From Page to Screen: 'The Golden Compass'

Well better late than never but at least Philip Pullman liked the movie so we can all sleep well tonight.

Reply

I loved the entire book series. Just can't seem to get into the movie. I think it is as you noted-it feels so cookie cutter and sterile, with none of the charm of the written word.

Reply

I was glad the Golden Compass bombed, simply because New Line was pissing me off the way it was screwing everyone and their mother out of the LOR money (not just Peter Jackson). It was failure that was a nice nail in their coffin (they sold the international rights early, by the way, so they didn't profit much from that international success).

I see the point you're trying to make in your article, but the statement you make early in the piece, "They may have sat through The Fellowship of the Ring grudgingly, but didn't bother with the rest of the series." is totally absurd. The first movie made $314 million domestically, the second $341 million, and the third $377 million (international numbers also go up with each installment). To imply that only hardcore fantasy fans caused that upward trend seems unrealistic. Obviously a more realistic statement is that they grudgingly went to the first movie and were blown away by what they saw, so they enthusiastically showed up for the other two.

Reply

I liked the film, liked it a lot. I was glad it won the Academy Award for FX because it was a feast for the eyes, just beautiful to look at. However, I'm inclined to agree with the assesment of the film - but I would say the same thing about the first Harry Potter movie. Having never read the books, it wasn't until AZKABAN that I became a die hard fan of the HP films and their characters. So I would be interested to see how the story progresses, and hope they make SUBTLE KNIFE.

Reply

"Cookie cutter?" "Generic CGI deployed without imagination?" These descriptions make me think I watched a completely different movie that I thought, like any genesis to a (possible) franchise, showed and told just enough of this fantasy world to make me hungry for more. Weitz supposedly has a "Director's cut" that is rumored to be far better paced. Even though I highly doubt it, maybe that is the version more people will enjoy...It will be hard telling if it never sees the light of day. Either way, I always thought the film was a great, imaginative adventure that followed a courageous yet clever heroine who fights for free will with the help of a towering, menacing polar bear. I've never read the book, so perhaps my opinionated comment doesn't --shouldn't?-- hold a candle to any of yours..for the uninitiated, though, I do realize I'm in the minority here.. I just wanted to express my personal affection for the film.

Reply

I really tried to like this movie. Especially since I loved the books, but I completely agree with Eugene, the movie is faithful to the plot but not to the novel. The thing that made me notice this the most, was precisely the Golden Compass. In the books, the Aelithiometer was a character of its own. We are even led to believe it has its own personality, its relationship with Lyra was certainly one of the book's greatest achievements (in my opinion). However, the movie doesn't even try to reflect this. Instead, the Golden Compass becomes some generic "magic mirror" that shows images in the form of flashbacks and flash forwards. This disappointed me a lot. I know that it's hard to achieve a faithful recreation of something as complex as the Aelithiometer in a movie screen, but they could have at least tried.

Reply

I read all three books. The film, IMHO, was far, far better than it had any right to be given the didactic, insipid writing featured in the books.

I found the books harmless, simple and bland. The second book had some edge to it but for the most part it was an exercise in determination to read the first and third book. My family, knowing I'm opposed to organized religion, felt I'd embrace the books and find them interesting. Far from it. The books felt more like something written by a college student set on "showing the world" how awful organized religion can be. Snooze.

The movie's changes were for the better and turned the church thing into something more interesting.

Reply

I'm a huge fan of the books, and absolutely hated the insipid film, which felt as though it were written by an eight-year-old. I don't think they seriously plan to make the others - apart from anything else, they'd have to change or contradict some key details. I seem to recall somebody in the film claiming that Lyra's alethiometer is the last one left in the world; in the third book, the Magisterium makes important decisions based on its own alethiometer.

Also, I know it was the US publishers that originally insisted on it, but the whole thing of calling it 'The Golden Compass' really bugs me - it's stated explicitly in the book that the alethiometer is made of brass.

Reply

Eugene,

Ok, well that's not what you said in your original post. But still, if you're going to write for such a well respected entertainment site, you might want to back up claims with facts. What you said is analogous to me claiming that everyone with hazel eyes is left-handed. Then, when someone calls me on it and presents facts to contradict my claim, by your logic it makes sense for me to say, "Well, I know two people in my small circle of friends with hazel eyes and both of them are left-handed, so therefor, that means they are all that way."

Using the most successful fantasy film franchise of all time to back up your argument that the genre has its detractors is simply, well, a bad argument.

Reply

Eugene's right, and his point is not a reversal of any claim he made in the post. "We all know people," he said. There are plenty of non-fantasy fans who saw (and loved) the LOTR trilogy, and possibly even some who fantasy detractors. That's obvious. How else would it have made the impact it did? But there are plenty of people like my friend, Maria, a grad student in film, who suffered through the first one and then wrote me a few months later, "The Oscars this year are full of little elves and fairies and I couldn't be more bored."

I recently read the trilogy out of curiosity and it prompted me to revisit the film, which I'd remembered as being a sumptuous, frothy feast without any real depth. I think it failed as an adaptation because Weitz and company underestimated the patience of their audience and presented a story trimmed within an inch of its life. It raced from plot point to plot point at the speed of sound, apparently under the impression that it was the plot beats alone that were going to make it work.

Weitz has expressed an interest in releasing a longer cut. The last three chapters were, in fact, filmed and there's a lot of stuff on the proverbial cutting room floor. And the film wasn't quite the failure that people remember. It didn't crack $100 mil in the States, but it made over three times that internationally--the first film ever to do so. That said, Paramount will take an awful lot of convincing to tackle The Subtle Knife.

Reply

Kevin,

I never once said that the fantasy genre doesn't have its detractors. What I said was very specific: that I didn't think Eugene's choice of taking the most successful movie(s) of that genre (i.e., The Lord of the Rings triology) and somehow trying to make it sound like people didn't respond well to it was a good approach to his argument (at first implying that people stayed away after the first LOR, and then after presented with actual box office numbers, claiming that he meant only the people in his group of friends..........right.).

No, what Eugene doesn't seems to get (and what you actually do summarize towards the end of your first paragraph) is that when you make an argument that a specific genre isn't successful, you don't use the most successful movie in that genre to make your point. What you do is mention unsuccessful fantasy films like Eragon, or Dragonheart, or any of a dozen other lousy fantasy films that demonstrate your point. The genre DOES have its detractors....lots of them. But that is largely because until the Lord of the Rings, most of them have sucked (with the exception of the sadly-overlooked Drangonslayer).

Reply

I've given this question some thought and come up with an answer that I believe holds true...

Fantasy & SciFi is appreciated only by those who have vivid imaginations. LACK of imagination is the reason why SOME people don't like it--their minds rebel at anything they can't ground in today's reality. I have an uncle that is like that. The closest he came to liking a fantasy storyline was Indiana Jones. And he is of the age where he remembers the old serials, so it was easier for him to swallow. This is also the reason why fantasy movies do better (have a wider audience) than books. Movies take over visually, thus making it unecessary to use imagination, thereby making it easier to believe a story. Not every fantasy movie has been done well, but examples like LOTR prove that the mainstream can get into it when its a quality production and good storyline--just like with any good film or book.

Reply

Wow, how has this turned into a flame war about wether or not people liked LOTR?

I am a fan of fantasy and liked the "fellowship" film even though I hated the books, and slept through the next two movies.

So that said, I like Pullman's books and I agree that the film is watered down like Niagra Falls. I also agree that the visuals were interesting, but not original, as they stole hevily from Jules Verne illustrations.

On the other hand, My daughters who are too young to understand many of the themes in the book enjoyed the movie. And at the end of the day what really matters, that I have read and enjoyed a novel that reflects themes and ideas that I find interesting, or that I got to spend some quality time with my kids goting to a movie theatre and having fun.

The fact is, Middle America had huge issues with the book, even banning it from schools, due to its apparent anti-Christian underpinnings. Being that 75% of the population in America is Christian, large groups denounced and boycoted the film. The Pope Called it "Hopeless and Godless". That scared away many movie goers and hurt ticket sales. (see: http://www.americanpapist.com/2007/11/us-bishops-give-golden-compass-pass.html, and: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/12/the-pope-said-w.html )

I feel that the producers, while making this film, should have been prepared for this backlash knowing the nature of the subject matter they were dealing with.

Reply