I would love to know why you think Chris Weitz is going to knock one out of the park. All signs point to this being a massive failure, artistically and financially.

What has Weitz done to give you confidence he can pull off an epic fantasy adaptation? About a Boy?

Reply

I'd like to know where "all the signs" are, because I haven't seen any. The trailers look great, the posters look great, and when I was on the film's set in London, going through all the concept designs, etc ..., I was pretty blown away. I have a lot of faith in both Weitz brothers; I think they're very talented guys, and I know for a fact Chris has worked his ass off on this film. I remain positive until someone offers more proof than "all signs point toward ..."

Reply

The only reason I'm skeptical, is because you can't take an strongly anti-god book, hand it to hollywood, and expect anything but polar bears, witches, and the "magic compass" to make it through the meat grinder.

Reply

I've got to share some of the skepticism. I think the new trailer looks fantastic, but the evidence I've read is that the actual message of the series was never intended for the big screen. Hopefully those early interviews are wrong, but we'll see.

Reply

If you go into a movie adaptation comparing it to the source material you will almost assuredly be disappointed. The only way to appreciate this movie, or any movie, is as a movie.

How it stands as a complete work (on its own) remains to be seen, but from what is available it is clear that the art direction, sfx and casting are all top notch. I think it's reasonable to hope that the story, acting and directing will follow suit.

Personally, I'd prefer that they don't try to be too faithful to the novels. I think that the books are grand storytelling, but they're not particularly cinematic. Neither is Tolkein's work, but Peter Jackson managed to make some fine films from that material. New Line allowed him the lattitude to do so, perhaps they've done the same with Weitz.

Reply

Thanks for the sneak peek! I've been trying to keep tabs on this movie since I'd heard about it. As you said the cast is top notch, and I love the look of the posters! I haven't heard or seen any 'signs'(as a commenter said) that this movie will fail, quite the opposite!

Could be I'm biased as a Daniel Craig fan. He had good chemistry with Kidman, and Eva Green as well, plus he's a wonderful actor himself. Even if no one else will go, I'll be there when it hits the theatre!

Reply

Nate, remember a certain B-movie horror director named Peter Jackson?

It think the producers, New Line the same folks who brought us Lord of the Rings have found a formula they are inclined to stick to.

Get a relatively unknown director who's made an at least one smart film featuring young people. In Jackson's case, that was Heavenly Creatures. In Weitz's case, that was About a Boy.

I truly hope lightening can strike twice.

Reply

Oh, great, another Nicole Kidman movie. Can't get enough of her semi-acting. And her breasts on the cover of Vanity Fair - now that's talent.

Reply

Noam: This is not "a Nicole Kidman movie". It's a movie Kidman happens to star in. There's a difference.

Reply

Some of the signs, Erik.

An ever-expanding budget of (officially) $180 million, although I have word from inside sources that it's surpassed $200. It's the most expensive film in New Line history.

They've had director issues, with Weitz dropping out at one point, and then coming back.

Massive reshoots.

And the anti-Christian themes have been watered down immensely, although I'm sure that they'll have more issues with this if they ever make the next two films.

I hope it's great, but your unbridled optimism smacked of a New Line press release.

Reply

Perhaps I, too, only suffer from "unbridled enthusiasm", but I am very excited to see this movie. At the very least, it will be a spectacular special effects fest.

Actually, I'm kind of mystified about the debates around the book's "anti-Christian" theme. I didn't particularly see that kind of sentiment in the book, myself. But even if it's there, I find it a little strange that everyone assumes it would be inherently horrible to have a movie with non-Christian values. We don't have an institutionalized religion in the U.S.A. (at least on paper- this rigid adherence to Christian themes hints at the opposite), so I don't see why it's so crucial to alter the book that way.

...unless it's the money. They probably know that many movie-goers will be Christian, and unless the movie is palatable for these masses there will be much less money. I'm just hoping they're changing it because they want to, not for some artificial reason like money or publicity. The quality of the art tends to reflect each kind of motive.

Reply

this picture sucks!!!

Reply

Yuck. Loved the books, but that's *not* Iorek Byrnison. He wouldn't have a painted-on anthropomorphic sneer apparently designed to make it obvious that he's talking, just in case somebody needs to know he's a talking bear before they go see the movie. With that, and all the talk of the removal of the challenging parts of the source material (I'm a Christian who loved the books because of the challenging questions and assertions) I'm officially less pumped than I was about this.

Reply

I sure hope she doesn't "star" too much, she's the villain, the focus of the first book is on Lyra.

Reply

i would like to act

Reply