Advertising and genre I presume, people dismiss fantasy and no one took that into account so there was not enough good enough advertising.

Les you know the opening sales have no relation to if the movie is good or not.

The problem I’m guessing is the way they have had to cut the book so much, coupled with its not really an action movie- no Quidditch etc. Jonathon Ross on BBC’s Film 2008 criticised it for too much exposition, saying in a film you should be showing, not telling.

The problem is much of the book is exposition, especially at the start.  The whole alternate world needs to be set up- daemons, the different geo-politics, the tech etc.  The first 30 minutes or so seemed very choppy, as they tried to pack all the info needed in, and get to the main plot of the book.  The action sequences all happen later in the film

JKR writes in a ‘filmic’ way- I don’t believe she did so with Hollywood in mind, but I think it was probably subconciously copying the style of story telling she was most used to- visual.  I’ve argued before on this site and others about the quality of her writing.  It’s very thinness means it is easy to screenwrite.

LotR had the advantage that much of the writing was ‘visual’- Jackson just had to stick it on the screen, rather than have 30 seconds of explanation- Dead Marshes, Mordor, vast armies, and crucially battles- action sequences that move the plot on- not just their because some producer has said ‘12 minutes since the last crash/fight/chase’ etc.

Pratchett has been filmed 3 times, but always for TV.  They come across slow for those unfamiliar.  This is because there is not much in the books you can cut- things set up later things.  I intend to re-read Hogfather this side of Christmas, as its seasona. I will have a look as I do to see what could be cut.  The TV adaptaion was a two parter.

Tback, of course it doesn’t, but it does have an impact on whether or not the sequels get made.

Saw it last night.. it was fluffy, predictable, and lacking. I read the first book and it sustained me through the hamfisted second and third books. This movie was boring and meaningless, no matter your perspective on the “controversy” and I wouldn’t see a second movie (in theaters anyway).

Too bad since the source books had a lot of good stuff in them. They couldn’t decide if this move should be true to the books or mainstream and wound up doing neither.

Yes, quite disappointed. The graphics are great, but I expected a much better story than the crap they put up.

The stupid wacko boycott people can’t claim any sort of “victory” in having something to do with this.  While box office sales were disappointing, The Golden Compass was still first at the Box Office. The only thing that’s been proven is that all the movies that are out right now are somewhat shitty in terms of mainstream appeal.

Well, I had not read the book, and I had not heard anything about this ‘boycott’ thing (nor am I interested in that).

I actually liked the movie. Yes, the pace was a bit slow… When the curtain came down, my immediate thought was, they were more interested in setting the stage for a part II, and in the process left this movie hanging, and did not create an impact for us, this time, in this movie.

So (as another person wrote), I am not sure I would see part II in the movies, but, I would probably rent it to see how the story progresses.

Some of book one seems to have been moved to film 2 (a la LotR). The guide to the film books mention something Azrael does (and whose ommision has been criticised on various sites), with stills. I’m guessing the final edit moved them- from my understanding it’s quite pivotal. (I know what it is, but not spoiling)