The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
The Golden Compass Movie Discussion
Posts
It made that much revenue? I though it tanked.
Hopefully they'll not only make the other movies, but make them in a way that respects the original material. Since lord knows Europe doesn't give two shits about religious criticism. It seems like GC was butchered mostly in anticipation of American religious riots or something.
My sister is on some mailing lists in that direction. Apparently she couldn't believe the number of emails that she got saying "dont' go to see this movie with your children or they'll become atheists!"
As for the movie itself, it really amused me how they backed away from the Magisterium being the Church, but at the same time made them worse by attributing every single bad thing that happens to them.
But yeah. I've finished the whole series now. First and second books were rather good. Third one felt kinda lacking in how it ended. Meh.
The timeline switches made no sense, the ending was crap, and some of the other changes just bothered me - the boy ended up being in a shack in the middle of nowhere instead of in a town? They didn't convey the "he's not human" aspect enough for the severing to truly be bothersome. What happened to the shack where Lyra found all the daemons? Lyra's tricking of Iofur losing its point because of the whole 'bears being bears' and 'humans being humans' thing? Not showing the gyptians as they were - an entire bloody race - instead of just one ship in the middle of nowhere? How the witches were handled?
Meh. Didn't particularly care for the movie at all.
Oddly enough, my father (who just came along for the ride, so to speak), thought it was better than he had expected it to be.
For example, there's the Fight Cub scene where Iorek is faking his paw being injured. In the book, there's an entire scene where Iorek explains how bears can see through deception. Then, there's a long explanation of how Iofur is attempting to mimic humans. Together, they show that Iofur was beaten by Iorek because he had lost his bearanity by trying to be something he isn't. Without those two parts... it's utterly meaningless.
So they were sort of forced into essentially force-feeding plot points to the audience. The movie could've been better if it had been longer, or if they had made two movies instead.
This is in addition to butchering the overall message of the movie, of course.
I don't want to take the thread off topic too far, so if you feel like it would you PM me about the Catholic overtones you're talking about? I'm curious.
I am, taking into consideration his terrific writing as well.
That particular detail goes unnoticed by most of the viewers who haven't read the book, I think. Considering that many of the viewers are probably children, I doubt many even noticed how he went from limping to walking normally.
Someone who hasn't read the book beforehand will have a much harder time pointing out the inconsistencies, since that experience makes it very difficult to look at the film from a neutral standpoint. If a certain event or fact is left out, then it's more difficult to notice when something that happens in the film contradicts that point.
I noticed some parts that felt out of place even without reading the book: (Spoilered wall of text)
The appearance of the witches at the battle of Svalberd also went totally unexplained. They pretty much showed up out of nowhere.
There have been some complaints surrounding how poorly the film covered exactly how important a daemon is to a person. To be frank, I don't know how well you could possible do such a thing entirely with visuals. A vast majority of details relating the connection between human and daemon was done based on how the characters were feeling and how their thoughts and emotions were often shared. That's extremely hard to convey on screen without excessive narration.
Of course, whether you read the book or didn't, the ending was obviously cut short. It's slightly reassuring that they at least filmed more scenes that took place after the fact, but doing what they did, purely because of the test audiences, was an extremely stupid move.
:^:
PS: it's overrated.
Fixed that for you.
This is what happens when you don't actually think about what you read. Medication, cars, strategies, cement, and pencils can be overrated because it is possible to be mistaken about how well they perform their function. The purpose of a fiction book is to be enjoyed by its readers. Apparently, you think readers can be wrong about how well a book performs that function. So please, clarify for us exactly how much we should like things, and explain to us the ways in which our tastes deviate from yours and are therefore clearly wrong.
I will have to get the book, luckily I have some vacation time saved up, so I can try to gobble up all 3 novels inside a week.
MWO: Adamski
If it makes you feel better, they also cut out the one part that makes the whole thing not specifically anti-religion.
To be fair, the first book didn't play in the whole religion thing nearly so much as the second and third books.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Their disguise as "The Magesterium" was transparent enough to continue to offend those it would offend, while at the same time annoying enough to sully the original material. So, it only harmed itself by trying to blunt its message. It was never going to win over anyone who would be offended by criticisms of religion anyway.
And they totally butched the ending.
It will -- but honestly I think it would be worse if you saw the film first and it managed to taint the books for you.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
It will annoy you. But it would be better to experience the story the first time through the book.
So, it depends on how much about the story you already know whether the costs will outweigh the benefits.
Spoilers for the last chapter or two of the first book.
First off, the thing with the kids happened before Svalbard. So Lyra, the witch, the other kid, Iorek and the aeronaut were travelling to Svalbard to free Lord Asriel, as that's where he was being held. Yeah, that's right - Miss Coulter was having them hold her. (Also, by the by Iorek was not in exile because he lost a fight, but rather because he won a fight and killed another bear, which was taboo. It turns out that Iofur had drugged said bear, but anyway, I digress.)
So the aircraft gets attacked by cliff ghasts, Lyra falls out, gets captured by the bears, the bear thing happens with a great deal more meaning, and that allows them to "free" Asriel. Now, if you recall, when Lyra asked the Compass, it said that she was bringing Lord Asriel what he needed. She assumed this meant the Compass. While in his captivity, he had overawed the bears, and they had acquired a variety of instruments so he was continuing to do his research. He freaks out when Lyra arrives, then immediately calms after the other boy follows her in. That night, while she's sleeping, Asriel takes the boy and severs him ala what was done at Bolvinger, noting that they weren't taking it far enough, as the severing released a lot of energy (think splitting an atom energy), and he harnesses that energy to open a gateway to another world. The process kills the kid. So Lyra "brought him what he needed" - the other kid.
The point was not to be anti-religion, but to be anti-blind faith in any authority. By having blind faith in her uncle/father without looking into his motivations, she brought her best friend to his death, and blames herself for it. This is also one of the primary driving forces for her for the remainder of the series.
Fencingsax: they're overrated in regards to how many people consider them the pinnacle of fantasy. Tolkien crafts a wonderfully detailed universe, but many of the other elements leave much to be desired (like character development and being succinct).
Frankly I doubt they'll go any farther with it. It really seemed like they were aiming for Harry Potter with this, and that's just not gonna happen.
I hope to god they don't pull a Bourne with this series.
The second and third Bourne movies had nothing whatsoever to do with the books.
Ah ok. I never actually read those books.
You mean... make two more awesome movies?
Whilst the whole issues regarding why the bear fight went as it did the book and why it happened adds a lot to the scene in the book, what would you have been willing to cut out to fit it in? I don't remember there being a lot of uncessary scenes or even overly long ones when I went to see the film. An hour and a half just isn't long enough for a film far as I'm concerned.
It needed another half hour, at least.
I don't get why the hell people think 90 minutes is an acceptable length for a movie, but god it was way too short.
Also, what the fuck was up with (Subtle Knife/Amber Spyglass spoilers)
Guess they weren't thinking ahead on this one.
or thinking at all, really.
If British television has taught me anything, it is that the proper way to adapt a book to film is in the form of a mini-series. Voila -- extra time!