There are 3 main obstacles facing The Golden Compass's success. First of all, do the (lack of?) religious elements damage the viewing experience? Secondly, does the rewritten ending have a negative impact? Finally, are the special effects going to be 'too much'?
The Telegraph published a review of The Golden Compass movie, which they attended at a screening in Los Angeles. This review mainly addresses the final issue, as expressed by the article's title: The Golden Compass: Special effects shine more than the stars.
[Dakote] does her best to carry the human portion of the film, despite an unconvincing "cor blimey" accent, but it is the computer-generated animals and rodents which are the real stars - rarely has so much human talent been so overshadowed by digital effects.
Funnily enough, despite all the attention that Kidman and Craig have been drawing, the reviewer remarks:
[..] but it is Sam Elliot who shines as the gun-toting Texan aeronaut who joins forces with Lyra and a whisky-drinking polar bear [..] on their quest to save Roger and the other kidnapped children.
Overall though, the reviewer does note that investors who backed this film can rest easy, partially due to the success that this movie will have with younger viewers:
[..] while adults may wince at the jumpy editing and stilted dialogue ("We'll set it right - just let them try to stop us," declares Lyra), younger audiences are likely to be enthralled at the wonders Lyra encounters on her epic journey through a metaphysical universe.
So what should we think of this review? For the time being, not too much; we'll be seeing the film next Saturday so only then will we be able to give our informed opinion. However, this review basically echoes some of the other opinions that we've heard from people who've seen the movie: "It looks beautiful, but it could have been a bit grittier and less CGI-ey. On the other hand, the storyline is very well executed and the acting is great."
The question that remains is if this film will be able to appeal as greatly to the older audiences as it does to the younger viewers.
8 comments - Add yours
#1
I really look forward to your review next week. The fan reviews mean so much more to me than the one’s from the critics.
# November 20, 2007 14:32 by whohash83
#2 Think mainstream
Ryan, the three points you raised—the religious aspects of the movie, the final three chapters of THE GOLDEN COMPASS being moved to the next film, and the spectacular special effects—are not, in my mind, the things that the mainstream audience will judge this movie by. These are things that a hard-core Philip Pullman fan would notice, but the mainstream moviegoer is wanting to get swept up in a grand story that captures his imagination and makes him lose himself in it. He wants to be carried away by the artful blend of the moving picture, the words spoken, and the music. He wants to suspend his disbelief (as Coleridge would say) and believe in this imaginary world, if only for the two hours of the film. In short, he’s going in with high expectations and wants to see if the movie delivers on the what the trailer promises.
The closest parallel is New Line Cinema’s THE LORD OF THE RINGS. I think there’s no doubt that all three films were magnificent, and the spirit of Tolkien’s books was captured on film. Yes, there isn’t a love story between Arwen and Aragorn in LOTR (it’s actually in the appendices), but the movie is an adaptation of the book; it’s not a literal translation. Thus, the director is charged with the responsibility to bring the book intact to the screen.
In cases where the movie adaptation is wildlly divergent from the book—Neil Gaiman’s STARDUST comes to mind—you wonder if you’ve wandered in the wrong theater!
Now, as to the three points:
1. The religious aspect is still present. The Magisterium is still present, but I tend to agree with the director that the realities of film-making are such that it’d be difficult, if not impossible, to make the film palatable if people see it attacks the church. (Of course, the Catholic League wants it both ways: Had the movie emphasized the religious aspects more, they would have gone on the attack; and since the religious aspects are toned down, they still went on the attack, arguing (unsuccessfully, to my mind) that the movie leads children to the books, where Pullman is selling atheism to them. (An absurd notion!)
2. The last-minute decision to move the final three chapters of the book to the next movie is a director’s decision. As with LOTR, similar decisions were made; the storyline was adjusted where necessary to effect transitions and make the storyline easier to follow. I don’t have any problem with this, and I don’t think the average moviegoer will, either. (Keep in mind he likely won’t have read the book beforehand.)
3. Re: the special effects. I think what the reviewer is saying is that we’ve come to regard special effects as a given; that is to say, we have become visually sophisticated and we demand first-rate special effects. And there’s no technical reason for the director to not deliver them in a film. So that’s mostly a technical issue.
The matter of actors is another issue. It takes a lot of “face time” (as actors call it) on screen to build up the screen persona, and the stronger personalities are what we’re likely to notice. I understand there’s not much face-time for Lord Asriel, who is a dominating character; and we aren’t going to warm up to Mrs. Coulter, no matter how much time she has on the screen. But Sam Elliott is so distinctive that he’ll be accessible to the viewer; he’ll come across with such force of personality that you can’t ignore him. That’s Sam Elliott for you.
All in all, I think your concerns—based on one review—are more the concerns of what a die-hard fan would notice and care about. What the mainstream viewer would care about are other concerns, which the director is very aware of.
In the end, I say we must trust Philip Pullman. He’s been intimately involved in this project from the beginning—an unusual arrangement in Hollywood; heck, unheard of is more accurate!—and he has endorsed the movie, and I trust him and his judgment. So I’m inclined to believe the movie will be a crowd-pleaser, a money-maker, and be the top-grossing film of the holiday season, with a gross of up to $325 million during its run in the U.S. alone.
In other words, there’s no need for these concerns; the movie’s in fine hands and on Dec. 7, we can all see for ourselves what magic has been wrought.
# November 20, 2007 14:48 by GBeahm
#3
I think the review is stupid - it doesn’t sound like Dakota’s trying to put on much of any accent at all different from how she talks normally. I agree with Mr. Beahm completely. I only hope that this snide reviewer’s impression of the dialogue and most of the characters as unimpressive and underdeveloped will not be the general consensus. But it certainly doesn’t seem to be accurate at all. We have to remember that Dakota is very young. Even if she has her awkward lines, so (lord knows) did the Harry Potter stars, and the movies have all been smashes. I think it will be great.
# November 20, 2007 20:25 by JParry
#4
Kidman and Craig are names thrown out there because they are pretty much stars, it has little to do with their roles here. How much impact did you expect Asriel to have or even Coulter, who surely will scare the kids but is too long off the screen. Lee is amiable, funny and joins in the camaraderie with Lyra and Iorek and if he is funny to boot i.e. provides the laughs as there may be then he will make more of an impact. Like the review said, Craig has more or less a cameo and Kidman appears intermittently. He didn’t say they failed to deliver. It is one review, I’ll wait for more before I start analysing reviews for your readers as if we are too stupid to grasp it. Thanks.
# November 20, 2007 22:03 by fever
#5
Ryan, please heed your own advice, see the movie before you start buzzing the movie. People come here to read stuff and we know there are few out there ready to punce on anything negative so until you see it, take a break :).
# November 20, 2007 22:17 by fever
#6
I don’t think the reviewer means we take special effects for granted.
He states what many people fear all the time and what LOTR has cleverly avoided: films turning into magnificent views and effects like a video clip.
Cool and wonderful as that may be, it does overshadow the acting a bit, since it doesn’t seem as if the acting carries the film.
And in the end, most audiences want actors they can relate to and be compassionate with.
On top of that: the fact we take special effects for granted means even more we need to have an acting bases story to relate to. People aren’t easily swept away anymore. Look how all the franchises are getting more and more evolving in the story and less cool stuff.
Bond for instance left all the high tech cgi of the Brosnan age, to delve back into the character of Bond starting with Craig.
Ir is this shift that I, and we all, hope “The Golden Compass” makes with the viewers. For if the characters are indeed overshadowed by the effects, it does mean something is wrong.
However, this was still but one review and more to come!
# November 20, 2007 22:37 by Samwise
#7
I honestly think that this review doesn’t mean much.
The special effects look good from what I’ve seen, but even I have wondered whether they are overdoing them a little. But you have to realize that’s just a technicality. No where in this review does it say Kidman or others were bad at acting. it just says they were slighly “outshone” by the CGI daemons, etc. for one, I think the majority of critics will not have read the books and would therefore come in with the preconceived notion that craig (asriel) and kidman (coulter) are going to be very central and get alot of face time. the fact is, and you know this if you have read the book (im assuming everyone on here has), that lord asriels and mrs. coulters stories don’t evolve or become more central until the next few books, especially the last one though. so the CGI might outdazzle, but that is probably due to the fact that pantalaimon and iorek are going to get a lot more screen time than lord asriel.
Now, the religious element. chris weitz gave the most excellent answer to this question in his latest interview, basically saying that they toned down the religous element in this movie because they needed to establish the series and draw people into it so that they could at least continue with the 2nd and 3rd film. also the first book doesn’t really even deal with the religious stuff, which comes later in books 2 and especially 3. chris also said that, once they established the series and introduced it to a mainstream audience, the religious elements would most certainly be incorporated (at least under his watch) in books 2 and 3. going along with this it would be almost next to impossible to continue the story without the religious elements, as books 2 and 3 deal with them heavily. so basically, they aren’t going to be toned down in movie 2 and 3. also, as weitz said: do your homework - magesterium actually has religious conotations if you look it up. so the religous stuff is not gone altogether.
Lastly, the change of the ending I think is find. The entire cirith ungol and shelob (spider scene) in Lord of the Rings is actually in the 2nd book. The book basically ends with Frodo captured at Cirith Ungol. if you remember this was all moved to the third movie because Peter Jackson and the studio thought it would be too damaging to the epic climax at the Battle of Helm’s Deep. It would be excessive and simply worked better in the third movie. I see this decision as the same. I’m sure the movie would have been good with these last scenes kept. But I’m sure it will be just as good (if not better?) with them moved to the next movie.
Overall, I think this review is nothing to worry about. Also from looking at the recently released clip of Dakota talking to Iorek, her voice doesn’t sound weird at all. she sounds fine. The one thing I’m still skeptical on is if they captured the overall tone of the books. When I read the book I find them to be rather inquisitve, sometimes dark, and more about the character development than the battles. I hope they can manage this, and I do have confidence that they may be able to.
# November 21, 2007 02:05 by ROKYPA
#8 Response
GEORGE, I absolutely agree with your comments. The points I named were merely those mentioned over the past few months and of those only the third one is an active concern personally; it is also something that non-readers of the books might stumble over.
As ROYKPA mentioned, the comments with regards to acting might have stemmed from false expectations, but remember that people who have not seen the movie will expect people like Kidman and Craig to feature prominently.
That’s why I highlighted this review, as it is an objective critique that looks at that point; to be honest JPARRY, I don’t think that this review is so negative. Yes the reviewers opinion about Dakota’s accent is a bit silly, but for the rest it’s a decent commentary. FEVER, just because I’m pleased to see that Elliott’s — who’s never had this kind of exposure) — acting is well received doesn’t mean that I think the other actors are bad; as a matter of fact I even mention that “the acting is great.”
I’m not trying to buzz the movie, neither do I think that you are too stupid to understand the review. However, like I mentioned as I’ve spoken to various people who have seen the movie (readers and non-readers) which does allow me to put the review into context.
# November 22, 2007 02:29 by Lord Asriel