AmericanPapist Comments
The Pittsburgh Catholic had a long, front page article about the Golden Compass, entitled:
'Golden Compass' part of a complex anti-Catholic trilogy
An excerpt: "While these books are at points well-written --"The Golden Compass" is truly an achievement -- their overt brutality and anti-Christian and anti-Catholic themes should give parents pause. The darkness and brutality of the series -- which make "Harry Potter" seem like "Dick and Jane" -- is far from what most parents would think suitable for young children. The anti-Christian and anti-Catholic themes make them unsuitable for older ones as well."
Needless to say, there was no mention of the USCCB review.
Your last point, Thomas, is the most salient. Not only was the review an open endorsement of blasphemy, but it was an endorsement of poor taste, quality, execution, and story-telling.
If that does not get the reviewer fired, I do not know what should.
Thom,
I think you've got a new member for your "For Shame" list.
I've been wondering if the National Secularist Society is in need of a couple of movie reviewers. After all, if the USCCB reviewers are going to based their analysis on what is "purely cinematic", then the USCCB doesn't need them. Rather, Catholics and Catholic parents with children who read these reviews and try to trust them in their decisions to see or not see a movie, need someone who is going to guide them properly in a Catholic sense.
Even if a movie is not anti-Catholic or anti-religion, it does not make for good Catholic viewing. Most movies today are full of offensive content, yet relativism rears it's awful head when we dismiss them as disagreeable, but watchable.
Quote:
I think you've got a new member for your "For Shame" list.
Actually, I would say two new members: (1) the USCCB reviewer or reviewers, and (2) the folks at New Line Cinema who put out the deceptive ads.
I say any advertisement claiming the movie was at all good can be qualified as "misleading".
According to Box Office Mojo, GC was the number one movie of the weekend but it was "the least attended early December frame in 13 years." And that, unlike LOTR and Narnia series, the books which formed the basis of the GC were "not nearly as culturally substantial."
On the other hand, Juno by Fox Searchlight pictures got $413,869 last weekend despite playing at a mere seven sites.
Compare this with the 3,528 sites (that is 5,600 screens) used for the Golden Compass.
Let us suppose that Juno had as wide a release as GC last weekend. Juno comes up to $59,124/1 site.* Multiply by 3,528 and we get $208,589,976. This would have been enough to cover the $180 million cost of making The Golden Compass (have you noticed how that little production cost figure has been climbing over the weekend? I suspect somebody had to really pull teeth to get to the real numbers) with a net profit of about $28-29 million.
In order to make a profit last weekend, New Line Cinema should have:
A) Purchased the rights to Juno (add production budget of $20,000 to GC's $180 million and you still can spend up to $27 million on the rights and still rake in about one million in profits).
B) Bury all their copies of Golden Compass in the desert (next to the legendary stash of Atari 2600 games)
C) Show Juno in all the theaters that would have otherwise shown GC.
*For the record, GC garnered $7,313 per site.
Hey, Hollywood! Still think all publicity is good publicity?!
Source:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/new...?id=2431&
p=.htm
"... unlike LOTR and Narnia series, the books which formed the basis of the GC were "not nearly as culturally substantial." "
Now that is definitely true.
I haven't read the Pullman books and I haven't seen GC, and I have no intention of doing either one. Both of these fall into the "I have better things to do with my time, my energy and my intellect than bother with these things" category.
Now, as far as the LOTR series -- and comparisons between it and GC -- are concerned, there are these thoughts to consider:
1. One series was written by a true believer and a Catholic, who professed his faith to the day he died and imbued his writings with Christian values; its film versions went on to collectively gross more than $2 Billion around the world, won a slew of awards from just about every major award-giving body, and was hailed by critics and fans alike.
2. The other series was written by a professed atheist who seems determined to attack the Christian faith, starting with the faith of young people; the film version of the first book registered -- thus far -- a lackluster performance at the movies, has thus far been panned by the critics, and may well be pushed into oblivion by the forthcoming second installment of the Narnia trilogy -- itself written by a Christian.
Methinks the premise of the books on which the films were based definitely made all the difference, to begin with. And thank God people seem to know better than to be taken in by people like Pullman, whose view of life, in my opinion, seems tinged with bitterness.
I wonder what kind of contract Pullman entered into when he signed over the rights to the movie. Was he counting on the royalties? Will he be hard hit by its poor performance?
I have heard a number of rumors from the industry regarding New Line ranging from heads rolling to the studio itself going bankrupt.
Though I am grateful for LOTR, I cannot say I share much sympathy for their current financial strife.
Roger Ebert:
"The Golden Compass" is a darker, deeper fantasy epic than the "Rings" trilogy, "The Chronicles of Narnia" or the "Potter" films. It springs from the same British world of quasi-philosophical magic, but creates more complex villains and poses more intriguing questions. As a visual experience, it is superb. As an escapist fantasy, it is challenging.
Commenting by HaloScan
