Yeah, I personally suspect that it comes off badly because it was originally supposed to be fleshed out more. Had it been planned to be this short from the beginning it could've used the space better.
I think the final shooting script -- with all the studio meddling prior, combined with Weitz's relative lack of subtlety -- would've been entirely forgivable if only they had kept the ending. With the ending intact (and the correct Bolvangar --> Svalbard interlude in the balloon) and an approximate running-length of 2:30min, it would make a lot of sense that the script kept rushing things. Pullman's story is probably long enough to warrant a fast pace, anyways. We would have left saying,
"Gee, that was so F-ing rushed, but at least it was a HUGE story and they got to tell it in less than 3 hours! That's feat, ain't it?"
As it stands now, New Line cut out the ending at the last-minute, making the whole rushed/sped-up feeling seem fruitless. No one in the studio bothered to weigh the consequences of their decision. This poor film has been dealt more of a treacherous blow than Titus Andronicus and Julius Caesar combined. I felt that the rushed pace was supposed to pay off at the end when we reached the film's ending, which was never shown and thus audiences felt betrayed (well, not me, but everyone else on the planet felt that way) by not having enough depth in the first 2 hours.
Or, by contrast, if Weitz knew from the beginning that he'd have to cut the last 3 chapters, he'd probably have written the script better to reflect that change. But they only informed him of the cut when almost all of the principal photography had ended. From where I see it, critics are attacking an UNFINISHED film that was never meant to stand alone as a 2-hour picture. The fact that The Golden Compass still has such high value despite
this is simply miraculous. It's hard to imagine another major Hollywood film that could possibly survive such a brutal insult to its artistic freedom and still look this good.
Anyone else feel the same way?
