Both, obviously. It was synergistic.

The genre of the film is inconsequential.

Okay, you win. This is a brilliant film with no flaws whatsoever. It should have been a huge box office success and overtaken Titanic's record in just one weekend. But it didn't -- because people are too stupid to understand the complexity of the film, and because of an evil Christian conspiracy to keep it from being seen.

not true.

wow, talk about having a movie be one thing or another, nothing in between

Explain why the genre of a film means a boycott by religious groups of one film accused of being godless is so utterly, unrecognizably different than a boycott of another.

I'll lay it down very simply. Despite the PG-13 rating, TGC is a fantasy film was aimed at families. A boycott on something not many people are familiar with is quite easy to accomplish. What don't you get?

Brack, we get it. Some movies just fail here, clearly New Line took a gamble. I agree with you that the boycott had some impact.

If you like the movie, go see it as many times as you can, because it might not be in theaters much longer.

Even if sequels don't happen, people still have this movie as a good source to help them imagine things if they read the books.

When someone says "boycott", I think of how people go about boycotting, not the end result. In that case, I don't see how genre makes any difference at all.

The Box Office take is limping because it appears that it simply isn't that great of a movie. I think even a lot of major fantasy/ sci fi geeks like me passed. With mediocre reviews coming in it was pretty obvious this wasn't a movie worth making an effort to go to. And I saw FOTR 5 times in the theater and TTT/ROTK at least twice apiece.

Any boycott by whacked out Christian fundamentalists makes very little impact and there's little to prove that any boycott affected the take.

I didn't see people with signs out in front of theaters protesting, did any of you?

That's fine if you believe that, but I strongly believe that without the negative press weeks before its release, it would've found a larger opening weekend. Opening weekend numbers have nothing to do with quality. It is possible of course that not enough people liked what they saw in the ads, but really, I think it was a combination of many things, and to say that the boycott didn't have an effect is denying that the Catholic church or religion in general doesn't matter in our country.

Boycotting has nothing to do with protesting in front of theaters. People who didn't go to this movie probably decided to use their time to.......see another movie.

You're right, they're not raking in the dough, but that doesn't make The Golden Compass any better. And if you think TGC is unconventional, I'd suggest watching some of the movies by the filmmakers I've listed.

And the Harry Potter controversy was taken very seriously by many religious figures across the country, and had no effect on the box office take. Is it because Harry Potter is more popular? Certainly. Is it because Harry Potter has a better story? Definitely. Hell, Harry Potter was directed better, and I hate Chris Columbus. But at least he understood what kind of movie he was making. But don't say there's never been a boycott like the one this had, because Harry Potter had the exact same thing. Unless you'd like to compartmentalize so much that you'll never be able to compare one movie against another, which I'm sure you do if it means you don't have to admit that TGC wasn't going to do well regardless of the controversy.

It's unconventional for a fantasy film, yes, very much. I've seen the films you're talking about.

I'm not saying you can't compare, but it's not fair to do so in this case. You fail to see that Harry Potter wasn't just popular, it was a phenomenon. The Golden Compass wasn't as well known, and any sort of negative campaign against it would hurt it. I don't understand why you're ignoring that simple fact.

The particulars of the plot may be unconventional (more so in the book than in the movie), but the filmmaking is not. And considering how much has been toned down in a vain attempt to avoid the kind of controversy that it garnered, the film alienated the original fanbase. That's a much bigger reason for the low box office than any boycott.

That's a pretty sad statement. So you've seen El Topo, Santa Sangre, Blue Velvet, Eraserhead, That Obscure Object of Desire, and The Exterminating Angel and think they're conventional films with some weird stuff thrown in? I'm sorry, but if that's the case, then you're not paying attention.



I'm not ignoring the fact. But had The Golden Compass been truly exceptional, word of mouth would have overcome the controversy. It was not, and thus it languished.

Then explain the success overseas.

This is pretty spot on. I think the movie is "unconventional" in the sense that the allegory fits in well with today's political climate. But, the filmmaking softens that message a bit so if you're not looking for it, you won't see it. You could also argue that it doesn't beat you over the head with it.

The Golden Compass is not the best film of the year, but it does not deserve the excessive vitriol it is getting. (Aside from fans of the book, but who reads anymore?)

Personally, I'd rather see this again than Stardust, Narnia, or the latest Harry Potter.

I wasn't talking about the filmmaking, I was talking about the plot as being unconventional. And I mean unconventional as far as fantasy goes. But again, all the disagreeing really isn't about what I'm saying, but how you want to take bits and pieces of what I say and prove me "wrong."

The book is better known outside the U.S. And it's not like it was a smash success overseas. If you look at the take in any one country, it wasn't a massive, lines around the block, every show sold out for days kind of thing. It just made more money than it did here.

I'm not saying the "boycott" didn't have some effect, but it was just one of several contributing factors. You have a PG-13 film being marketed as a "family film" starring a little girl and the Coca-cola polar bears, with mixed reviews, a divided (small) fan base and mediocre WOM.

If the boycott didn't happen probably would have done a little better, but it wouldn't have gone from turkey to hit. What could have done it are 1. Being a better movie and getting some positive buzz. That would have at least attracted an older audience (where reviews and WOM matter). or 2. Being PG and getting the kid crowd (where they don't). Has there ever been a blockbuster family movie not rated G or PG that didn't come from an established franchise (Potter, Simpsons)?

EXACTLY. Better known. And I never said "smash" success. You keep adding on to what I say without much reason.

But it's the filmmaking most people have the problem with.

And you, again, are compartmentalizing.

What's wrong with compartmentalizing?

What are you guys arguing exactly?

Brack and myself are arguing that this brilliant film was tragically overlooked because a few Christians sent out an email. Everybody else is shortsightedly claiming that there are other factors at work.

Sent out an email? You think that's all it was? Do you not read the newspaper, watch the news, etc.