View Full Version : GOlden Compass travesty !!
BISHI
13-12-2007, 11:32 AM
.......... Why oh why do American producers consistently take contemporary UK culture and dumb it down to such a degree that it becomes dross !! I went to see the Golden Compass last night with my wife and some friends and , along with the ENTIRE audience, left feeling we wasted our money. All of the philosophical, religious and intelligence of the Dark Materials literacy was blatently avoided..... and all because the producers think it either too complicated for the masses in the USA to understand , or it too offensive for religious middle America to accept. It was the same with the Narnia movie !!! I am sure there are intelligent people in the USA and who cares if the religious right get offended, surely they are there to be challenged !!!
Forgive my rant but *** why does this keep happening to our contemporary culture!!!
Yours, disgusted . Leamington Spa
kantian
13-12-2007, 11:50 AM
It's all about the Yankee dollar.
Singh400
13-12-2007, 1:09 PM
I'm sure they are intelligent people. But remember the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
:grin:
Love the sig BTW ;) Looking forward to Internet Explorer 1000? (see what I did there?) :grin:
aprout
13-12-2007, 1:10 PM
Yep, you spend 185 million dollars on a movie, you want to get as much of it back as possible. Therefore, you go for the widest possible audience & try not to offend anyone.
I'm sure it it had been made as a little independent flick, they would have left all the religious stuff in.
Admittedly, the fact that it's done so poorly at the US box office kinda disputes this argument though...
:)
The end result of applying lowest common denomenator economics is that the media ceases to remain an artform and becomes a commodity. I guess it is happening everywhere but I think it is a sad reflection. Every era and epoch is remembered for its arts, I just hope posterity remembers 21st century Britain for IT'S arts and not an poor American version of it!!! Respek' to the French who still consistently produce movies as art!!! then 3 yrs later the Americans remake them as pap !!!
Mark_a
13-12-2007, 2:45 PM
Against that, though, I rather think that were most of us spending $180m on something we'd kinda like our money back and then some, rather than being remembered down the ages as a patron of the arts.
Regards
Mark
Well, I'm wondering if some of what you bring up may have been shot and could end up in the now obligatory extended edition. ;)
elicash73
13-12-2007, 6:00 PM
I think it's equally to do with the director not having the courage or conviction for his vision (if he had one). He quit the film at one point because he couldn't handle it. He shouldn't have come back.
As for the more controversial elements of the story, the following quote I saw from someones e-mail siganture comes to mind:
“if he believe things only because his pastor say so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.”
I have to say any time you try to compromise on art, the backlash from the critics will cost you just as much financially as the money you saved from those you appeased. In this case, the notorious, religious groups in America still boycotted the film.
I was really looking forward to the films after reading the trilogy over the last year or so, but from what I've heard I think I'll just wait til it comes out on rental.:(
ste1000
13-12-2007, 7:51 PM
I was really looking forward to the films after reading the trilogy over the last year or so, but from what I've heard I think I'll just wait til it comes out on rental.:(
I'm with you on that, the trilogy comprises my favourite set of books. From what I've heard, I won't enjoy the film because it's so dumbed down. If there's to be a special extended edition like a directors cut, I may wait for that. They can do wonders for a film e.g. Blade Runner.
The fact they changed the name is a small issue for me. Detracts the focus from the "dust" that causes the Northern Lights and puts more on the more tangible compass. i suppose it does fit in better with the rest of the titles.
nwgarratt
13-12-2007, 9:24 PM
The fact they changed the name is a small issue for me. Detracts the focus from the "dust" that causes the Northern Lights and puts more on the more tangible compass. i suppose it does fit in better with the rest of the titles.
It is known as Golden Compass in the US. I would thought they use the UK title like they did with the first Harry Potter film (Sorcerers Stone/Philosophers Stone).
I was really looking forward to the films after reading the trilogy over the last year or so, but from what I've heard I think I'll just wait til it comes out on rental.:(
.... no really, don't bother !!!
The Mrs, who is a massive dark materials fan, suggested Chris Nolan ( Batman Begins) or Darren Arranovski ( PI,The Fountain) would have been much more appropriate directors more capable of exploring the darker elements of the book. Afterall these books were written to challenge young peoples thinking, not pander to a rose tinted bible belted middle Americans. If they had stuck more to the bloody original concept instead of trying to challenge ( and failing miserably) the Harry Potter movie franchise maybe it wouldn't be destined to become the failure I'm sure it's destined to be !!
RUBBISH !!!!!
brian s
13-12-2007, 10:15 PM
Against that, though, I rather think that were most of us spending $180m on something we'd kinda like our money back and then some, rather than being remembered down the ages as a patron of the arts.
Regards
Mark
Maybe it could've been made a whole lot cheaper if they'd stuck with the original story and concept and not too many big stars. Lets face it $180m is rather excessive for an "entertainment" of this nature.
Best wishes
Bri
irascian
13-12-2007, 11:09 PM
Frankly I'm staggered that so many people feel justified in criticising something they haven't seen.
And it's incredibly naive to think that a movie which cost $180 million to make isn't going to get dumbed down in some sort of fashion.
As for all those dissing the film, Phillip Pullman has never suffered fools gladly and he's said he's happy with the film. Indeed when really pushed by an interviewer who really wanted him to say what he'd change if anything Pullman could only come up with two small points.
But heh, what does the author matter when there's so many other experts around?!
And when people make ridiculous claims that the "ENTIRE audience" found the film a travesty that just shows how ridiculous the argument is. Did you speak to everyone? Wow, I'm impressed. For the record at the showing I went to (a Saturday afternoon with a lot of kids) the film got a round of applause at the end. Presumably I should use this as justification for some sort of ridiculous statement that the "ENTIRE audience loved the film"?!!!!
Frankly I'm staggered that so many people feel justified in criticising something they haven't seen.
And it's incredibly naive to think that a movie which cost $180 million to make isn't going to get dumbed down in some sort of fashion.
As for all those dissing the film, Phillip Pullman has never suffered fools gladly and he's said he's happy with the film. Indeed when really pushed by an interviewer who really wanted him to say what he'd change if anything Pullman could only come up with two small points.
But heh, what does the author matter when there's so many other experts around?!
And when people make ridiculous claims that the "ENTIRE audience" found the film a travesty that just shows how ridiculous the argument is. Did you speak to everyone? Wow, I'm impressed. For the record at the showing I went to (a Saturday afternoon with a lot of kids) the film got a round of applause at the end. Presumably I should use this as justification for some sort of ridiculous statement that the "ENTIRE audience loved the film"?!!!!
Its a bit of a tangent, but when did this nonsense start in UK cinema's?
Why would you applaud a film? Its all very American sounding to me. Like when they used to get out of their seats and cheer on Rambo.
Who exactly are they applauding for? The director, the distributors, the actors? Applause is usually done when the person is actually there to hear it.
Most pointless thing ever.
Frankly I'm staggered that so many people feel justified in criticising something they haven't seen.
And it's incredibly naive to think that a movie which cost $180 million to make isn't going to get dumbed down in some sort of fashion.
As for all those dissing the film, Phillip Pullman has never suffered fools gladly and he's said he's happy with the film. Indeed when really pushed by an interviewer who really wanted him to say what he'd change if anything Pullman could only come up with two small points.
But heh, what does the author matter when there's so many other experts around?!
And when people make ridiculous claims that the "ENTIRE audience" found the film a travesty that just shows how ridiculous the argument is. Did you speak to everyone? Wow, I'm impressed. For the record at the showing I went to (a Saturday afternoon with a lot of kids) the film got a round of applause at the end. Presumably I should use this as justification for some sort of ridiculous statement that the "ENTIRE audience loved the film"?!!!!
You're completely missing my original point- which is why do the powers of production that be in the USA always water down the deeper concepts of others contemporary culture,( not only in the UK but all over the world) and reproduce it in a sanitised, safe and usually boring way. Also I went to the later viewing and the audience was predominantly adult and, judging by ALL the tutting and criticism I heard on the way out my claim of universal derision I pretty much stand by.TBH your point that the children you witnessed clapping at the end of the movie really does not surprise me when you think of all the production line, dumbed down American dross they are offered to view on TV these days. Spongebob and squarepants.....PER-LEASEE !!!!
irascian
14-12-2007, 2:44 PM
You're completely missing my original point- which is why do the powers of production that be in the USA always water down the deeper concepts of others contemporary culture,( not only in the UK but all over the world) and reproduce it in a sanitised, safe and usually boring way. Also I went to the later viewing and the audience was predominantly adult and, judging by ALL the tutting and criticism I heard on the way out my claim of universal derision I pretty much stand by.TBH your point that the children you witnessed clapping at the end of the movie really does not surprise me when you think of all the production line, dumbed down American dross they are offered to view on TV these days. Spongebob and squarepants.....PER-LEASEE !!!!
Actually all the kids were there with parents - who were the ones who started the clapping, but heh! let's not let facts get in the way of anything.
Films have always been "dumbed down" if they want to make money and put bums on seats. Did you see "Mary Poppins"? (detested by the book's author so much a sequel never got made) So this is hardly a new phenomenon. It's the way movies have always been, yet you seem shocked by it. At least this time around the author is happy with the end result, and one man's "dumbing down" is another man's "pretty faithful to the book". What makes me laugh is all these objections to "The Golden Compass" but nothing but unmitigated praise for "Lord of the Rings" (with its repeated dwarf "toss" jokes and all - how Tolkien would have laughed. Not!)
If you don't "water down the deeper concepts" then nobody goes to see your movie and you suddenly find yourself looking at a multi-million pound loss instead of billions of pounds profits (as was the case with "Lord of the Rings").
Getting back to "The Golden Compass" I think the one-line closing "Verdict" on the film in today's "Screen International" best summarises the film: "It looks astonishing, but fans of the original works seem to have taken against it". Neither I, nor friends who've seen the film and enjoyed it, nor, it seems the work's original author understand why. To expect a film to be the same as the book is just plain stupid and when attempting to appeal to the masses in a simple 2 hour film then of course every nuance of the book isn't going to be represented. How can they be when the medium is so different?
irascian
14-12-2007, 2:50 PM
Its a bit of a tangent, but when did this nonsense start in UK cinema's?
Why would you applaud a film? Its all very American sounding to me. Like when they used to get out of their seats and cheer on Rambo.
Who exactly are they applauding for? The director, the distributors, the actors? Applause is usually done when the person is actually there to hear it.
Most pointless thing ever.
Maybe it's a London thing? It's happened several times I've been in cinema's over the last few years, although isn't exactly "the norm". (Last time I ca recall wnas a packed audience, mainly under 30's and slightly the worse for drink, for "Hot Fuzz" when I saw it in Leicester Square - I think I was the only one who resolutely refused to applaud what I thought was the most self-indulgent, unfunny tosh I'd seen in a long time). Perhaps Londoners are so used to doing it at the theatre (for the cast) that they accidentally fall into the habit occassionally at the cinema? Who knows?
The same thing seems to happen on planes when they land without any turbulence. Usually started by one person and others join in. Probaly just an American in the audience?
elicash73
14-12-2007, 4:14 PM
To expect a film to be the same as the book is just plain stupid and when attempting to appeal to the masses in a simple 2 hour film then of course every nuance of the book isn't going to be represented. How can they be when the medium is so different?
Its a clunkily written and directed film even without taking the books into consideration. I don't care about what they've changed from the books. This isn't like nerdish fans bemoaning the exclusion of the favourite scenes such as Tom Bambdil in Lord of the Rings.
This film had no balls at all. Maybe if they'd have stuck with the ending that they originally filmed, instead of catering to preview audiences, then the film might have ended up being more than a attractive piece of cinematic fluff. Which is a shame because the girl who played Lyra was fantastic.
To be honest Pullman isn't exactly an authority on filmmaking.
nwgarratt
14-12-2007, 4:46 PM
They also changed the ending to make the sequel better at the start if/when it happens.
I suspect Pullman was thinking with his wallet ( which is fair enough ). The fact that he is still XX million better off because some wooly director misinterpreted his vision so badly is no skin of his bank balance!!! At the end of the day, Pullman still stands up as a writer , the film makers certainly do not in my eyes. The French can still make a great movie and every single Hollywood remake of said French movie becomes a joke. I just hope and pray Amelie never gets the Hollywood dumbdown treatment !!!
elicash73
14-12-2007, 6:53 PM
Yo quit with the Hollywood bashing. They make and distribute the best films in the world.
The high box office returns for the dross they put out reflects worse on the people who go to watch it than those who make it. When 6/10 films made are a financial failure, they have to make their money some how. At least they re-invest their money in less commercially viable projects.
I know your quibble is more with watering-down of literary adaptations or foreign films but hey at least you still have the original. The Golden Compass is a "travesty" as you put it, because it is a wasted opportunity.
Sorry but the French make consistently better films than Hollywood ! They may not make as much hard currency or as many movies and they are still capable of producing rubbish ( District B13 for one), but they have maintained the depth and detail of vision first displayed in the European New Wave. Copied and now rejected by all but the most independent of American Producers/Directors. So good infact that their movies are ruined by the Hollwodd makeover.
irascian
15-12-2007, 3:47 PM
I suspect Pullman was thinking with his wallet ( which is fair enough ). The fact that he is still XX million better off because some wooly director misinterpreted his vision so badly is no skin of his bank balance!!! At the end of the day, Pullman still stands up as a writer , the film makers certainly do not in my eyes. The French can still make a great movie and every single Hollywood remake of said French movie becomes a joke. I just hope and pray Amelie never gets the Hollywood dumbdown treatment !!!
Pullman has made enough millions to be less than worried about any money from the movie. Quite aside from which that hasn't stopped him criticising in the past (he was extremely critical of the National Theatre version of his work and certainly didn't hold back when he thought something was wrong). So sorry but as I tried to point out accusations that the author isn't being honest when he says he's more than happy with the film don't hold water.
As for Amelie and the French. You're comparing apples with oranges. Do the French make movies with $180 million budget? "Golden Compass" was always going to be a "controlled by the studio" film because of the sums of money involved. It is totally ludicrous to take a Hollywood blockbuster costing millions and slam it as a "travesty" just because it's not an art house movie
FX:tries to imagine "The Golden Compass" as made by the French on a typical French budget being a "better" movie than the New Line attempt and exits stage left, laughing hysterically.
irascian
15-12-2007, 3:55 PM
They also changed the ending to make the sequel better at the start if/when it happens.
Are you sure? That sounds like an old story about why Saruman's death wasn't shown in "The Two Towers"/"Return of the King" rather than anything to do with "The Golden Compass" (what's hilarious about Saruman death thing of course is that in "The Two Towers" commentary made before "Return of the King" was completed Jackson explains that the death was cut because the film had too many endings and would work much better as an introduction to the next film, and then on "The Return of the King" commentary he explains that it was cut because it just didn't work as an introduction to a film; the reality was that because of the way he leaves everything to the last moment editing happened way too late in the process and he then had just a week or two to try and edit down a five hour movie into anything approaching a length New Line were prepared to release theatrically).
As far as "The Golden Compass" is concerned my understanding is that it was removed against the director's wishes, based on preview viewings and the fact there was no guarantee the second and third films could get made. The director finally agreed with the cut (at least publicly) on the understanding that it would be reinstated IF the second film got made. I really don't think it making a "better" introduction to the second film came into it because all New Line cared about was making damned sure this first one was a success.
Decadence
15-12-2007, 8:11 PM
I am glad it wasn't just us who thought it was crap!
elicash73
15-12-2007, 9:01 PM
Bishi, I've seen some great films come out of France in recent years (The Beat My Heart Skipped was one of my favourites that year) but the range of genres and subjects they tackle is nowhere near as wide as what Hollywood is capable of.
Irascian. Come on, does what Pullman says about the film have any clout? He's a writer not a filmmaker. Do you think he wrote his book by committee? Do you think he had the first-draft of Northern Lights test-read by a strategically chosen demographic of readers that told him how to do his job? If he cared so little about money and more about the integrity of his story, then he'd have added some provisos to its filming and been a bit more careful with the studio and Director in charge.
FX:tries to imagine "The Golden Compass" as made by the French on a typical French budget being a "better" movie than the New Line attempt and exits stage left, laughing hysterically.
What does this mean? "Made by the French"? As for the budget. I'd rather have had Newline knock 80mil off the budget and give a Director with a vision final cut of HIS/HER film. Whatever his nationality. Alfonso Cuaron springs to mind.
nikonkid
17-12-2007, 3:59 PM
I left the General Chat rooms to get away from all this anti American left wing *****.
What do I find its alive and kicking in the movie section.......
Films are made to make money,end of story,not tell the truth,inform or other.
Look at Independance Day, it had everything going a black guy,jews,arabs,kids, even a brit pilot. It was so dumbed downit was total crap BUT it made a pile of money.
Look at Bollywood,mostly crap. If they had made Shindlers List, it would have had singing and dancing Nazis, just to appeal to the Indian masses.
ste1000
19-12-2007, 11:17 PM
I left the General Chat rooms to get away from all this anti American left wing *****.
What do I find its alive and kicking in the movie section.......
Films are made to make money,end of story,not tell the truth,inform or other.
Look at Independance Day, it had everything going a black guy,jews,arabs,kids, even a brit pilot. It was so dumbed downit was total crap BUT it made a pile of money.
Look at Bollywood,mostly crap. If they had made Shindlers List, it would have had singing and dancing Nazis, just to appeal to the Indian masses.
I'm sorry but the idea you purport is the very thing that many people hate about Hollywood. When the production company tailors a film to the lowest common denominator the film so often loses its edge.
The problem is that production companies rely on large takings from blockbusters to make up the deficits they make on most other films.
Aside from this, I went to watch The golden Compass on Monday. I have to say I was surprised. It wasn't terrible. It wasn't great but I was expecting a horror show.
However, with a script as rich as The Northern Lights, this film could have been SO much more! I might suggest that perhaps the script is too rich for the film but on second thoughts the LOTR trilogy has a deeper script yet gets more out of the film.
My biggest gripe is that the film was so obviously tailored to children. The books are much more mature and I was disappointed that much of the "religious" theme was glossed over. And as someone has mentioned previously, the story is told far too audibly as character dialogue. SHOW me what is happening but don't spell it out!
I hope a longer cut was filmed and may be released at a later date. The film could have been half an hour longer which would reduce the necessity for such a blunt delivery.
On the up side, the film looked impressive and has the cast in place to produce an improved sequel.
[QUOTE=nikonkid;6035979]I left the General Chat rooms to get away from all this anti American left wing *****.
QUOTE]
................? My original point was neither left wing nor anti American !!! It was simply pro culture and in particular my own Uk culture. I for one do not believe that the citizens of the United States are quite as stupid as the powers that be in Hollywood would lead us to believe. I am sure that many of them are equally annoyed at the formulaic blockbuster attempts that pour out of the Hollywood production line. The USA still produces world class independent acts like the Coen Brothers, even block busting stars like George Clooney can produce/direct excellent , thought provoking works like Syriana and Goodnight and goodluck.
Well I went to see this last night.
As a film fan I think, what a load of rubbish.
As a fan of the books I think, what a :censored: disgrace :mad:
Absolute rubbish, but could so easily have been great. They got a lot of things right. The cast was all excellent. Nicole Kidman is perfect for her role, as is Ian McKellen. And the kid playing Lyra is really good. Special effects are great. The sets and creatures all look great.
The problem is the script, direction and editing. It was just a total mish mash of seemingly random events with no logical reason for half of the stuff to happen. Like when Lyra arrives in the North. She meets some random cowboy who tells her to go and get a bear. So she goes and gets a bear. Hmmmm, right, don't lets worry about context or reasons behind peoples actions. Just og and get a bear :rolleyes:
If you haven't read the book it would absolutely no sense, just a series of unlikely, seemingly unconnected events.
The problem is its just too short. 100 minutes it's at least 45 minutes too short. They could have taken the time to explain what was going on, who these people are and why they are doing what they are doing. Instead they just rush through the whole thing, terrified that the audience will get bored. LORT and the Harry Potter movies have shown a family audience can handle a 2-3 hour movie no problem, as long as its a good movie.
I really hope they do an extended edition to address this. Unfortunately I suspect the reason they cut it ribbons is because it just isn't and never will be any good.
Decadence
20-12-2007, 12:28 PM
Well I went to see this last night.
As a film fan I think, what a load of rubbish.
As a fan of the books I think, what a :censored: disgrace :mad:
Absolute rubbish, but could so easily have been great. They got a lot of things right. The cast was all excellent. Nicole Kidman is perfect for her role, as is Ian McKellen. And the kid playing Lyra is really good. Special effects are great. The sets and creatures all look great.
The problem is the script, direction and editing. It was just a total mish mash of seemingly random events with no logical reason for half of the stuff to happen. Like when Lyra arrives in the North. She meets some random cowboy who tells her to go and get a bear. So she goes and gets a bear. Hmmmm, right, don't lets worry about context or reasons behind peoples actions. Just og and get a bear :rolleyes:
If you haven't read the book it would absolutely no sense, just a series of unlikely, seemingly unconnected events.
The problem is its just too short. 100 minutes it's at least 45 minutes too short. They could have taken the time to explain what was going on, who these people are and why they are doing what they are doing. Instead they just rush through the whole thing, terrified that the audience will get bored. LORT and the Harry Potter movies have shown a family audience can handle a 2-3 hour movie no problem, as long as its a good movie.
I really hope they do an extended edition to address this. Unfortunately I suspect the reason they cut it ribbons is because it just isn't and never will be any good.
agree 100%...the fillm is absolute nonsense. I have not read the books so it did not make sense.
Garrett
20-12-2007, 1:23 PM
Well I went to see this last night. I really hope they do an extended edition to address this. Unfortunately I suspect the reason they cut it ribbons is because it just isn't and never will be any good.
Or sell 2 versions the early one and the the extended edition that will make everybody who bought the first buy again.
Decadence
20-12-2007, 2:41 PM
Or sell 2 versions the early one and the the extended edition that will make everybody who bought the first buy again.
You'd have to be crazy to want to give this film a 2nd look.