It wasn't nearly as vocal as for The Da Vinci Code, which made $217 million in the US.

Not so much a "I'm not going to see that movie" attitude, but a "I don't want to bother/be looked down on for seeing the movie."

If people were disappointed, that's a fine reason. I found the story intriguing and wanted more, but people were saying the same thing about Fellowship of the Ring when that came out. They should've just filmed all of the books so people wouldn't feel skeptical about seeing these, but I'm guessing they knew lightening probably doesn't strike twice in that department.

Oh well, I had a blast watching it today.

Didn't read all 10 pages but just saw the movie using a free ticket from a dvd and I thought it was the worst movie ever...so when is the sequel?

With all due respect...."the worst movie ever"? Give me a break.

I live in the South, home of the S. Baptists, and I think the boycott and "information" from fundie groups definitely had the most impact, however, there are other factors to consider - the books are not popular with children, the adult fanbase is pretty small, and many people that actually did watch it were disappointed.

It only proves how Americans really don't like anything that's a little unconventional.

Fellowship of the Ring was much better received than this film was:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord...p_of_the_ring/

To wit: For many, the ending of FOTR was the only disappointing part of that film, whereas with this film it seems that a lot view the ending as one of many disappointing things about the film.

After the panning of this movie, who gives a crap what critics think? Not me.

That seems like a gross overgeneralization. American critics love films that are unconventional, provided they're done well, and even they didn't like the film. Ironically, many critics panned the film because it was a little too conventional, a lot of the more unconventional parts of the book had been cut out. They also panned the film for some very conventional adaptation mistakes: rushing through as much of the plot as fast as possible, instead of judicious editing or extending the running time, and focusing too much on the visuals instead of the story or characters.

Critics don't determine box office success, I'm sorry to say.

See, that's where I disagree. Everything we see on the screen is all we need to see. The characters are introduced briefly, sure, but that's kind of the point. This girl is on a mission to save some kids. Do we really need the characters to go on and on about their kids? No.

Inkheart is based on a book and another example of a hopeful "fantasy film series based on a book series." The Seeker from earlier this year was another entry, and The Spiderwick Chronicles is one coming out next year.

Of course, not all fantasy adaptations can succeed, either critically or financially. Eragon from last year was based on a very successful book series, certainly one more popular in the US than His Dark Materials is, yet The Golden Compass is tracking (slightly) better than that film did.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/DARKM.php
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/ERAGN.php

So this sunk to $9M weekend box office for week 2. I don't think that's a good sign for a potential sequel....Not that I care because this movie was very mediocre at best.

If this is in response to my post about the reception of FOTR vs. The Golden Compass, I feel I should point out that the user ratings for TGC are far lower than they were for FOTR.

Also, I'm not trying to argue that TGC is a bad film, or at least try and convince you of that. I'm arguing that poorer public and critical reception of TGC is a significant factor in its poor box office.

I'm not disputing the low approval, but I really don't see how this is any worse than Narnia or any other fantasy movie. It's far better than Stardust, which got great reviews for being only okay. I know it's all "opinion," but I feel like it's gotten to the point where people purposely choose to like certain things and not like others for very arbitrary reasons.

I wouldn't consider Golden Compass unconventional at all.

It's deeper than most fantasy films. I'd call that unconventional.

I already answered this point a few posts back:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....69#post8364469

I'm not trying to persuade you that the criticisms for the film are correct, but that "too much plot, not enough story" is a fairly conventional flaw of adaptations of books.

Also, one doesn't have to halt the plot in order to further develop the characters or story, and one doesn't need dialogue to have character development. Think of Boromir teaching the Hobbits to fight in FOTR, a bit that had little to no dialogue between the characters, but further developed the characters, especially in showing Boromir's friendlier side, while at the same time providing an important plot point for later in the film when the formerly peaceful Hobbits from the Shire join in the battles. All of that from a scene that plays mostly in the background of some plot advancing dialogue by the other characters.

You're a very odd fish. If you can't grasp the concept that other people can have opinions that differ from yours, and that they aren't basing those opinions on "arbitrary reasons," but on their own personal emotional and mental response to the film, then there's really no hope of you ever understanding why some films you like may fail, while others you dislike succeed.

So I guess not enough people boycotted?

I don't understand, who wasn't developed in this movie? What else did you want specifically?

I felt we knew enough about each character to know what their motives were. I also thought there was plenty of story. There were lots of scenes discussing the Magisterium, freewill, etc. Sorry this didn't have montages of people fighting or doing things that aren't necessarily important to every film. It wasn't with this one. This movie was not only great to look at, and had some great action and strong performances. I'm done "arguing," because frankly you want to tell me why it didn't do well. I know why it didn't do well. People are stupid, and want their movies told only in certain ways.

I grasp the concept, but it appears to me that certain films within the same genre that you talk about that were better received really aren't better films. I strongly believe people pick and choose what they like not always rationally. I think I understand that, and you don't.

It didn't feel that way at all to me; at least what was portrayed in the film. No more so then Narnia was, which i actually enjoyed more. Maybe it's failed attempt to be deeper is why it ended up falling flat for a lot of people.

The ideas in TGC are more realistic and profound than any in Narnia. I'm not saying Narnia wasn't fun, but I can't say with a straight face that it doesn't slap you in the face with its themes. And the villain in Narnia was silly.

I didn't find anything particularly profound about Compass. I actually thought Nicole Kidman's character in Compass was on the silly side, particularly alongside her daemon.

The movie worked for you, which is great. It didn't for me and many others.