Anyone seen it? Whats it like? Worth watching? :)
TIA ;)
yes, OK, sort of.
about sums it up. :/
I was gonna watch it last night because the controversy (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp) surrounding it caught my eye.
I stayed in and watched a film called Idiocracy (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Idiocracy-Luke-Wilson/dp/B000N3T2CQ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1198015066&sr=8-1) instead. Twice.
I say golden compass last night, its really good.
Going to see I am legend tonight.
Very disappointing imo. Ive read the book (and the others in the trilogy) and they were really good but the film just seemed to drag on. Was really boring for the first three quarters.
Quote from: sdpI was gonna watch it last night because the controversy surrounding it caught my eye.
mmm, thats a load of balls
saw the film, it was ok, worth going to the cinima for imo.
(which i dont think a lot of films are these days, would reather just d/l them at watch at home!)
Thats because you need friends for the cinema alan :p
strange, it scared Krystal, but the Resident Evil films (18s) didnt.
Spoiler next.
Leila loved it, the bear fight to be King, was her favorite bit.
Quote from: SamThats because you need friends for the cinema alan :p
ahhh, you forgot about brian !
lol :whoops:
Quote from: Privateerstrange, it scared Krystal, but the Resident Evil films (18s) didnt.
Spoiler next.
Leila loved it, the bear fight to be King, was her favorite bit.
Finally got a copy on DVD. The problem seems to be its rather like expecting a three course meal and getting a packet of popcorn with some popping candy thrown in. Initially nothing much seems to happen and then its all over and you are left wondering WTF happened? TBH its a bit like my relationships with women :/
Thought it was utter rubbish to be honest, by far the worst film Ive seen recently.
I really enjoyed the books and found the film a bit disapointing, could of been alot better.
Quote from: Chris HThought it was utter rubbish to be honest, by far the worst film Ive seen recently.
:stupid:
Quote from: sdpQuote from: Chris HThought it was utter rubbish to be honest, by far the worst film Ive seen recently.
:stupid:
It is not a mega bad film but it was flat and bland really. You can tell they went through the book an said "we must put this bit in" and basically felt like chunks of a story put in some sort of order and put into a movie with no real flow through them which stands out when a character appears says a bit and then buggers off to only appear in another scene and supposedly making sense to be there. It all does not really work
I thought it was excellent.
Quote from: sdpQuote from: Chris HThought it was utter rubbish to be honest, by far the worst film Ive seen recently.
:stupid:
Ah yes. I have a different opinion to you so Im stupid. Gods love the interweb!
Quote from: neXusQuote from: sdpQuote from: Chris HThought it was utter rubbish to be honest, by far the worst film Ive seen recently.
:stupid:
It is not a mega bad film but it was flat and bland really. You can tell they went through the book an said "we must put this bit in" and basically felt like chunks of a story put in some sort of order and put into a movie with no real flow through them which stands out when a character appears says a bit and then buggers off to only appear in another scene and supposedly making sense to be there. It all does not really work
What I was going on about.
Quote from: SamI thought it was excellent.
Graphically it was, as a film it lacked continuity. It should have been at least 30 mins longer, or have been a TV series.
The fact they chopped and changed parts to shorten it didnt help it.
The book is very indepth and trying to lighten it to make a 2 hour film just doesnt work.
They made a very beautiful film, but overall I was unimpressed.
Quote from: Chris HQuote from: sdpQuote from: Chris HThought it was utter rubbish to be honest, by far the worst film Ive seen recently.
:stupid:
Ah yes. I have a different opinion to you so Im stupid. Gods love the interweb!
wot?
Chris, that smilie is used to indicate someone is agreeing with you totally, it doesnt indicate that they are saying you are stupid :lol:
Quote from: SweensterThe fact they chopped and changed parts to shorten it didnt help it.
The book is very indepth and trying to lighten it to make a 2 hour film just doesnt work.
They made a very beautiful film, but overall I was unimpressed.
Spoilers below I suppose:
I didnt like the way they changed certain things for the children, the boy they find hugging a fish becuase he has lost his daemon and then dies (in the book) is all ok in the film, that part is important as it shows just how bad what they are doing is. The end where she betrays her best friend to get killed isnt in there, if they dont add that at the start of the next one they are really f**king with the story.
There are other things which I cant think of at the moment which annoyed me.
Why do people get annoyed if a film isnt a mirror copy of a book? They are completely different mediums, judge each on its own merits.
Its not that it wasnt a copy of the book its the fact it missed key things from the book which direct the rest of the story.
Quote from: SamWhy do people get annoyed if a film isnt a mirror copy of a book? They are completely different mediums, judge each on its own merits.
Has nothing to do with it, it has to be a good representation of something and if it is following the book be right about it or it will be a bad film and if it is based on a book it has to be a good movie. This is not tbh.
All they have done is gone through the books and formed a check list of things they must do "bear must fight king, bear hurts paw, bear kills king) and basically gone through the check list to tick them off in the scenes and have a very stale in between because its just padding for these key bits of the book and not the story and not a film either.
Like the movies or no the harry potter movies are faithfully following the books and the story, the full versions of the Lord of the rings, again faithfully follow the books and have the full picture as it were. The Bourne movies are only based on the books and the concept of the story and character but faithfully replicate what the books offer and produce a good story and thus movie.
The Golden Compass is a nice looking movie, good cast and good aspects so not a totally crap movie but its far from a good one and rightly got slated.
Quote from: DoomsIts not that it wasnt a copy of the book its the fact it missed key things from the book which direct the rest of the story.
Its a /different/ story based another story with the same name. If you go along like that you wont get upset.
Quote from: SamQuote from: DoomsIts not that it wasnt a copy of the book its the fact it missed key things from the book which direct the rest of the story.
Its a /different/ story based another story with the same name. If you go along like that you wont get upset.
But its not, lol.
Edit to be more clear the book you know of as Northern Lights here was called the Golden Compass in the US hence the movie title, and this film is based on the novel and one of a trilogy and will have 2 more movies made respectively. It was announced as a film series following the story of the books just as other fantasy adaptations. The big thing that really kills it is the fact the you have the races and beleafs which is shown in the movie but they stripped all the religious elements completely from it the be politically correct but in doing so created the foundation of the stale nature of the film and as I said all you are left with is a check list written film.
Oh and while the original scripts had that element missing they had a lot of what is missing in the film compared to the book but money and the big wigs in the chairs basically killed the movie
indeed stripping it of the religious element is prob wont dumbed it all down. Im curious how they are going to betray the angels etc.
Quote from: Doomsindeed stripping it of the religious element is prob wont dumbed it all down. Im curious how they are going to betray the angels etc.
Well going on how the witches become nothing more then a stale visual half presence rather then representing them as the mystical element they are in the book, not good unless they learn from their mistakes.
Problem is there seem to be a lot of talk of a number of actors not returning for the other movies now as an actor 2/3 slashed movies to your name or a whole series especially if your name is like Kidman etc will not go down well with them.
Quote from: neXusQuote from: SamQuote from: DoomsIts not that it wasnt a copy of the book its the fact it missed key things from the book which direct the rest of the story.
Its a /different/ story based another story with the same name. If you go along like that you wont get upset.
But its not, lol.
Edit to be more clear the book you know of as Northern Lights here was called the Golden Compass in the US hence the movie title, and this film is based on the novel and one of a trilogy and will have 2 more movies made respectively. It was announced as a film series following the story of the books just as other fantasy adaptations. The big thing that really kills it is the fact the you have the races and beleafs which is shown in the movie but they stripped all the religious elements completely from it the be politically correct but in doing so created the foundation of the stale nature of the film and as I said all you are left with is a check list written film.
Oh and while the original scripts had that element missing they had a lot of what is missing in the film compared to the book but money and the big wigs in the chairs basically killed the movie
You misunderstand my point. If someone wants to base a film on a book they are totally free to do it exactly the same or intrepret it their own way. Its another story told on a different medium. They make decisions which they think will make the story better when on film instead of in print. They might not necessarily get that right of course. But seriously dont get upset cos they changed the story a bit. I enjoyed GC for what it is.
Quote from: SeriousChris, that smilie is used to indicate someone is agreeing with you totally, it doesnt indicate that they are saying you are stupid :lol:
I dont understand how a sign saying "Im with stupid" and an arrow pointing at the above poster actually means "I agree with you".
Now
that confuses me greatly.
"Im with stupid" as in Im in his camp, Im with him. The stupid part is just for fun :D
Quote from: Chris HQuote from: SeriousChris, that smilie is used to indicate someone is agreeing with you totally, it doesnt indicate that they are saying you are stupid :lol:
I dont understand how a sign saying "Im with stupid" and an arrow pointing at the above poster actually means "I agree with you".
Now that confuses me greatly.
I could use the smiley again here but Im not going to since that will cause even more confusion.
I always do a double take when someone uses that smiley to mean "I agree with you", but it does seem to be the generally accepted use on this forum.
That means Ive been completely misinterpreting every single time someone has used that in the past.
And I still dont get it to be completely honest. :drama:
Would it make you feel better if there was a "Im with clever clogs" emoticon as well?
mmm just realised that the first line of my previous post could also be mis-interpreted as saying that Chris H is stupid, which wasnt what I meant either!
damn this thread is getting confusing.
:stupid:
Couldnt resist
Quote from: Mongoosemmm just realised that the first line of my previous post could also be mis-interpreted as saying that Chris H is stupid, which wasnt what I meant either!
damn this thread is getting confusing.
No no, I never took it that way, because if you used it that way it would be correct because I am stupid (apparently) for not understanding that "Im with stupid" means "I agree with you". Well, correct from the way I think it should be used anyway. From now on Im going to use wholly inappropriate smilies to evolve this trend further.
QuoteRandom Poster: I have testicular cancer
Me : :rofl: :cheers:
(http://www.zpyder.co.uk/emots/withim.gif)
Hey presto. No more problem.
Quote from: Chris HQuote from: Mongoosemmm just realised that the first line of my previous post could also be mis-interpreted as saying that Chris H is stupid, which wasnt what I meant either!
damn this thread is getting confusing.
No no, I never took it that way, because if you used it that way it would be correct because I am stupid (apparently) for not understanding that "Im with stupid" means "I agree with you". Well, correct from the way I think it should be used anyway. From now on Im going to use wholly inappropriate smilies to evolve this trend further.
QuoteRandom Poster: I have testicular cancer
Me : :rofl: :cheers:
lol sorry for any offense, stupid :P
Sok :)
Oh and :stupid: