Golden Compass--wimp out? — Page 2

The biggest problem with the movie was that it had a bad habit of reminding you that it was a preposterous kid movie. The director didn't lend it enough gravitas so you were continually aware that you were watching something about talking polar bears and witches. Just when you were starting to get into it something silly would happen. What gives the book its pathos and credibility is that the story has a lot of bite and immediacy--it has something "real" to say. Even the talking polar bears present an ecological message. At every turn they removed the message and pain of the story and all that was left was the cute fantasy. Bad, bad, bad idea.

Not even just removing the overt reference to religion... they let Billy Costa (Tony Makarios in the book) live. They cut the ending. They softened the bite at every turn. Lord of the Rings was a huge success because Peter Jackson raised the stakes!

The sequel movies would correct this since the plot hinges on the theological ideas and everything gets more serious. I really hope they get made (and maybe a new director would be brought in...). I've read that New Line sold off the overseas rights to cover their asses and didn't make money off of the movie... does anyone know if they actually made money?

PS, papa, the books ARE pretty popular outside of America. The movie made a lot of money overseas.

---

So true. A real director would have had the strength to steer the movie in the right direction. I guess it's a surprise the movie ever got made at all though.

That ice bear sequence is such a perfect example. Everyone in the audience jumps. If the movie had kept more of those sorts of compelling moments, I bet more people would have gone to see it.

---