# His Dark Materials (BBC serial)



## AlexH

This looks exciting after the disappointment of the film:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099609883165450240
It's due on BBC and HBO either this year or next.


----------



## Dave

All I wanted to say was that Ruth Wilson as Mrs Coulter is fantastic casting and makes me want to watch it just for that reason. It is as good casting in this TV version, as Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman were poor casting in the film. Also the TV version is going to be the whole trilogy.


----------



## picklematrix

Cautiously hopeful for this series. The film really skimmed through a rough outline plot of the book.


----------



## anno

No poly bear?!!!


----------



## Mouse

Oooooooh.


----------



## Brian G Turner

And there's more:


----------



## Culhwch

Looks good! I have hope. I do love an armoured bear. I must say I liked Sam Elliott as Lee Scoresby in the film version, but that was about it.


----------



## AlexH

I enjoyed the first episode.


----------



## Rodders

I watched the first episode last night and found it quite enjoyable. Definitely worth sticking with. 

I haven't read the books, so there would be nothing to disappoint.


----------



## Dave

This is going to be a better adaptation than the film, but films can rarely capture the complexities of long books.


----------



## CupofJoe

I fell asleep during the first episode. Glad I recorded it. Will try again tonight...


----------



## Mouse

I really enjoyed it too, though it seemed to skip quite a lot (I know they can't squeeze it all in, but I wasn't expecting Billy Costa to go quite so fast! Also why was Ratter a squirrel and not a rat?)


----------



## Bugg

I thought it was decent but I can't help feeling it's one of those stories that works better on the page than it does on the screen.  Shall stick with it, though - don't want to miss Iorek Byrnison!


----------



## Hugh

Bugg said:


> I thought it was decent but I can't help feeling it's one of those stories that works better on the page than it does on the screen.  Shall stick with it, though - don't want to miss Iorek Byrnison!


I can't bear to look.  Well I did peep through my fingers at @45 seconds. I'll stick with the book.


----------



## ctg

I cannot remember the film, and I haven't read the books, but I liked the adaptation. One thing that I don't understand is why the mainstream critics are calling this series as a new Game of Thrones?


----------



## Dave

ctg said:


> One thing that I don't understand is why the mainstream critics are calling this series as a new Game of Thrones?


Probably, merely because it is Fantasy and has cost a lot of money to produce, nothing more complicated than that. 

They may be expecting it to be as popular as _Game of Thrones_. The BBC will be crossing-fingers and hoping it is, but you cannot predict that will be the case. The BBC is already making Season 2, and has _War of the Worlds_ and _Runestaff_ lined up, so they obviously are heavily invested in SFF now. While I loved wobbly scenery and shaky lines in the old _Blake's Seven_ and _Dr Who_, I wished for a day when they would spend the same amount on SFF as they did on say, _I, Claudius_ or _The Onedin Line_. SFF was always seen as less literary and cheaper to make, and the Director-General didn't like it. Even their most recent attempts, like _Outcasts_ was pretty grim stuff. I think that the popularity of _Game of Thrones_ has been a game-changer and become a bench mark. Which has to be good news.


----------



## ctg

Well, let's hope it's going to be popular, and be prepared to listen villains as they are apparently speaking Finnish (for some reason). I doubt it will be the elvish kind, but more of the darker side. Should we start on the episodic reviews then?


----------



## Dave

ctg said:


> Should we start on the episodic reviews then?


I won't stop you. I'm not certain that it will as popular _here _on Chronicles_._ I'm surprised that some haven't read the trilogy of books. There is a second trilogy now (_The Book of Dust_) with the second of three published. I also thought most would have seen the film, which also starred Daniel Craig.


----------



## Matteo

I enjoyed the books and thought they were very good - though can't remember enough details to spot differences between them and the new series.  I did see the film and thought it was OK.

As for the episode that was on Sunday, we started watching it but the wife got bored part way in and so I recorded the rest and saw it last night. It's obviously had some money thrown at it because it looked good.  A slow start (but maybe that's reflecting the books - I don't remember) and some good acting overall - although some of the kids, less so.

Will certainly be watching episode two.


----------



## Vareor

I liked the first episode a lot. To me, it seemed like the quality was on par with the movie's.
I don't know about any comparison to Game of Thrones, but I do hope it will get more than a season.


----------



## AlexH

The BBC has had other fantasy and sci-fi programmes in recent years. Merlin was my favourite of them and had a great ending too. Matt Smith and Karen Gillan were almost cast as Merlin and Guinevere (2 years previous to them joining Doctor Who)! Colin Morgan and Matt Smith are both similar actors, so it doesn't surprise me they were the final two for Merlin. I wonder if Colin Morgan would've ended up as The Doctor if Smith had got the Merlin part...


----------



## Vareor

Yep. Haven't watched Doctor Who, but Merlin was good. Among other BBC shows, I liked Patrick Melrose too.


----------



## Bagpuss

Vareor said:


> I do hope it will get more than a season.



They're already filming season 2. They started filming back in July. I'm not quite sure when they finish.


----------



## REBerg

CupofJoe said:


> I fell asleep during the first episode. Glad I recorded it. Will try again tonight...


Me too.
It wasn't that I was bored by the story. I just overestimated my ability to remain conscious for the day.
Reinforced by caffeine, I'll take another shot this morning.


----------



## CupofJoe

REBerg said:


> Me too.
> It wasn't that I was bored by the story. I just overestimated my ability to remain conscious for the day.
> Reinforced by caffeine, I'll take another shot this morning.


If it helps, I was pleasantly surprised when I got to watch it all they way through. Lots of world building but the beginnings of a plot too.


----------



## Rodders

I also liked that it had quite a diverse cast.


----------



## Khuratokh

Dave said:


> Probably, merely because it is Fantasy and has cost a lot of money to produce, nothing more complicated than that.
> 
> They may be expecting it to be as popular as _Game of Thrones_. The BBC will be crossing-fingers and hoping it is, but you cannot predict that will be the case. The BBC is already making Season 2, and has _War of the Worlds_ and _Runestaff_ lined up, so they obviously are heavily invested in SFF now. While I loved wobbly scenery and shaky lines in the old _Blake's Seven_ and _Dr Who_, I wished for a day when they would spend the same amount on SFF as they did on say, _I, Claudius_ or _The Onedin Line_. SFF was always seen as less literary and cheaper to make, and the Director-General didn't like it. Even their most recent attempts, like _Outcasts_ was pretty grim stuff. I think that the popularity of _Game of Thrones_ has been a game-changer and become a bench mark. Which has to be good news.


Outcasts was pretty dire, Not helped by the smug creators who boasted about hating sci-fi, as if their writing would therefore be superior by default.
Que a cliché ridden soap, uninspired dialogue, an evil corporation, a secretly evil priest, etc. etc.


----------



## REBerg

I don't yet know if I'll be drawn into the plot, but I'm fascinated by the human/animal, dæmon/soul thing.
The special effects are amazing, especially the animals. Coming in a close second are the airships, which look like the love children of zeppelins and Airstream travel trailers.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

I really enjoyed it. I love the first two books.
Visually it was excellent ,and it rattled along. They missed a lot out, but that was inevitable.
Overall - much promise. Looking forward to tomorrow's episode.


----------



## HareBrain

I thought it was generally well done. Some of the expository dialogue was a bit clunky, but that would be hard to get around. My main problem was the daemons. I liked them in the books, but they just didn't work for me in this. My suspension of disbelief wasn't strong enough to cope with the concept in an otherwise quite realistic visual setting, and the terribly mismatched voices didn't help. Also, once I'd noticed it, the fact that most people lacked the CGI daemons became a bit jarring.

Lyra was played extremely well, though, and the overall look was very good.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Episode 2 - fantastic.
Ruth Wilson especially good.
This series is looking very promising.


----------



## ctg

What is deal with the Egyptians? I know they are a faction, but who they are really representing?


----------



## Dave

ctg said:


> What is deal with the Egyptians? I know they are a faction, but who they are really representing?


It is decades since I read the book, so a very hazy memory, but they just represent barge people - their world transports goods by barges and airships - and people working barges are a tight close-knit community. However, since they travel around a lot, and they are on the lower rungs of society, a few missing children aren't a great problem for anyone else. As @Mouse  mentioned there was a little bit more in the book before Billy Costa disappeared, where you got to know them better. I also think they are "Gyptians" rather than Egyptians, so alluding to them being "Gypsies" without actually calling them that, or being accused of using a racial stereotype. They are willing to do a bit of smuggling (think _Peaky Blinders _) and they can keep secrets. This will be important for Lyra soon.



Stephen Palmer said:


> Ruth Wilson especially good.


I knew she would be. The part is made for her. Her daemon is even more menacing than I remember in the book. When it was hitting Pan it was quite brutal.


----------



## ctg

Am I assuming correctly when I think there's magic in this world? Not just talking familiars.


----------



## Phyrebrat

HareBrain said:


> and the terribly mismatched voices didn't help



I really agree with this. I think this and your point below was the only thing that I really grumbled about. I was told 'imagine their daemons are ants, flies and caterpillars' which just made me think of even more questions (such as accidental daemon-swatting  )



HareBrain said:


> Also, once I'd noticed it, the fact that most people lacked the CGI daemons became a bit jarring






ctg said:


> What is deal with the Egyptians? I know they are a faction, but who they are really representing?



As Dave says. I think also they're meant to represent a slice of society that is so far removed from The Authority/Magesterium and the Scholars. I liked that they have erred towards the darker looks of the Romany for the Gyptians in many of the characters.

pH


----------



## Dave

ctg said:


> Am I assuming correctly when I think there's magic in this world? Not just talking familiars.


There is Dust.


----------



## Phyrebrat




----------



## ctg

Dave said:


> There is Dust.



So pseudo magic. It feels kind of strange that in the beginning they explained that there's two worlds, theirs and ours. Our being the normal world, while theirs is closer to steampunk than reality. But the Dust, before I see it really in action, I assume it's some kind of material that is left in the lines where ours connect to theirs.


----------



## Phyrebrat

I think to try and define Dust and its importance/implications so early on would be very very hard to do without spoiling the entire premise - okay maybe not the entire premise, but a large part of the concept.

Also, I'm not sure there is just two universes - the opening credits seem to imply many.

A spoiler-lite version is 



Spoiler



I'd link dust, daemons and all that jazz to puberty/innocence.



pH


----------



## ctg

Does it annoy anybody else that the lead character familiar keeps changing shape all of the time? Nobody else does it.


----------



## Dave

I also don't want to spoil, but I think that in the talk given by Lord Asriel to the college, he raised the possibility of there being "many" worlds. But you are getting too far ahead (several books ahead.)

The daemons probably weren't explained very well. Children's daemons are not fixed. They are not permanent and can change shape. They become permanent when the child becomes an adult. This is important to the story so it isn't good that it wasn't made more clear.


----------



## Ursa major

ctg said:


> the lead character familiar keeps changing shape all of the time? Nobody else does it.


In the first episode, we were shown when Billy's brother's daemon took on its final form (in a rites of passage ceremony).

Lyra (and Billy and Roger) are not old enough for their daemons to have chosen they're final forms, so that's why they keep changing (and adults' daemons don't).


----------



## BAYLOR

After book 3,  I just can't reef anything else by him.


----------



## williamjm

I've liked the first two episodes a lot. It's not perfect, the Gyptian scenes so far haven't been as compelling as the rest of the story and there's some unwieldy exposition, but I think the main cast has been great and the scenes between Mrs Coulter and Lyra have been a real highlight - Ruth Wilson was born to play this role.

As an adaptation I feel it's fairly faithful overall even if they are making some changes - I wasn't expecting to see 'our' Oxford this early in the story.



Khuratokh said:


> Outcasts was pretty dire, Not helped by the smug creators who boasted about hating sci-fi, as if their writing would therefore be superior by default.
> Que a cliché ridden soap, uninspired dialogue, an evil corporation, a secretly evil priest, etc. etc.



That's a show I'd almost forgotten about. I think I watched all of it except for the last episode, it's probably significant that I didn't care enough about it to find out how the season ended.



HareBrain said:


> Also, once I'd noticed it, the fact that most people lacked the CGI daemons became a bit jarring.



I saw a quote from Pullman saying that they decided to do that because it got a bit distracting otherwise in crowds with all the daemons being visible. However, they're such an integral part of the setting that the lack of them does seem a bit disconcerting.



ctg said:


> Am I assuming correctly when I think there's magic in this world? Not just talking familiars.



There are also the witches, who I think we should probably see in the next couple of episodes if they're following the books.



Dave said:


> The daemons probably weren't explained very well. Children's daemons are not fixed. They are not permanent and can change shape. They become permanent when the child becomes an adult. This is important to the story so it isn't good that it wasn't made more clear.



There was some clunky exposition in the first exposition where Roger and Lyra discuss this.


----------



## Ursa major

BAYLOR said:


> After book 3, I just can't reef anything else by him.


Do you corral his novels, keeping them away from your other books?


----------



## Mouse

I keep looking for the daemons in the crowds too and ended up musing to myself that there might be flea daemons. Also, jarred a bit when the butterfly daemon was crushed and it didn't disappear (unless it wasn't quite dead at that point!)


----------



## HareBrain

Mouse said:


> there might be flea daemons.



Can you imagine how disappointing that would be, to find that the visible form of your soul is best represented by a tiny biting insect?

It's just occurred to me to wonder how daemons would affect democracy. Would you trust anyone with a tapeworm daemon to be PM? (Though that might be the best on offer, come to think of it.) Would a devious politician hide his own giveaway daemon and train something noble-looking like a a stag to hang around with him, and then train himself in ventriloquism to get it to speak?


----------



## AlexH

Given I've only read Northern Lights and that was a while ago, I was confused by the lack of daemons. Even just one or two extras in some scenes would have helped, as not all would be visible anyway.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ursa major said:


> Do you corral his novels, keeping them away from your other books?



Sorry, Typo . I have no real interesting in anything else by him.


----------



## Phyrebrat

HareBrain said:


> Can you imagine how disappointing that would be, to find that the visible form of you



I always thought that whilst reading the books. It’s a trigger for me as my Chinese influence is a water rat when I was hoping for a dragon/velociraptor. Mind you if I lived in Lyra’s Oxford, I’d most likely be restricted to the River Ox because my Matt Daemon would be, undoubtedly, a pike.

pH


----------



## ctg

Mouse said:


> Also, jarred a bit when the butterfly daemon was crushed and it didn't disappear (unless it wasn't quite dead at that point!)



Yeah, I couldn't understand how you could kill a daemon and the owner doesn't go with it?


----------



## Mouse

ctg said:


> Yeah, I couldn't understand how you could kill a daemon and the owner doesn't go with it?



She did die. It's just that dead daemons are meant to poof out of existence not stay as a corpse.


----------



## Dave

That guy had a snake hidden up his vest. I think lots of mice, hamsters and gerbils could be in coat pockets. Or, a weasel up a trouser leg. But I do agree that if I was voting for someone for PM then they would need to have a Red Deer Stag or an African Lion.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Mouse said:


> She did die. It's just that dead daemons are meant to poof out of existence not stay as a corpse.


I found this a slightly disappointing bit, as we hardly knew the character and then she was killed.
They hadn't really had the chance to establish things about the daemons though - such as Mrs Coulter's physical distance from the golden monkey.
But it an adaption of such complexity there's bound to be cuts and shortcuts.
I have to admit, I found myself watching episode 2 as an "author," seeing how they established things and created the narrative. You can learn a lot about story telling from a really good tv series.


----------



## AlexH

Stephen Palmer said:


> I have to admit, I found myself watching episode 2 as an "author," seeing how they established things and created the narrative. You can learn a lot about story telling from a really good tv series.


A great YouTube channel on such things: Just Write: All Episodes - YouTube

The most recent I watched compared Westworld to Game of Thrones to illustrate the problems that can occur with ensemble casts.


----------



## williamjm

HareBrain said:


> It's just occurred to me to wonder how daemons would affect democracy. Would you trust anyone with a tapeworm daemon to be PM? (Though that might be the best on offer, come to think of it.)



That's a good point, I wonder whether they have a big problem with daemonism - people suffering from prejudice because of the form of their daemon?



> Would a devious politician hide his own giveaway daemon and train something noble-looking like a a stag to hang around with him, and then train himself in ventriloquism to get it to speak?



In the latest book, _The Secret Commonwealth_ there is a suggestion that daemon adoption is possible, although it would require an actual daemon since people can apparently instinctively tell the difference between a daemon and an animal.


----------



## REBerg

HareBrain said:


> Can you imagine how disappointing that would be, to find that the visible form of your soul is best represented by a tiny biting insect?


Seems like the final form taken by each daemon reflects the nature of the soul linked to it. Something like reincarnation. No surprise that the baddies are represented by nasty insects and serpents.
Must be limits for daemons which can still shapeshift, or Lyra's daemon would have changed into something that could better handle its attacker.



Dave said:


> That guy had a snake hidden up his vest.


Thank goodness it wasn't a trouser snake!


----------



## AlexH

I thought I recognised Dafne Keen (Lyra). She was excellent in Logan and I hoped at the time she'd have her own X-Men film. There's plenty of time for that.


----------



## ctg

AlexH said:


> I thought I recognised Dafne Keen (Lyra). She was excellent in Logan and I hoped at the time she'd have her own X-Men film.



Oh man, is that her? I could have never guessed. She looked so familiar. I wonder if she'll show the angry face at any point in the series?


----------



## HareBrain

williamjm said:


> the scenes between Mrs Coulter and Lyra have been a real highlight



Just caught up with Ep2, and those two outclass everyone else to the point that they seem to almost be in a different, better series, even with better scriptwriters (I wonder if they were given leave to improvise). I'm hoping the thing as a whole will pick up as we get near the meat of it.


----------



## HareBrain

Just seen this weirdly appropriate juxtaposition on the iplayer home page. Coincidence?


----------



## HareBrain

I thought ep3 was up to the mark. A shame there were no scenes between Lyra and Mrs Coulter, but Ma Costa kept up the standard, and added to the impression of the women acting the men off the stage (though to be fair, none of them were bad, apart from a couple of central casting villains.)

It's been a while since I read it, but I'd don't recall Lord Boreal's "excursions" (to avoid spoilers) from the book. Was that added to cohere with the rest of the trilogy?


----------



## Mouse

I don't remember either, but again, it's been a while since I read the books.


----------



## HareBrain

No, I didn't even remember there was a Lord Boreal!


----------



## BAYLOR

REBerg said:


> Seems like the final form taken by each daemon reflects the nature of the soul linked to it. Something like reincarnation. No surprise that the baddies are represented by nasty insects and serpents.
> Must be limits for daemons which can still shapeshift, or Lyra's daemon would have changed into something that could better handle its attacker.
> 
> Thank goodness it wasn't a trouser snake!



I always found it  interesting that we never see a demon manifesto that's human in appearance   .


----------



## Dave

HareBrain said:


> I thought ep3 was up to the mark.


It brought everyone up to speed, and we are now ready to move north. I'm sure several things have been revealed much earlier than in the books, but it's been so long that I can't remember that either. if they mentioned a Lord Boreal then I missed that part. Do you mean Lord Asriel? Coulter and Asriel were definitely Lyra's parents, but that is one of the things I thought was revealed later, and Asriel is definitely from our world. Again, I thought that came later, and they've updated and modernised his CV, but it makes sense to do that, because they are setting the story today (with the use of smart phones and computer image matching.)

edit: I confused Asreil with Grunman. Please ignore me.


----------



## HareBrain

Dave said:


> if they mentioned a Lord Boreal





Spoiler



Boreal was the guy who went through the gate to our world, had his car clamped etc. His name was mentioned a couple of times.





Dave said:


> and Asriel is definitely from our world.





Spoiler



Is that correct? I know "Grumman" (who later turns out to be Will Parry's dad) is.


----------



## Dave

Re: Boreal, Ah! I see, no I think he is a new character for the TV series (but I haven't read the new trilogy.)
Re: Asreil, yes I thought so in the book, but in this TV adaptation, didn't the guy that Boreal is meeting actually just say so. Apologies, if I got that wrong but it 



Spoiler: mild spoiler



explains why Lyra is important and different.


----------



## HareBrain

Dave said:


> no I think he is a new character for the TV series (but I haven't read the new trilogy.)



I've had a flick through the start of the first book and he does appear there, though I can't recall what he does. I might start a reread actually.



Dave said:


> Re: Asreil, yes I thought so in the book, but in this TV adaptation, didn't the guy that Boreal is meeting actually just say so.



They were actually talking about Stanislav Grumman, the guy whose apparently lost expedition Asriel was trying to find in ep 1.


----------



## Dave

Yes, sorry I got that wrong. I confused Asreil and Grunman. Looking at Wikipedia for help, I'm not sure I remember very much accurately and anyway, this TV adaptation is free to change things from the books.


----------



## ctg

Does everyone in Lyra's world has daemons? Also the spy flies seemed more mechanical than organic.


----------



## HareBrain

ctg said:


> Does everyone in Lyra's world has daemons?



They're supposed to, yes, but they haven't shown them all because budget.



ctg said:


> Also the spy flies seemed more mechanical than organic.



I think one of the Gyptians says they're evil spirits trapped in mechanical devices. I don't know how they link in with the rest of the world.


----------



## ctg

HareBrain said:


> I think one of the Gyptians says they're evil spirits trapped in mechanical devices. I don't know how they link in with the rest of the world.



Maybe they say it's evil because they don't understand biomechanoids. The beeping sound in the box also sounded like a classical tracking signal. Luckily they don't have to go to far to see before it becomes so deep that no electronical signal that the spyfly can put out can reach the surface, or the owner. Them sitting in the box also suggested a manufactured origin. And the Gyptians certainly wouldn't understand the mechanical beings, as they would likely call them evil than try to understand what it is that they have in their hands, and can it be used to hack back?


----------



## HareBrain

ctg said:


> Maybe they say it's evil because they don't understand biomechanoids. The beeping sound in the box also sounded like a classical tracking signal. Luckily they don't have to go to far to see before it becomes so deep that no electronical signal that the spyfly can put out can reach the surface, or the owner. Them sitting in the box also suggested a manufactured origin. And the Gyptians certainly wouldn't understand the mechanical beings, as they would likely call them evil than try to understand what it is that they have in their hands, and can it be used to hack back?



That's possible, but given that the spy-flies are ahead of our world's tech, and everything in Lyra's world is behind it, I can't see how they would have been manufactured as computer-mechanical devices.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

It's a steampunk thing!  
I liked episode 3, though it lacked a little pace. Still good, though, and that hour went by very quickly.
The portals et al by the way aren't mentioned in the books until book 2.


----------



## ctg

Stephen Palmer said:


> It's a steampunk thing!



There was nothing steam related in the spyflies. Why do you say that?


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Pullman's whole world has a steampunk flavour.
I definitely got the impression they were of that ilk.
Maybe just me.


----------



## ctg

Stephen Palmer said:


> I definitely got the impression they were of that ilk.



Well, they are coal black and when they fly, they emit that hot coal colour, but no steam. Maybe it's my SciFi mind that cannot conjure steam mechanoids.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

It's all good!


----------



## Dave

Stephen Palmer said:


> Pullman's whole world has a steampunk flavour.
> I definitely got the impression they were of that ilk.
> Maybe just me.


No, you are correct, it is steampunk, just driven by Dust. Steampunk novels don't all involve steam-driven machines. Those that I've read were just mechanical rather than electronic. The spy-flies were how I imagined them from the book, just possibly a bit larger. However, larger is indicative of them being mechanical, so that's all in keeping.


----------



## williamjm

HareBrain said:


> I thought ep3 was up to the mark. A shame there were no scenes between Lyra and Mrs Coulter, but Ma Costa kept up the standard, and added to the impression of the women acting the men off the stage (though to be fair, none of them were bad, apart from a couple of central casting villains.)
> 
> It's been a while since I read it, but I'd don't recall Lord Boreal's "excursions" (to avoid spoilers) from the book. Was that added to cohere with the rest of the trilogy?



While it's a bit of an in-between episode filling the gap between Lyra escaping Mrs Coulter and the arrival in the North, I thought they did manage to make it interesting. The confrontation between the Gyptians and Mrs Coulter (and her monkey) was a highlight.

It's been a while since I've read it as well, but others have commented that in the books Boreal has been making these excursions for some time but we don't find out about it until the second book, so they are changing when the audience finds out about things but not changing the plot.



HareBrain said:


> I've had a flick through the start of the first book and he does appear there, though I can't recall what he does. I might start a reread actually.



I was also skimming through some of the first book earlier and Boreal talks to Lyra about the oblation board at Mrs Coulter's party shortly before Lyra runs away.


----------



## Culhwch

williamjm said:


> The confrontation between the Gyptians and Mrs Coulter (and her monkey) was a highlight.



That was super tense -- I hated it and loved it!

It would have to be close to twenty years since I read the books, so I barely remember anything (more from the movie, probably). I'm keen to do a reread, but I think I'll wait until after this season is done at least.


----------



## HareBrain

williamjm said:


> others have commented that in the books Boreal has been making these excursions for some time but we don't find out about it until the second book



That makes sense. i thought it couldn't have been in the first book because it jarred too much with the tone of it in my memory. But it works in the adaptation.


----------



## williamjm

HareBrain said:


> That makes sense. i thought it couldn't have been in the first book because it jarred too much with the tone of it in my memory. But it works in the adaptation.



From what I remember I think everything in the first book we saw from Lyra's perspective so now that we can follow other characters it makes sense we see other things we only found out about later.


----------



## hitmouse

Enjoyed tonight's episode. The Majesterium scenes were filmed inside the Welsh Govt Offices in Cathays, Cardiff, which I know well. The club which Mrs Coulter took Lyra to on their arrival in London is the main hall of the Temple of Peace, part of Cardiff University, also in Cathays. A beautiful Art Deco room.


----------



## AlexH

I think it's coming into its own in the last two episodes - I'm enjoying each episode more than the previous one. Many reviews seem to consider it average: His Dark Materials episode 3 is an uneventful hour of television with plenty visual treats – review

Uneventful hour?


----------



## HareBrain

AlexH said:


> Uneventful hour?



I thought at first the article referred to ep4, which I think the description fits even more -- it was basically a load of side-quests in a town before setting off on an adventure. I much preferred ep3.

The dearth of daemons in tonight's episode seemed even more obvious. If CGI ones were beyond the budget, could they not at least have had a few normal animals scattered about? They wouldn't have had to do much. If Mr Stillerson had had a daemon, maybe it would have spotted Lee Scorseby lifting his watch.

Plus I'm afraid I really don't buy into the armoured bear concept. It's a fun idea, but quite apart from anything else ... _they lack opposable thumbs_!


----------



## Dave

HareBrain said:


> The dearth of daemons in tonight's episode seemed even more obvious.


Agreed. Take the bar scene, for instance. There was a bird perched on the back of the bar, belonging to the barman, but the bar was full of people sitting at tables. Was it too much of a cost to have a few more?


----------



## ctg

HareBrain said:


> The dearth of daemons in tonight's episode seemed even more obvious.



How does Mister Pullman solve the problem in the prose?


----------



## ctg

ctg said:


> How does Mister Pullman solve the problem in the prose?



I went and looked up the answer.



> The Butler bowed slightly and turned to leave, his daemon  trotting obediently after him. From her not-much-of-a-hiding place Lyra watched as  the Master went to a large oak wardrobe in the corner of the room, took his gown  from a hanger, and pulled it laboriously on. The Master had been a powerful man,  but he was well over seventy now, and his movements were stiff and slow. The Master's  daemon had the form of a raven, and as soon as his robe was on, she jumped down from  the wardrobe and settled in her accustomed place on his right shoulder.











						Excerpt from His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass (HBO Tie-In Edition) | Penguin Random House Canada
					

The extraordinary #1 New York Times bestseller hailed as one of the best books of all time, is now the basis for an HBO original series beginning in November 2019, starring Dafne Keen, Ruth Wilson, James McAvoy, and Lin-Manuel Miranda.An Entertainment Weekly "All-Time Greatest Novel"A Newsweek...




					www.penguinrandomhouse.ca
				




He moves one daemon at time and never crowd the scene with them.

In my own work, especially in the finishing part I had trouble with the scenes containing multiple ghosts. Boneman was right to cut a lot of them out and in same way as Pullman answer the question about lack of daemons, the viewer can easily imagine them being close by. And even if BBC would have had a budget to hire all animals, it would have taken a lot of work for them to work properly within the scenes.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

I'm finding this adaption compelling. What I noticed again last night was that the hour sped by in a subjective flash.
Like a few reviewers, I found the actress playing Ma Costa a bit much. I thought the Lee Scoresby guy was okay. I didn't buy Mrs Coulter's "I know something about you, so ask my question of the alethiometer" thing, it was a bit cliched. Can't remember if that happens in the novels. 
My main grumble is that the motives of the Gyptian group are a bit simplified. I suppose that's a problem of adapting a complex novel though. I'm also finding now that because I've seen _The Golden Compass_ a few times I kinda know what's coming up. So I'm particularly looking forward to the second and third book adaptions...
I thought the northern scenes looked brilliant - all the Iorek scenes were fabulously skanky. There was also a wonderful scene with Lyra glimpsing the city in the aurora.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

HareBrain said:


> If CGI ones were beyond the budget, could they not at least have had a few normal animals scattered about? They wouldn't have had to do much.



Likewise - dogs especially. Perhaps though that would have brought in animal handlers, which could have ruined takes and anyway would have added to costs.


----------



## nixie

I am watching this and enjoying it, has been a long time since I read the books so I'm not experiencing the same disappointment I normally get when watching an adaptation and it differs from the book. I still occasionally scratch my head, thinking that wasn't in the book.


----------



## Mouse

Yep, still find myself looking for daemons too and had the same thought about dogs. They were s common Daemon in the novels anyway so it wouldn't have hurt. 

I much preferred Lee and Iorek in the film.


----------



## williamjm

ctg said:


> I went and looked up the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt from His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass (HBO Tie-In Edition) | Penguin Random House Canada
> 
> 
> The extraordinary #1 New York Times bestseller hailed as one of the best books of all time, is now the basis for an HBO original series beginning in November 2019, starring Dafne Keen, Ruth Wilson, James McAvoy, and Lin-Manuel Miranda.An Entertainment Weekly "All-Time Greatest Novel"A Newsweek...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.penguinrandomhouse.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He moves one daemon at time and never crowd the scene with them.
> 
> In my own work, especially in the finishing part I had trouble with the scenes containing multiple ghosts. Boneman was right to cut a lot of them out and in same way as Pullman answer the question about lack of daemons, the viewer can easily imagine them being close by. And even if BBC would have had a budget to hire all animals, it would have taken a lot of work for them to work properly within the scenes.



I think it's something that probably works better in the books because if we want we can imagine the daemons being there even if the author isn't describing them. Limiting the number of daemons on screen is perhaps pragmatic, but it does feel disconcerting at times.



Mouse said:


> I much preferred Lee and Iorek in the film.



I don't think anybody could have been as perfect for the role as Sam Elliot was. I thought Lin Manuel Miranda was good in his own way but it feels like a different interpretation of the character.

I thought the scenes where Iorek goes on the rampage through the town did a good job of showing how physically imposing a bear would be even without its armour.


----------



## Ursa major

I think the problem may be a bit more basic than simply the cost, or the bother, of having as many daemons as humans visible to the viewer.

I haven't read the books, but I assume (but would rather not be told now whether or not my assumption is correct) that the daemons have a key role in the overall story, i.e. they are not there just to make the plot different from one set in our world and/or make the world look different to our own. This is fine in a book: the narrative can remind the reader of the presence of the daemons when it's useful for the story or for setting a scene, but can otherwise leave them mostly unmentioned.

On the screen, the daemons would have to be ever-present, which could risk looking a bit (well, _more_ than a bit) ridiculous if there are lots of humans in shot with an equal number of daemons.

So while there may be too few daemons on display in this adaptation, I'm not at all sure that it would help the story if most of them were on display all of the time their humans are around. And that's with considering that there'd be the problem that someone has already mentioned, i.e. a human with a daemon has two pairs of eyes, two pairs of ears and two noses, and thus two physically different viewpoints are possible.

And lets not mention that the life of a human from that world appears to be far more at risk than ours is, as we saw with the unfortunate journalist. (I'd want _my_ daemon to choose the form most resistant to being killed and would be more than a little angry with it if it had chosen a vulnerable form.)


----------



## HareBrain

Ursa major said:


> And lets not mention that the life of a human from that world appears to be far more at risk than ours is, as we saw with the unfortunate journalist. (I'd want _my_ daemon to choose the form most resistant to being killed and would be more than a little angry with it if it had chosen a vulnerable form.)



In the books, it's stated that it's taboo to touch someone else's daemon (this is hinted at in the series, but a bit too subtly IMO) so in theory you should be safe. However, we all know that no taboo survives a high level of hostility, so it does seem naive to expect people to abide by it. And that would make it in a child's best interest to cultivate the kind of personality that would lead to its daemon settling as something large and powerful. I think you'd end up with a society awash with thugs. I'm not really sure Pullman thought his system through.


----------



## CupofJoe

I just assumed that most people had really insignificant daemons. Mice, rats, guinea pigs, lizards, frogs, toads and the like... I haven't seen any really large animal daemons [Lord thingummies snow leopard is about the biggest]. Where are the Lion or Bison daemons?


----------



## ctg

CupofJoe said:


> Where are the Lion or Bison daemons?



I wonder if there are any sea animals, like whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions?


----------



## Mouse

Dolphin daemons are mentioned in the books for sailors and whatnot.

I don't think the daemon can choose what it wants to be - it's determined by the personality. All those guard's dog daemons which look identical are a bit odd, but I guess you could explain that away by saying it's a family profession or something.


----------



## Ursa major

CupofJoe said:


> Where are the Lion or Bison daemons?


And where are the T Rex daemons?

"You can't let your daemon be a T Rex, Lyra. It'll be far too dangerous."

"But it'll be mostly 'armless...."


----------



## HareBrain

Mouse said:


> All those guard's dog daemons which look identical are a bit odd, but I guess you could explain that away by saying it's a family profession or something.



I can see they might recruit people with dog daemons as guards, as they might expect them to be fierce and loyal -- but yeah, to specify a particular kind of dog seems a bit like an obsession with uniforms. Maybe they look good marching together through Red Square or equivalent.


----------



## CupofJoe

HareBrain said:


> I can see they might recruit people with dog daemons as guards, as they might expect them to be fierce and loyal -- but yeah, to specify a particular kind of dog seems a bit like an obsession with uniforms. Maybe they look good marching together through Red Square or equivalent.


Or there an indoctrination process for children of the Magestrium [I'm thinking Hitler Youth, the Young Pioneers or Khmer Rouge] that can mould the daemon to take such a specific form?


----------



## Dave

There is another problem with not seeing the Daemons. It is highly unusual (if not impossible) for an adult to be apart from their Daemon. Lyra saw that Mrs Coulter was in a different room from her Daemon, was shocked, and couldn't understand it. Not only has the TV series failed to make that point very clear, but the absence of Daemons on screen makes it appear quite normal.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Dave said:


> Not only has the TV series failed to make that point very clear, but the absence of Daemons on screen makes it appear quite normal.


Agreed. I hope they fix this by the next episode or the one after.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

HareBrain said:


> I'm not really sure Pullman thought his system through.



I seem to remember an early interview where he mentioned writing in the daemon to give Lyra somebody to speak with during the opening scenes, which, otherwise, could get a bit dull and prose-y. In the tv documentary he describes how he wrote the sentence first, about Lyra "and her daemon," without knowing what it was, then went on from there.


----------



## ctg

So, what prevents daemons from reproducing? Do you need to use mystical dust for it? I quite cannot understand how humans can reproduce but the animal daemons can't.


----------



## -K2-

They gave me a gerbil daemon... I mean, c'mon, what am I supposed to do with that?...

In any case, I've tried watching the show, yet I'm so out of touch with all of it, including the GC, that I just can't get into it.  Did this series start where you needed some preliminary info, or am I just that dense? Don't answer that... 

K2


----------



## Mouse

ctg said:


> So, what prevents daemons from reproducing? Do you need to use mystical dust for it? I quite cannot understand how humans can reproduce but the animal daemons can't.



They're not really animals, they have no need to reproduce.

What I don't get, is how they're 'born'. I mean, do they pop out along with the human babies? And who names them?


----------



## tinkerdan

I've had the trilogy of novels sitting around the house; never read until now.
Saw pieces of the movie mostly near the end.
So really coming at this mostly not too dirtied up with expectations.
Watched the first four episodes available before deciding to read the book.

I think that the daemons and their counterparts are made clear enough. Both the notion of separation anxiety and necessity to always be close come through clearly and the idea that witches somehow are allowed to have greater distance from their daemons. The notion that everyone has a daemon is clear and that anyone without a daemon would be considered an abomination.  Also the dust and how it is possibly affecting adults and basically those who have reached maturity and onward seems quite clear.  What might not be  as clear is the prohibition against touching other's daemons(because of the scene with the destruction of the journalists butterfly daemon). In the book it seems as though it is inculcated early in life that this is something you simply don't do.   Also what seemed to be missing that was in the book  was the comparison of Iorek's armor to their daemons and calling it a second soul-possibly indicating that the daemon is like a person's second soul or maybe even like the soul they wear on their shoulder so to speak.

The bigger problems I see are where they took license to change events.
There are changes in how Lyra learns who her father and mother are and from whom she hears those and omission of other pertinent details that show up in the book.  More so there are some changes, such as her confrontation with Iorek when he goes berserk in the village. The change here was enough to diminish the strength of Lyra in this scene(when compared to the book). I think that it is likely things like this that are going to hurt the overall impact of the story rather than a perception that there aren't enough daemons in scenes.

Also the inclusion of people already traveling to alternate worlds diminishes the strength of the ending of the first novel and Lyra's decision. All of this is predicated on the horror that is perceived by her father stepping through to the other world. [This is before the reader finds out later that there might be others already doing this].  It diminishes much of the Novels ending and it will be interesting to see what they do in that respect in this series.

I'm just finished with novel 1 and will continue now that I got started.

So, if anything, watching this has gotten me to finally read the novels.


----------



## Dave

ctg said:


> I quite cannot understand how humans can reproduce but the animal daemons can't.


Like @tinkerdan said, I think the daemons have been at least as adequately explained as in the books. The are physical manifestations of the human soul. If you lose one you become a ghost of yourself, and only a witch can be apart from it. The experiments cutting away daemons from children are therefore an abomination.


tinkerdan said:


> The bigger problems I see are where they took license to change events.


I think you may be correct but it is too long ago since I read the books.


tinkerdan said:


> Also the inclusion of people already traveling to alternate worlds... before the reader finds out later that there might be others already doing this...


I see now why I was confused over the Will Parry parts, because these didn't happen until the second book. I do remember that the second book seemed a little slow, so I think that adding this in earlier will help to up the pace when the series gets to that point, but it does diminish the surprises. It also means there is a lot to take in, a lot of info-dumping and I'm not surprised that people aren't easily following this.


----------



## ctg

Dave said:


> The experiments cutting away daemons from children are therefore an abomination.



In their words, abomination, but in my mind I would have tried to save them with another daemon. But I also though that if they are animals, then what is stopping them from having a quick one with their species, since that is allowed to humans. In scientific terms the genetics between animals and us is so small, but when you add a daemon (another soul) and tie it to the character, the whole thing turns to an intriguing challenge. I'm sure that in their world, they would have had a few mad scientists, who have ran experiments.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Mouse said:


> What I don't get, is how they're 'born'. I mean, do they pop out along with the human babies? And who names them?



Exactly the same could be said of the imaginary concept of the soul, or spirit.
Which, perhaps, was one of Pullman's points.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

I much enjoyed last night's episode, which retains the very high standard.
I'm impressed with how the Will story is being woven in - terrific stuff. Both actors there extremely good.
Pullman wrote TSK in the 1990s when young carers wasn't such an issue in public circles (it was in private lives, of course). I think that shows some of his insight.
Bolvangar looks hideous. Next Sunday's episode is going to be grim.


----------



## HareBrain

Stephen Palmer said:


> Exactly the same could be said of the imaginary concept of the soul, or spirit.



A daemon is physical and visible, but hasn't always existed, so at some point its coming into existence must be observable. I think Mouse's question (apart from the naming bit) is what would that observer see? But Pullman doesn't tell us, as far as I remember (probably wisely).


----------



## tinkerdan

Pullman's story of the bible includes a man and his daemon and a woman and her daemon in 'paradise'. So it is a part of the creation story as though the two are created together. I get the impression that there are only one human and one daemon and no extras of either hanging around, so not sure where one would get extra daemons to replace lost ones. The relationship between them is more than just a limb such as a hand, arm, foot, or leg; it is more like a vital organ that you can't live without. Except that it's reciprocal in that the death of either should end the other.

That's the impression I have from reading.

However the fact that they are not to touch anothers daemon makes me wonder if there is a chance for cross contamination. I've only read book one so far, so there there might be more about this.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

HareBrain said:


> A daemon is physical and visible, but hasn't always existed, so at some point its coming into existence must be observable. I think Mouse's question (apart from the naming bit) is what would that observer see? But Pullman doesn't tell us, as far as I remember (probably wisely).


No, I don't think he does.
He confesses that when he wrote the word first he had no idea what it was.
As an atheist, I remain wryly amused by this...


----------



## Stephen Palmer

I think all authors can sometimes overlook the consequences of their inventions. I'm not saying PP necessarily did this, but, reading the comments above, loads of points have been raised that I never thought of when I last read the books.
In my novel _Muezzinland_ I had to "retro-fit" some of the aspects of the aether so it would work with human brains, i.e. consequences occurred to me at the end that I had completely missed at the beginning.


----------



## tinkerdan

Well, regardless of what or how....



HareBrain said:


> A daemon is physical and visible, but hasn't always existed, so at some point its coming into existence must be observable. I think Mouse's question (apart from the naming bit) is what would that observer see? But Pullman doesn't tell us, as far as I remember (probably wisely).



They seem to start more as shape-shifters rather than animals. Taking all kinds of shapes heedless of any concern over conservation of mass. Until one day at the human's age of majority or some such they are frozen. Reminding me of my mother and her favorite saying 'Watch your face and those expressions, some day it will freeze like that.' And  poof one day, 'damn a Sloth...what was I thinking.' 

There certainly are a number of things we could pick at.


----------



## Dave

I never had the problems with daemons when reading the books that some people here have expressed at watching them on the small screen. For a start, I never saw them as animals because they were not animals, only "represented" by animals. I never had to wonder why I couldn't "see" everyone's daemon all of the time. The physical pain being separated from your daemon was described in detail. I think these are all problems with the adaptation from book to screen, but I can't actually tell you how that could have been avoided.


----------



## Mouse

HareBrain said:


> A daemon is physical and visible, but hasn't always existed, so at some point its coming into existence must be observable. I think Mouse's question (apart from the naming bit) is what would that observer see? But Pullman doesn't tell us, as far as I remember (probably wisely).



Yeah, this is what I meant.


----------



## williamjm

Mouse said:


> What I don't get, is how they're 'born'. I mean, do they pop out along with the human babies? And who names them?



When their human dies we see them disappearing as if they were disintegrating, maybe when they are 'born' the opposite happens and they coalesce out of thin air.

As for the naming I wonder if their human's parents' daemons name them in the same way the parents would name a child. It would seem appropriate if that happened.



Stephen Palmer said:


> I much enjoyed last night's episode, which retains the very high standard.
> I'm impressed with how the Will story is being woven in - terrific stuff. Both actors there extremely good.
> Pullman wrote TSK in the 1990s when young carers wasn't such an issue in public circles (it was in private lives, of course). I think that shows some of his insight.
> Bolvangar looks hideous. Next Sunday's episode is going to be grim.



I thought it was a good episode, it brought a lot more emotion to that part of the story than I remember the movie managing (which generally had the tone of a fun fantasy adventure). It's an interesting departure to have Will brought into the story so much earlier but I thought it was a good introduction and I think it works thematically as a parallel to the storyline in the other world - they're both about people desperately trying to protect their families when they feel the authorities are a threat to them.


----------



## REBerg

The story feels very slow to develop, but it seems to have picked up in the last two episodes.
I suppose having a second, 8-episode season approved at the starting gate allows leeway for a slower pace. It's becoming more interesting, but thus far the series seems more like children's fared than something aimed at general viewership.


Spoiler: 1.05 The Lost Boy



The importance of a bear's  relationship to its armour was emphasized in the previous episode, yet when Lyra and Iorek go on their mission, the bear leaves his armour behind. Too heavy to carry with Lyra as a rider? A touch of realism added to the concept of a giant talking bear?


----------



## ctg

Spoiler






REBerg said:


> Too heavy to carry with Lyra as a rider?



Yeah, too heavy for the long distance running.


----------



## tinkerdan

Having just completed reading the three novels... 


REBerg said:


> The story feels very slow to develop, but it seems to have picked up in the last two episodes.
> I suppose having a second, 8-episode season approved at the starting gate allows leeway for a slower pace. It's becoming more interesting, but thus far the series seems more like children's fared than something aimed at general viewership.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 1.05 The Lost Boy
> 
> 
> 
> The importance of a bear's  relationship to its armour was emphasized in the previous episode, yet when Lyra and Iorek go on their mission, the bear leaves his armour behind. Too heavy to carry with Lyra as a rider? A touch of realism added to the concept of a giant talking bear?


My take on the slow parts, is that there is a lot of world building in the second book that is being peppered into the first five episodes, almost to the point of saying that a majority of the first portion of the second novel has been covered by the fifth episode. My guess is that by the time they reach a point level with the end of the first book they will have at least covered half of the second book.

As to the daemons--having the novel fresh in my head--it seems that Pullman really didn't know what they were himself. He's all over the place in his description.

However, if I were to guess, he eventually narrows down to a place that--having studied a number of Christian off-shoots, myself--often seems under contention. That is that we consist of Body-spirit-soul.   Some believe that the spirit and soul are the same some that the spirit and soul are separate.
If I were to guess as, I started a moment ago, most the worlds in the story have spirit and soul as separates and that the spirit is the daemon while the soul is the person within the body. Some worlds the people cannot see or 'manifest' the spirit. At death the *spirit* returns to--in this case--the dust or dark matter



Spoiler



and this is the actual problem in the story because for some reason the *soul* should also do this and it is now stuck in its own specific world


. 

However often the description in the novels waffles enough that I was left guessing; is the daemon the conscience, or maybe just a moral compass, or perhaps that elusive guardian angel. Or perhaps is it more the ID[Daemon] and the EGO [person].

Anyway another interesting thought is that the body can be burnt to ash. The daemon seems to drift off into the dust.
So it brings new meaning to Ashes to Ashes; Dust to Dust.

The books seem to be highly theological in nature.


----------



## ctg

tinkerdan said:


> At death the *spirit* returns to--in this case--the dust or dark matter



There is a theory that claims, when the death occurs, the body releases gases and these gases goes back to the original source, ie a star. Thus you'll experience nirvana and eventually reincarnation, meaning that when the star explodes, it releases all the matter back to the nature. 


Spoiler






tinkerdan said:


> and this is the actual problem in the story because for some reason the *soul* should also do this and it is now stuck in its own specific world



That is the mystery angle, the artistic flair. Pullman could not have known everything, he was following the muse. You cannot blame him for setting rules and then following them as best as he could.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

That's a hypothesis, not a theory.


----------



## tinkerdan

This is where the English is important.


ctg said:


> That is the mystery angle, the artistic flair. Pullman could not have known everything, he was following the muse. You cannot blame him for setting rules and then following them as best as he could.


I said _*in*_ the story-_*in*_ the novel-the problem(conflict)is that the souls of the dead have been deliberately trapped somewhere.

And here we are again...


Stephen Palmer said:


> That's a hypothesis, not a theory.


With Hypothesis vs Theory

*Hypothesis vs*. *Theory*. A *hypothesis* is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a *theory* is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.

It seems many of us including myself often use Theory in the incorrect way.

This should be added just for edification.

There is a huge difference between *theory vs*. *practice*. *Theory* assumes an outcome, while *practice* allows you to test the *theory* and see if it is accurate.

The puzzle being that the former almost gives the impression that theory has already tested to accuracy and yet the latter would seem to suggest that that might not always be the case.[Otherwise why would we test a theory for accuracy.]

Perhaps someone could find better defining words for Hypothesis vs Theory vs Practice.

And:
I'm not even sure this helps overall;








						Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law… Explained!
					

Science Connected Magazine is an editorially independent, non-profit newsroom producing open-access science journalism and scientific fact-checking for the global public.




					magazine.scienceconnected.org
				



same--And I have a hypothesis that the glasses are doing nothing for him other than making him look smart.








						Be Smart | Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law | Season 3 | Episode 4 | PBS
					

Think you know the difference?




					www.pbs.org
				



But it does seem to circle around Hypothesis to Theory to Law; yet somehow make you feel like a healthy stack of waffl(ing)es have just been gentled down your gullet.

A bit more....




__





						Hypothesis vs Theory - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
					

What's the difference between Hypothesis and Theory? A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.	In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a...




					www.diffen.com


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Nirvana and reincarnation do not a theory make.


----------



## hitmouse

Theory and hypothesis are terms used somewhat loosely in vernacular conversation. Ideas of metaphysics, knowledge, and fact are core considerations in philosophy, and a short discussion is likely to be unsatisfactory.

In science, a theory is a credible explanation for something that can be objectively tested, and which can potentially be disproved. Many scientists would hold the view of the philosopher Karl Popper that without the potential for falsifiability any assertion of fact is pseudoscience. Nirvana, Reincarnation, number of angels on the head of a pin, are good examples.

I think that including _practice_ in that particular discussion causes confusion. "Theory and practice" is a colloquial way of differentiating what is learnt in the classroom, from what happens in the "real" world, which is often more complex.


----------



## tinkerdan

I hypothesize that the difference between fact-theory-hypothesis, is much more important in science than in this particular discussion.
That makes me wonder if correcting anyone about them is really relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Mouse

And back to the show...

I don't remember the cut daemons being still around after cut away from their humans in the novels. Interesting though. How on earth _did_ Billy Costa get away from that place? I never really thought about it before.

I'm not keen on Iorek's voice at all.


----------



## Dave

tinkerdan said:


> The books seem to be highly theological in nature.





ctg said:


> Pullman could not have known everything, he was following the muse. You cannot blame him for setting rules and then following them as best as he could.


I've no doubt that you are both fully aware already, but for those that are not, Philip Pullman is a confirmed, and *extremely vocal*, "Church of England atheist" and "Agnostic," to use his own words. Nothing you see here is not done by design. 



Spoiler: Some background with mild spoilers only



If the idea of a separated soul stuck in its own world seems to be absurd then I'm quite sure that is absolutely intentional. Also, that the story has parallels to Narnia (talking animals, doors between alternate worlds, Lyra rather than Lucy, a final battle linked to cosmic consequences.) Pullman himself said, "I hate the _Narnia_ books, and I hate them with a deep and bitter passion, with their view of childhood as a golden age from which sexuality and adulthood are a falling-away."


----------



## tinkerdan

Of interest here is that  Billy is taking the place of a different character here.


Mouse said:


> I don't remember the cut daemons being still around after cut away from their humans in the novels. Interesting though. How on earth _did_ Billy Costa get away from that place? I never really thought about it before.


In the book there was more relevant material revealed at the village that mentions many other children having shown up and each one eventually dies.
It seemed that at some point they were discarded--making the horror of what was done to them worse.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Fantastic sixth episode, gripping, creepy, full of action and detail.
Ruth Wilson continues to shine as Mrs Coulter.
Blimey, I think I'll have to get this on DVD...


----------



## Mouse

tinkerdan said:


> Of interest here is that  Billy is taking the place of a different character here.
> 
> In the book there was more relevant material revealed at the village that mentions many other children having shown up and each one eventually dies.
> It seemed that at some point they were discarded--making the horror of what was done to them worse.



That's what I thought happened in the book.


----------



## REBerg

*1.06 The Daemon-Cages*


Dave said:


> I've no doubt that you are both fully aware already, but for those that are not, Philip Pullman is a confirmed, and *extremely vocal*, "Church of England atheist" and "Agnostic," to use his own words. Nothing you see here is not done by design.





Spoiler



I was struck by Mrs. Coulter's reference to "experimental theology." Stripping souls for evil purposes is not a new concept, but separating body and soul for the "greater good"?
People have often been characterized as soulless, but that has never been a compliment. I can only assume that Mrs. Coulter no longer has a soul and that her companion is not and may never have been a daemon. Has it ever spoken?


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Super-tense Episode 7!
The Will Parry sections were particularly gripping.


----------



## Mouse

Yes, I enjoyed it. Except I thought the bear fight was an anti-climax. They didn't even show the kill.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Just like Pullman didn't show god being killed in book 3. :/


----------



## REBerg

Mouse said:


> Yes, I enjoyed it. Except I thought the bear fight was an anti-climax. They didn't even show the kill.


The battle of the bears was an unexpected exception to the amazing CGI the series has otherwise shown.
The fight action looked like it was being performed by a couple of WWF guys wearing bear suits.
I didn't mind that the kill was off-camera. It provided a moment of doubt about the victor.


----------



## HareBrain

REBerg said:


> a couple of WWF guys wearing bear suits.



WWF guys would be wearing panda bear suits.


----------



## CupofJoe

REBerg said:


> The battle of the bears was an unexpected exception to the amazing CGI the series has otherwise shown.
> The fight action looked like it was being performed by a couple of WWF guys wearing bear suits.
> I didn't mind that the kill was off-camera. It provided a moment of doubt about the victor.


And even if it was show after the 21.00 watershed on the BBC it probably was filmed with a PG certificate for the widest audience.
I'd like to see some real footage of Polar Bears fighting to see how the two compared.


----------



## tinkerdan

Theylook like two WWF fighters in bearsuits.





Really more of a dance to keep warm than a fight.


----------



## CupofJoe

I know you shouldn't anthropomorphise but they do look like they are having fun, more than fighting.
And thank you for looking it out for me!


----------



## REBerg

tinkerdan said:


> Theylook like two WWF fighters in bearsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really more of a dance to keep warm than a fight.


Looks like polar bears have more sense than humans.


----------



## Bagpuss

A more serious fight (over a girl), which starts at about 01:19 (oh, and ignore the video title, it's just clickbait)







Also, an interview with a polar bear:


----------



## Stephen Palmer

REBerg said:


> I didn't mind that the kill was off-camera. It provided a moment of doubt about the victor.



Agreed.


----------



## Ursa major

Having watched _Logan_ yesterday evening (I recorded it off the TV at the weekend), I don't understand why Lyra didn't make herself the Queen of the Bears....


----------



## CupofJoe

Ursa major said:


> Having watched _Logan_ yesterday evening (I recorded it off the TV at the weekend), I don't understand why Lyra didn't make herself the Queen of the Bears....


Well, if you are going to change elements of the story, lets make it a good'un!!!


----------



## Ursa major

Thinking about it, she could have become Lyra Belacquaregia....


*gets coat*


----------



## williamjm

Ursa major said:


> Having watched _Logan_ yesterday evening (I recorded it off the TV at the weekend), I don't understand why Lyra didn't make herself the Queen of the Bears....



She probably didn't want to be tied down. I'm sure Svalbard is nice, but it might get a bit dull after a while.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Terrifically tense ending to the series!
But I've already read one "slightly disappointed" review, because the end of series one leaves so much waiting to be discovered...
It's like _Lord Of The Rings_ though - one long novel in three volumes. HDM is one long experience in three series, so, perhaps, it was always going to be a bit of an anti-climax last night.
Overall, I loved the adaption, thrilling and brilliantly acted.
Only one question, which I can't remember from the books... if Mrs Coulter was having such trouble separating children from daemons, how come Asriel managed it so easily atop the mountain?


----------



## Mouse

Mrs Coulter was trying to do it and keep the children alive whereas Asriel flat out murders Roger. I prefer Roger's death in the book, much more dramatic.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Ah! I see. Forgot that bit.


----------



## REBerg

Spoiler: 1.08 Betrayal



This series remains spectacular, but I'm still not getting the big picture.
Both of Lyra's parents are allegedly working to save Humanity, but differ in their sinister solutions? How is separating children from their daemon souls a good thing? What threat is posed by these creatures?
Asriel's sacrifice of Roger seemed to open a parallel world portal. At least one inter-world passageway already exists, so what's the point of this immoral act?
Mrs. Coulter and the Magisterium, like all good authoritarians, appear to be focused on gaining absolute control of the world population, which is never a positive thing. Serving the soul also appears to sever free will.
I'll watch the next season in the hope that I can make sense of it all. After all, the fun is in the trying, right?


----------



## tinkerdan

@REBerg


Spoiler



The Magisterium are religious fanatics. They believe that dust is related to original sin.

The connection to puberty and the appearance of affects from dust at that time and the locking of the daemons into one single form suggest that the daemons are connected to original sin. Removing the daemons would be removing original sin.

Mrs. Coulter is attempting to remove original sin.

Asriel is certain that there is a connection between dust and the multi-universes.
The separation of a child from a daemon demonstrates the release of an enormous energy that he believes will open the access to other universes.

His goal;  he means to confront and start a war between man and the authority.



One of them wants to remove original sin.

One wants to wage war with heaven(the authority)

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## williamjm

REBerg said:


> Spoiler: 1.08 Betrayal
> 
> 
> 
> Asriel's sacrifice of Roger seemed to open a parallel world portal. At least one inter-world passageway already exists, so what's the point of this immoral act?



We know there's already a passageway between worlds, but Asriel doesn't know about it (probably not many people do, other than Boreal) so does have a reason to make his own. I remember some discussion earlier in the thread pointing out that one disadvantage (although I don't think it's a big problem) of bringing in the storyline from Will's Oxford into the first season is that it makes it less surprising when Asriel opens his portal - in the books we don't find out until the second book that there was another portal.


----------



## tinkerdan

This begins to get into things that are not answered until partway through book two and well into book three.


williamjm said:


> We know there's already a passageway between worlds, but Asriel doesn't know about it (probably not many people do, other than Boreal) so does have a reason to make his own. I remember some discussion earlier in the thread pointing out that one disadvantage (although I don't think it's a big problem) of bringing in the storyline from Will's Oxford into the first season is that it makes it less surprising when Asriel opens his portal - in the books we don't find out until the second book that there was another portal.


There are other ways than the one Asriel used. However the Magisterium and the Authority don't want people to know about them.
There is also a price for leaving doorways open--which again goes back to the idea that these things are yet to be ironed out in the next book and a half, since they might be mostly half way through the second book with the extra stuff they have thrown in.

It is true that at this point it looks like Roger's death is a plot device used because Lyra was supposed to betray someone.

On the other hand, it should be considered that the portals or doorways that are open are not well documented and it may be in his impatience and his own knowledge he decided to use this as a shortcut to getting there. His logic being that in a war there are casualties.


----------



## REBerg

Seems like _His Dark Materials_ could use a separate thread for the books.


----------



## HareBrain

tinkerdan said:


> It is true that at this point it looks like Roger's death is a plot device used because Lyra was supposed to betray someone.



I was not impressed with Lyra's actions at the end there. Rather than try to stop Asriel or even shout at him, all she did was touch Roger's hand. Very useful, I don't think -- and not at all in character.


----------



## Dave

Despite already being filmed, and advertised this New Year by the BBC as "Drama for 2020," I can't find a broadcast date for Series 2.
This: His Dark Materials season 2: Everything you need to know
suggests that it won't be until November 2020. (Despite the claim below the headline, they don't actually know.) Does anyone know any different?


----------



## Bagpuss

Dave said:


> Does anyone know any different?



Not really, no. Series 2 has already been filmed. However, based on the interviews that Jane Tranter (the exec producer) gave during the series 1 publicity rounds at Comicon and elsewhere, the series needs to spend about 9 months in post-production in order to add the CGI daemons and other effects. (They actually filmed season 1 in 2018.) Therefore the earliest series 2 could be on TV is October/November 2020.

The only other rumours are that in relation to filming the third book they may wait until Dafne Keen turns 16 before they start filming. That would mean they wouldn't start filming a third season until 2021, with an air-date in late 2022 at the earliest. There are some advantages to waiting, not least that Keen would be able to work full-time and she would be the same age as Lyra is in the third book. Tranter has also said in interviews that she would like to split book 3 into two 8-part seasons. Although whether that will happen or not has yet to be decided.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Bagpuss said:


> Tranter has also said in interviews that she would like to split book 3 into two 8-part seasons. Although whether that will happen or not has yet to be decided.


Sheesh, I hope not. The middle third of the novel could be excised no problem :/


----------



## williamjm

Dave said:


> Despite already being filmed, and advertised this New Year by the BBC as "Drama for 2020," I can't find a broadcast date for Series 2.
> This: His Dark Materials season 2: Everything you need to know
> suggests that it won't be until November 2020. (Despite the claim below the headline, they don't actually know.) Does anyone know any different?



The BBC always seem to treat the release dates of their shows as some sort of state secret up until about a month beforehand. I think the obvious timing would be for season 2 to start at the same time season 1 did last year.


----------



## AlexH

I caught up with the last 3 episodes late after being away for 2 of them. I thought the series started well (if a little confusing) and got better and better, until the penultimate episode, which was the best.

I heard an interview on the radio where whoever it was said the next series was set for November.



REBerg said:


> I didn't mind that the kill was off-camera. It provided a moment of doubt about the victor.


I liked that aspect of it.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

On DVD now at HMV for £17.99.


----------



## Droflet

Love the bear.


----------



## ctg

HBO debuts first His Dark Materials S2 trailer at San Diego Comic-Con@Home
					

“People are afraid of things they don’t understand.”




					arstechnica.com


----------



## AlexH

I won't be watching the trailer but am excited about the second series. 

I don't watch much TV so sometimes have to be 'forced' into watching something by it being on TV. Maybe I should sign up to a streaming service, because I do enjoy a good series and there's so much I haven't watched.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Series 1 was terrific. Very much looking forward to series 2!


----------



## Rodders

I need to go back and watch this, as I only saw the first two episodes. I enjoyed what I saw.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

On the way...


----------



## REBerg

​Coming Monday, Nov. 16. Not clear on whether it will be on HBO, HBOMax or both.


----------



## Droflet

Looking forward to the return of the bear.


----------



## M. Robert Gibson

Sunday night BBC1 20:10








						BBC One - His Dark Materials
					

Star-studded adaptation of Philip Pullman's fantasy trilogy.




					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## AlexH

M. Robert Gibson said:


> Sunday night BBC1 20:10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BBC One - His Dark Materials
> 
> 
> Star-studded adaptation of Philip Pullman's fantasy trilogy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk


Aargh. I barely watch anything on TV and this clashes with the only other programme I'd watch at the moment - that's Simon Reeve's travels on BBC 2.


----------



## M. Robert Gibson

AlexH said:


> Aargh. I barely watch anything on TV and this clashes with the only other programme I'd watch at the moment - that's Simon Reeve's travels on BBC 2.


There's always iPlayer.  I'm sure it will get repeated on there after its premiere


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Very much enjoyed the first episode of the second series. Anyone else see it?


----------



## Ursa major

I watched and enjoyed it...

...and _after_ the programme (so this wasn't on my mind while I was watching), I discovered that the city, Cittàgazze, was not CGI but a plaster, wood and metal affair, built on a parking lot where the trailers used to be parked during the filming of the first series/season.

In the article I read about it, production designer and executive producer Joel Collins said: “What’s interesting is it’s not just one big main street, which backlot sets sometimes are – it was a set to be lost in. I think that’s part of what I wanted to do. We were very lucky we had a central core, which was the tower. But I wanted everyone to be able to go down the street and get lost. If you can get lost in the street, then the camera can get lost – and you can suddenly make the town go from a certain size to massive.”

He then joked, “Sadly the crew started trying to live here, so we actually had to lock all the doors.”


----------



## Mouse

I watched it. Been many years since I read the books so I can't really remember what's going on... which is a shame because my partner (who hasn't read the books) keeps asking me what's happening and what things are. I only have a vague recollection of the spectres.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Good episode two. Excellent quality so far.


----------



## hitmouse

Really enjoying this.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Very tense episode 3! Gripping watching. Best episode so far.


----------



## CupofJoe

I think it is winding up in pace which is good. I wasn't a fan of the McGuffin where 



Spoiler



where Lyra leaps out of a car forgetting, her bag and apparently Pan and the alethiometer. Only to have the alethiometer stolen


It was necessary for the plot, but I felt it out of character.


----------



## Dave

Pan was a bird flying behind the car. As for forgetting her bag, she hasn't been in a car before, hasn't worn a seat belt before, doesn't know this Oxford. That's disorientating.


----------



## Ursa major

Dave said:


> As for forgetting her bag, she hasn't been in a car before, hasn't worn a seat belt before, doesn't know this Oxford. That's disorientating.


And not forgetting that she'd realised that she was in a jam just seconds after barely escaping from the previous one.

This would be enough to throw anyone into somewhat of a spin, let alone someone who is, after all, still not an adult.


----------



## williamjm

Ursa major said:


> And not forgetting that she'd realised that she was in a jam just seconds after barely escaping from the previous one.
> 
> This would be enough to throw anyone into somewhat of a spin, let alone someone who is, after all, still not an adult.



In addition to this I think a big factor is that she realises the car is accelerating away from Pan which is why she gets increasingly frantic about wanting to get out since the prospect of physical separation from your daemon would be terrifying to someone from her world.


----------



## CupofJoe

You can all be right, but it didn't feel true to me.


----------



## Dave

Are we critiquing the plot (which you were when talking of McGuffins) or the poor TV adaptation (which could have shown these things more clearly)? I don't think it is a problem within the book.


----------



## CupofJoe

I'm only talking about the TV show. Not even its adaptation as I don't know the books well enough to compare. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my opinions, just that it didn't feel right for how I perceive Lyra would have acted...


----------



## Stephen Palmer

She was scared and disoriented. Seemed fine to me.


----------



## Topher

Stephen Palmer said:


> Very much enjoyed the first episode of the second series. Anyone else see it?


I've been watching it, and enjoying it. I've not read the books since they first came out so can't remember much of the plot, so it's like watching it fresh. Hoping that by the end of S3 I'll be able to read his new trilogy without having to reread the original!


----------



## jd73

What I like about this series is that they've clearly listened to viewers' concerns re: season 1 and actively addressed them in season 2. It makes me feel like I'm in safe, considerate hands, hands that care about what they're making. Far too often, I see serieses (!!) start with a big budget bang and then slowly, slowly start to meander into the floodlands of turgid and tired writing until you're at the point where you're desperate to quit it but it's become such part of your life that you daren't, just out of fear of change. 

I swear, it's the same psychology that makes people struggle to quit bad situations. I bet the producers know it too. I bet it's part of their strategy. God, I'm cynical. They probably have a name for that point too. Yeah. Gah.


----------



## HareBrain

jd73 said:


> What I like about this series is that they've clearly listened to viewers' concerns re: season 1 and actively addressed them in season 2.



Ah, what are they doing differently? I didn't really get into the first series, though I couldn't put a finger on why. I remember The Subtle Knife being the most interesting book in the trilogy (though I can recall almost nothing about it) so I've been thinking of giving this series a go, but haven't so far because the first one didn't hold my attention.


----------



## jd73

HareBrain said:


> Ah, what are they doing differently? I didn't really get into the first series, though I couldn't put a finger on why. I remember The Subtle Knife being the most interesting book in the trilogy (though I can recall almost nothing about it) so I've been thinking of giving this series a go, but haven't so far because the first one didn't hold my attention.



Two things jump out at me; one is the presence of daemons in the background, and the other is pacing. This season seems a little ... not faster exactly, but ... tighter, more compelling, where season had a lot of moments that started to drag quite badly imo.

I think also they have found their voice a bit more. It seems to me that S1 didn't fully know what it wanted to be (a situation probably caused by quite a generationally diverse fanbase, including younger viewers, older viewers, fantasy audience, non-fantasy audience, new viewers to the series, old hands, and so on - a curse that _Star Wars_ also massively battled with, tmm). Pullman is, as I understand it, primarily a children's author but the take up of HDM by older readers probably caused a bit of a direction wobble. Whereas now, they seem to have settled into a "yes, we are for younger viewers too but we have a weird Dr Who-ish sheen and we can make the two work together" sort of vibe, for me. Kid-friendly TV used to be like that anyway - some of the stuff in the UK in the 70s and 80s was downright freakish as I recall, and probably long overdue an _homage _or three  All of which is good. It's a reasonably bold course to go, I would say.


----------



## Dave

jd73 said:


> one is the presence of daemons in the background


Yes, there are people who hadn't read the books, who said here that they weren't aware that everyone should have a daemon, or more importantly, they they could not be separated from it without great pain and distress. If that wasn't made clear to viewers then it was a huge mistake, though very likely a cost problem. I had noticed myself that daemons are much more present in the background in this second season.


----------



## jd73

Dave said:


> Yes, there are people who hadn't read the books, who said here that they weren't aware that everyone should have a daemon, or more importantly, they they could not be separated from it without great pain and distress. If that wasn't made clear to viewers then it was a huge mistake, though very likely a cost problem. I had noticed myself that daemons are much more present in the background in this second season.



Yeah, definitely. I tend to have a very budget-conscious approach to things, so I'd have just said, 'look all you need is two seagulls and a ferrett. My mate's got a ferret you can borrow and meanwhile stick a sandwich on that table and there's your two seagulls, instant daemons, no pesky union pressure.'   Almost guaranteed it's not that simple of course but hey ho ...


----------



## Mouse

I noticed more daemons, though still not enough in my opinion. Most people seem to have bugs now. I mean, they really didn't need to CGI every daemon though - borrow a rat, they happily sit on shoulders. Or, you know, dogs are pretty tame. 

re things that aren't clear to people who haven't read the books - my partner asked why Lee Scoresby didn't just grab Mrs Coulter's monkey to knock her out. It's not overly obvious that it's taboo to touch other people's daemons.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

The interface where YA meets adult themes and philosophy is a particularly fascinating one for some authors, me included. Pullman did the first two novels extremely well, but the third one is a mess. It will be fascinating to see how they deal with the demise of the Authority. My Factory Girl trilogy was intended to reach a similar audience. Doubtless I'll go there again.


----------



## Matteo

williamjm said:


> In addition to this I think a big factor is that she realises the car is accelerating away from Pan which is why she gets increasingly frantic about wanting to get out since the prospect of physical separation from your daemon would be terrifying to someone from her world.


Have been enjoying this series (as I did the previous) and can't remember all the details of the books as it's been some years since I read them.

As for this incident, I agree with the above (and I wonder how many Chroners have forgotten their bag in a car/bus/train - I know I have!) but was surprised that Lyra got into the car in the first place - she normally exhibits more "smarts" than that.


----------



## williamjm

jd73 said:


> Two things jump out at me; one is the presence of daemons in the background, and the other is pacing. This season seems a little ... not faster exactly, but ... tighter, more compelling, where season had a lot of moments that started to drag quite badly imo.
> 
> I think also they have found their voice a bit more. It seems to me that S1 didn't fully know what it wanted to be (a situation probably caused by quite a generationally diverse fanbase, including younger viewers, older viewers, fantasy audience, non-fantasy audience, new viewers to the series, old hands, and so on - a curse that _Star Wars_ also massively battled with, tmm). Pullman is, as I understand it, primarily a children's author but the take up of HDM by older readers probably caused a bit of a direction wobble. Whereas now, they seem to have settled into a "yes, we are for younger viewers too but we have a weird Dr Who-ish sheen and we can make the two work together" sort of vibe, for me. Kid-friendly TV used to be like that anyway - some of the stuff in the UK in the 70s and 80s was downright freakish as I recall, and probably long overdue an _homage _or three  All of which is good. It's a reasonably bold course to go, I would say.



I think the second season is in some ways easier to adapt than the start of the first season since there's not the same need for exposition to explain all the things we need to know about Lyra's world. By the second season the audience should be familiar with daemons, 'our' Oxford needs no explanation and we can discover Citigazze along with Lyra and Will since they also don't know anything about it.

I've seen speculation that the increased number of daemons could be due to having more money after their deal with HBO.



Mouse said:


> I noticed more daemons, though still not enough in my opinion. Most people seem to have bugs now.



I did like the lemur daemon in the most recent episode.



> re things that aren't clear to people who haven't read the books - my partner asked why Lee Scoresby didn't just grab Mrs Coulter's monkey to knock her out. It's not overly obvious that it's taboo to touch other people's daemons.



Now I'm not sure whether they've explained that in the show. I don't think they have in the second season, I can't remember whether they did in the first. 



Matteo said:


> As for this incident, I agree with the above (and I wonder how many Chroners have forgotten their bag in a car/bus/train - I know I have!) but was surprised that Lyra got into the car in the first place - she normally exhibits more "smarts" than that.



She does seem wary but I'm not sure she had much option. The policeman was surely going to catch her if she remained on foot and she doesn't know the policeman is working with Boreal.


----------



## Mouse

williamjm said:


> Now I'm not sure whether they've explained that in the show. I don't think they have in the second season, I can't remember whether they did in the first.



I think maybe they did in the first when someone grabbed one of the kids' daemons, but I can't remember if it was stated explicitly or just alluded to.


----------



## REBerg

As one of those who haven't read the books, I struggled with making sense of things in the first season.
Now, I'll know that whenever my wife is dusting the living room, she's really removing dark matter.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

The whole series so far has been excellent - often gripping.
Looking forward to tonight's episode.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Wow!
Amazing series end.
Sets it up for the final conflict...


----------



## Dave

Stephen Palmer said:


> Sets it up for the final conflict...


Psst! (But there are 3 more books after _The Amber Spyglass_. Personally, I think they should have begun with _La Belle Sauvage.)_


----------



## Ursa major

From an article on the website Winter Is Coming (which seems to have expanded its scope since the last time I visited):





> the writer and producer, Jack Thorne, has told _Comics Beat_, "So I’ve been writing Series Three; I’ve written four episodes of Series Three."


However, renewal has not yet been confirmed.


----------



## Steve Harrison

I really enjoyed both series, though I didn't realise episode 7 of season 2 was the finale until those major events occurred. I haven't read any of the books, but I'm hoping for another season.


----------



## williamjm

Ursa major said:


> From an article on the website Winter Is Coming (which seems to have expanded its scope since the last time I visited):However, renewal has not yet been confirmed.



Today it was confirmed that it was renewed for a third (and final) season of 8 episodes.



Steve Harrison said:


> I really enjoyed both series, though I didn't realise episode 7 of season 2 was the finale until those major events occurred. I haven't read any of the books, but I'm hoping for another season.



It was meant to be 8 episodes but one episode focusing on Lord Asriel which was being filmed after the others to fit into James McAvoy's schedule was cancelled due to the pandemic.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Season 3 will be very interesting...


----------



## AlexH

I'm catching up on the second series on iPlayer. A brilliant first two episodes! It might be something I binge-watch, which would still only be around 2 episodes a week for me.


----------



## M. Robert Gibson

I've just binge watched the second series.  All in all I thought it well done and pretty much followed the books, as I remember them anyway. 

However, there is a growing problem on TV and film and that is... whispering. 
Ruth Wilson's Marissa does it a lot, and it's really irritating, especially when there's no need for it, like when two characters are alone


----------



## Judderman

I rewatched the Golden Compass movie and then went through season 1 of His Dark Materials. I probably shouldn't have watched the movie so closely beforehand as it spoilt a lot of the plot. Actually the first half of the movie was pretty good, with much set at the University. It went through that part quite slowly. Seemed like two episodes of the series went through the same as that first half. But then the movie accelerates into a desperate rush for an anti-climactic battle and the bear fight.
The series added some side stories and the details about parents were rather a big difference. Also with the scenes of the alternate world. So it was definitely far superior overall. Both had good actors, though some of the characters appeared and acted very differently. Even some demons like the monkey.


----------



## AlexH

AlexH said:


> I'm catching up on the second series on iPlayer. A brilliant first two episodes! It might be something I binge-watch, which would still only be around 2 episodes a week for me.


And much slower than M. Robert Gibson it seems, over 2 months later I've finished! I'm a little disappointed, as I just went to the iPlayer wondering where episode 8 was, thinking 7 was setting up for a big finale. Oh well, I enjoyed those 7 episodes very much.



jd73 said:


> What I like about this series is that they've clearly listened to viewers' concerns re: season 1 and actively addressed them in season 2. It makes me feel like I'm in safe, considerate hands, hands that care about what they're making. Far too often, I see serieses (!!) start with a big budget bang and then slowly, slowly start to meander into the floodlands of turgid and tired writing until you're at the point where you're desperate to quit it but it's become such part of your life that you daren't, just out of fear of change.
> 
> I swear, it's the same psychology that makes people struggle to quit bad situations. I bet the producers know it too. I bet it's part of their strategy. God, I'm cynical. They probably have a name for that point too. Yeah. Gah.


I'm not sure how likely that was given the second series starting filming before the first aired, though I imagine feedback could have been taken into account to an extent.


----------



## Dave

AlexH said:


> I'm not sure how likely that was given the second series starting filming before the first aired, though I imagine feedback could have been taken into account to an extent.


While I hadn't heard that, except for right here, it is entirely possible given that the effects would have been added post-production, and so after filming took place. 



AlexH said:


> I just went to the iPlayer wondering where episode 8 was, thinking 7 was setting up for a big finale.


 
It's another effect of Covid-19. There is a whole story of what Lord Asriel was busy doing in _The Subtle Knife_ that they meant to include in Season 2 but had to stop filming. I expect we will catch up with it in Season 3.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

We've been re-watching series 1 of HDM. Still awesome! A really amazing telly experience. Had forgotten how tense many scenes are. The acting is uniformly exceptional. Looking forward to re-watching series 2..


----------



## Stephen Palmer

Can't wait for series three!


----------

