TheGoldenCompass Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Now rolling in New Moon millions, Chris Weitz is being more open about his troubles with New Line and The Golden Compass, a film that sank one studio and sent him into a tailspin. Rumors abounded as to what went wrong on that film, and as recently as last week, New York's Page Six was claiming that residual stress was causing him to leave the industry.

Weitz denied any such thing to Variety, and announced he was leaving the world of the supernatural behind with his next film, The Gardener. The film centers around a hard working Mexican gardener and his efforts to protect his son, and Weitz will be making it alongside his new best friends forever, Summit Entertainment. His new friendship enabled him to take a parting shot at New Line. Weitz praises Summit and Stephenie Meyer for trusting him with New Moon, an experience that was the polar opposite of the debacle that was The Golden Compass.

Weitz claims that New Line didn't trust him to handle the content of the book, that the film was taken from him in editing. Heavy-handed hacking resulted in losing nearly 30 minutes of footage from the film, and neatly exercised the edgy thrust of Phillip Pullman's book. "It was an utter violation of my status as a director and the worst thing that has happened to me professionally ... I was treated badly, it was almost like they never read the books. They seemed frightened of offending the right." Out of loyalty to the cast and crew, Weitz said he "bit through my tongue" when Compass was released.

As a fan of Pullman's His Dark Materials series, I'd love to see all that missing footage to see if it could salvage Weitz's film, and if New Line really neutered it.

Go below the jump for the rest

According to a source over at Deadline Hollywood, Golden Compass director Chris Weitz has been offered the directing gig on New Moon and possibly Eclipse, should both films shoot back-to-back. Nikki Finke's source says Weitz, who's apparently "still considering" the offer, was chosen because Summit Entertainment "liked the look" of Compass, even though it bombed at the box office, and also because Weitz is buddies with Summit's president of production, Eric Feig.

Apart from Compass, Weitz had a big role in the original American Pie (as a producer and uncredited director); he also co-wrote and directed the excellent About a Boy adaptation, and served as producer on flicks like Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, In Good Company and American Dreamz. Personally, I'm a fan of Weitz (and his brother Paul), and blame the domestic failure of Compass more on some folks' inability to wrap their heads around the story's vast universe. However, he is a boy ... and last I checked, boys might not be allowed into the Twilight clubhouse.

What do you folks think of Weitz? Is he a good replacement?

At least not any time soon. That's from this article in The Independent, which quotes author Phillip Pullman as saying that following the disappointing box office returns for The Golden Compass, no one has talked to him about adapting The Amber Spyglass (or, obviously, The Subtle Knife). Director Chris Weitz, who had been determined to make a sequel happen, is staying mum, as is New Line, now part of Warner Bros. At this point, the age of star Dakota Blue Richards -- already 14 -- is going to be a problem for any big plans to continue the franchise.

The Independent article is a little annoying, since it insists on blaming (crediting?) the Christian protests against The Golden Compass for the film's commercial failure in the US. That seems a little facile, though even Pullman seems to believe it. The source material didn't turn out to be much of a brand name, the marketing was a bit generic, and I think the movie just never caught on as a must-see holiday blockbuster. I'm not sure the protests had that much pull.

No regrets here, since I think the first film was a bit generic, not doing justice to the book. Though I guess now I really wish Weitz hadn't decided to move the first book's ending to the then-envisioned sequel. Oh well.

Fantasy may have the most rabid and obsessive fans, but it also has the staunchest detractors of any mainstream genre. We all know people who simply refuse to watch fantasy films or read fantasy books of their own volition. They may have sat through The Fellowship of the Ring grudgingly, but didn't bother with the rest of the series. They probably associate the genre with asocial nerds, fan conventions, and Dungeons & Dragons. They can only shrug at the exuberance of the devotees. Fantasy is "not their thing."

Why are fantasy movies (and the genre in general) so polarizing? I've long thought it has something to do with viewers' relative affinity for cinematic worlds. Some people go to the movies to see something that directly relates to their own lives, something that takes place in the universe they live in and know. Others – myself among them, if you haven't figured it out – flip for new, self-contained worlds that could exist independently of the movie; wonderful and strange places we feel like it's possible to actually inhabit. This might explain why those who like good fantasy also tend to enjoy good science-fiction.

I'm going for a highly praised film this week, rather than the big buzz, but you can check out a couple of other big releases after the jump.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
In 1996, Julian Schnabel directed Basquiat. Led by the charming and unforgettable performance of Jeffrey Wright as the famous artist, the film laid out the art world of 1980s New York City with heart, and it showcased many of today's top names. It was the straightforward film.

Now there's Golden Globe winner Le Scaphandre et le Papillon, a feature that has taken Schnabel out of the straight-forward and into a world of tragedy and eye-opening imagination. It's a move similar to David Lynch taking on The Straight Story, but switched. Instead of strange complexity to charming simplicity, it's the other way around.

Diving Bell is the true story of what happened to Jean-Dominique Bauby, a man who had been the editor-in-chief of French Elle, until a sudden stroke has left him still -- only able to move one eyelid. It's like taking the thought of paralysis and upping it -- no legs, no arms, no lips. But it isn't just a sad story of despair. After being forced to adapt to his condition, he write the memoir that becomes this film, all with the simple, blinking eye.

A lot of my colleagues seem to be practically empurpled lately over the fact that Juno is being feted as not merely a success, but an indie/crossover success. This seems like a moot argument to me -- more on that in a second -- but first I will say that whether you think it is or isn't, you shouldn't overstep and give the PR machine too much credit here. Any studio shingle PR team worth its salt obviously has a 'media manipulation/other shenanigans' Trapper Keeper ready to be opened at a moment's notice if the clouds part and a movie actually connects with the public, but that's the point -- it has to connect first. Juno is a quadrant pimp and Once isn't -- that's why EW isn't piling on the plaudits for Once, even though it's currently enjoying 98 percent positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. If your response to this is "Um, yeah, I'm sure Once would love to have Fox Searchlight's Scrooge McDuck-swimming pool of money to buy some ads with" I would say, first, it does, and second, I'm increasingly of the opinion that most of that money is wasted on an ad-saturated public anyway.

All the marketing in the world and a bevy of A-list stars couldn't push a big movie like The Golden Compass even to $70 million, nor keep a crazy-hyped film like Cloverfield from swan-diving in its second weekend, so Juno clearly has legs, which is a rare commodity these days for any film, big or small. And to suggest that Juno's success rests on its popularity with teens, as some have, is wishful thinking. The scary reality is that today's 16 year-olds would probably like to see Step Up 2 in the Oscar race, not a Jason Reitman movie.

Here's a strange twist to the writer's strike, and a postponement excuse we haven't heard before: New Line has pushed back Inkheart from March 2008 to January 2009 because of what the strike is doing to the television industry. Huh? According to Variety, the studio figures that without first-run programs on TV, it can't reach enough viewers through commercials, which is apparently the only way to market a movie these days.

OK, I kind of get it, but I hardly ever watch TV, and I've seen about 1,000 TV ads for Cloverfield this week, so there has to be a way to reach an audience by the original release date of March 18. They could have bought some time during the Super Bowl or the Oscars or, since its a family fantasy, any children's program. Seriously, kids don't care if their show is in repeats or not. I'm not going to go the usual route and accuse Inkheart of having production troubles. Judging by the trailer and Erik's visit to the film's set last year, the movie looks and sounds like it's a lot of fun, and anyway, it's reportedly all finished and ready to deliver to theaters. But since the TV marketing excuse seems odd, I'll assume that New Line is simply trying to figure out how to market a movie that could be accepted as just another fantasy movie and go mostly ignored by the same public that didn't go to see The Golden Compass or The Seeker: The Dark is Rising.

Those of you who need your Brendan Fraser fix need not cry for too long. The actor can still be seen in New Line's Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D, which comes out July 11, and Universal's The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, out August 1.

In other release date news, New Line has also pushed back Pride and Glory, which stars Edward Norton and Colin Farrell (which I remember them filming in Brooklyn back in Summer 2005), from March 14 to sometime in 2009, though the reasoning behind this one may have had more to do with Norton and Farrell having other new releases coming out soon, than it had to do with the writer's strike effect on TV ads. Meanwhile, Universal has moved up its Judd Apatow-produced comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall so that it doesn't have to go up against Sex in the City (which New Line will have no problem advertising on television) and Starship Dave (which I can't imagine really being a threat to anyone). Forgetting Sarah Marshall will now bow on April 18, which should perfectly fit in with some college kids' spring break. The same studio also pushed back its Baby Mama one weekend, from April 18 to April 25.

On the same day filming on Baz Luhrmann's Australia wrapped, the production released the first three official stills from the movie. Of course, clever photographers haven't been sitting around on their hands waiting for anything official -- they've been shooting candid photos all along, of everything from action shots of Nicole Kidman on horses and riding dinghies at sea to detailed photos of the set. But there's something to be said for photos that the director actually wants you to see. After looking at these three pictures, I can't say I'm discerning anything special though, except maybe for the one of Kidman seemingly about to twirl around while standing on a gazebo of some kind. It looks very 'Gone With the Wind' if you ask me. The other two are just a double headshot of the two leads and one gentleman who I'm going to guess is playing a native.

Meanwhile, perhaps sensing that The Golden Compass wasn't going to be all it was cracked up to be, Kidman was recently circumspect when talking to journalists about why she chooses her film roles. "I just choose off the cuff a lot of times, but primarily this was because Philip Pullman wrote me an amazing letter telling me that when he was writing the novels, he had me in mind," she said. "So that's hard to turn down. He's such a good novelist." Oh, so it's all his fault, huh? Let's hope she has a better answer for the studio bosses, next time they ask why they should continue forking over $15 mil per film.

What a surprise. Reuters has reported that The Vatican really doesn't like The Golden Compass. They're not the only ones, since this massive-budget film has been flopping around like a fish gasping for breath since it came out; however, they are the ones leading the religious charge. It's, obviously, not the film's cinematic shortcomings that are making waves, but rather, its religious commentary. This is the same content that was toned down by Chris Weitz in an attempt to make this a more palatable film to everyone -- as if they hadn't thought about the potential controversy when the project first came to be.

The Vatican newspaper, l'Osservatore Romano, has printed a long editorial ranting about the film, pretty much describing it as if it were an example of torture porn, rather than fantasy, calling it "the most anti-Christmas film possible," and that "when man tries to eliminate God from his horizon, everything is reduced, made sad, cold, and inhumane." These are the most religion-specific quotes coming out of Reuters' piece. The writer must be living one heck of a film-free life if this is not only the most anti-Christmas film made, but even possible! It's no surprise that they wouldn't be happy about the film, but statements like that just take the whole argument to a new level of ridiculous. It's one thing to comment on the aspects of a film that diverge from the church's beliefs. It's another to take exaggeration to new heights. Then again, we're in a world where one short peek at a nipple creates monumental fuss.

There's a continuing debate about whether or not computer-animated films should be eligible for visual effects awards. But despite the fine line seen by some, others are quick to point out that many effects artists have the same function on Surf's Up as they do on Spider-Man. To them, it should come as quite a triumph that the Oscar shortlist for the visual effects category includes two animated films, Ratatouille and Beowulf. According to the Hollywood Reporter, they join 13 other effects-heavy movies, including definite front-runners Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and Spider-Man 3. The trade points out, however, that this is not the first time animated films have joined the effects race. Back in 1994, The Nightmare Before Christmas was one of the three nominees (against Cliffhanger and obvious winner Jurassic Park).

The animated effect issue is different now, though, then it was 14 years ago. Animated films now have their own Oscar category, and it's fair to say that is the place to recognize Ratatouille and Beowulf (actually Beowulf shouldn't be recognized at all). Typically movies nominated in the visual effects category are popular blockbusters that wouldn't otherwise receive notice from the Academy. Until there's an Oscar for best sci-fi/fantasy or action movie, this is one of the best ways for a little movie like Transformers to be put in the spotlight. Sure, I'm being sarcastic, but nonetheless I like the category being the place for those movies actually seen by the majority of Oscar telecast viewers.