but more importantly because it helps establish what Weitz totally did not: pacing. Pacing, something that made it seem like we were watching people in another world dealing with a central conflict, not characters on a movie screen headed towards the next plot point. The only thing the filmmakers did to set up anything like that is that they had a more detailed companion book printed twelve years ago, and again, I find it very telling that this film's defenders are all fans of the novel. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 12/11/2007 15:02:37 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Golden Compass
