MovieChat Forums > The Golden Compass (2007) Discussion > The real reason we'll never see a sequel

The real reason we'll never see a sequel

posted 11 years ago by roobens
27 replies | jump to latest

I've not seen this film since it came out in 2007 but as an avid fan of the books, I remember being fairly disappointed with it on the whole. The effects and some of the performances were great, but thematically it was compromised an awful lot due to the meddling of the studio in response to concerns from religious groups etc. This much is established.

Anyway I re-read the books recently and it made me think of this film again. I always thought it'd flopped massively and this, coupled with religious protestations etc, led to New Line canning any possibility of a sequel forever. However, reading more about the release and reaction to the film, it seems that financial mismanagement and poor foresight from New Line is the real reason it'll never see a sequel.

The world-wide box office take from this movie was around $372m, compared to a budget of $180m. This is clearly a success, even if not a humongous success -- but doubling your initial stake is a success by any margin. But I found this crucial line on Wikipedia:

Overseas rights to the film were sold to fund the $180 million production budget for the film, so most of these profits did not go to New Line

So there you have it. The real reason this film will never see a sequel is because New Line banked all of their hopes upon the US performance of the movie, and flogged off the overseas rights, thinking that they'd make plenty of cash from the US market. Big mistake, and one that's pretty hard to swallow. The US is one of the most staunchly Christian countries in the developed world, and given the controversy whipped up by religious groups over this film, is it any wonder that its take was lower there?

It's all very disappointing, particularly when Chris Weitz said he was going to be much less compromising with the sequels initially.

Anyway I just thought I'd put that out there. This film wasn't a box-office bomb, in fact its international box-office performance was described as "stellar". New Line screwed the pooch. Maybe one day another studio will recognise the potential behind this amazing story.

[–] clark_gillies 11 years ago

It wasn't a complete failure (as said it bombed in America, but did very well in the European market) and the director was clinging on to hope that the DVD sales would be good enough that a sequel would be approved.

I recall BIG pressure put on this movie that it was going to be the next Harry Potter franchise, and continue on from New Lines success with the Lord of the Rings movies so the gloves were off before it even reached the screens, and it seemed to have the cast behind it to back it up (Craig was in dig demand and this was one of his first projects after being in one of the most successful Bond movies in decades the previous year).

I think New Line where in deep trouble.... remember Lord of the Rings had been filmed over 2 years, and were not going to get back everything until the 3rd movie was out 4 years later, but got there eventually, but then allowed Peter Jackson his blank cheque book to make King Kong (which they promised on the basis of LoTRs being a success), so this was really make or break for them.

I never knew of the religious stuff until years later when checking up to see what the latest was.

[–] darkness_surroundz 9 years ago

any thing halfway decent or unusual always bombs in America-a nation of sub 75 IQ moron who like breasts. guns. explosions and fast cars, to make a movie "good"
ie I outgrew STAR WARS at 23-most of the morons worshiping it are 25 and above

[–] codad1946 8 years ago

You've hit the nail on the head there - I signed up with iflix (a kinda Asia-Pacific Netflix, as we can't get that out here) and after going through the good sitcoms and movies on it over the last 6 months or so, find that they are now just offering pap for the masses in exactly the format you describe above - almost a Marvel Comic franchise. In fact with (or without) your permission I am going to copy your post to them! However, in Malaysia we don't even get the breasts, they have a large grey cloud hovering over them so that your eyes follow it like a magnet, an effect that the breasts wouldn't do otherwise, which is even worse than showing them. They even grey out Bart Simpson's little yellow bum would you believe!

[–] chilone (17875) 4 years ago

Broad generalizations by a jealous, narrow minded moron.

[–] 2coolhipdude (114) 4 years ago

Lol. So true.

[–] Monk_Drunk 11 years ago

The world-wide box office take from this movie was around $372m, compared to a budget of $180m. This is clearly a success, even if not a humongous success -- but doubling your initial stake is a success by any margin

There is a common mistake here that gross=profits. Making $372m on a budget of $180m (note that the actual release cost of the move would have been higher than this, because production budgets don't include marketing & prints costs) is not a doubling of the initial stake, since studios never recoup all or even most of the gross even when they haven't sold a lot of their distribution rights.

The amount they actually receive varies, but as a rule of thumb it averages out to roughly 50%. It is important to note, however, that domestic returns are typically higher than international (where more expenses accrue), and as we know, this movie fared poorly in the US. So even if New Line hadn't sold all the international distribution rights, chances are they wouldn't have made a profit anyway, or a marginal one at best, making the chances of a sequel unlikely in any event.

[–] wwestar 11 years ago

The problem is a bit more complex. New Line do not distribute their films internationally. They're sold to independent distributors and they will have long standing relationships and contracts with these distributors.

When Warner Bros bought New line during the release of Lord of the Rings they wanted the international rights to distribution and to their horror found that the independent distributors had the rights to distribute the films of New Line for 10years which ran out in 2013.

As Compass was released in 2007 the foreign distributors still have the right to distribute any sequels if a film is made before 2018. Once the ten year contract expires Warner Bros will have worldwide rights to the films and then it becomes a far more profitable venture.

Also the budget was a reported $180mil which is usually an exageration. But if it was and as it was made in the UK the producers would have got 30% back through tax incentives, $54mil. So budget was $126mil which makes it even more profitable.

[–] boudicea1967 10 years ago

One thing that I think is weird is that I thought it did rather well in the US considering that the US citizens were basically living hand to mouth and did not have a lot extra for luxuries like movies. The US economy was tanked and we are still recovering. I thought it was rather good and did the best it could regarding the book. It is better that it ended like it did and not like the book.

Just curious, what did the religious groups have a problem with? It is a sad day in the world when religion dictates a kids/adolescent movie. I mean it was not as if there was any foul or harsh language or any nudity in it. If it had anything to do with it being a fantasy genre, what in the hell do they think religious movies are? Not to put down any one's religion but if they think that "The Greatest Story Ever Told" is fit then they are totally messed up because it shows partial nudity and the murder of babies. If that is fit for children to see, then maybe they need to re evaluate their priorities as a human being.

They should have did what Peter Jackson did and film two of the movies at the same time. it saves time and money. It will not seem right without Dakota Blue in it, but maybe they will make another one, the cast was great. Maybe a miniseries or something.

[–] Waigon 10 years ago

No sequel is a good thing. That was a rubbish film. The books will one day be turned into a mini-series probably, and be done to perfection.

CDEGFEDCC. (Shhh!)

[–] boudicea1967 10 years ago

Yea, that's what I think would be the best, if it is done correctly. The movie was not that bad, you could follow the story well enough and the cast was remarkable. However, trying to make a less than 2 hour movie from a book is not always done well, not because the actors are bad in it but usually there is a lot of footage that is shot and then the editors have to come in and try to make a story from it while cutting things out. I thought about the miniseries idea for Stephen King novels because there is always so much more that is going on and he is a great story teller and they have started doing that and I like them better. His short stories are suitable for movies, for instance The Green Mile. For this series I do not think a motion picture is the best especially for The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass.

Do you really think the movie was that bad? I think the performances by the actors made it worth watching and I guess they did their best to put together a descent story. Dakota Blue played a good Lyra and I really like the other actors that were in it. At this point, I think a remake is in order, probably shot in the UK because the cities and villages there fit the story better. If they were to shoot it in the US, the only place that would be anywhere close to the setting would be the most historic areas which are protected properties and historical places preserved by the Historical Societies.

[–] Waigon 10 years ago

I think it was a great cast except for Nicole Kidman (I personally imagined Eve Best as Coulter), but the style of the movie just wasn't true to the book, I felt. It all felt rather fantasy-oriented, not something that could genuinely happen in this world or the one next to ours, which is how it felt, especially in The Subtle Knife. Just my opinion though.

CDEGFEDCC. (Shhh!)

[–] psdhart 10 years ago

Just curious, what did the religious groups have a problem with? It is a sad day in the world when religion dictates a kids/adolescent movie. I mean it was not as if there was any foul or harsh language or any nudity in it. If it had anything to do with it being a fantasy genre, what in the hell do they think religious movies are?

the films anti religious aspects were the cause of the controversy

[–] mjbset 9 years ago

It was anti-foolishness. It wasn't anti-religious. It was anti-church establishment and blindly swallowing illogical dogma. And it a shame a fantasy movie like this was compromised by that. It was much better than Narina which was loaded with bad acting and thinly disguised championing of dogma.

[–] mike_clark_5729 9 years ago

On the whole, religious people, or at least Christian people, tend not make that distinction (whether they incapable of it or just unwilling to is a matter of some discussion, but the point remains that they don't) and any criticism of anything connected to their religion is treated as a condemnation of the religion as a whole. Yes, it makes no sense, but there it is.

[–] jackrabbit83 11 years ago

I think it's too late to make sequel. Dakota Blue Richards is 20 years old now. She's no longer little girl.

[–] Brokenever 11 years ago

And that's a shame - she did an amazing job!

[–] hiddenagenda1 10 years ago

I'm sorry there's never gonna be a sequel. It certainly had potential.

Volker Flenske: (While torturing David) I don't know why you're doing this to yourself!

[–] sapphrina 10 years ago

I just saw this with my grandchildren, ones who remember somewhat and asked for it and some who never saw it. The response is the same as was with the older ones(I have 5 older, 23,21,21,19,17 and 5 younger 13,11,10,8,6)they love it and would love to see a sequel. They didn't think that it was a bad movie. They wanted more!
All of us go to church and believe in God yet we were not offended by the fact that everyone had a daemon by their side! They agreed when I said that they were an extension of themselves or their soul. Each one reflected the true nature of the person. Mrs. Coulter's monkey was jealous, mean and sneaky, just like her. She didn't keep the innocent, sweetness or kindness that the children had, but then again we all grow up. The other grown-ups were still good, just more mature. My family and I would love a sequel, some way some how...
Sapph

[–] VictorVaughn 10 years ago

The books that follow are arguably even more damning of the church and contain details that would be massively contoversial. This movie was sanitised if I remember rightly but there would be no way to sanitise the following films if they were to follow any coherent plot. As someone who grew up with church but who has an open mind I wasn't so much shocked or at all offended, but I was suprised such issues were broached in such a fantastical nature and in what I suppose are technically childrens books. The books are astonishingly good.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user2334 10 years ago

Because the kids are adults now and so they would have to find new kids, which would look stupid in a sequel. So a remake of this one would only work then a sequel a year after.

The remake should have the real name too.
Northern Lights.

Did they call the first Harry Potter film the Sorcerer's Stone in every country?

Watched Golden Compass on E4 last night.

[–] raf-33 10 years ago

It wouldn't be too hard to find a new set of kids in Britain, we still have our chimney sweeps and street urchins and British studios are in the middle of huge country estates you could just bundle a few dozen kids in to sacks and pay them in cream cakes like they did for Bugsy Malone.

Ya Kirk-loving Spocksucker!

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

No. Elsewhere in the civilized world, the first Harry Potter movie had the same title that Rowling gave her novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Apparently market research found that most Americans had no idea what a “philosopher” is. As an American Ph. D., I am saddened and embarrassed. I am not, however, surprised.

[–] restlessminds 8 years ago

I had a feeling that the movie would controversial, because of Christians. I didn't read the book, but I enjoyed the movie. I would have liked to have seen a sequel. Anyhow, now that I know that it was based off a book, I'll likely look into reading it, so I can see how the story concluded.

[–] DaytonaBob 8 years ago

I would have to disagree. The christian nutjobs in this country may go nuts but that is the same as a lot of free publicity.
That investors got their money and some, means they would have shelled out again.
Damned shame they didn't make the sequels. I really enjoyed this movie

I thought it failed due to badly done marketing. Never heard of it when it came out until it had been out for over a week. Went to see it and loved it.

With further rentals,PPV, TV rights worldwide, and cable rental. The movie made well over 500 million.

Had I been rich enough to invest...I would have as it was a sure thing no matter what so long as contracts are airtight and legally allowed to see books. A lot of studios try to steal from investors by lumping the studio costs into every movie. I mean everything. From whoever answers the phone for the whole studio to the janitors. They put the salary into EVERY contract for the year. So if the janitor actually got what they charge in every movie, he'd be rich.

There is no such thing as a movie that never makes its money back. It might take awhile.

But the problem with studios if it doesn't make gazillions IMMEDIATELY they consider it a flop. Almost 400 million just for the release?
Several movies have "flopped" in the hundreds of millions. And that is what is wrong. They are like TV studios. IF it is not in the top 20 immediately it gets cancelled. A lot of great shows are never allowed to grow. Which is why TV is losing its audience. WHY bother watching since it will just be cancelled.

Look at Battleship. It made money but was called a flop.
John Carter made money but studio head had to resign because it didn't make 500 million the first two weeks. Really bad marketing. Everyone involved said they should have called it either John Carter of Mars or Princess of Mars but the bean counters came up with the lame idea of just the name.

Hell any investor would have been out of his mind not to do it.

They who give up liberty to
obtain a temporary safety deserve
neither liberty or safety