Posted on 12/08/2007 6:17:51 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
No one in Hollywood quite knows where "The Golden Compass" is pointing, though it appears to be south of blockbuster status.
...Unlike "Narnia" or the "Rings" and "Potter" movies, most of which hauled in more than $60 million in their first three days, "Compass" may open in the $30-million neighborhood, or worse, according to market analysts.
[Yet] it's unlikely to spell financial catastrophe for New Line.
The studio admits to a production price of $180 million, though some industry insiders believe the true cost soared past $200 million...
Even so, the film was cofinanced by Royal Bank of Scotland, and British tax incentives and presales of foreign distribution rights covered about two-thirds of the production cost, New Line says. The deals may limit New Line's risk, but also cap its upside: Fantasy films usually take in the majority of their ticket sales abroad, and "The Golden Compass" is off to a jolly good start in Britain, where it opened Wednesday.
If the film becomes a hit, the studio will launch two sequels based on Pullman's series. That remains a big "if" ...New Line says it will wait to see how "Compass" performs before deciding on the follow-ups.
Reviewers have been dazzled by the effects, but many are underwhelmed by the story. The review compendium website MetaCritic.com listed 50% of notices as positive, while rival RottenTomatoes.com reported 47% were bullish.
Another headache for New Line is the ire Pullman's books have whipped up among some religious groups.
But the ruckus may actually end up boosting the movie, said Karen Covell, director of the Hollywood Prayer Network. "The more riled up everybody becomes, the more publicity the movie gets," she said. "It just ends up helping at the box office."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
When the Temperance League gets their knickers in a twist because a movie has nekkid ladies or foul language, it is great for the box office. However, when a movie is accurately identified as part of a stealth campaign to promote atheism to children, there is no upside to that controversy.
During the time I tracked Bella, there was a movie that had $6000 per screen per day.
This film only had $2500 per screen per day.
This film has had big bucks marketing, as I have seen previews of it when I saw Bella at the theater.
On the other hand, Bella was a word of mouth movie -- no big bucks marketing, but it did the dollars per screen per day as this BIG, BIG, BIG BUDGET FILM.
If I had put up $140 million, I would be really worried right now... At least for US Sales...
From the article:
The studio admits to a production price of $180 million, though some industry insiders believe the true cost soared past $200 million...
Ouch! Those British people must want to socialize the Movie Business by guaranteeing some of the monies.
Still, this movie might only make $300 million, and then the movie theaters, distributors get their cuts... It might be a marginal winner at the boxoffice or only lose about $50 million...
What is $50 million to people who hate Christians??? [Sorry, I couldn't resist]
He’s not out to threaten my faith. But, he writes childrens’ books and hopes to make them question what they are being taught. If your response is that I, as a parent, ought to be able to counter that kind of thing, well, maybe so. But, why would I want to support someone who has stated that that is his very mission with this series of book. He has said that he kept things light in the first book to hook them in, and by the third book, he hopes they’re right there with him when his characters “kill God.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23371-2001Feb18?
There’s a difference between entertainment and propaganda. While the first amendment allows Philip Pullman to write anti-Christian propaganda, that doesn’t mean anyone has to be sorry that his propaganda fails to achieve it purpose and reach his intended audience.
I really don’t care if my kids see this movie years from now. So long as they’re mature enough to know when they’re being fed propaganda.
But the odds that they’re going to be seeing this fluff are about slim/none, anyway. With Narnia and LOTR available, why would anyone remember this particular film, at least from the word of mouth so far?
“but the Talking Polar Bear bit is becoming a touch trite to the average movie goer IMO”
You think? Disney has been churning out talking animal animations for decades with remarkable success. I guess you’re referring more to CGI, though.
Stories are powerful. Even if you view the Koran as mere fiction, it has moved billions of people --- as has the Bible. What Pullman has here is not an "argument" for atheism, but a counter-Scripture wrapped in narrative power, vivid color, attractive characterization, and emotional arousal. He's not making a dry rational argument in support of a nullity ("There is no God"), but making a seductive counter-story to the effect that Faith is evil, Churches are villainous, Sin is good, and God ought to be killed. A creative, imaginative fantasy. Fine. I'm not giving him a dime. It's as harmless as "The Triumph of the Will" or "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
I think CGI has turned a corner, and people are more mature about it, now. We have all seen talking Polar Bears, who look like real polar bears who are really talking. The “Gee Wiz” factor is smaller than it once was.
Now we are interested in what the Polar Bear is saying...
Saw a preview for Prince Caspian. It has blockbuster written all over it.
If the controversy is over nudity or debauchery, people who want to see nudity and debauchery, which is many, many people, will see the controversy and decide that they want to see the film. They can even delude themselves into thinking that they are "just seeing what all the fuss is about", so they have a high-minded reason to be watching the nudity and the debauchery.
However, if the controversy is over somebody trying to promote atheism and nihilism to children, in order for the controversy to result in ticket sales, you have to have parents reacting that they want to see what all this atheism and nihilism is about, and show it to their children as well. This just isn't going to happen.
On a strategic level, I think this film made a huge mistake. They should have gone for full-frontal offensive, and had Nicole Kidman parading around in the nude and give Daniel Craig an incurable potty-mouth. Maybe they could have made the Polar Bear a meth addict, as well. That way, when people were outraged by the anti-religious implications of the source material, they could have pretended that they were really outraged at the fact that the lovely Ms. Kidman is parading around with no clothes. The result would have been boffo box office numbers.
True, but a quick comparative analysis against other movies using a daily breakdown would show that 8 million isn't really all that great. It would trend towards a 40 million yield after 30 days, if word of mouth doesn't drive off any further attendance, which it very well could.
I used boxofficemojo to arrive at the same assessment.
You can review "Daily Box Office" to set up any comparison you'd like and see where it leads the numbers. Handy tool, to be sure.
So much for estimates of 30-40 million, looks like 26 if they are lucky.
Thanks for da ping. I like good news such as this. May it tank further.
Thanks for the heads-up! LOL! America won’t pay for crap that tries to teach our kids that God is evil ping! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.