COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[davem]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Wish I had seen the film or read the books so I could contribute to this thread. For what it's worth, I will say, as a Christian whom most would describe as a "right-wing fundamentalist", that I have zero problem with these films being made. Doesn't affect me one iota. I'm not gonna take my kids to them (assuming I have kids, which I don't, yet), but censorship is idiotic and immoral.

I don't think censorship played any part in the movie's failure at the box office - this is a book which, in comparison to LotR, hardly anyone had read, so the fan base was fairly small. The trailer was too confusing & by removing the 'dangerous' message the movie was reduced to a bland adventure movie about a little girl & her best friend, a polar bear in a suit of armour. It wasn't going to attract the kind of audience New Line needed. Let's face it, the same people calling for a boycott of TGC called for a boycott of the Harry Potter movies - & look how far that got them.

Of course, I'm sure they'll claim it was all down to their boycott - though what effect that claim will have - whether it will be believed by the studios & lead to a situation where only movies (& possibly in the longer term TV series & books) that don't challenge religion get green-lighted - is something we'll have to wait & see about.

I don't see my God (the God of the New Testament and Old alike) as petty, vengeful, spiteful, or distant. Tolkien didn't either, and I doubt he would appreciate his Eru being characterized as such. But that goes way beyond this thread's topic.

The problem is, taking the books on their own, & seperating them from primary world elements/concepts//beings like God, one has to say that Eru is a very minor character who is not developed at all. The only thing Tolkien gives us is a few lines from him in Ainulindale & then the odd reference to him in some of the minor, posthumous, works - his two big moments are, one, the propounding of the Themes, in which he comes across as a kind of ultra petulant Beethoven, & the creation of Arda, in which he basically calls Arda into being, snaps 'Now see what you've done! Don't you think you should go sort that mess out?' & stomps off &, two, his totalling of Numenor, in which he comes across as more than a little trigger-happy, & less than a little creative, in his response.

The point is, if we avoid importing aspects of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/(fill in the blank) Deity into Eru, we have a character who actually is 'vengeful, spiteful & distant', not to mention a major league egotist, & probably the least interesting character Tolkien invented - & one, as I've argued before, who seems only to exist in order to make the Legendarium a monotheistic mythology. When he does crop up its to be thoroughly irritating & the worst kind of deus ex machina.

[Lalaith]

the movie's failure at the box office

Hey, hold your horses, guys. Success and failure doesn't begin and end in the United States, there is a world out there....the film seems to have done really very well outside the US, and made $135m as of December 19th, and it hasn't even opened in Australia, Japan or Latin America yet.

I've got no axe to grind here, I haven't seen it yet, and I prefer Tolkien to Pullman, myself. But movie success shouldn't just be measured on US box office takings alone. The Passion of the Christ, for example was a huge hit in the US but it was more or less a flop everywhere else.

[Thenamir]

New Line will have to make $250 million on TGC in order to recover only the expenses and marketing. If in over two weeks of release they've made only half of that, I'd bet a fiver on the wager that they'll not make $250 million. Any takers?

[Aiwendil]

The point is, if we avoid importing aspects of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/(fill in the blank) Deity into Eru, we have a character who actually is 'vengeful, spiteful & distant',

You clearly have a deity who is 'distant'. But I think that when you say 'vengeful' and 'spiteful' you are actually reading the Judeo-Christo-Islamic God into Tolkien's work. As I argued earlier to Lalwende, the only Old Testament style smiting we ever see from Eru is the destruction of Numenor. Now that may certainly be interpreted as an 'evil' act (though that interpretation is not the only one), but I think it would be quite a stretch to say that this alone gives the reader sufficient insight into Eru's character to label him 'spiteful'.

As for your caricature of Eru's acts of creation, it might be countered by a different caricature: a loving Eru gave the wonderful faculty of creativity to the Ainur, propounded a theme to them out of which they fashioned a great and beautiful thing, and even suffered one of them to attempt to distort and destroy the Music. Then he showed them the beautiful thing they had made and, in accordance with their wish, brought it into being so that they might enter it if they wished.

Now, I don't wish to enter into a debate concerning the Ainulindale. But surely it will be granted that if a negative caricature is possible, so is a positive one. And I would say that neither is correct - the one is a humanist reading of the God of the Torah, the other a Christian reading of the God of the New Testament. Both bring in preconceived notions that derive from other sources than Tolkien's Legendarium.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

New Line will have to make $250 million on TGC in order to recover only the expenses and marketing. If in over two weeks of release they've made only half of that, I'd bet a fiver on the wager that they'll not make $250 million. Any takers?

Well, taking into account TV & DVD sales I suspect they will turn a profit on it - however, there are things working against a sequel: how much profit they turn - I suspect it won't be much at all, the fact that the next two volumes in the trilogy get increasingly bogged down in Pullman's Message, & while the ending may look spectacular on screen they whole 'death of God' thing itself is a bit of an anti-climax, given that he just whimpers & falls out of bed, & audiences for fantasy movies tend to be teenage boys in the main who won't shell out to see two hours of strange characters arguing about the nature of God & free will. And when you throw the implication of under-age shennanigans between Will & Lyra ....

In short, I can't see New Line, even if they do just go into profit on TGC - & as I say I'm sure they will deciding to risk another half a billion on two more movies - especially as they haven't really turned much of a profit on anything they've produced since LotR.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Now, I don't wish to enter into a debate concerning the Ainulindale. But surely it will be granted that if a negative caricature is possible, so is a positive one. And I would say that neither is correct - the one is a humanist reading of the God of the Torah, the other a Christian reading of the God of the New Testament. Both bring in preconceived notions that derive from other sources than Tolkien's Legendarium.

OK - maybe you have a point there. But... its difficult not to try & give some kind of character to such a figure, who is both a minor (in terms of his appearances) & major (in terms of his role) character in the Legendarium. Personally I find him annoying because you have an all powerful character who simply will not get off his backside & help those in need - those who are suffering because he chose to create Arda & allow Morgoth in there in full knowledge of the suffering & pain the would result. And why? Because it would redound to his greater glory. The horrific suffering of Numenor could have been prevented by one personal appearance, but he couldn't be bothered to pop up in time in a nice way - he pops up too late to prevent the tragedy of their corruption but in time to drown a good few thousand people.

As I've said before, I don't see any need for him to exist as a character - everything he does could be done by other characters or not done at all. The wrath of Ulmo is more acceptable & satisfying as justification for totalling Numenor than the intervention of a distant God who has finally decided to throw down his Newspaper & spank the naughty children.

[Lalaith]

Hmm... I will take your wager, Thenamir, because of Japan etc, and because the school holidays have only just started in a lot of European countries.

What's your axe against Pullman, out of interest?
Is it because you see him as a rival to Tolkien? I ask because I just spent some time at the work Christmas dinner, talking to two colleagues who were big Tolkien fans in youth and now have turned against him, much preferring Pullman and seeing the Prof as long-winded and dull.
I just don't feel the same way, I liked HDM a lot, but for me the trilogy just doesn't have the mythological grandeur and mystery of Middle Earth. I have no urge to find out more about Pullman's universe the way I did about Tolkien's when I first discovered it...I feel Pullman's already told me everything I need to know.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Hmm... I will take your wager, Thenamir, because of Japan etc, and because the school holidays have only just started in a lot of European countries. .

The question is will it make enough to pay for the sequel & a slap-up feast for New Line's Board of Directors (with pork pies, cream cakes & lashings of ginger beer)?

Seriously, I suspect it won't make enough to make it worth taking the risk on making The Subtle Knife - not as, rightly or wrongly, TGC is percieved by the public as a flop. I think that if New Line have a spare $250,000,000 to throw about they'll throw it in PJ's direction. If its a choice between handing it over to Chris Weitz to make TSN or to Jackson to throw at The Hobbit they'll go for the latter, even if it only gets used to make Smaug a little bit more dragony, Lake Town a little more Lake Towny & the Lonely Mountain a little bit more Lonely Mountainy.

Of course, it may be that the Hobbit duology makes so much money that New Line have no idea what to do with it, & so may decide to make TSN - though I suspect that given a choice they'd still use it to buy Jackson a solid gold trailer with a diamond encrusted toilet first...

[Sauron the White]

There have been so many articles published in the mainstream press the last three days about the Jackson kiss and make-up with New LIne that I cannot remember the source of the news ...... but ......... one interview with one of the principals was asked if the first two dismal weeks of box office returns on COMPASS helped facilitate the resolution and they said something to the effect that it certainly did not hurt Jacksons cause.

[Thenamir]

For those who are interested in my "wager" (sorry, no real money involved, we don't endorse gambling on the Downs!) after 18 days in release, the WORLDWIDE take for TGC is a mere $140,958,574. The box office for Christmas-release movies (such as TGC) always plummets after Christmas. I stand by my original assertion -- TGC will be a money loser for New Line. (And I raise my figurative wager to $100. )

By way of comparison/contrast, in similar timeframes in the USA alone Narnia made $153M, and FOTR $200M.

[davem]

Problem is we don't know how much NL actually spent on the movie - I've seen anything between $180 & $250 million, plus a good $50-60 million on promotion. Hence (& given NL's 'creative' approach to accounting) it will be difficult to know whether they go into profit or not. Still, & accepting what you say, you're ignoring TV & DVD sales. I still don't think they'll lose money on the project once the final numbers are in - but neither do I expect to see Lyra & co return to the big screen.

[Lalwendë]

It's not worldwide takings as it only opened in Australia and New Zealand today. And in the UK there's a surge in film attendance between Christmas and New Year - and only two kid friendly big films out to compete for the parents' money so it's still got legs over here. It won't lose money (especially given that it's nowhere near DVD release yet) but the question is will it make enough profit for them to do some more films?

Personally, I think the story is far too complex for average film audiences who are used to simpler fare, the old black/white type themes. So I doubt studios will be taking a punt on sequels unless they can dumb down the other two novels to a more simplistic level. Audiences aren't really capable of dealing with metaphysics, Milton and Blake these days and certainly the final book is far too complex to be filmable under today's standards, unless they aim for the arthouse audience and don't even attempt to make it simple.

[Thenamir]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Personally, I think the story is far too complex for average film audiences who are used to simpler fare, the old black/white type themes. So I doubt studios will be taking a punt on sequels unless they can dumb down the other two novels to a more simplistic level. Audiences aren't really capable of dealing with metaphysics, Milton and Blake these days and certainly the final book is far too complex to be filmable under today's standards, unless they aim for the arthouse audience and don't even attempt to make it simple.

Careful there, Lalwendë, there be thin ice in them thar parts. That kind of talk sounds suspiciously like one of...the Literati!!

Come on, 'fess up -- you're a secret teacher of English Literature somewhere, right? Someone who considers A Farewell To Arms a bit of light reading for a rainy afternoon? Who thinks War and Peace wasn't long enough? We've got your number now! Heat the tar! Pluck the chickens!

EDIT: Australia? New Zealand? There are more people in TEXAS.

[davem]

I think they've gone so far out of their way to avoid it being 'offensive' to anyone that it basically isn't about anything at all. What they should have done was either forget the whole idea of filming the books at all, or just gone the whole hog & risked offending some of the potential audience. My suspicion is that they bought the rights without knowing anything about the book, or what it contained - it was a 'childrens' book' by a guy from Oxford (like those Tolkien/Lewis guys... ) - & it was only once they'd got the thing & started to look at it that they decided 'D***! there's no way we can put this out as it is!'

Of course, once you start 'removing' or altering a story 'to avoid offending the audience' its easy to go too far & end up with a movie that is simply so bland & inoffensive that all you have at the end is two + hours of special effects connected by a simplistic storyline that nobody wants to see.

Of course, they haven't announced that there won't be a sequel, so we can't rule one out (or even a mini-series) - but my suspicion is that the reason for that is commercial - it would badly affect the TV & DVD rights if it was made plain that there won't be anymore. Who wants to watch the first part of a story that won't be completed?

Mind you, look at Firefly - that flopped on TV, but was so popular on DVD that they got the finacing to make a movie. Of course, the Serenity movie only cost a tiny fraction of what The Subtle Knife/Amber Spyglass would...

[Lalaith]

I saw it today and I thought it was good but not great. The acting was well above average for a fantasy film, and lots of the visualisation was very fine.
What let it down was that they rushed through the story at bewildering speed, but also, that the score just wasn't a patch on LotR. It was cheesy bog-standard "fantasy epic" stuff. It's when you don't have it that you realise what a difference a really stirring score can make.

[Sauron the White]

The whole COMPASS thing is dead as far as future film sequels go. What killed the franchise? Poor box office return on investment and the announced Jackson/Middle-earth deal. The nails are in the coffin and the body is now in the ground. Accept it.

And I find it interesting that some here castigate Jackson for his failue to repeat the LOTR box office numbers with KING KONG but are clinging to these COMPASS grosses as something better. They are not. In the end, COMPASS will not even take in what KONG did despite a budget in the same stratosphere. btw- KONG made a profit. Will COMPASS? I doubt it.

[Thenamir]

FYI, while Kong failed to do the same kind of numbers as any of the LOTR movies, it cost $207M to make and the worldwide gross (not including DVD or other sales) was $550M -- a 250% return on investment, and #43 on the all-time worldwide box-office -- better than The Empire Strikes Back, not as good as Ratatouille. I'd say that was pretty doggone good.

[davem]

Yes, but Kong is still dreadful. I wonder how well it would have done if Jackson hadn't made LotR & they couldn't sell it as 'The new movie from the multi-Oscar winning director of the LotR trilogy!' I saw it once, but nothing could induce me to sit through it again.....

[Thenamir]

As an interesting aside to Lal's comments about the tastes of the moviegoing public, I have perused the list at www.boxofficemojo.com, and found that of the THIRTY top grossing movies in the USA, only three (Titanic, Passion of the Christ, and Forrest Gump) could be called realistic -- in that none involved elements of the fantastic (leaving aside the fact that Forrest Gump didn't really exist...). The rest are either Sci-Fi (Star Wars, Jurassic Park), Fantasy (LOTR, Harry Potter), or Animated (Shrek, Finding Nemo).

Maybe we really are as dumb as Lal thinks we are.

[Sauron the White]

Does fantasy or science fiction equal stupidity? Thats quite a jump.

[Thenamir]

Perhaps, according to some...

average film audiences ... used to simpler fare, the old black/white type themes...aren't really capable of dealing with metaphysics...

<coughLalwendespluttercough>

[Sauron the White]

It now looks like the overseas box office will NOT save COMPASS from disaster. Here is the latest from an industry year end review.

Sister studio New Line wasn't as fortunate with ``The Golden Compass.'' The film, made for an estimated $180 million, opened with sales of $25.7 million over the Dec. 7 weekend, according to Box Office Mojo. Overseas sales helped lift its total to $142.9 million after three weeks.

Rule of thumb says a film needs to take in at least twice what its budget was to break even because of what the theaters take as their cut of the action. With its big first few weeks behind it, GC has not even taken in an amount equal to its production budget.

[Lalaith]

Actually, the foreign figures are only up to December 16th, when the film had only been out a week in most countries. So I still say, hold your horses....

[Sauron the White]

Lalaith.. yes I see that. Only three days of revenues in Great Britain for example. I also see that it will not even open in Japan until next March and that should be another 50 mil or so in the coffers. So the film will get its budget back but will it get the twice over budget necessary to break even? I guess time will tell. But I still cannot see New Line laying out another $100+ million for a sequel with the 2 more Middle-earth movies on their plate and big budgets for those.

[davem]

Yes, but its sad. And it puts a question mark over the future of fantasy films. Yes, the LotR series will continue, & so will the Narnia movies, but fantasy movies generally?

Of course, the problem was that NL bottled out ('got scared'). They may have set out wanting to avoid offending Christians, but they ended up going too far & trying to avoid bothering anyone - & they succeeded: in the end no-one was bothered by the movie. Trouble was not enough people were bothered about the movie.

Anyway, I don't see a sequel to TGC being made. What I do see is a slew of sub LotR movies which just repeat the standard formula of 'band of unlikely heroes must unite to defeat the DARK LORD? blah blah blah'.

What I'm most interested in seeing is the response to Pullman's sequel to HDM, 'The Book of Dust' which is supposed to be out in a couple of years. I've already heard of HDM being removed from some school libraries - can we expect a boycott of the next book?


EDIT

Actually, it brings up a bigger question - should the ideas & concepts that fantasy explores, whether in book or movie form, be restricted? Isn't fantasy, at heart, about asking the question 'What if?' If a fantasy novel or movie can't present a secondary world in which 'God' is not only evil, but actually a fake, then what can it do - what limits do we set on fantasy worlds - because whatever limits we set on fantasy worlds we are actually setting on the human imagination - we're saying 'You are not allowed to imagine 'X'.' - effectively Pullman's point.

It could be argued that those who object to Pullman's work on 'moral' grounds (not pointing at anyone in particular) are actually objecting to fantasy in general, & to the human imagination in particular. After all, in what way is imagining a secondary world in which 'God' is a fake from whom humanity must liberate itself & find its own way forward different from imagining a world in which the sun is green, or in which animals can speak with humans?

(For the record, I still found HDM (the book - haven't seen the movie yet) increasingly dull as it went on (nearly said 'progressed'!!) & found PP's repetitive haranguing just annoying by the end, so I'm not putting this argument forward as praise of PP.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

I've already heard of HDM being removed from some school libraries - can we expect a boycott of the next book?
.

Not in the UK. In fact the head of the church recommends that all schoolchildren read it!

Which brings me back to my point about it not being simple black/white fare. Pullman worked with some very ambiguous material from Blake and Milton, and raised some difficult questions, plus he threw a lot of theoretical physics into the mix. This is not standard blockbuster fantasy fare. It wears intellectual challenge on its sleeve, which is possibly why the Archbishop of Canterbury recommends it so highly - in contrast to the often dreary dull "Christian storybooks" (I read more than my share in childhood) His Dark Materials raises deep and important questions. It's more likely to have someone running to read their bible again than just about any other fantasy you can think of - including Lewis, who I didn't even twig onto as having any 'message' until I was told (that's what Neil Gaiman thought, too).

Incidentally, yes, I do think film audiences the world over are incapable of complex messages in films. Otherwise it would be Ingmar Bergman and Lars Von Trier films which topped the charts. And I'm broadly the same as anyone in that respect.

[Lalaith]

Golden Compass was a very unintellectual film adaptation of a very intellectual book. There was very little in the way of extended dialogue, for example, just look at rushed exposition compared to the leisurely and quite challenging intro to FotR. If anyone got any Blake, Milton or biblical stuff out of the Golden Compass I´d be very surprised...and I agree, btw that it did send me rushing back to all three to remind myself of references when I first read the trilogy.
I also agree, I think the film-makers bottled out. Not just about the religion business but about all the intellectual concepts....the nature of a daemon, the bear culture, all that stuff.
I felt Jackson bottled out too, to a certain extent (mostly in the Two Towers) but he did show understanding of the nature of heroic epic, for which I am sure Tolkien would have been grateful.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lal1 --Lalwende

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I've already heard of HDM being removed from some school libraries - can we expect a boycott of the next book?
.

Not in the UK. In fact the head of the church recommends that all schoolchildren read it!

I assume you are referring to the head of the Anglican Communion. It is the official state church/religion, but I do believe you have a few other sects over there which he cannot in all fairness speak for.

Sadly, Pullman has just recently been pulled from high school libraries in one local catholic school board here--despite the recommendation from the library committee that it not be banned!

Originally Posted by Lal2--Lalaith

There was very little in the way of extended dialogue, for example, just look at rushed exposition compared to the leisurely and quite challenging intro to FotR.

You know, I was wondering about the balance of Pullman's three books and how there's so much explanation of the entire concept in the first book and whether that could profitably be extended to the latter two movies.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this is a case where it would have been preferrable for the film makers not to observe the independence of the three books, but to be more leisurely at explaining it all and integrate the three. After all, PJ moved Boromir's death and that hasn't drawn nearly the outcries that some of his other 'creative rewritings' have. The GC writers could have introduced Will and his universe a bit, even Mary and hers in explication of dust and alternate universes, spent some time depicting just what this heresy of Asrael's was all about--make us feel just how revolutionary and upsetting this idea would be for Lyra's world. And why the native northern cultures were so dead set against these intruders but accepted the Intercessionists. Does it need some other narrator's eyes than Lyra's?

I did like the way dust was represented both when a character was killed and when Lyra used the Compass. Of course, visually the movie is finely done, very finely done. To one who has seen Oxford even briefly, the alternate version of its towers and buildings was most intriguing.

I wished there was more to Lyra's childhood with the Gyptians as there is quite enough proof there about the existence of 'Others' even within Lyra's world, although I suppose that single early scene with the children battling establishes her character. And I so much enjoyed the book's descriptions of the Gyptian ship as she sailed down the Thames and hid out. There's a love of a grand river there that was completely eclipsed by the movie. And Mrs. Coulter's party is such a grand way to express the nasty business of this world and that was missed too.

Of course, right now I have no idea just where the first movie should have ended, if all this was to be incorporated. Still, it is possible that the complexity of the ideas could have been given more justice if they had been spread out more between three movies and not crammed into one. However, I must add that those here who've seen the movie but not read the book thoroughly enjoyed the movie and its pacing.

But it doesn't begin with a sweet and beguiling Shire so there isn't that to draw the audience in.

[Thenamir]

Originally Posted by Sauron The White

Rule of thumb says a film needs to take in at least twice what its budget was to break even because of what the theaters take as their cut of the action.

Actually. I learned something a few years ago that somewhat surprised me. Theatres, at least here in the USA, do not get to keep any of the ticket sales price -- the total box office goes to the makers of the film, which explains why the box office numbers are so important. The theatre makes its money almost entirely on concessions sales -- which explains why a bucket of popcorn and a soda (which costs the theatre about 25 cents) is sold to the moviegoer for $10.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

However, the over and above the production budget, you also have the marketing and distribution budget- which can, sometimes, be as great or greater, especially if they run TV spots in heavy rotation.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

Actually. I learned something a few years ago that somewhat surprised me. Theatres, at least here in the USA, do not get to keep any of the ticket sales price -- the total box office goes to the makers of the film, which explains why the box office numbers are so important.

Sorry, Thena, but this isn't exactly accurate. Most releases have a distributor/exhibitor split that shifts over the life of the release. The studios take the lion's share of the profits for the first few weeks, then their percentage steadily drops off over the next several weeks until theaters are actually making more. So it's only the films that run successfully for many weeks where theaters see big money, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a film where the theater is getting 0% even for the first week, let alone the life of the release.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I assume you are referring to the head of the Anglican Communion. It is the official state church/religion, but I do believe you have a few other sects over there which he cannot in all fairness speak for.

Sadly, Pullman has just recently been pulled from high school libraries in one local catholic school board here--despite the recommendation from the library committee that it not be banned!

All schools which receive public funding over here, including 'religious' schools (we have quite a lot of Anglican, Catholic plus one or two Muslim and Jewish schools) would not be permitted to 'ban' books. Things like that are controlled by the DCSF. School Governors could object in theory but in practice, the Department would kick them into touch pronto.

I wish I could add more to your comments on the how the book was translated to film, but I still haven't been able to snatch the time to see it, so it will have to wait I'm quite desperate to see how Oxford comes across after actually being there to see it filmed - it was intriguing seeing all the lights and cameras up on the college rooftops - though I know what Jordan College gardens will look like as they left the door to a private Fellows' garden open at Exeter and I took my chance to sneak in

The most important bit to get right for me was Lyra as she's such a wonderful character (her and Hermione Granger are two of the best female characters created lately). I saw the first five minutes of the film in a sneaky internet 'leak' and I was very impressed just with that bit...

[davem]

Another perspective:
http://www.kansascity.com/entertainm...ry/418711.html

No doubt the film’s unspectacular performance was satisfying to the critics who claimed that Pullman’s books for teen readers were pushing an atheist agenda.

But don’t break out the Communion wine just yet.

“The Golden Compass” opened poorly in large part because Pullman’s books aren’t that widely read in this country. Unlike a comic book movie based on universally recognized characters, the Materials series was an unknown quantity for most American moviegoers.

But how a film fares in the U.S. is only part of the picture. “The Golden Compass” has done quite well in other countries where the novels are popular.

In fact, at theaters abroad the film did three times the business it did in America, racking up $90 million in two weeks.

“The action-fantasy should remain a respectable, rather than blockbuster, player among families through the holiday season,” according to Variety’s prediction.

By the time “The Golden Compass” ends its run in theaters and starts cleaning up on DVD (which is where most movies really make a profit nowadays), the folks at New Line may very well have the financial incentive to plow ahead with the second film.

I mention all this because it hammers home a fact: Hollywood isn’t interested in movies that are of interest only to Americans.

Before green-lighting any production, studio execs analyze the likely success of a film in foreign markets. The bigger the proposed budget, the more important it is that the finished movie appeal to audiences in Asia, Europe, South America … everywhere people watch movies.

This has a profound impact on the sort of films that get made.

So, maybe the DVD sales - the worldwide DVD sales - could swing it & there could be a (maybe less lavish) sequel....

It all leads to the big question - why did TGC flop in the US & fly in the rest of the world?

And, of course, the ROW is a lot bigger than the US, & its entirely possible for a movie to do zero business in America & still make massive profits. Or in other words, what we might see is a Subrtle Knife movie that gets a massive world-wide release, but only a limited release in the US....

Of course its only very very slightly possible we'll see a SK movie, but not likely. New Line haven't announced the sequel yet, but surely they'd want it in cinemas in 2009 - avoiding the 2010/2011 releases of TH & its sequel - so they hardly have time unless they start virtually straight away (they were filming in Oxford last year when we were there for Oxonmoot in September, so principal photography would have to be done this year). Still, maybe its not all doom & gloom for NL on the TGC front....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course its only very very slightly possible we'll see a SK movie, but not likely. New Line haven't announced the sequel yet, but surely they'd want it in cinemas in 2009 - avoiding the 2010/2011 releases of TH & its sequel - so they hardly have time unless they start virtually straight away (they were filming in Oxford last year when we were there for Oxonmoot in September, so principal photography would have to be done this year). Still, maybe its not all doom & gloom for NL on the TGC front....

I doubt the Hobbit will be out for the dates they state, so it can probably fit in there. I think the scripts have been done already and The Hobbit is still just a twinkle in Jackson's eye. If he can do The Hobbit in under three years when he's also doing The Lucky Bones and Tintin I'll eat me hat.

The figures are now also saying that The Golden Compass has outperformed Narnia in the UK, even on the opening figures.

[Mister Underhill]

From what I hear, Compass will be a modest success, but it's unlikely that New Line will risk $200-300M on a sequel. For one thing, even if the overseas performance is huge -- and it's doing well, up to $187M as of this past weekend -- New Line sold the foreign distribution, so it won't see a big share of the foreign pie.

New Line typically does movies that are around $40M and under. They don't have the resources of a big studio to soak up the losses of a true loser. LotR was a big gamble for them, and it paid off. They'll probably get out of Compass with a modest profit, but I don't see them risking that kind of money again, especially with a seeming surefire Hobbit one-two punch in the pipeline.

Time will tell. Neither franchise will go forward until the strike's over. They have a script for SK, but I highly doubt they'd put it into production without the ability to do rewrites even if Compass was a blockbuster.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

From what I hear, Compass will be a modest success, but it's unlikely that New Line will risk $200-300M on a sequel. For one thing, even if the overseas performance is huge -- and it's doing well, up to $187M as of this past weekend -- New Line sold the foreign distribution, so it won't see a big share of the foreign pie.

Yes, but....

It may come down to whether they have anything else beside TH & sequel which is worth doing - I suspect they'll hold on to the rights for SK & AS. Its still possible that TH won't be very good - though it won't lose money however bad it is because it will sell on the strength of LotR, but if it is poor & the sequel is no better, or worse, they could lose out on the whole package. If that happens something like SK, even if it only brings in a modest profit, might be considered worth doing.

Again, I'm not expecting to see any GC sequels to be honest, but a lot of people seem to be assuming that TH & the follow up will be absolutely fantastic movies, make NL a fortune, & are even speculating on more M-e movies beyond them. Its entirely possible these movies will bomb & NL be left feeling grateful they have the other two Pullman options....

[Sauron the White]

I suspect that if the next two Middle-earth movies do less than a combined $US 1.5 billion at the box office, that any future fantasy film would face a very steep uphill climb at New Line. With the exception of the last 3 Star Wars films, the 2 ME films are about as sure thing as you can get in the film business.

Regarding COMPASS sequels, it is worth noting that with the exception of the LOTR films, many sequels see their box office numbers falling as the franchise is milked to the last drop for profits. So if they do the Compass sequels, I would not expect the budget to be quite as generous..... which of course probably makes for a far less spectacular and less marketable movie. Its a downward spiral that feeds on its own lack of success.

[davem]

I'm curious to see TGC, but not desperate - I enjoyed the book but the sequels spoiled it for me. I'm not interested at all in seeing the sequels, so I can speak objectively. NL are about making movies & if they have a property that will bring in even a modest profit - & here we have to focus on the DVD sales even more than the theatrical releases - they won't necessarily just throw it away. Even a limited theatrical release & quick DVD release could prove a worthwhile venture - particularly if they shoot the two sequels back to back.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

It may come down to whether they have anything else beside TH & sequel which is worth doing - I suspect they'll hold on to the rights for SK & AS.

Not NewLine, but Peter Jackson has optioned at least the first book in this new historical fantasy series which won for the author the Campbell award for best new writer at Worldcon 2007: Temeraire, so it's not like there are no other good fantasy works out there.

[davem]

Variety http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...goryid=13&cs=1 reckons TGC will at least make back its production costs (& possibly also its promo budget - depending on which account you believe of how much they spent) so it looks like everything it makes from DVD/TV sales will be clear profit.

The final 2007 frame also saw "The Golden Compass" remain a stellar performer outside the U.S. with $34 million at 7,600 for a stunning $187 million foreign cume. The final international gross for "Compass," handled by a variety of foreign distribs, should eventually hit $250 million -- a stark contrast to the pic's domestic perf, which is currently at about $60 million.

The article continues with the following comment on fantasy movie Stardust:

The "Compass" performance underlines the international traction for fantasy fare: Paramount's summer-fall title "Stardust" salvaged a disappointing domestic run with $96 million overseas. Disney's "Enchanted" took in $20 million during the weekend and has already gone past $111 million overseas midway through its run, passing the Stateside cume.

Don't you Yanks like fantasy or something

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, but....

It may come down to whether they have anything else beside TH & sequel which is worth doing - I suspect they'll hold on to the rights for SK & AS. Its still possible that TH won't be very good - though it won't lose money however bad it is because it will sell on the strength of LotR, but if it is poor & the sequel is no better, or worse, they could lose out on the whole package. If that happens something like SK, even if it only brings in a modest profit, might be considered worth doing.

Again, I'm not expecting to see any GC sequels to be honest, but a lot of people seem to be assuming that TH & the follow up will be absolutely fantastic movies, make NL a fortune, & are even speculating on more M-e movies beyond them. Its entirely possible these movies will bomb & NL be left feeling grateful they have the other two Pullman options....

The bubble has burst a bit on more Tolkien films. Maybe not to us as fans, but it certainly has to wider film audiences who have never looked at a Tolkien book. Droves went to see Rings and had to find out 'how it ends' but they might not be bothered with a couple more bum-numbing epics about the same old stuff - as they'd see it. Certainly not unless they up the ante and are even more soaked in orc-blood.

The Hobbit itself will do well, but if they do this 'bridge' film I predict it will be a disappointment to the Hollywood accountants - a vast proportion of the audience will go to save themselves the bother of reading the books, so why will they be bothered about something 'made up'? Ordinary Joe isn't in love with Hobbits and Elves like we are

Originally Posted by StW

Regarding COMPASS sequels, it is worth noting that with the exception of the LOTR films, many sequels see their box office numbers falling as the franchise is milked to the last drop for profits. So if they do the Compass sequels, I would not expect the budget to be quite as generous..... which of course probably makes for a far less spectacular and less marketable movie. Its a downward spiral that feeds on its own lack of success.

LotR isn't an exception. The sequels to Spider-Man, Pirates, Bourne, Austin Powers, American Pie, Shrek etc etc.... cleaned up and did better. The secret is in making a sequel that's even more hype, and that's BIGGER and LOUDER. Which is exactly what RotK was. I watched FotR in a screen with just a dozen other people but by the time RotK came along I had to sit in a rubbish seat next to a woman who snored her way through it - punctuated by her husband going "Shhhh, wake up!"

Sequels, if they come along quickly enough, mop up even more numbers as they get in a huge chunk of audience who just want to see what happens and have been varied along with the hype. But if they're left that little bit too long in the making, they can be a disappointment if they fail to live up to 110% of the hype - see Phantom Menace