Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:03 am**

um hmmm. nicole was creep delux!

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:42 am**

Talking polar bears, eh? Well, if predictions about their demise within 50 years come true, then they will indeed become mythical beasts that exist only on film and in stories.

I'm not terribly interested in the movie. I saw a blurb for it that read: THE MOVIE THAT WILL REDEFINE FANTASY.

Guess they never heard of Peter Jackson's little trilogy.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:52 am**

Is it a film that can wait for DVD? I know the special effects won't translate that well, but we tend to go to the theatre only for a movie that we think has to be seen on the big screen (Beowulf 3-D, Harry Potter, etc.).

Although I am seriously considering going to see Enchanted in the theatre.

Posted: **Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:05 pm**

The consensus in the reviews I am finding is that the movie is a special effects extravaganza but mediocre in all other aspects.

So ... one way of thinking is to think that you should see it in the theatre when you can, if you want to enjoy the most enjoyable part of the movie in the way that makes it most enjoyable. On a big screen with dolby sound.

Another way of thinking would be ... who cares, I'll let it come in Netflix.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:36 am**

I may be the only person in the universe who walked into Golden Compass this weekend, not only having never heard of its associated books, but not realizing this was the first movie in a (presumably) trilogy.

That said, it was beautifully done, Nikki was a primo witch with a "b", and the "real" witches (with a "w") look like an interesting group as well.

Conceptually, I'm OK with the parallel universe theory (I wouldn't be an SRD fan otherwise)

. The flow of "dust" is an interesting concept - I'm not sure where it is going, except that it is pretty clear that Daemons are involved.

The ancestry of Lyra was a foregone conclusion. For that matter, most of the characters seem broadly enough drawn that you could predict what they were going to do at least 3 scenes in advance.

The whole bit with the Mageserium's experiments is just so wrong.

In answer to an earlier question - yes, the cinematography makes it worth seeing on the big screen.

180 Million seems like alot of money. The Sunday mid-day show was not heavily attended. If this is indicative of its overall public reception, I hope they took the initiative to film the entire trilogy in one fell swoop, because they won't likely get backing to finish the series.

- Woody -

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:10 am**

When will the world learn that talking bears does not a good movie make?

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:31 am**

Unless it's Fozzie Bear.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:13 am**

The talking bears didn't bug me all that much, beyond being just as predictable as the rest of the characters. IMHO, the fact that they were bears was totally irrelvant. Just another powerful faction in the conflict mix.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:22 am**

The release wasn't as big as we all expected it to be. Busy, sure, but not AS busy as thought. I think this is because most of the earlier previews for Compass made mention of something like "from the people who brought you The Lord of the Rings trilogy." This put Compass on par with the LOTR movies which, IMO, it isn't.

That tends to put people going into it with MUCH higher expectations than they really should. So then the movie is "bad", when really it's okay (at least, to me.)

Anyway, the moral is to go in to EVERY movie thinking it's going to be crap, and you'll NEVER be disappointed.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:49 am**

Yeah... too bad it WAS crap.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:24 pm**

Here is an angle on the religious backlash, relatively unbiased:
www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

Good movie. They did water down the anti-theocratic themes a bit to get butts in seats, but I don't see how they can do that in the next books without some serious selling out.

dw

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:26 pm**

On a positive note, maybe after lacklustering Dark Materials and Narnia, they'll realize they should have picked a better fantasy series to comercialize. Like TCOTC.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:14 pm**

Wayfriend wrote:On a positive note, maybe after lacklustering Dark Materials and Narnia, they'll realize they should have picked a better fantasy series to comercialize. Like TCOTC.

On the whole, I think these losses have discouraged the movie industry from fantasy films for a while. Plus, Hollywood probably considers TCTC more challenging than either Narnia or Materials. I think it'd be harder to market to casual moviegoers. There's little awareness of SRD's works, relative to folks like Lewis or even George Martin.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:31 pm**

Seems to me that's to Donaldson's advantage as there won't be too much preconceptual "That isn't how it happened in the book" whining. Personally, I think a movie adaptation King's Dark Tower series might be the thing to open the door for a Covenant movie series.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:38 pm**

GOOD FILM ALERT!

Saw it last night with a few friends who (unlike myself) had never read the books.
The look on their faces at the end was priceless......
"But... what happens to them!!?? There's another 2 parts??"
****my evil laughter***

Anyway I thought it would be rubbish and only went for Iorek (the bear).

Suffice to say I was pleasantly surprised.
They didn't cut out too much of the main storyline (or else I didn't notice). A few short, glib conversations were a little bit forced to keep the film moving, but it is a kids film really.

If you are considering waiting for DVD or whatever, I'd say see it on a big screen, mainly for the Iorek vs Ragnar battle!
The scenery is very magnificent too.

I was also surprised by the actors:
Kidman has risen in my estimation a little, and Daniel Craig wasn't in the film enough.

If the next films are as true to the books as this one, then we may have another good fantasy trilogy for our shelves!

I'm staying out of the religous debate on this, and I wish the author would too. I'm sure he's put off more people from this fantastic story than need be. I think he should let people find their own interpretations (and not say stupid things like "I wrote this to do this or that").
It plays into the hands of extremism of all kinds.

Ha! So much for "staying out of it"!

As I said, a good film.

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:06 pm**

How much is New Line Cinema paying you?!

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:07 pm**

I haven't seen the film. Nor have I read the book but my track record with Fantasy films that feature talking animals hasn't been all that great. It's very hard to take a story seriously when you have a talking beaver giving the protagonist assistance. Okay. Or a talking crow or goat or mice or whatever. I didn't read any of the Narnia books and when I finally saw the film I couldn't help but notice that what seemed cool about LOTR was almost outloud amusing in Narnia. I managed to stay away from Stardust completely and now here we have talking Polar Bears and little kids. What LOTR did for me was take something that could have be thought of as silly and transform it into an epic sword wielding adventure story that might have survived even without magic, elves, dwarves, goblins etc.
I'm a fan of fantasy stories but when I see clips of the Golden Compass I get that old nagging feeling in my gut that forces me to stay away. I have no doubt I'll see GC on dvd as I did with Narnia, Eragon and all but the first Harry Potter. I really hope Peter Jackson gets the chance to film The Hobbit or TCOTC is made because I'm frightened by what else Hollywood has in store. XANTH?

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:31 pm**

Excerpt from the interview with Dan Pigeon by Gary Shaip of Total Sci Fi Magazine---

TSF: Hello Dan. We’re grateful you were able to take some time from your book tour to sit down with us.
DP: Nice to see you again, Gary. Yeah, since you are paying for my lunch I thought was only fair to give you a few minutes.
TSF: *laughs* Okay I know you are in a hurry so I’ll get right to it. The current tour is promoting your new book Tangle Eye. What is the book about?
DP: Well it’s about relationships really.
TSF: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….
DP: Yeah very funny. That’s not all. The story revolves around Jenny Quain, a London barrister that is swept up in a political cover up that results in the Prime Minister being assassinated. The investigation into his death leads to Jenny and she’s forced to match wits with Gandon Towertall her old mentor who is now the chief prosecutor.
TSF: Could you explain what all of that has to do with relationships?
DP: Um…nothing really.
TSF: Okay.
DP: Any other questions, Gary? *smiling*
TSF: Sure.
DP: Care to ask them?
TSF: Why yes. Um, what’s the deal with the controversy surrounding your book Totality Syndrome?
DP: Well I suppose the main issue many people have with the book is that I’ve been very open about the fact that I wrote it for only one purpose.
TSF: Forgive me, Dan. What was that purpose?
DP: Well, though the story of Ganjen Gillingham is couched in a science fiction setting, the main thrust of the story is to point out the absolute arrogance of those that proclaim themselves atheists.
TSF: You believe atheists are being arrogant when they claim there is no God?
DP: Certainly. What they are doing is essentially proclaiming that they know all there is to know. Their stated beliefs insist that, based on what they’ve learned and feel, there cannot be a God. That is a proclamation of certainty. They are saying that the sum total of knowledge in the universe belongs to them and that they’ve established, in their minds, that there can’t be anything beyond their perceptions or current understanding. Frankly I find that arrogant.
It doesn't help matters that many atheists also claim to be open minded, realistic and compassionate people. What the hell is so open minded about insisting that you know something with 100% certainty when you can't possibly prove it anymore than you can disprove it? At least agnostics leave open some possibility, some crack in their beliefs that allow them the chance that they might be wrong.
TSF: That’s an interesting take Dan. Did you know that I’m an atheist?
DP: No I didn’t know that, Gary. Do you mean to tell me you’ve been talking to me through your butt crack all this time? That explains the smell in here. Have fun in oblivion when you die dumbass. See ya.
TSF: !

This must be the 'religious backlash' that WF was talking about on page 1......

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:46 pm**

Reave the Unjust wrote:GOOD FILM ALERT!

Suffice to say I was pleasantly surprised.
They didn't cut out too much of the main storyline (or else I didn't notice). A few short, glib conversations were a little bit forced to keep the film moving, but it is a kids film really.

If the next films are as true to the books as this one, then we may have another good fantasy trilogy for our shelves!

As I said, a good film.

If you call cutting out the entire end of the novel being true to the book...

And if you call taking what were interesting characters and turning them into cookie cutter facades being true to the book...

Posted: **Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:42 pm**

I loved the LOTR book series and also the movies, but they didn't compare with eachother except the names and the general direction of events; yet as i said, I loved both. Compass: never read the books, but thought it was a pretty decent movie dispite my not generally liking talkin critters either.

I am curious now about how the critters in the books differed from being true to form than in the movie. Facades, eh? Then I suppose for me that would be the facade of Samwise Gamgee in the LOTR film: my favorite fiction character of any fant book I've ever read, he was the most full blooded and heart wrenching written character in the books and yet he was only a very pale essense of what was captured in the movie...yet knowing a movie can never compare to a book, it was "acceptable" in the end.

Kevin's Watch

The Golden Compass