Read this first:
Nicole Kidman’s “The Golden Compass” to Bomb
Posted October 26th, 2007 by Molly Celaschi in
Nicole Kidman’s "The Golden Compass," based on the first book in Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, is receiving negative previews.
"It is a $175 million investment for New Line Cinema, which has been hurting ever since 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy," says an insider. "People working on the movie say it is just plain bad."
The picture is said to rely too much on CGI effects and may turn off some with its talking, armored polar bear.
But a New Line rep said, "That's bull[bleep]," and got us a quote from Ted Cooper, the senior VP of Regal Ent. Group who saw the movie at the Showeast convention.
Cooper said, " 'Golden Compass' has been on my radar for nearly a year now. I perceive this as one of the most important films to play throughout the holidays."
Kidman's latest flicks have flopped: "The Stepford Wives," "The Invasion," "Bewitched," "The Interpreter," "Dogville" and "Fur."
Moving on. Let's address the "flaws" with this "negative buzz" and seek the truth (shame the alethiometer doesn't actually exist).
1. "people working on the movie have been saying it's just plain bad". This is just one person. Many other people working on the technical aspects of the film (including the "overused VFX) have said they enjoyed working on it; some have even called it their favorite project to ever work on.
2. The article seems more focused on Kidman's string of flops (though come on now, The Interpreter was good and by no means a flop; the rest?..yeah..) than the actual films. Every time one of her recent films flop, articles pop up like this.
3. It's just one "insider" whose one small quote has appeared in numerous articles. That's right, it's not a bunch of people, it's ONE GUY who's small statement is being published EVERYWHERE.
4. "the picture relies too heavily on special effects and some may be scared by the armored polar bear..." The first half of that statement could make sense for those who haven't read the books; the second is just plain dumb. Back to the first half: Anyone who has read TGC and the rest of the His Dark Materials trilogy knows that this is a story that (unlike many of today's blockbusters) actually NEEDS lots of special effects. Flying witches, armored and fighting polar bears, air ships, massive shots of parallel universe London, and of course, Daemons which everyone (yes, even those silent extras) needs to have. And what makes it more complicated? For starters, children's daemons can change into any animal they want at any time. They also have to react to pain just as their human counterparts do; daemons are physical manifestations of a person's soul - if it gets hurt, so do you, and vice versa. Now, about that "turn off" of a talking polar bear. Oh, how silly of me, talking animals have never EVER appeared in a successful fantasy film! How stupid of me to *cough*Narnia*cough*Harry Potter*cough*lots of other stuff*cough* forget! The major polar bear fight if anything, is going to be one of the big draws, especially for the older teens/young adults. And besides, Iorek Byrnison could totally kick Aslan's ass...(sorry Narnia lovers).
1. "people working on the movie have been saying it's just plain bad". This is just one person. Many other people working on the technical aspects of the film (including the "overused VFX) have said they enjoyed working on it; some have even called it their favorite project to ever work on.
2. The article seems more focused on Kidman's string of flops (though come on now, The Interpreter was good and by no means a flop; the rest?..yeah..) than the actual films. Every time one of her recent films flop, articles pop up like this.
3. It's just one "insider" whose one small quote has appeared in numerous articles. That's right, it's not a bunch of people, it's ONE GUY who's small statement is being published EVERYWHERE.
4. "the picture relies too heavily on special effects and some may be scared by the armored polar bear..." The first half of that statement could make sense for those who haven't read the books; the second is just plain dumb. Back to the first half: Anyone who has read TGC and the rest of the His Dark Materials trilogy knows that this is a story that (unlike many of today's blockbusters) actually NEEDS lots of special effects. Flying witches, armored and fighting polar bears, air ships, massive shots of parallel universe London, and of course, Daemons which everyone (yes, even those silent extras) needs to have. And what makes it more complicated? For starters, children's daemons can change into any animal they want at any time. They also have to react to pain just as their human counterparts do; daemons are physical manifestations of a person's soul - if it gets hurt, so do you, and vice versa. Now, about that "turn off" of a talking polar bear. Oh, how silly of me, talking animals have never EVER appeared in a successful fantasy film! How stupid of me to *cough*Narnia*cough*Harry Potter*cough*lots of other stuff*cough* forget! The major polar bear fight if anything, is going to be one of the big draws, especially for the older teens/young adults. And besides, Iorek Byrnison could totally kick Aslan's ass...(sorry Narnia lovers).
5. While we're at it, let's look at some other films that had so-so or negative buzz:
A) Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - everyone's initial verdict? "this attempt at reviving the pirates genre will be dead in the water..."
The end result? - Hugely popular with critcs AND audiences, great box office, and 6 Oscar nominations including Best Leading Actor for Johnny Depp. And this was a film based on a theme park ride.
B) The Lord of the Rings Trilogy - the initial verdict? "Why the #$(*&#(*&(*@ is some crazy New Zealand guy who has only done small budget movies adapting Tolkien's masterful epic?"
The end result? - huge box office and critical love, with each film being nominated for best Picture and Best Director. Return of the King swept with 11 Oscars and became the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time (not too shabby, eh?).
C) 007: Casino Royale - the initial verdict? "Some unknown blonde guy is gonna be Bond? WTF this will SUCK! Craig should NEVER EVER be BOND!"
The end result? - Great box office as well as hugely positive reaction from audiences and critics; on Rottentomatoes.com, CR was the best reviewed major studio release (95% fresh) of 2006.
Conclusion: Does this mean that The Golden Compass will enjoy the mind blowing success of The Lord of the Rings? Maybe not in terms of awards, but it could certainly kick serious box office butt considering the extensive and well organized marketing campaign.
- Can this movie be bad: of course it can. I'd have to throw myself off a bridge if it was, but yes, it could turn out to be bad (and I mean as a bad "film". It could be an awful adaptation but still be a good film like the Prisoner of Azkaban movie).
- Will the changes doom the film?: Phillip Pullman seems thrilled, and he signed over ALL creative control to the studio. So...I'd say, "no".
- Am I still looking forward to December 7th as much as ever?: Hell yeah. And besides, look at the picture below; Kidman knows we don't like it when she flops, and she's out for vengeance....I mean seriously, look at those eyes....they just scream "do something wrong, and I'll KILL you!".
No comments:
Post a Comment