Golden Compass - spoilers (book and movie) discussion

[The_Warrior]

Re: His dark materials movie

Thank you! For putting alot of my thoughts I had for this, (after finishing the first voulume) in words! Much of what you explained was prettty close to my thoughts.

 

[Majimaune]

Re: His dark materials movie

Orion, long time no see. Your posts are still full of greatness though.

 

[Thadlerian]

OK, now that people have started getting to see the adaption of Pullman's The Golden Compass, it should be time to get a discussion on the movie content/execution up and running.

I did not hate this movie, because it did not disappoint me. It did not disappoint me, because I had expected absolutely nothing from it. The trailer and the news bits had it spelled out pretty clear from the start: Entertainment. Still, I think it would be fitting to discuss some of the more provocative elements of the adaption.

My major gripes with this movie are the following:

1: The ideas
Sometimes, I want to agree with literature snobs; those who say that Fantasy is childish escapism,not worthy of the term "literature". But then I recall what Fantasy can do that ordinary fiction can't: This genre (along with SF) can take those ideas that are bigger that individual human beings, and explore them fully and completely unhindered. And, more than any other Fantasy book brought to my attention, this is what Pullman's His Dark Materials is about. Ideas.

The movie has been completely stripped of them. We're left with some generic evil totalitarian regime without motivations. All the reasons and explanations have been watered down to some bland free will vs. slavery dichotomy, which we've all seen so many times that it's impossible to take it seriously.

Without the ideas, what is the meaning of telling the story of The Golden Compass? What is the meaning of this movie?

2: The ending
The ending makes sense. If the purpose is to fit this story into the over-used blockbuster movie model, then it makes perfectly sense to have a happy+expectant ending, and spare us for the heart-wrenching scene which concludes the book. See the previous point: What is the meaning of this movie? To tell the story, or to punch the story's superficial appearance into the shape demanded by the blockbuster?

According to IMDB:

The events which comprise the final portion of the first book had been already filmed, and brief portions can be glimpsed in the trailers. However, the scenes were removed. According to several reviews: "'There was tremendous marketing pressure for that,' Weitz said. 'Everyone really wanted an upbeat ending.'" These scenes will be the first portion of the sequel, The Subtle Knife, if/when that movie is made.

Take the quotes from this paragraph, replace "Weitz" with "Ridley Scott", and pretend that this thread is about Blade Runner. See?

3: The prohpecy
The book introduced the witches' prophecy a good while into the story. At this point, the plot is already moving ahead at full speed, because of Lyra's actions and choices. In the movie, the prophecy is introduced practically from frame #1. In the movie, the story is powered nearly completely by determinism: Stuff happens because outside forces set things in motion. And having the prophecy introduced from the start legitimizes this setting; stuff happens because it says so in the prophecy.

Example:
In the book, Lyra flees from Mrs. Coulter's apartment during a cocktail party. She goes unnoticed, and is not directly threatened: She leaves on her own accord, having made the choice.

In the movie, Lyra flees from Mrs. Coulter's apartment when the golden monkey finds the alethiometer, and she's being confronted with Mrs. Coulter. Lyra is directly threatened. She is being chased out through a window, and leaves because she has no choice.

4: Lord Asriel
Related to my point about the ending. This way, we don't get to know his true nature. Now he's just some Uncle Treasure Hunter - charming and completely un-challenging to relate to.

Lord Asriel of the book is a bad, bad man - and an excellent character. He dominates everyone he meets. His behaviour towards Lyra is violent and threatening, but sometimes he is an excellent teacher. The key word for this character is power. Daniel Craig gives him no power at all. Perhaps this kind of character is impossible to act? I don't think so. I don't think this has anything to do with Craig's capabilities, it is yet again because the script has been watered down to something universally acceptable.

5: Pantalaimon and dæmons in general
From the very beginning of the book, we get to know Lyra's dæmon, Pan, as a bossy voice of conscience, of common sense against Lyra's impulses. He does not hestitate to raise his voice against her, to at least attempt to take a position as an authority, to criticize.

Like Lord Asriel, the movie Pantalaimon has been watered down to something funny and harmless. He's the Disney talking animal. A pet and nothing more.

The pet impression continues towards the end of the movie: Lyra is certain that something can be done to help the kids who had their dæmons cut away. Again, watering down of central elements, and another verification that the dæmon is nothing more than the Disney sidekick.


That's it for now.

Shall we try to keep this thread free from superficial, obvious remarks like

But you always have to alter some things to adapt a book into a movie

Most of the points I have mentioned could easily have been implemented with hardly any prolonging of the running time.

 

[Dave]

Until I read what you posted I had thought it was a fairly faithful adaptation, but I can't fault what you said, and I guess it is too long ago since I read the books. I had forgotten that Lyra ran away during the cocktail party.

Your comments from Movie Fan are still true in regard to time constraints though, and also I think there was some heavy pressure to water down this film for it to be successful.

 

[Thadlerian]

No, you were right in that other thread, it is a very faithful adaption. Far more so than I had expected. But I feel that only applies to the story on the surface. I feel a major problem of this movie was that the director's ambition and external pressure, rather than structural and "physical" constraints, were the determinants for the strong simplification.

 

[Dave]

I saw a TV programme about 'The Making of...." and Philip Pullman was there in the background in almost every shot. He was heavily involved in the design of props, taking the prop-designers to the museum of antiquities in Oxford, where he first had the idea for the Aleithiometer. So, either he was satisfied with the way the film was made, or, he just gave away too much control to the director and filmmakers. JK Rowling very forcefully insisted that much of Harry Potter was not changed, but I've heard many an author complaining about giving away their soul to the devil when they handed over the film rights of their book (for a substantial sum of money of course.) Unless you write the screenplay yourself (and even then....) I'm not sure you can ever prevent this. We've discussed in other threads here how Books and Films are not the same thing. What works in one does not work in another, and vice versa, so authors have to let filmmakers do what they think is best and hope they know what they are doing.

 

[Overread]

hmm Dave - that reminds me of the poor Earthsea series(it too early for me to spell author names) - first there was the atrocity that was Sci-Fi channels attempt and more recently the less atrotious, but equally un-easthsea like Studio Ghibli production - thus it is a darn sight better than what SiFi made (didn't that get official unlicenced or something?)

 

[Lith]

I'm only going to address point one as I haven't seen the movie (and the thread title says book and movie). Fantasy's an ideal genre for philosophical discussion of ideas, but the funny thing here is that Pullman rests so wholly on the Romantics, which unless you want to class them as fantasy (or proto-fantasy), they're usually considered literature, and not fantasy. At least not genre fantasy, which is typically little more than escapism.

I'm not going particularly anywhere with this, just making an observation.

 

[Overread]

you confuse me there Lith?
Fantasy and romace are not linked?
please expand more on this idea - how many tales have a prince after a maiden - how many deal with love
I would consider romance part of fantasy in most cases

 

[Lith]

The two ARE linked. But the Romantics are bona fide literature, while genre fantasy is still on the outs for the literary snobs.

Or do you mean romance? I'm talking of the Romantics, the Romantic movement in Europe- mostly Blake, Shelley, Keats, Coleridge. Their work is not strictly fantasy, though it borders on it at times. Nor is it romantic as we understand it today- not really sure how it garned the name "Romantic", but their work typically is based on a love of experience over reason and an appeal to the senses (sensualism, but again not as we understand the term today). Shelley, at least, believed in a sort of atheistic Pantheism which Pullman seems to follow closely.

 

[Mary Hoffman]

It's Milton that Pullman claims as his inspiration, which is where the phrase "His Dark Materials" comes from (Paradise Lost), not the Romantic poets who also include Wordsworth and Byron. Milton was 200 years earlier.

Mary

 

[Lith]

Milton shaped the book, but Shelley seems to have had more of a hand in shaping his thought. However, Shelley's worship of Milton somewhat mutes the distinction. Not just Shelley either (though he was as far as I know the first to actually proclaim atheism), but all the romantics- Milton was a sort of prophet for them, though he didn't know it.

 

[roddglenn]

I managed to see this the other night and was pleasantly impressed with it. Dakota Blue Richards who plays Lyra was very good, as was the rest of the supporting cast - Daniel Craig (not in it much, but was great when on screen), Sam Elliot (always brilliant), Nicole Kidman (a lot better than I thought she'd be and a more complex baddie than I thought she would be too), Sir Ian McKellen (his voice is well suited for Lorek's character), Eva Green (sufficiently tantalising), Ian McShane (didn't recognise his voice at the time as Ragnar) and many more.

In comparing it to the other major fantasy film around the same time, I thought it was a bit darker than Stardust with less of the comic element, which worked well. The effects were all excellent - the polar bear fight in particular was very well done. The story rattled along at a good pace and having not read the book, I felt it held together well without any major plot holes or anything.

Overall a very enjoyable film and I'll look forward to the next installment.

 

[Urien]

I saw the movie for the first time last night. I felt it had been defanged. Religion was played down, the bad guys appeared shockingly incompetent, the consequences of cutting away of the daemons was watered down, Lord Asriel was a twinkly eyed good guy. I felt the prologue was an error (as it gave away some of the key elements), there were so many info dumps the film was getting toxic. I agree that the prophecy should have been front and centre.

But perhaps key to it all was why... why was the magisterium doing these things, what was the problem with dust... what was dust? I didn't see the strong motivations for action.

Good points: McKellen did well as Iorek. Kidman and Craig looked attractive. The twist on London was reasonably well done. The CGI was quite good in parts, in that the animals (daemons and bears) didn't have the cartoony aspect of too flexible movement that CGI sometimes gives (see Underworld).

 

[Allegra]

I saw the movie for the first time last night. I felt it had been defanged. Religion was played down, the bad guys appeared shockingly incompetent, the consequences of cutting away of the daemons was watered down, Lord Asriel was a twinkly eyed good guy.

'Defanged' is the word, for marketing reasons obviously. Since I liked the books very much I was quite disappointed in the film and not really looking forward to the sequels. Sam Elliott's Lee Scoresby is excellent, though.

 

[Moonbat]

I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised at the film, I had heard that 'they' had watered down the religious overtones, but I couldn't understand how they could possibly complete the trilogy if they water down the central theme.
They rushed through the film, (it always seems that way with book to film adaptations) not stopping long enough to really tel the story. Luckily (for hollywood) there was enough action and story line to fill a two hour movie.
I thought Daniel Craig was a bit too nice, he's not supposed to be nice at all for the first film. Sometimes its so insulting to film goers that Hollywood dumbs and waters down everything to the lowest common denomiator.

I really enjoyed the scene in the last book where He dies. I thought that was beautiful and wonderfully written, but I can't see them going that far, or at least not expressing that it is Him and merely making Him an angel or daemon or something less almighty. But that scene for me and the innocence behind it was the culmination of the books for me, I look forward to being hugely dissapointed with the rest of the trilogy. If it ever gets made.

 

[AE35Unit]

I've not read the books so I can't compare but I found the movie a boring yawn fest.

 

[Moonbat]

Yup, I think I only enjoyed the movie because I could relate it (not very well) with the book.