Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

THE GOLDEN COMPASS Trailer Finds Its Way To Glorious QuickTime!! It's Pretty Damn Nifty!!

FIRST! by mattthebat	May 21st, 2007 05:39:55 PM
GREAT SUCCESS
I have no idea... by Leafy McPlantsalot	May 21st, 2007 05:43:53 PM
I have no idea what this movie is about but now I absolutely have to see it just because Craig and green are together again. Stupid fantastic casino royale.
THIRD!!! by Leafy McPlantsalot	May 21st, 2007 05:44:14 PM
it comes after second
Fourth? by roachy	May 21st, 2007 05:46:27 PM
'Four' rhymes with 'whore', you know.
is every prolific child actor gonna be named Dakota? by BadMrWonka	May 21st, 2007 05:48:44 PM
I guess the kid from the 6th sense should have changed his name and laid off the booze...
I have these books all in audio format. by Led Gopher	May 21st, 2007 05:49:07 PM
I really should make a point of listening to them sometime before the movie comes out.
wow by kwisatzhaderach	May 21st, 2007 05:50:58 PM
well, count me in...looks damn impressive. Talking polar bears, great cinematography, Nicole Kidman, Eva Green and James Bond. I'm sold.
Not too shabby by Kromag	May 21st, 2007 05:51:36 PM
Smart trying to tie this trilogy into New Line's undisputed LotR success...although that is a lot to live up to.
Gawddamn by the_pissboy1	May 21st, 2007 05:59:00 PM
That trailer seems to reveal that they nailed the book's atmosphere. And seeing Iorek in action...yummy.
Not bad by Cobbio	May 21st, 2007 06:02:25 PM
Looks great, but didn't give me much in the way of feeling it. Sort of an eye candy trailer and not much else. But that's cool. Maybe the "feeling it" trailer will come later. I'm excited for this film.
I absolutely HATE everything about this trailer by jimmy_009	May 21st, 2007 06:04:20 PM
First off, milking Lord of the Rings success as if it has anything to do with this movies. Tacky. The fact that it looks like a direct ripoff of Harry Potter, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, A Series of Unfortunate Events, and any of the countless other books and movies where dirigibles and clockwork mechanics are used as a 'cool and unique' style. Everything about this seems like a ripoff of something else. And finally, as someone mentioned above, I absolutely hate the uber-trendy name of Dakota. It ranks up there with Mckenzie, McKayla, and Conner as the worst yuppie piece of crap names for this generations spoiled A-hole kids. So in sumation, this looks like a total waste of time.
Sometimes there's a man. by mrsinister7381	May 21st, 2007 06:04:57 PM
SAM ELLIOTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "I like your style, Bear. But do ya hafta use so many cuss words?"
Oh, but I did like that it was in Quicktime. by jimmy_009	May 21st, 2007 06:07:41 PM
Please, movie studios, if you want people to get excited about your trailer, just release the damn thing in Quicktime instead of gutter software like Realplayer.
So it looks cool but by njdet	May 21st, 2007 06:08:19 PM
..will it be titled Northern Lights in territories outside the U.S. ?
From the studio which brought you Lord of the Rings by Vicenzo	May 21st, 2007 06:19:38 PM
come an atrocity which combines bad acting, writing and visual effects into one hideous, stinking package. Count me out, motherfuckers.
Did they drop "His Dark Materials" from the title? by Dannychico	May 21st, 2007 06:20:23 PM
If so, how will people know that "The Subtle Knife" is a sequel when it comes out?
Move Voice Guy... by jimmy_009	May 21st, 2007 06:22:52 PM
...makes like 6 million a year. I think he'll be ok.
er... by jimmy_009	May 21st, 2007 06:23:19 PM
Movie Voice Guy I mean.
Promising, as long as they haven't gutted it by Mgmax	May 21st, 2007 06:25:41 PM
I notice that while we saw a couple of the soul-animals (forget what they're called), that stuff was religiously (so to speak) kept out of the trailer. Hopefully it's not too softened from the books (which I think are too dark and unpleasant for kids, but well done as fantasy lit).
Did not think Weitz had it in him by hktelemacher	May 21st, 2007 06:25:42 PM
Based on the trailer, which at least bodes well but who knows, I'm pleasantly surprised. Looks cool.
Is the music in the trailer from something else? by agentf1	May 21st, 2007 06:26:34 PM
Was the music used in the trailer lifted from another soundtrack (as is often the case with early trailers like this)? If so, what? I agree, the Lord of the Rings thing was completely unnecessary. The visuals in that film alone would sell it. Instead of using the LotR crutch, maybe they should have focused more on the fact that it is based on a series of books. Maybe this is New Line's way of trying to cash in on LotR while they still hold the license... (we can do other things besides LotR without Peter Jackson) :)
From the studio being sued by the director... by Mgmax	May 21st, 2007 06:27:03 PM
...of Lord of the Rings!
Holst - the Planets by Kizeesh	May 21st, 2007 06:28:59 PM
It's mars isnt it or am I way off?
Is that the bear... by ABVH	May 21st, 2007 06:34:02 PM
from C.Cola commercial
i.e. "the look" by Robur Limax	May 21st, 2007 06:35:58 PM
I hope Merrick was joking when he said that because I'm sure John Q Public knows what visual style is. The trailer looked nice but didn't really grab my attention.
Jimmy 009 by Iamagoodguy	May 21st, 2007 06:36:19 PM
You are a whinging whining cocksmoker. "I don't like this or that for some stupid arse reason. Ddude chill out and just enjoy stuff, most things are not gonna be exactly to your liking but christ just take it easy don't hate shit for some half arsed know it all reason.
@ agentf1 by Norman Bates	May 21st, 2007 06:38:14 PM
Kizeesh was right when he said the music is Holst's "The Planets: Mars" I will also point out the track the plays when we first see the world/city, is from Lady in the Water by James Newton Howard.
Iamagoodguy: by Playkins	May 21st, 2007 06:38:40 PM
Well said.
Iamgoodguy and Playkins by jimmy_009	May 21st, 2007 06:43:45 PM
Cry me a river. I'm entitled to an opinion and this is Internet, where people can post their opinions whether you like it or not. A "Whinging whining cocksmoker"? Very smart. Sorry if this is your favorite book or something, I must have touches a nerve.
actually that looks pretty good: by newc0253	May 21st, 2007 06:45:43 PM
the airship landing in Tom Quad, the Edwardian-modernist London, the daemons, Daniel Craig and hot, hot flying Eva Green. It captures the visual tone of the first book perfectly. The trailer had me, at least right up until the polar bear started talking, although - were i Peter Jackson or the Tolkien estate - i'd be pissed that they're pimping this series on the back of LOTR. I always thought the first book would make a great film. But it's kinda sad watching it knowing what a train wreck the final book is. But with any luck, this will be one of those film adaptations that improves/ameliorates the flaws of the books.
You know.... by Playkins	May 21st, 2007 06:46:39 PM
...sometimes I wish that movies would just stop being made altogether for like 5 years so all the morons that complain about everything would realize just how good they had it with today's films. Generally, they are more engaging, visually stunning, better written and photographed than a lot (certainly not all) of the movies from the last decade.
Its a decent trailer but by Kizeesh	May 21st, 2007 06:46:46 PM
Its a decent trailer but I've seen far better. The first LOTR springs to mind, that truly had your heart thudding in your chest by the end of it. This trailer peters out about 2/3rds of the way through and dies on its ass at the end with the VO from "the younger higher-pitched voice-over guy" Still it's an adventure that relies mainly on sneaking about rather than high action, and I think they're saving the polar bear shots till they've had more work. tbh I thought that Iorek looks horribly CGI, real polar bears are more fluffy.
I'm crying... by lookleft	May 21st, 2007 06:49:22 PM
Looks insanely cool. But the bear is nowhere near big enough.
Christopher Walken for the Comedian, anyone? by Keo	May 21st, 2007 06:52:17 PM
Anyone?
Sigh... by groorgman	May 21st, 2007 06:57:13 PM
I'm not so sure I can handle another "epic journey".
I thought I heard Gladiator at the end.... by seanny_d	May 21st, 2007 06:59:58 PM
but from my understanding that was heavily ripped off from Holst's Mars anyway (which I've never heard), so maybe it was in fact Mars.
Cool and all... by Durendal	May 21st, 2007 07:06:54 PM
But having not read the books, I'm left wondering just what the hell this movie is about. We get some kind of funky fantasy/quasi-futuristic setting, talk of trans-dimensional travel, chosen child, witches, talking polar bears...but nothing that really seems to tie any of it together. It's pretty safe to assume that future trailers will at least give the audience a little more info on what it's all about, but this one has me scratching my head.
Gag. Let's not relive the tragedy of Narnia! by xreticent	May 21st, 2007 07:07:37 PM
I haven't felt this bored with a trailer since The Chronicles of Narnia polluted screens back in December of 2005. (how that film EVER won an oscar will forever haunt me) Truly, 'Chronicles' was miserable, uninspired, bore. From the looks of it, 'Golden Compass' seems to be the sequel. Below average effects, poor writing, sloppy direction.... etc! NOT TOO MENTION the never ending uncomfortable feeling where the film limbos between child film/pg 13 drama/R war epic (something FEW FILMS can accomplish, LOTR being one of the most recent). But in the end, I will see this, as I did Narnia in the theater. Only this time i hope not to fall asleep as frequently as I did while visiting the 'Wardrobe'...
I tuned out when the polar bear started talking... by blackmantis	May 21st, 2007 07:08:05 PM
Looks very Narnia, and not in a good way. Didn't really do much for me.
To Playkins by Hellboy_88	May 21st, 2007 07:08:13 PM
Sometimes I wish that all the defenders of films today would go rent a truckload of movies from the 70's and 80's and see how lucky WE were. They were actually made by people who knew how to direct, write, and light! Cameras didn't swirl around in ridiculous shots to wow us. Instead they relied on character and story. FX were believable and didn't rely on the CG crutch. We ARE lucky that we live in a time where there is so much material to bring to the screen, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any real talent left out there to do it.
re: Hellboy_88 by xreticent	May 21st, 2007 07:14:08 PM
AMEN. Both times have it good for different reasons. All times for that matter for a hundred reasons. There's not period of film that came without it's flaws or left without a staple. Forever may we be treated to filM!
seanny_d by Norman Bates	May 21st, 2007 07:16:14 PM
The last 5 seconds of music in the trailer are from Gladiator. The opening of the trailer is Mars.
Yup, it's Mars by Holst. by TELF	May 21st, 2007 07:16:41 PM
Best. Music. Ever.
Agreed Hellboy by jimmy_009	May 21st, 2007 07:19:43 PM
And also I think people that call others morons because they aren't excited about some 'been there done that' trailer are in fact themselves giant douchebags. Let others have their opinions A-hole.
Return To Oz by georges garvaren	May 21st, 2007 07:23:21 PM
will be better, but I'll see this one none-the-less.
No RR doing Barbarella news here? by blackmantis	May 21st, 2007 07:25:19 PM
I thought Harry's would get this scoop first, unless it was here weeks ago and I didn't see it. Why he would take on this dumb project I have no idea.
Gladiator Music at the end... by Hyphin	May 21st, 2007 07:28:12 PM
...Thinking about it, I find that I SHOULD feel insulted, but I actually really like it's usage. Very Cool. Someone up there commented on how this may be another Narnia fiasco. I really don't think this will go there. This question may be aimed at the people who know the books, but doesn't it feel more RIGHT, compared to how we felt with the Narnia trailer when it came out. I also like the visual style. It really keeps with the story actually. Also, give that bear a chance Blackmantis. I dont generally like talking animals. Really. But this one might surprise you.
Period movie + Talking animals = Sucking Lame squared by Power_Girl	May 21st, 2007 07:29:41 PM
I hate period fantasy and talking animals...so gay!
This movie looks beautiful. by Jonny_Dr_Thunder	May 21st, 2007 07:33:02 PM
Really interesting cast, seemingly great action and for one of the first times EVER, I completely agree with Merrick about this visual style. It's gorgeous to look at! Bring it on Daniel Craig!!
Except for Eva Green's FLYING CLEAVAGE.... by Cinemajerk	May 21st, 2007 07:57:22 PM
This movie looks like another LAME digital filled bore fest. I am sorry. Digital animals suck. Digital effects should be used sparingly like in Children of Men. Poke my eyes out with digital needles already! But first let me oggle Eva's cleavage once again. :-)
Babe is one of my favorite movies... by blackmantis	May 21st, 2007 08:00:32 PM
...but the animals talk to each other, not to humans. In the preface to the new Making of Star Wars book, Peter Jackson talks about how people think because you're doing fantasy you can go crazy and do anything, but the reverse is true. When you do fantasy you have to do as much as you can to anchor it in reality or the audience doesn't buy it.
lady in the water soundtrack is the best part.. by Director17	May 21st, 2007 08:01:28 PM
and do the effects really look that amazing? I don't think so. Perhaps its cause i didnt watch the hd version...or that I never read the books and dont care about the story. Either way i dont think it looks that great.
Hellboy_88 & jimmy_009: by Playkins	May 21st, 2007 08:14:04 PM
Gee, you've pretty much agreed with me haven't you? I said the LAST DECADE. The nineties were, IMHO a dark time for cinema with very few bright spots. You're right, the films of the late seventies and early eighties were a golden era, but don't be too quick to dismiss CG. You simply can't convince me that other than the lost art of mattepainting that VFX were any better back then. Perhaps CG is overused today, but the quality of well-done effects FAR surpasses optically-composited shots from way back when. You ought to make sure you let yourself see through the shiny gloss of nostalgia. And Jimmy, anyone that dismisses a movie based on the trailer is, in my opinion, a moron.
The Chronicle Of Nardia's Golden Compass by Riley Martin	May 21st, 2007 08:15:30 PM
That final shot of the CGI polar bear running....so beautiful I cried.
Eva Green looks like heaven!!!!!!!!!!!! by ludmir88	May 21st, 2007 08:21:30 PM
but the bear needs more work and the other deamons too!!!!!!!!. Again moviegoers will become experts about this book like they did with LOTR and Narnia despite they didn't knew shit about it until the movies were announced. Lame. The same thing will happen with the Spiderwick Chronicles and so on, son on.... Lame again!!!!
3 Seconds have loaded, and I already hate it by Dapper Swindler	May 21st, 2007 08:25:25 PM
The very, very, first thing it does... is associate itself with LOTR. Hey remember those movies? Weren't they good? You should see this one, cuz it's like it! And then, yet another trailer that utilizes Holst for the score.
Might have heard Mars from something else by Falcon5768	May 21st, 2007 08:46:28 PM
Mars is also the opening song to the video game escape velocity nova, for those gamers out there.
Cold by Fing Fang Foom	May 21st, 2007 08:51:36 PM
The movie looks cold. Uncaring. Yet shiny.
NEW LINE OF SUCKERS don't ... by ludmir88	May 21st, 2007 08:58:24 PM
fuck up the reputation of LOTR!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!. You are scared because you could lost your investment with this movie!!!. You should try to sell it in a different way and then i could give you some respect... just some respect.
this smells like it's going to suck by Gargolito	May 21st, 2007 09:56:19 PM
i read the trilogy and the trailer seems like a half assed attempt. i'll probably watch to get me dose of holiday cringe.
Why not make it a franchise? by indiephantom	May 21st, 2007 09:57:39 PM
I'm surprised they're not taking advantage of this. Start with "His Dark Materials". Did they learn nothing from "Dune"? I suspect they don't have enough confidence in the books. When I mention them to anyone, they look more blank than Pedro from Napolean Dynamite.
The books by beelkay	May 21st, 2007 10:03:20 PM
Are freakin' great. I was amazed and pleased by their inventiveness. It looks like this movie is going in the right direction, design-wise. I need to see more familiars, though!
New Line and LOTR by Mr. Nice Gaius	May 21st, 2007 10:24:25 PM
I've never read the Pullman books but this looks like any number of films that have come before. If New Line has to whore out Lord of the Rings in an effort to drum up interest in this film (that shot of the Ring is criminal), they must really be hurtin'.
This movie needs exploding Burmese sentries. by Julius Dithers	May 21st, 2007 10:31:25 PM
And Anthony Michael Hall.
That looked... by skycrapper	May 21st, 2007 10:46:32 PM
kind of stupid. I know nothing about these books but judging from that, they've got some more convincing to do in my humble opinion.
did they forget the Familars portion of the book?? by spoits	May 21st, 2007 11:08:27 PM
i did not see any perhaps i blinked.
I've read the books... by rickets419	May 21st, 2007 11:12:02 PM
And this trailer has satisfied me completely!!! I always imagined Nicole Kidman as Mrs. Coultier (sp?). And Iorek looks like the bear of my dreams. I'm seeing this! I can't wait for the next two already!!!
STOP SUCKING LOTR'S TEATS NEW LINE!!! by ludmir88	May 21st, 2007 11:37:51 PM
STOOOOOOOOOOOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I think it looks by Jimmy Jazz	May 21st, 2007 11:41:27 PM
nifty. But perhaps I am not the superior intellect the rest of you are.
"From the studio ... by Director17	May 21st, 2007 11:50:14 PM
that stole money out of peter jacksons pocket....comes a movie that has nothing to do with lord of the rings at all. But Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings....and now hes suing us......SO GO SEE GOLDEN COMPASS!!"
Puzzling editing choice... by CaptEgo	May 22nd, 2007 12:13:26 AM
Having just read the books this past year I find the choice of dialogue in the trailer beyond weird. It's as if the folks making the trailer decided that they wanted to completely destroy any sense of 'discovery' a viewer might get watching the film. In less than two minutes they pretty much lay out exactly what is going on in the story more or less ruining any anticipation you might expect from the film if they didn't feel the need to be so bloody explicit. Visually, it looks like they're doing a damned fine job...it looks a great deal like it did in my head when I was reading. It does seem that they are going to upscale the involvement of the Magistrium which again seems like an decision to thump the audience over the head (Remember...audience stupid...ausience can't keep up with three villains in Spidey 3...audience must be idiots). Elliot as Scoresby kicks the ass, Eva Green seems bang on for a Witch and frankly both Kidman and Craig look like good choices. If the young lady can act who in the name of Sweet Baby Jeebus gives a crap what her name is. Those bitching thusly may choose, at this point, to correct their anal-cranial entanglement.
Lame-ass Marketing Ploy by Shub-Wankalot	May 22nd, 2007 12:29:32 AM
Few of the masses may be gullible enough to take the bait and watch this movie, especially the rabid fans, but the rest of the general public may view this mundane trailer with casual disinterest. Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, and Harry Potter this ain't. And New Line knows it.
There will never be another LOTR... by Quasimike	May 22nd, 2007 12:46:10 AM
...but this looks grand! Virgil Earp...I mean, Sam Elliot, the John Wayne of our age, is looking damn good as Lee Scoresby. The book was very entertaining, this sure looks like they tried to film what I saw in my head while reading it.
Looks great, sounds bad by VoxMillennium	May 22nd, 2007 02:00:23 AM
I don't know what the people are on about that say that the effects look bad, I think visually it looks fantastic. I'm much more worried about the snippets of dialogue I heard, which makes it sound like they've left the soul out of the book and simply visualize the plot which is an atrocity on book adaptations that American movies more than once have committed. Using Holst' Mars (from the Planets) as the athmosphere catalyst is a first in what I fear a soon to be long list of wrong choices as the first book is not a movie about war and battles, though there is some fighting in it. I believe the music should have created an athmosphere of suspense and mystery, so if you feel you gotta stick with Holst The Planets, Neptune would have been a much better choice. Also Craig's dialogue gave away a key plot point you're not supposed to know until well into the story, so thanks for fucking that up New Line. I agree with others here that referring to Lord of the Rings in itself is already tacky to sell your stuff, but when your trying to screw the director of said movies as you're "whoring" it as someone where appropriately phrased, you should be ashamed of yourself, but that I hold against New Line, not the movie, which I think in the end will be quite entertaining for both groups, those that have read the books and those that haven't, but in no stretch of the imagination whatsoever will it come close to the LotR movies, which is another stupid reason for the studio to offer the comparison themselves to the prospective audience as now everybody will compare these movies, insuring that in the very comparison this movie will fall flat on its face which I think is as shame as I do believe the movie should be given a chance, but New Line is doing its very best to sabotage any chance for success. I don't know who in that company is in charge in marketing their movies, but he/she should be fired instantly.
re: gutting the book by bb6634	May 22nd, 2007 02:06:30 AM
The first book really doesn't hard-pedal the theology as much as the second and third books. I think they will probably get away with a decent adaption. However, if/when they do the second and third books, I cannot see how they can remain faithful. (i.e.The whole explanation of Dust without going into the religious aspect is going to be tricky.) And those expecting some sort of Lord of the Rings/ Narnia mash-up are going to be disappointed.
OF COURSE THEY'RE LINKING IT TO LOTR! by board shitlez	May 22nd, 2007 02:32:17 AM
What do you expect? It's a trailer! This is one of Hollywood's classic marketing techniques - witness the phrase - "FROM THE PEOPLE THAT BROUGHT YOU..." Whoever's suing who, fact is, New Line took the gamble with LOTR, and if they want to plug a new fantasy trilogy with it fine. Without them we'd probably all be referencing the marvellous two LOTR films, The Fellowship of the Towers and The Return of...My Cock. (ran out of steam there).
Boring book by BenBraddock	May 22nd, 2007 02:35:15 AM
I gave up on it a third of the way through
think folks by board shitlez	May 22nd, 2007 02:35:19 AM
How smart would it be to ignore the fact your studio had delivered the biggest fantasy cinema success ever?
re: gutting the book by newc0253	May 22nd, 2007 03:17:40 AM
i hope they do gut the third book, it's the only way the trilogy will be any good.
This book is the anti-LOTR/Narnia... by workshed	May 22nd, 2007 03:18:32 AM
...and this movie trilogy will be HUGE! Looks like they're nailing it to these eyes.
The Books are amazing by Spartacus44	May 22nd, 2007 03:35:52 AM
So I just hope that they do not destroy them in the transfer to film. The trailer looks great but confusing .
Zzzzzzzz by Orionsangels	May 22nd, 2007 03:50:24 AM
Zzzzz...oh what! where? who? what's going on? is it over?
Boredomic lameassic crapfest no. 234123 by Motoko Kusanagi	May 22nd, 2007 03:56:13 AM
Count me out.
Waste of time... by sith-vol	May 22nd, 2007 04:19:10 AM
..I have no idea what any of that was I just watched. But bully for the fans of this book series, just like Eragon...you will have ONE movie to look forward to seeing in the theatre.
brought to you by new line,the ones who fucked jackson by pipergates	May 22nd, 2007 04:31:07 AM
smart guys!
PHUCK Q TIME!! by wowsah156	May 22nd, 2007 04:32:57 AM
There i said it. Phuck Q Time.
The first 5 LOTR cash in seconds make me fucking fume by henrydalton	May 22nd, 2007 04:36:30 AM
This is a great and intelligent trilogy that doesn't need that kind of dumb-ass signposting. 'HEY! LOTR FANS! LOOK AT THIS!' Fuck off.
Iorek looks like a fucking CGI pansy by henrydalton	May 22nd, 2007 04:44:17 AM
That bear should make you fill your fucking pants, but it looked and sounded crap. And Asrael wasn't commanding enough. That said, this was a lot better than the first trailer. Still not holding out much hope for a genuinely good adaptation though.
Read The Books by Mr Gorilla	May 22nd, 2007 06:00:18 AM
However good the film is - and let's hope is is - I IMPLORE you guys to read the books. I read the Lord of the Rings books as soon as I know they were going to be films. IT'S ALWAYS WORTH READING THE BOOKS. (Except with Harry Potter - and I LOVE the last two HP films.)
Did they have to go all by Kragmose	May 22nd, 2007 06:06:00 AM
"We made Lord of The Rings, you know."
anti-LOTR/Narnia by Finklestone	May 22nd, 2007 06:23:29 AM
The books are, but it sadly looks like New Line and Pullman have sold out. out.http://film.guardian.co.uk /cannes2007/story/0,,2085126,0 0.html ""In the books the Magisterium is a version of the Catholic church gone wildly astray from its roots. If that's what you want in the film, you'll be disappointed."
Looks RIGHT to me, this is the only good book though by performingmonkey	May 22nd, 2007 06:39:40 AM
This is the one that's quite easy to adapt for the screen. The script must have been a doddle, just follow the book, it works like a road movie for the main character, Lyra, and there's plenty of visual excitement to be had (no plot resolution though, so people might be pissed with that). However, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass will have to be altered beyond recognition to get good movies out of them.
Talkbackers Never Fail! by emvan	May 22nd, 2007 07:00:52 AM
Not only do we have people who don't know the books, as in haven't read them, we have people who don't know the books, as in have no idea of their stature and reputation. Folks who seem to think, IOW, that this is Eragon. New Line adapted the most famous and successful trilogy in fantasy history with enormous success -- shame on them for reminding us of that when they begin adapting the SECOND most successful fantasy trilogy ever! This has to be more sap like Narnia! Except for the part where the books were written as an explicit rebuttal to the sap of Narnia, sure. Whether the trailer works for folks unfamiliar with the books is one question. From the feedback here, it looks like the answer may be no. But you can't extrapolate from the trailer to the quality of the movie without knowing the quality of the book being adapted.
Seems like a souless cash in . by knifeandfork	May 22nd, 2007 08:36:32 AM
It just seems like another attempt to cash in on the whole fantasy novel adaptation craze.Theres some cool effects in there but it just seems creatively hollow.Chest bumping fat kids will love it though ....
Quick Question - Has anyone actually seen this yet? by cheeseofcheese	May 22nd, 2007 08:41:16 AM
If not, then perhaps, you should wait a little before damning what is (let's face it) a pretty much unknown quantity. There also seems to be a huge number of Cinema Quality CGI artists posting on this board. I'm surprised they have the time to bitch about other people's work. Especially from some no-record bunch of kiwi clowns like WETA. But since you're all better than possibly the second greatest VFX house on the planet - who am I to comment? Perhaps I should just piss and whine like (most of) the rest of you. Ferchrissakes......
Daemons by Edski	May 22nd, 2007 08:52:13 AM
Stomm, if you stop the trailer at 55 seconds, you will see the gypsies lined up against soldiers with all their daemons at their feet.
wow... by dengreg31	May 22nd, 2007 09:07:05 AM
lot of negativity about that trailer.. I've never read the books... but I thought it looked pretty damn good... Guess we'll find out this winter... Greg www.denvertvguy.com
well said emvan (spoiler) by board shitlez	May 22nd, 2007 09:13:39 AM
Every studio pimps its new stuff on previous success - and without New Line taking the risk there wouldn't be a LOTR as we know it. They took a risk and earned their right to brag - regardless of law suits. Of course the story is just like Narnia, what with the death of God and all.
What does this have to do with LOTR? by PrezMike	May 22nd, 2007 09:33:08 AM
Come on, New Line, that is just lame, ya gonna put that in front of all your movies now? You won't even pay PJ what he asked for
Just finished reading the first book. by enozdaed	May 22nd, 2007 09:39:25 AM
*****This may contain spoilers**********I just finished reading The Golden Compass just a few days ago, and I must say that this doesn’t much capture anything from the books that I imagined. Lyra almost looks like a sweet little girl, not the hellion that she is in the book She starts “wars” with the other kids from other colleges and the surrounding town. She tries to sink one of the Gyptian boats. “Uncle” Asriel is a total dick to Lyra and Mrs. Coulter starts off nice enough, but is actually quite a bitch. I realize this is part of a trilogy and will be reading the other two books, but, I don’t see where the general public will think much of this. The ending of the book almost made me laugh at the utter stupidity of it. I can just see people staring blankly at the screen thinking, what the hell was that? I don’t foresee this making enough money for them to proceeded with the next movie.
weird thing i noticed by stomm	May 22nd, 2007 09:55:47 AM
this story is supposed to have all the humans with daemons appearing next to them right? [to those who have never read the books, an animal appears next to you at all times as your visual representations of your soul] where were they? i saw one bit were they were facing off against each other but where were the other daemons, it looked like nobody had them at all?
Sometimes you eat the polar bear by bingo the clown	May 22nd, 2007 10:49:08 AM
And sometimes the polar bear eats you.
polar bears by PullMyFinger	May 22nd, 2007 10:51:58 AM
i think they're looking good!
wowwww by slkboxrman	May 22nd, 2007 11:00:55 AM
that was great, especially the music.... the CG was kicking too, great cast...... who cares if they mention LOTR, it was made by new line and thats the reason they mentioned it... perhaps just trying to say it was a fantasy world just like LOTR..... lame digital film??? sorry if it dont compare to ur priceless PS3 graphics....or so u think.....PS3 is lame and so are u....climb out of ur basements, but be careful..theres something called the sun....its quite bright
Polar Bear cool! by lost.rules	May 22nd, 2007 11:02:00 AM
Movie Bad...me thinks
If this is Rated-R by Motoko Kusanagi	May 22nd, 2007 11:12:04 AM
count me in. On the other hand...no, thanks. Looks like a cheap NARNIA rip-off. This isn't the same league as LotR. This isn't even the same universe. The trailer made me crack up real hard with that "in 2001 - LotR" line. I'm still laughing. And I dearly hope for the kiddies who are going to see this soulless flick that the CGI scenes shown in the trailer are work-in-progress.
Lady in the water song by LMariachi	May 22nd, 2007 11:39:58 AM
Anybody know exactly which song it is (title-wise)??
Lady in the water song by LMariachi	May 22nd, 2007 11:41:14 AM
Anybody know exactly which song it is (title-wise)??
LAME!! by FleshMachine	May 22nd, 2007 11:50:38 AM
is it me or was that pretty boring looking?? whats with the lotr plug...pretty desparate.
Well.. since Dakota Fanning is older... by tailhook	May 22nd, 2007 12:39:56 PM
should we call her North Dakota and the other one South Dakota?
"12-year-olds fondle each other" won't happen by performingmonkey	May 22nd, 2007 12:47:27 PM
The actress who plays Lyra will be like 17 anyway by the time they get around to that. I bet they change it so Lyra is 16 in The Amber Spyglass. It isn't even described in the book, they won't show it onscreen. And frankly, if that's all you can focus on you might as well forget it.
From the same studio that brought you Star Wars........ by lost.rules	May 22nd, 2007 01:11:35 PM
Comes another classic film. Eragon! By 20th Century Fox
From the same studio that brought you Alien...... by lost.rules	May 22nd, 2007 01:13:18 PM
Comes yet another great movie. The Devil Wears Prada. By 20th Century Fox
LOTR Connection by saintsfreak	May 22nd, 2007 01:48:12 PM
Of course there is a connection, you idiots!! LOTR = Fantasy GC = Fantasy. LOTR = Trilogy GC = Part 1 of a Trilogy LOTR = Books GC = Book This will essentially be marketed to the same groups of people. People who like epic sci-fi/fantasy films based off of novels. A-duh.
Where's my Golden Monkey? by Mechasheeva	May 22nd, 2007 02:06:52 PM
Oh man, I hope they didn't fuck this one up. The cast all looks great, but I really pictured Lyra's world as more realistic, more like a 19th-century our world than... this. Also, more daemons. Sam Elliot will own this movie. Looking forward to seeing 12-year-olds fondle each other for the last half hour of the third movie. Err...
Hmmm, looks like it's been watered down a lot... by Merriman Lyon	May 22nd, 2007 02:15:09 PM
...and that's not a good thing. That actress does not come across as Lyra at all. Lyra's a spirited tomboy with a grudge; she's ballsy and takes no crap. She's not a pretty little wallflower with a silly name. Also, they've turned a Victorian-style Oxford into a soul-less megalopolis that belongs in the Star Wars prequels. Have the designers actually been to Oxford? It's almost a rural town with loads of character and atmosphere. They've turned it into 'The Fifth Element' as far as I can see. It seems that, like with the LOTR and Narnia movies, Hollywood is determined to take this idioisyncratic and original English vision and "Disney-fy" it to within an inch of iits life. Will they keep the anti-religious theme in the story? I certainly hope so- though I bet they won't, in case some daft evangelists get upset at a piece of fantasy. And let me take this oppostunity to add The Dark Is Rising to the list of brilliant books being ruined by Hollywood. Will Stanton turned into an American? For the love of God! At least they've kept Lyra British!
Lady in the water song by Norman Bates	May 22nd, 2007 02:15:56 PM
"The Great Eatlon" (track 11) Such an excellent score. That exact track actually won 'Best Single Cue of the Year' at the IMFCA awards this year.
For Christ's sake, it's just by PhoenixWright	May 22nd, 2007 02:28:00 PM
For Christ's sake, it's just a teaser trailer. Of course they'll add Lord of the Rings for marketing. And if you read the Cannes screening transcript, you'll see that so far, none of the religious controversy has been taken out. Whoever thinks that it's comparable Narnia is completely mistaken. It's quite the opposite. It is much darker, sinister and adult. If you've read the books, you know what magic Pullman can weave. Just give the film a chance.
i'm reeling from that doo doo butter by occula	May 22nd, 2007 02:43:46 PM
utter tripey dogshite. somebody run over the marketing prick at new line who brought up LOTR because they think the demographic for this film gives a shit about what studio produced some other fantasy movie. somebody else run over the concept artists for coming up with pale, weak versions of what's described in the book. while you're at it, swerve left and plow through the (no matter what it says on the title card) phalanx of writers who thought it would be OK to basically eliminate daemons from a story where their presence is key to the main plot of the books (wouldn't it have been cool to have kidman always wearing her golden capuchin like a fur stole? yeah, well.). finally, mow down the FX team who made flat, badly-lit visuals, and then punch the talking coca-cola bear in the throat. fuck me!
Thou speakest true, Occula... by Merriman Lyon	May 22nd, 2007 03:20:09 PM
....thou I hope to sweet, sweet Jesus they add in Nicole Kidman's daemon later on in post-production.
let's hope. by occula	May 22nd, 2007 04:13:17 PM
merriman, we feel one another's pain. (and i'm presuming from your name we're feeling a little mutual pain on another fantasy film in the works) i guess i'm just really disappointed in the gang at R&H. now that i've had my say, i will do what phoenixwright suggests and hold tight until the final product. but if it sucks, then death to smoochy!
"Have the designers actually been to Oxford?" by newc0253	May 22nd, 2007 04:39:26 PM
i'd say they must have. Either that or they built an exact replica of the front quad of Christ Church college just for the sake of the trailer...
i think the point was... by occula	May 22nd, 2007 05:33:47 PM
more that the oxford of lyra's world is bustling, intriguing, and visually dense, instead of the rather sterile world we're seeing in those images. like somebody didn't really do their research...
I don't see a problem in trying to tap LOTR audiences by Playkins	May 22nd, 2007 05:57:23 PM
It's like people are taking it as an personal insult. They're just saying "hey we made '_____', now we're bringing you '_____'. You don't like it, just wait- New Line's marketing certainly won't make that mistake again after the geek revolt on here.
OCCULA and MERRIMAN LYON by wolvenom	May 22nd, 2007 06:18:27 PM
Hey Occula, your comments on the trailer showing "pale, weak versions of what's described in the book" shows your ignorance. It was Tolkien who had rich strong beautiful landscapes described with pristine detail in LOTR. After reading His dark materials all I got was a fucking headache from the lack of detail, and lore he put into the background of everything from daemons, to gypsies, to the armored bears. It took him forever to describe to us a rich world with a sense of history, and lineage. Pullman may say Tolkien was a boring writer but I'm not alone when I say I loved the extra time he must have taken to describe the landscapes of the marshes, mountains, and history of middle-earth. Pullman didn't take fuck all time to do that. Just snippets here and there. As for New Line's decision to remind us of LOTR... do your fucking research bub. LOTR made fantasy mainstream in the movies. Its a fucking compliment to put pullman's dark materials in the same company as Tolkien and even C.S. Lewis (no matter how much pullman says he dislikes their christianity aspects I'm sure he has the uptmost respect for Tolkien, and Lewis and must feel fucking twitterpainted with flattery for being put into their company with his trilogy) If anything mentioning LOTR at the beginning got me pumped for this and reminded me that its the same guys doing the visual effects. 'bustling, intriguing"?!? are you kidding me? If anything it was confusing, and complexing. I loved the story but to say the fucking world was rich with tapestry that could so easily be translated to screen is bullshit and you know it. Peter Jackson got it right cause there were fucking oodles of chapters just dedicated to describing the scenery in middle-earth. You dont get that in His Dark Materials. Everything is about advancing the plot, dialogue and giving hints about the history of lyra's world. AND MERRIMAN LYON... who gives a shit if the FUCKING TRAILER... TRAILER ( i have to repeat that just so you never confuse a trailer with an actual movie ever again) isn't engulfed with fucking daemons everywhere. The mainstream public might get scared off too quickly with oodles of talking animals everywhere and not get the concept of daemons. I like it a lot more that their marketing is gradually introducing the concept of what daemons are (and that they're not just talking animals) instead of shoving them all into the first trailer to basically say (HEY EVERYONE 'WE GOT TALKING FUCKING ANIMALS IN OUR MOVIE LIKE EVERY OTHER FANTASY MOVIE') I think its a smart move to hide coulter's cool ass monkey for now.
"visually dense"? by newc0253	May 22nd, 2007 06:37:51 PM
from the trailer, it's apparent that they shot on location in Oxford. you can't sensibly complain that it doesn't look like Oxford, because - hey - that's what Oxford looks like.
well, harrumph! by occula	May 22nd, 2007 06:46:30 PM
first off, you it's not the same guys doing the VFX. R&H is doing HDM, like i already mentioned, and Weta did LOTR. and tolkien was not writing for RL 'young adult', unlike pullman (which is why i also mentioned the demographic, despite lots of older fans of the works). i wouldn't even bring tolkien into this, really (one reason some of us were extra-offended by the ham-fisted LOTR intro to that trailer). his literary style was completely different from pullman's. you seem offended by pullman's lack of extensive description, but perhaps your imagination is rusty. i make a living as a concept designer, which you obviously don't. any experienced designer worth their salt reads the source material and extrapolates based on research, imagination and dense development of the world they're creating. the people at Weta are obviously among the most skilled in the world, which is part of why LOTR was so magnificently realized. but you seem more bent about the source text than the film anyhow, and my argument's about the film.
i wasn't complaining about using the real oxford. by occula	May 22nd, 2007 06:48:55 PM
i was complaining about the depiction of lyra's oxford, which is - well, jesus, never mind, read the frakkin' book.
i read the book by newc0253	May 22nd, 2007 07:03:18 PM
it looked like Lyra's Oxford to me, but then i can't help but imagine Lyra's Oxford looking a lot like the actual Oxford. Oxford, after all, hasn't changed much in 10 centuries.
it's not. by occula	May 22nd, 2007 07:14:58 PM
remember, it's a different world, albeit one that doesn't star jasmine guy. it shouldn't look exactly like the real place, nor should it look like the real place 10 centuries ago.
PS by occula	May 22nd, 2007 07:17:34 PM
the reason i'm being such a bitch about the design is i'm switching over to the TB while painting key art for a film, and my photoshop keeps fucking up, and i'm in a foul mood about it. but i stand by my opinions regardless!
Oxford's already a pretty otherworldly kinda place: by newc0253	May 22nd, 2007 07:50:27 PM
there's a reason why they film Harry Potter there, and no doubt a major reason why Pullman started his story there: if Christ Church College Oxford ain't otherworldly enough for you already, then blame photoshop, not the filmmakers.
nope, i disagree. by occula	May 22nd, 2007 08:08:16 PM
and i just watched the trailer again and still think it's a sterile visual adaptation. i have no quibble with oxford's awesomeness, i have a quibble with the filmmakers. photoshop has nothing to do with it. beauty shots of existing buildings do not make a fantasy world, and neither do matte composites of the crystal cathedral.
wtf do you want it to look like occula? by wolvenom	May 22nd, 2007 09:05:58 PM
not like oxford? Cause im pretty sure pullman called oxford oxford in the books. Plus the book is about parallel worlds for fuck sakes... wtf make oxford look all too much different than the real oxford? That would kind of take away from the whole parallel worlds premise dont ya think? (id piss buckets if they had oxford look like fucking disney world or god knows what you'd have it look like) Pullman put very little description into his dark materials about lyra's oxford and I felt the filmmakers did a good job at whatever the fuck you call 'creatively imagining' oxford onscreen.
how about 'good'? by occula	May 22nd, 2007 10:18:59 PM
why would i want it to look like disney world? you're just being silly and hyperbolic. this is supposed to be oxford as seen through the eyes of people who talk to animals, fly and want to conquer god. why on earth would it look the same as always?
well.... by obi-bear	May 23rd, 2007 12:05:11 AM
...I agree with everyone commenting on the bad usage of the LOTR connection...talk about handicaping this movie before it even hits! I hope future trailers avoid this bad gimmick...it almost screams "We have no faith in this movie without linking it to a previous success we paid for and we have no faith in the audience wanting to take the ride without creating a confusing connection with our previous product>" Ugh. I'm sorry, but that tainted the trailer so bad... Now as for what we do see once it finally gets over that...Victorian Coruscant looked...um, nice. Nicole Kidman looked...haggsrd (and wrong for the part)...the CGI looked a little underbaked throughout and as much as I wanted to like the bear...it just blew once it started "Babe" talking. Ugh. And the animal morphing didn't look that much better than "Willow" almost 20 years ago. I don't know...maybe this genre has run it's course for a while. After all the LOTR's and Harry Potters and Nutty Narnias and everything else in between...I just don't feel the magic or wonder from this kind of stuff any more.... I think this will play like "Narnia" did...a wonder-less, watered-down version of the story that will have some pretty scenes but nothing to grab us and make us care (little precocious girl(trademark) notwithstanding)... And yeah...what happened to the rest of the name "His Dark Materials"?
Well then.... by FuzzyWhisper	May 23rd, 2007 12:39:03 AM
I have to say, this appears significantly more impressive than anything the Narnia film mustered. Put simply, the cinematography is gorgeous and the actors all look superbly well cast. Having no knowledge of (never mind interest in) the books, I now look forward to experiencing this world through film. With that said, I virtually choked on my own outrage after seing that atrociously ham-fisted LOTR tie-in. Those shameless New Line swine need to cultivate the decency to sell their films on their own merits instead of hopping up and down, waving their arms and shouting, "remember the Lord of the Rings trilogy? That was us! We did that, remember!?" every time a notable new release is on the horizon. Bastards. Anyway, I'll probably catch this film on opening day. As I said, the trailer did impress me.
The Look of Oxford by hippy32	May 23rd, 2007 06:41:20 AM
I thought the big sweeping city view was of London? after all, it had the magisterium tower in the middle of it, and that weren't in Oxford. apart from that, it looked sumptious. hope Weitz's script matches the way it looks.
yes, the big sweeping city view was of London: by newc0253	May 23rd, 2007 07:11:56 AM
and i thought they got London right too: the royal naval college at Greenwich made to look like something out of an Edwardian 1984.
Looks over-designed by Sepulchrave	May 25th, 2007 08:16:38 AM
The whole point of Lyra's world is that it differs from ours in only small ways; place-names, technology. She recognises London and Oxford when she comes here; this looks totally shiny-sci-fi; nothing looks used or lived in; just a bunch of fairy palaces and Barbie domes; all glass and gold. Too clean. This is a real Walden problem; they seem to have conception of how to make anything resonate with age. No sense of history or background (unlike LOTR) Everything looks like it was built yesterday and there's no much on anything.

Talkbacks

THE GOLDEN COMPASS Trailer Finds Its Way To Glorious QuickTime!! It's Pretty Damn Nifty!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks