Chris' bad excuse

[RomulusMyDaemon]

no offense to Dakota Blue, but you can't act. Okay, you can't. Why they picked some little girl who's never acted professionaly in her life is beyond me.

She can act. Moreover, she acts very well. And the acting overall is one of the film's strongest points, as TowerDragon explained.

And TowerDragon, it might not have been one of the worst films I've seen. Just one of the worst I remember, because as a reader and a fan to the His Dark Material series, I personally expected more.

That's still not a fair assessment by any means, Romulus. It's perfectly fair to criticize The Golden Compass for its mistakes, but it's definitely not fair by any means to say that it's the one of the worst films that you remember seeing.

What's weird is, I've seen clips of the video game, and the characters were actually filmed for it. And in the video game, they finish the story. Why, couldn't they do that for the movie?

This topic has been discussed many times on this board. Suffice to say that there is a reason for the cut, and it's definitely not the fault of the filmmakers.

But, it like was one of the worst films I've ever seen. I truly don't believe in watching television except occasionaly, thus meaning I don't watch to many movies. Besides, I'm a critic, that's just who I am.

[ArcT]

You watch things that don't have her in?

[fbi_woman]

lol yes I do. and I accidentally hit the x instead of the edit and now we look crazy .

[consciousparticles]

Please follow Rule One

[Dark Fantasies]

Calm it please. Don't want another fight.

[consciousparticles]

Critics are sad creatures....

[Donny]

Chris about the three chapiter wasn't good.I love the book and hate the film it is stupid end -happy end.I think everybody see the lord of the ring.Peter Jackson did a great job.I can say he really loved the book.Yeah the movie is very long.It was great.Chris job was bad i really want ask him Do you really love the book

[rainbowdarling]

As has been said many times before, it wasn't his decision to make those changes - that came down from the studio. There were many things cut out of the movie in order to bring the time down or make it more "appealing" to holiday audiences that he did not necessarily want done from a director's standpoint. He should not be blamed for the way the movie ended up.

Additionally, he has already been quite clear about how much he loved the books and I think it's clear in the movie that he tried to make it true. We won't know for 100% certain what might have been until we're able to see a director's cut of the film.

The Lord of the Rings movie, while made by the same studio, is a different creature and different crew entirely. I don't think the comparisons are apt.

[Pausert]

As has been said many times before, it wasn't his decision to make those changes - that came down from the studio. There were many things cut out of the movie in order to bring the time down or make it more "appealing" to holiday audiences that he did not necessarily want done from a director's standpoint. He should not be blamed for the way the movie ended up.

*cut*

I think the attempt by Newline to make the film "appealing" is where the blame lies. They tried to make it out to be both an epic adventure film like LoTR and a kiddy movie for the holidays. The film is really neither but I would personally say its closer to the epic side. This attempt at appealing to a wider audience pushed away not only the parents of the kiddies but also the fans of the book and people looking for another LoTRs, which TGC is not. So, essentially, New Line managed to alienate everyone in their target demographics. I'm not sure how someone can blame Weitz for this.

[rainbowdarling]

I think the attempt by Newline to make the film "appealing" is where the blame lies. They tried to make it out to be both an epic adventure film like LoTR and a kiddy movie for the holidays. The film is really neither but I would personally say its closer to the epic side. This attempt at appealing to larger to a wider audience pushed away not only the parents of the kiddies but also the fans of the book and people looking for another LoTRs, which TGC is not. So, essentially, New Line managed to alienate everyone in their target demographics. I'm not sure how someone can blame Weitz for this.

You said exactly what I was trying to say, only better. Chris Weitz is not at fault for the failure of the movie as it stands right now.

[consciousparticles]

Chris about the three chapiter wasn't good.I love the book and hate the film it is stupid end -happy end.I think everybody see the lord of the ring.Peter Jackson did a great job.I can say he really loved the book.Yeah the movie is very long.It was great.Chris job was bad i really want ask him Do you really love the book

I dunno what you're talking about. Even a lot of fans of the Rings movies (like me) had a lot of problems with Pete Jackson's decisions as a director.

TCG's narrative and thematic elements are more complex than the Rings books, so it only follows that the film adaptation would be a lot more tricky.

In all fairness Donnie, you have every right to have your own opinion, as do I: you're not being fair to the film adaptation. Chris did a fine job. B+/A-

[namster]

I think everybody see the lord of the ring.Peter Jackson did a great job.I can say he really loved the book.Yeah the movie is very long.It was great.Chris job was bad i really want ask him Do you really love the book

I dunno what you're talking about. Even a lot of fans of the Rings movies (like me) had a lot of problems with Pete Jackson's decisions as a director.

Additionally, he has already been quite clear about how much he loved the books and I think it's clear in the movie that he tried to make it true.

Precisely. There's a difference between "disagreeing with" and "disliking" the movie. For instance, as consciousparticles pointed out, the majority of The Lord of the Rings fans disagree with the changes Peter Jackson made to his film adaptations, but we love his films nonetheless.

Likewise, it's understandable that fans of Philip Pullman are disappointed by the changes made to The Golden Compass, but I find it hard to understand how so many people can hate this movie -- disappointment and dislike are worlds apart.

It's a wonderful effort with very high production values and pitch-perfect acting, and the people involved obvious has great love for the books, and they had to work under unprecedented studio interference. To claim that Chris Weitz does not love the books is to ignore his year-long struggle with the studio and to disregard his commitment to the fans.

[chastity]

Likewise, it's understandable that fans of Philip Pullman are disappointed by the changes made to The Golden Compass, but I find it hard to understand how so many people can hate this movie -- disappointment and dislike are worlds apart.

I personally did not hate TGC but I don't think it was a good film. Regardless of how true (or not) it stayed to the book, for me it just did not work as a film. So I think people disliking (maybe even hating) the film is not necessarily to do with them being fans of the books.

[TowerDragon]

I have said this many times before, but Ill say it here again I don't think that Weitz is the Problem with the Film I think that if Newline had let him make the movie with Weitz original vision in mind the film would have been very good. Instead of being just Average. The trailers and all the footage that we have seen point to this fact. Now I''m not clearing Weitz all of the blame, but I really think that the majority of the problems are with Newline thinking that the film would not be marketable under Weitz original film. Classic Studio meddling at it finest.

[consciousparticles]

Yes TDragon! The problems I had with the film (and I'm a fan of it) were editorial in nature.

[Boydesy]

As far as the original subject of Weitz making an excuse. It's probably because since he was the director people blamed much on him even though it wasn't his fault. He had to say something even if it didn't sound good. He should have said 'I don't know why the film turned out like that, go ask New Line.' That probably would have gotten him in trouble with the studio and like someone else in here said, the man does have to make a living.

[namster]

Yes TDragon! The problems I had with the film (and I'm a fan of it) were editorial in nature.

Hell yeah! h'greed with the both o' yas.

As far as the original subject of Weitz making an excuse. It's probably because since he was the director people blamed much on him even though it wasn't his fault. He had to say something even if it didn't sound good. He should have said 'I don't know why the film turned out like that, go ask New Line.' That probably would have gotten him in trouble with the studio and like someone else in here said, the man does have to make a living.

Exactly. And it all makes sense if you think about it even for a second.

[DarthAsriel]

Right, although (and I'm goona sound like the biggest nerd here) the original Star Wars Trilogy benefited greatly from the collaboration of other directors (Marquand, Kershner.)

But, those films weren't as sequentially oriented as TCG.

Keep Weitz!

Yes, but Lucas was still the one in charge. ESB and ROTJ are two of the best examples in movie history of a film's writer and executive producer working as the auteur behind the scenes instead of the director. True, Kerschner and Marquand helped improve the acting in their episodes, but visually and narratively they both fall squarely in the authority of Lucas' vision. The fact that they maintain the same stylistic continuity shows how involved he was in the production of the movies, even if he wasn't always the one calling the shots to the actors.

In other words, Lucas didn't direct ESB or ROTJ, but he still created them.

Chris Weitz, on the other hand, didn't create HDM-- Phillip Pullman did, obviously. He adapted and directed a fine film of TGC-- a film that would be that much finer had New Line not interfered so egregiously with its editing. If new team of writers and directors were brought onto an increasingly unlikely New Line follow-up of TSK and TAS, the end product would look and feel very different from Weitz's efforts, even if the same actors, designers and technicians were put to work. There'd certainly be a feeling of shared continuity in terms of content, but the style of the fims would likely change very much.

Instead of the difference between ANH and ESB or ROTJ, think of the differences between any number of the Star Trek films, instead.

[faze]

My- endlessly repeated- oppinion on the matter.
The films were made with the wrong audience in mind. They were treated as something to take your kids to over x-mas, like the Narnia film was a couple of years ago. So, IMO, from the outset they'd got it wrong. The film we got was quite good when you bear this in mind (in that the acting and effects were pretty stunning), but they fundamentally got it wrong. And from that start, there simply wasn't room for the stuff a lot of fans missed. It had it's moments, but there were also moments which were conspicuosly missing, because they thought that the target audience would be bored or confused by them.
I wonder how they're gonna make TSK PG...