The Golden Compass (review and discussion) by Finn mac Cumhal

Quote:
Originally posted by Chindi:
I was wondering how the film would work for those who had NOT read the rich and detailed book...

the film seemed to skim along the surface of the story for me.. maybe I need to see it again. It is beautifully rendered; but felt "thin"..

It felt like there were really cramming it with a lot of story to me.

I just bought the book, and I’m a little disappointed to see that it is actually a children’s book. I was thinking that it might have been a fantasy novel geared towards adults.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Maybe the best movie of 2007. Like Transformers, this had multiple characters who existed only as CG effects. Unlike transformers, this movie actually made me care about said characters.

Definitely one of the best. I was just thinking that I haven't seen Stardust yet. Somehow I missed this one at the cinema, but hopefully I'll catch it on HBO. Transformers wasn't one of my favorites. I couldn't even keep interested in it while it was on.

Is there really only four people who have seen this movie and appreciate it for more then just the religious controversy? I was sure there would be more then that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:18 PM

HOBBLEIT

I saw it yesterday and I quite liked it.

Although I did think it was a bit rushed and they tried to fit in too much in a short amount of time.

Loved the special effects though.

I'll have to read the books again, it's been years.

******************************

http://www.myspace.com/muddy_waters

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
At times it was slow and often it seemed rushed (paradoxically even at the same time

That was pretty much how my wife and I felt through the entire movie. I'm sure the books are much better, this is always the case with epic films made from epic books.

There were too many sequences where oddball encounters occured that made little sense. Example: What was the logic the guards at the artic facility applied to the arrival of a strange girl out of nowhere? Things like that happened all the time in the movie.

The other poor translation effects could be felt by me as the "gyptians" and the witches were introduced. I felt like I was at a party mixer meeting people "and here is a gyptian...how do you do....here is a witch....blah blah...these people are important in this world but we don't have time to explain to you why right now" This made the final fight sequence far less important to me because I was confused and just hadn't yet come to care about the characters.

I agree that the effects were good. But at this point in moviemaking, all effects are going to be good so I'm coming to expect it as a given. Gone for me are the days when I'd accept a poorer plot in order to see cool effects.

As a whole I felt lukeworm about my experience with The Golden Compass. I'll bet that when I read this book things will be much better.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:45 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

I liked it...Especially the production

design...And the costume design...

As to the atheism or anti-religious theme , I

really didn't see that in the film , and I

doubt Ms. Kidman would've been attached to it if

she thought that were part of it...

But , I see how Christians would have issue with

the animal critters that walked alongside

everyone...Calling them 'demons' was not a good

idea...

It was a

richly-textured and imagined world , sorta

late-1930's by way of Victorian-era Jules

Verne...Considering cost-to-make vs. box-office

returns , Serenity has nothing to be ashamed

of , by comparison...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Will work for Bar Credit at The Brown Coat Pub and Theatre "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Calling them 'demons' was not a good idea...

I thought the exact same thing. I understand though that this is what they are called in the book, and that the film was being true to the source material.

If I had been the author, I'd have called them familiars.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Calling them 'demons' was not a good idea...

I thought the exact same thing. I understand though that this is what they are called in the book, and that the film was true to the book in that regard.

If I had been the author, I'd have called them familiars.

The reason why they were called that has to do with a lot of the philosophical argument in the books, which was left out in the movie. Although it is somewhat implied in the movie and if you think about it is what Mrs. Coulter was speaking about when she lectured Lyra [SEE SPOILER]. Essentially, the dogmatic teaching of theocracy of Lyra’s World views these animal “familiars” as a fundamental flaw in human nature and that’s why they call them “demons” (or some spelling there of).

Select to view spoiler:

After Mrs. Coulter (in another happenstance meeting) saves Lyra from being separated from her demon, she lectures Lyra about why she believes demons should be cut away from children alluding to a mistake made by their ancestors - something equivalent to an Original Sin sort of thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:11 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:

I thought the exact same thing. I understand though that this is what they are called in the book, and that the film was being true to the source material.

If I had been the author, I'd have called them familiars.

Probably only slightly less intolerable...Not

sure if that's an actual 'improvement' , given

the history of the term , 'familiar'.

Seems to me , regardless of the choice of term ,

both show the Western-reductionist tendency to

separate 'body' and 'soul' from one another .

In my world-view , the two are actually not

separable , as if one is 'discrete' from the

other , one being 'essential' and the

other 'material'...Like 'consciousness' , one

does not exist 'apart' from the other , save in

the domain of God's memory...

'Soul'

is not something one HAS , like a possession , but rather it's something one IS...

A body *in union* with a life-force , where each

without the other *dies* , or ceases to exist...

I realize this may be heresy to some , and wear

appropriately flame-proof garments , as a

reasonable precaution...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Will work for Bar Credit at The Brown Coat Pub and Theatre "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Calling them 'demons' was not a good idea...

Daemons, please... (the distinction works better on paper) - not quite the same thing.

If fireflyfans.net is running on Unix/Linux then you're talking to one now, by the way, No, not me - the HyperText Transfer Protocol Daemon on the webserver - the term is widely used in computing.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_%28mythology%29

for a lot more than you really want to know

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What was the logic the guards at the artic facility applied to the arrival of a strange girl out of nowhere?

Well, in the book (Not a big spoiler but technically a plot detail):

Select to view spoiler:

She's captured by local bandits who habitually catch children and sell them to the arctic facility

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:57 PM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Calling them 'demons' was not a good idea...

Daemons, please... (the distinction works better on paper) - not quite the same thing.

And technically, it should've been pronounced "day-mons."

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:06 PM

This never happened.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Calling them 'demons' was not a good idea...

Daemons, please... (the distinction works better on paper) - not quite the same thing.

And technically, it should've been pronounced "day-mons."

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

Demon and Daemon and Daimon are all just alternate spellings of the same word. Daimon is the Latin spelling of the original Greek (δαίμων). An older English spelling employing the use of the Old English letter “Ash” (æ), which has now become archaic, is Dæmon. Since the ash is no longer an actual English letter, the spelling is expanded to Daemon. The more modern spelling, droping the a, is Demon. The different spellings do not represent different words but simply the evolution of the word and also its meaning. The modern definition carries a far more negative and sinister denotation, because the word has been filtered through years of Christian culture, which did not accept the European pagan view of nature.

And I’m not pointing this out to be contrary - failing to recognize this, you might be missing an important aspect of the story, which is that the dogmatic teaching of the theocracy in the Golden Compass had “demonized” the souls of people. It’s an important point.

(Also the pronunciation of the ash was closest to the modern English pronunciation of the short a. So Dæmon would have been pronounced like 'dam·ən.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:

Well, in the book (Not a big spoiler but technically a plot detail):

Ahh. I see. And that indeed makes some sense. This would be where the writer of the screenplay could have stayed truer to the source material to yield a logical plot.

I was thinking more on the subject of this film just this morning and realized that the movie ran 1 hour 54 mins. That's about average to slightly short of average for movies I've seen these last few years. With a little more time, some better explainations for world events and characters could have been made. Even a 5 minute intro (think fellowship of the ring...or serenity) would have kept the movie under 2 hours and could have been used to explain gyptians, witches, and the magisterium in grander detail. I seem to recall that there was an intro...but it was very short. Maybe 45 seconds to a minute? And all it provided was a statement that many realitys exist and that people's souls in this reality are split into 2 halfs.

One intresting thing to come from this film has been the frequent conversations I've been hearing where people try to imagine what their animal companion might be. It seems to me that the Daemon is a reflection of a person's personality. I noticed that all the magesterium guards were adjacent to attack dogs.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
One intresting thing to come from this film has been the frequent conversations I've been hearing where people try to imagine what their animal companion might be. It seems to me that the Daemon is a reflection of a person's personality. I noticed that all the magesterium guards were adjacent to attack dogs.

They looked like Black wolves.

The whole souls on the outside thing is fascinating to me too.

There’s a test on the website that will tell you what your dæmon is.
http://www.goldencompassmovie.com/

Evidently, our dæmons are a chimp named Cimeo and a raccoon named Serena and mine is a lioness named Mandara. Wicked! Mine is a lion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

There’s a test on the website that will tell you what your dæmon is.
http://www.goldencompassmovie.com/

Interesting. My Daemon is a Tiger.

I am told I am responsible, sociable, and competitive. As well as modest and humble which seem synonyms to me.

My wife and I picked our own based on who we knew each other to be. Her's was an owl and mine a collie dog. My reasoning for the collie was similar to this sites placement of a tiger, except that I love dogs and the collie most closely expressed traits I know about myself. I think it's not possible for this site to place a specific breed of animal on a subject. Hence the generic "tiger".

I took the test again and answered all things opposite to determine my nemesis, which is a Gibbon.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:58 AM

SISTER

Thanks for posting this! My daemon is a snow leopard and my husband's is a tiger!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:10 PM

HKCAVALIER

Nice review, Finn. Just saw the movie last night. I liked it a lot, though the screenplay was pretty much a "greatest hits" treatment of the events in the novel, no real translation into film--just dramatization. I think a more talented director/writer team would have created a far more mysterious and omenous movie than we got. In the book, the whole "intercision" thing is really well handled--for the longest time you have absolutely no idea what's going on in the north, only that it is bad, bad, bad. In this movie the momentum of the story, the lack of quiet sections where dread can blossom, left the movie kinda flat in comparison to the novel.

Oh, and Finn, I believe you'll find that though the book starts out on a pretty juvanile tack, the story becomes tremendously sophisticated as it progresses through the three books. Much closer to a Le Guin, say, than a Rowling.

One thing they did get exactly right was the character of Lyra. The girl they cast was excellent. Well, the casting was pretty spot all around.

Oh, and I would have liked it if they'd pronounced the word differently. Call me a pedant but the spelling "daemon" always puts me in mind of Socrates inner voice which is a much pleasanter association than Dante's Inferno for this book.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 6:02 PM

GRIZWALD

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Like Transformers, this had multiple characters who existed only as CG effects. Unlike transformers, this movie actually made me care about said characters.

You didn't care about Bumblebee? (I cried when they tortured him. How pathetic am I?)

___________________________________________________
High Priestess of Pork and Ag-Related Activities of the MYTHICAL LAND OF IOWA

Click on my profile for my Annoyingly Long List of Firefly Links.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 2:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This never happened.

Finally seen the film - better than I was expecting, although having read the book several times probably filled in some of the blanks...

The business with Lyra just strolling up to the Arctic facility was because they changed the order of events somewhat. In the book:

Select to view spoiler:

After the Samoyeds raid the camp and drag off Lyra they take her to the experimental station and sell her to the gobblers. Things then proceed much as per the film (but in more detail) - except she blows up the station by the more practical method of going into the kitchen and turning the gas on. Cue the big battle - from which she escapes in the Texan's balloon. They then crash on Svalbard & she gets separated from the rest, and is captured by the bear-king's guards - cue her deception of the bear king and the big bear-fight.

...which also explains the minor plot-hole whereby Lyra is transported from Norway to the island (ahem!) of Svalbard on the back of a sled (and back again by Bear). Oh, and the gratuitous collapsing ice-bridge scene was grafted in from the final chapter of the book which got cut out of the movie at a late stage (and will presumably be grafted on to the sequel).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 8:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
...which also explains the minor plot-hole whereby Lyra is transported from Norway to the island (ahem!) of Svalbard on the back of a sled (and back again by Bear).

Well, to be fair it wasn’t really a plot hole, because the movie made a point of defining Svalbard as a valley not an island, or at least a continuous stretch of land or ice with Norway, so it was internally consistent, if not consistent with the book.

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Oh, and the gratuitous collapsing ice-bridge scene was grafted in from the final chapter of the book which got cut out of the movie at a late stage (and will presumably be grafted on to the sequel).

It occurs to me that the book’s ending is very open ended and dependent upon a sequel, which I don’t think the producers of the movie were relying on, so while they did leave the movie open with Lyra’s ending soliloquy, they also tried to make it a more closed story and less dependent on a sequel, which may or may not come.

Of course, I’m looking forward to the sequel, and hopefully it’ll be forthcoming.

I’ve not had the opportunity to read the book yet. Given the way the events in the movie were rearranged for dramatic purposes from the sequence in the book. I’m wondering what effect this had on the story. Was the gist of the story faithful? Or were important features of the story (a part from the obvious philosophical issues) altered?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
because the movie made a point of defining Svalbard as a valley not an island

Svalbard is a real place ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard) and is definitely not a day's sled-ride from Norway - and ISTR was correctly pointed out on a map in the movie.

Quote:
It occurs to me that the book’s ending is very open ended and dependent upon a sequel

I suspect they wanted a happier ending - can't really discuss that further without real spoilers for the book (and, presumably, the first reel of the next film) because there's a significant plot-twist involved. Apparently, the decision was made late (the proper ending has been filmed & bits of it were in the trailers) - which is a pity because otherwise they could have used the extra time to round out the first film a bit.

Quote:
I’m wondering what effect this had on the story. Was the gist of the story faithful? Or were important features of the story (a part from the obvious philosophical issues) altered?

Several events and characters were omitted and lots of minor details were changed (especially of the "who told who about what and when" variety) and one major chronological change was made (for understandable dramatic reasons - the book was more episodic) but overall I thought it was pretty faithful to the gist of the plot.

What's more, I felt that the philosophical issues were pretty much present and correct - just presented in a more allegorical way than in the book (which makes it explicit that the Magisterium is a quasi-Catholic church, that "the Authority" is God and what "dust" represents). If they could pull this off with the sequels it would be impressive (but tricky).

Hopefully, they'll just graft the original ending of Book 1 onto the start of film 2 (the second book is shorter and less of a challenge to cram into 2 hours - I wouldn't be surprised if they take in the first chapter or so of book 3). My cynical imagination worries that they might be planning a fairly heinous plot/character change - I hope I'm wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 5:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Guess I need to read the book, since some of the logic behind the movie's plot seemed a bit thin. Lyra seemed much too trusting of folks she just met at random.

It was a pleasant surprise to see Sam Elliott playing a Sam Elliott role right in the middle of a fantasy story.

So. If I'm the Ice Bear king and have a whole army of Ice Bear warriors who just live for battle, why do I not take them to the fight at the secret lab?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So. If I'm the Ice Bear king and have a whole army of Ice Bear warriors who just live for battle, why do I not take them to the fight at the secret lab?

See above notes re. the film playing around with the chronology.

Its funny how, if you suddenly change the order and geography of events in a carefully worked-out plot, even for good dramatic reasons, little details like that come back to haunt...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Guess I need to read the book, since some of the logic behind the movie's plot seemed a bit thin. Lyra seemed much too trusting of folks she just met at random.

This is a product of the way the movie progressed too fast. Star Wars had the same problem as it seems as if Luke sets out one morning in search of R2D2 and by night has destroyed the Death Star. Although Golden Compass was nearly that compacted it progressed entirely too fast for the time line to be completely believable.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It was a pleasant surprise to see Sam Elliott playing a Sam Elliott role right in the middle of a fantasy story.

I liked Elliot too. I thought the casting all around was pretty solid.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So. If I'm the Ice Bear king and have a whole army of Ice Bear warriors who just live for battle, why do I not take them to the fight at the secret lab?

I was pretty much thinking the same thing. I fully expected an army of Polar Bears to come over the snow dunes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:21 PM

Sequel to the Golden Compass seems to have been axed! That sucks. I was so looking forward to it.

Crap!!!

Quote:
Plans for a sequel to fantasy film The Golden Compass have reportedly been axed following a series of protests from the Catholic Church.

Scholars slammed the children's movie last year for being anti-God and anti-religion - and even officials at The Vatican stepped in to criticise the film, which stars Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman.

Now author Philip Pullman, who wrote the His Dark Materials trilogy the film was based on, has confirmed he has not been contacted over a follow-up, adding to industry speculation a second installment will not be made.

He says, "When the first film was in production, I was talking to the studio and to (writer/director) Chris Weitz and producers quite frequently. I'm sure I would be now if the sequel was in production."

But he admits he still has high hopes for another film: "I know everyone would like to see a sequel and I know I'd like to see it."

Film studio New Line Cinema is refusing to discuss the future of the trilogy.

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0263390/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:23 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I've seen it and read the book, myself.

While I agree with HKC's "greatest hits" comment, there's only so much you can do with the story when you have to cram it into a movies time frame, and alas that moviegoers don't have a bit more patience, cause 30-40 minutes more would have allowed them to carry the story better.

They did a pretty good job with what they had to work with, and the characterization and casting was absolutely excellent, particularly Sam Elliot - the way the book is written, I just could NOT see anyone else playing the part.

*checks website*

Gee, my Daemon is feline, who didn't see THAT coming ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA

That's funny, cause the Archbishop of Canterbury actually liked the film, and it's message about choosing what to believe based on it's affects on your world, rather than what people tell you.

I think they're being oversensitive - cause any belief can be taken to such extremes if people let it happen, that's half the lesson of the book, if you ask me.

My niece, a free-spirited, brick-headed, willful sort (gee, I dunno where she gets it from..) loved the book, and particularly Lyra, who's every bit as much a freakin barbarian as she is, lol.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:04 AM

I can’t say I blame them. If you’re putting a 100 million or 200 million into a project that might end up brushing a majority of people the wrong way, you might end up taking a big loss. It’s a financial thing. I can’t hold it against them, because I might not want to put the investment in either, but I really, really liked the first one and so did the girls. It’s just a shame.

I think you’re probably right about being oversensitive. Ultimately I think the number of people who would actually be offended is much, much smaller then the number of people identified as “Christian.” Somewhere there is someone making a broad generalization about Christians, but with 200 million on the line, it’s easy to spread those generalizations out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:49 AM

STORYMARK

A bit late to the conversation, but anyway...

I liked it. Having not read the book, it felt like there was a lot that just got skimmed over, without being fleshed-out. But it was very, very imaginative. I really liked that it was a fully realized alternative world, that didn't rely on the standard cliches that tend to come with fantasy settings.

My only real problem was with the end, which I felt was a total let down. I realize the intent was to continue the story in sequels, but even then, it felt unsatisfying.

Probably not a good idea to end such a big, expensive movie in such a way, when there is no garuntee of a continuation (ala Lord of the Rings). And since this was the film that drove the final nail into the coffin of New Line Cinema, a follow-up, while not strictly impossible, is rather unlikely.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
And since this was the film that drove the final nail into the coffin of New Line Cinema, a follow-up, while not strictly impossible, is rather unlikely.

Yanno... to a browncoat, them's almost fightin words.

They said the same about our BDM as I recall, so while not *likely*, no... I would not set it out of the realm of possibility entire.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty"

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 24, 2008 7:59 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
And since this was the film that drove the final nail into the coffin of New Line Cinema, a follow-up, while not strictly impossible, is rather unlikely.

Yanno... to a browncoat, them's almost fightin words.

They said the same about our BDM as I recall, so while not *likely*, no... I would not set it out of the realm of possibility entire.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty"

-F

That's why I said, it's not impossible.

There has been talk of selling off the rights, most likely to a foreign film company, since the movie did better overseas than here, where is was pretty much a total bomb, financially speaking.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:45 AM