COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

Whatever - one assumes that if Warner decides to go ahead with sequels the sensibilities of US audiences will play a smaller part in their calculations than they did for New line - it will probably be the same story for the sequels as for the original - poor performance in the US & big box office everywhere else.

Presumably the opposite is true. Since the point of the article is that Warner would be precluded from reaping much in the way of foreign B.O. because of the sequel distribution deals New Line already made, I'd venture to say that if they did decide to forge ahead with sequels, they'd try to make them more appealing to U.S. audiences, since that would be where the money is for them. How they'd do that, I don't know.

As for the reasons for the film not doing well -- I think Bb might be on to something with the gender gap. Interesting side note -- wasn't it the head of production at Warners who was widely reported last fall as proclaiming that WB was going to stop making pictures with female leads? That wouldn't bode well for sequels either.

Anyway, I think there might've been a bit of a demographic gap, too -- "girl and her bear" maybe didn't really appeal to older audiences, especially those coveted 18-25 year old males, but the trailers didn't say "family movie" either.

I don't put any stock in the whole atheism factor. Religious protests usually serve to give a picture free publicity, and if anything only increase its box office prospects -- see Harry Potter. From where I stand, the protests seemed pretty half-hearted over here anyway.

[Lalwendë]

I've finally seen The Golden Compass (now we have to wait for DVDs to come out, as going to the cinema is an unattainable luxury with Ye Kraken about). I really do not understand the negative opinions to be honest. My only fault with it was that it was too short, it ought to have been an hour longer and lingered over some of the scenes more.

However I think I know why it failed to crack the US market - it doesn't fit into any of the 'markets'. It isn't a kiddies' film, all saccharin and primary colours. It isn't an all-action sword and gore fest. It isn't a serious 'issues' drama. I'm pretty certain it did much, much better over here as the books are held in such high regard and so it was able to find a way around the stereotypical demands of audiences.

It did however have a very 'English' feel to it, and I still think that the protagonist being a girl didn't help everyone appreciate it. Ho-hum, that's their loss.

And it's a shame the US audience didn't go to see it as it was a beautiful film, the characters were well done and unlike Jackson's work, the changes to the storyline were totally coherent and actually worked. The special effects and art were especially wonderful, and Nicole Kidman was deliciously evil.

I was also amused by Pullman's completely non-precious attitude towards it (as shown on the extras disc); he admitted it was nice to finally see some mega-bucks as a result of his work.

Though if you want to know what the best fantasy film is, even better than Lord of the Rings, just watch Stardust. It knocks everything into a cocked hat and if a Tolkien fan wants to see what faerie looks and feels like then they know where to look and it's not at the films of Tolkien's work! I had the distinct feeling he'd had loved it himself.

[Morthoron]

To be honest, as an American I did shy away from the movie based on the reviews, opting for the DVD release. *shrugs*

But then again, I never read Pullman's His Dark Materials, nor have I read any Harry Potter books. *shrugs again*

However, my seven...errr...eight year old daughter (egad, her birthday is this month!) has expressed an interest in the books and the movie. Do you think it's worthwhile for a precocious eight year old? We read together and enjoyed both The Narnia Chronicles and The Hobbit (She enjoyed LotR on film, but the books are a little over her head). Just wondering what the reading level of Pullman's books are ('young adult' is a rather vague category).

[Lalwendë]

I think it's a marvellous read for girls, as Lyra is a very atypical female lead character - I just love Lyra and Hermione Granger as modern day heroines. It's also very readable for a good reader, though a lot of the references to Milton, Blake etc would not be noticed - that's not an issue though as the story itself is what's important at that age, and the plot is good. The main criticisms are that Pullman loses control of what he was trying to say as the books go on, but that's an issue for the adults; the kids just want a good story and characters, and it doesn't fall down on those.

It is quite scary though - if it frightened me in places, I think it would definitely scare a child!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think it's a marvellous read for girls, as Lyra is a very atypical female lead character - I just love Lyra and Hermione Granger as modern day heroines. It's also very readable for a good reader, though a lot of the references to Milton, Blake etc would not be noticed - that's not an issue though as the story itself is what's important at that age, and the plot is good. The main criticisms are that Pullman loses control of what he was trying to say as the books go on, but that's an issue for the adults; the kids just want a good story and characters, and it doesn't fall down on those.

It is quite scary though - if it frightened me in places, I think it would definitely scare a child!

Thanks, Ms. Boggart, I think we'll give it a try. My daughter's at that odd 'tween' age where 'House at Pooh Corners' bored her silly, yet she's shown no interest in H. Potter. And speaking of odd, she didn't bat an eye at the monsters in LotR, but just seeing the Guy Fawkes mask in V for Vendetta sent her scurrying from the room (I can't watch it if she's in the house).

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It is quite scary though - if it frightened me in places, I think it would definitely scare a child!

Yes, it is. Not scary because there are monsters, though, but because it has some rather depressing/scary/disgusting events (or actually just one, but it's bad enough) and also, in some book of the series (can't remember which one), Pullman kills his characters quite carelessly. These two are my only objections against reading the book to a young child. Maybe "objection" is too strong a word, though, as I would have had no problem reading the book as an 8-year-old. I would have been a little scared (not too much, though) and sad, but wouldn't have gotten nightmares or "bad thoughts". I think it would have been just good for me. But I never was too sensitive a child... but my sister reading it as 8-year-old might have been troubled and my cousin would not have wanted to finish it, it would have been so bad for her in that age. So I think it depends entirely on the personality of the child in question.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

However I think I know why it failed to crack the US market - it doesn't fit into any of the 'markets'. It isn't a kiddies' film, all saccharin and primary colours. It isn't an all-action sword and gore fest. It isn't a serious 'issues' drama. I'm pretty certain it did much, much better over here as the books are held in such high regard and so it was able to find a way around the stereotypical demands of audiences.

I read an interesting analysis of the gap between the U.S. and foreign B.O. on Compass. One thing they mentioned is that the movie was successfully marketed as a family film overseas, but not in the U.S.:

Originally Posted by Variety

Excuses that fantasy pics often do better in foreign, or that the film's perceived anti-God message was a more powerful negative in the U.S., have a certain truth, but can't fully explain the unprecedented gulf.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the foreign indies such as Entertainment in the U.K., Metropolitan in France, Tripictures in Spain, 01 in Italy and Gaga in Japan, not to mention Warner in Germany, simply did a better job of understanding and positioning "Golden Compass" as a family film, and heading off the potential problems in advance, than New Line's domestic team did.

[...] In foreign markets, distribs managed to bring in the family audience -- Armentano says she laser-targeted 8- to 13-year-olds in schools early on -- whom New Line failed to attract Stateside with a much broader campaign. In the U.S., the pic's biggest demographic was young adult males, who came looking for the next "Lord of the Rings," left disappointed and told all their friends not to bother.

The full article is here. I still haven't seen the film, though it's on my to-rent list.

[Sauron the White]

My grandson is going on seven and absolutely adores the LOTR films. He has seen them dozens of times and will not even fast forward to the "good parts" but sits and watches every scene on the extended editions. This weekend, I asked him if he wanted to go see IRON MAN or do a LOTR marathon and he opted for LOTR.

So two weeks ago I bought the DVD of COMPASS and thought he might enjoy it. He watched 25 minutes and gave up on it. I tried to bring it out again this weekend and give it another go but he wanted nothing to do with it.

[Bêthberry]

What saves Compass from being absolutely dark and terrifying as regards adult treatment of children--or at least the readiness of Lyre's parents to sacrifice other children (to say nothing of adults) to their theories and experiments--is the incredible way that Pullman empowers Lyre. It is her resilience, independence, stubbornness, courage, that is a beacon to children about claiming authority over their own lives. Will too I think, particularly in his ability to care for his mother. Pullman's children are significant for their own agency, something a bit rare in most literature. After all, children once were supposed to "be seen and not heard."

Very much like Aule's creation are given a life of their own when Iluvatar grants them a voice; they are not left to be commanded by Aule's will but flinch from the axe and beg for mercy.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Both Narnia films have had a veddy, veddy British feel- but made huge US money.

(BTW, I think that depicting the Telmarines with a Spanish Conquistador feel was brilliant).

[Gwathagor]

Absolutely! It made me wonder if the original Telmar-guys were pirates of Spanish or Portuguese descent.

[Lalaith]

That's really interesting about the different marketing tactics. It was definitely marketed at children, here in Europe...lots of emphasis on the big polar bear and so on.
As for suitable ages for Pullman...I think seven/eight is a bit young, particularly for independent reading.
Not because it's too scary, but because Pullman is quite dense and literary in style - it's much heavier going than the Hobbit. I'd put it on a par with Lord of the Rings, at least.

[Lush]

I don't know of any serious Tolkien student who even takes the movies seriously

I knew a Duke lecturer who took them very seriously. Yes, she specialized in Tolkien.

As for "Compass" - didn't like it. They took a brilliant opportunity to introduce a really cool female hero and wasted it with horrible editing (especially toward the end). I tend to overlook a lot of flaws in movies like that, but it didn't strike me as a movie with soul, a vibrant core.

Though it was hilarious how in one scene they steered clear of outright insulting the Catholic Church by insulting the Orthodox Church instead (the icons used in one scene were obviously Orthodox). Great PR move! Then again, I've always meant to ask Pullman as to why he had that weird scene in HDM with the (surprise!) vodka-slugging, smelly, terrible, irredeemable Slavs.

[davem]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...p-ten-gro.html

More evidence that fantasy movies don't play well in the US - Prince Caspian underperformed in America but was in the global top ten. Based on its 'domestic' performance Disney have pulled out of their option of co-producing Voyage of the Dawn Treader. VoDT may get picked up based on its global box office (but maybe not with the same budget).

Can't think of any recent fantasy movies which have shaken up the US B.O. - actually not since The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe. And if a sequel to such a major performer can underperform so badly that Disney jump ship mid franchise it might mean that Warner's will start looking a bit more closely at TH.

Maybe fantasy movies have had their day & the studios will start looking around for the next big thing - & I can't help feeling that these new productions would have excited Tolkien far more than a Hobbit movie http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...n-1206529.html

[Mister Underhill]

I'm still not buying this theory that it's the US in particular that has somehow become fantasy averse. Caspian was #13 in the yearly domestic box office; its decline in domestic B.O. compared to LtWatW (criminy, that's a clunky acronym) was roughly equivalent to the decline in international B.O. I haven't seen poor domestic box office cited in the stories I read so much as poor overall box office. Caspian didn't even match Compass internationally.

There are still fantasy projects being developed. I can think of two big script sales within the past six months or so -- Galahad and Round Table -- and there are projects like Clash of the Titans and a Dragonheart sequel that are moving down the tracks. They're still trying to reboot Conan, and I've seen a pilot script for a cable series version of George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. I think what's feeling the squeeze are these megabudget tentpole fantasy films.

This is an old Hollywood routine. Any time a genre picture goes mainstream and breaks the bank, all the other studios try to get in on the act. After Star Wars, everybody wanted their own big budget sci-fi franchise. Then when stuff like Dune tanked rather spectacularly, the studios got cold feet. Unforgiven briefly revived the western. The one-two punch of Braveheart and Gladiator made the big-budget historical epic viable for a good while. The comic-book superhero trend that's been dominating the decade has been showing some wear and tear, but The Dark Knight alone will probably keep it going for a while longer yet.

When LotR and Harry Potter blew up the box office, the studios optioned every fantasy series in sight. Now that some of those are turning out to be bum investments, they're backing off, especially in this economy. The moment Harry Potter stops making money, WB will pull the plug, though that doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon and they're almost done, aren't they?

On the other hand, I do agree that The Hobbit, especially in the planned two-part form, may feel some squeeze. I'd say that the fact that Jackson and Spielberg couldn't secure a green light for Tintin is a bellwether for how risk-averse the studios are right now. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

[Gwathagor]

Wow! 3 1066 movies! That's great! I'm disappointed that they beat me to it, but William Nicholson is terrific.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

There are still fantasy projects being developed. I can think of two big script sales within the past six months or so -- Galahad and Round Table -- and there are projects like Clash of the Titans and a Dragonheart sequel that are moving down the tracks. They're still trying to reboot Conan, and I've seen a pilot script for a cable series version of George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. I think what's feeling the squeeze are these megabudget tentpole fantasy films.

And Terry Brooks 'Elfstones of Shannara', too..... Howsumever...it will be interesting to see how many of them hit the screen. Looking at performance, though, it does look like, ATM, fantasy plays better outside the US.

The moment Harry Potter stops making money, WB will pull the plug, though that doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon and they're almost done, aren't they?

3 more movies - Half-blood Prince due out next summer (pushed back from last November, btw) & a two part adaptation of the final book, Deathly Hallows. And that's the intereesting thing as regards TH - DH is scheduled for release in Dec 2010 & summer 2011. Now, if Warners decide that its better to release DH part 2 at Christmas 2011, then TH will be put back most probably till Christmas 2012 - 'cos they ain't gonna put their two biggest movies up against each other.

On the other hand, I do agree that The Hobbit, especially in the planned two-part form, may feel some squeeze. I'd say that the fact that Jackson and Spielberg couldn't secure a green light for Tintin is a bellwether for how risk-averse the studios are right now. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

Shooting two movies back to back (TH & sequel) can be cost effective - but only if you know both movies will be hits. But will TH be the hit everybody's assuming? No Aragorn/Arwen love story, no Legolas... No- a Hobbit, an old Wizard & a dozen Dwarves. Yes, there's Rivendell, but we've seen it already, a battle under the Misty Mountains, but we've seen it already.. TH may easily disappoint the movie fans. Caspian has shown that going for a more 'adult' take on a children's story doesn't necessarily work out (though I have to say, while I enjoyed PC, it was difficult to take the idea of children being involved in killing to such a degree - & apparently not even being slightly fazed by it. Mind you, that's in the books, so I'm not blaming the film-makers entirely)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

The comic-book superhero trend that's been dominating the decade has been showing some wear and tear, but The Dark Knight alone will probably keep it going for a while longer yet.

And The Watchmen too.

Maybe studios will turn to 'feel good' cheese-fests like Mamma Mia as the recession bites? And more and more apocalyptic misery as 2012 approaches and film makers try to milk all that rubbish.

Originally Posted by davem

Shooting two movies back to back (TH & sequel) can be cost effective - but only if you know both movies will be hits. But will TH be the hit everybody's assuming? No Aragorn/Arwen love story, no Legolas... No- a Hobbit, an old Wizard & a dozen Dwarves.

Who's to say they won't shoehorn them in? It means more of these: $$$$.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Who's to say they won't shoehorn them in? It means more of these: $$$$.

They probably will - I've long suspected that most of the movie fans who have been demanding a TH movie know little & care less about Tolkien's book: they want another movie with all their favourite characters in it. I further suspect that that's exactly what Warners will expect to find on their hands come 2011/12.

[davem]

Just come across this http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...s-1213848.html

Definitely interesting that Harry Potter (the most successful franchise in history) could find itself in trouble.

No predictions, but if we hear soon that the Hobbit sequel is to be put on hold, & that instead we're to get a single movie with an entirely new story for a LotR prequel, focussing on Aragorn (& Legolas probably) hunting Gollum & the White Council's assault on Dol Guldur I for one wouldn't be too surprised....

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Wow! 3 1066 movies! That's great! I'm disappointed that they beat me to it

I have to agree with you here.

This is quite interesting, I wonder what genre is up next?

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

And Terry Brooks 'Elfstones of Shannara', too

See, to me Brooks is the perfect example of a second-rate series that got developed in the wake of LotR but that will never ever be produced as a series of tentpole films. Some sort of cut-rate miniseries on Sci-Fi Channel, maybe...

Some of that other stuff could happen though. For instance, Dragonheart is almost certain to happen, somewhere in the $30M range. There's an audience that can support fantasy at that price tag.

Originally Posted by Lal

And The Watchmen too.

Yeah, it will be very interesting to see how Watchmen fares. It's fascinating, though. We're starting to get into more and more of these postmodern takes on superheroes. I think the health of the trad superhero movie will be better revealed by the new Wolverine movie and whether or not they're able to get a new Spider-man film into production. From what I can tell there's no plans yet for a follow-up to Superman Returns.