Golden Compass--wimp out?

[roquat]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 9:47pm

Does anyone else think THE GOLDEN COMPASS wouldn't have been such a flop if it had actually been a faithful adaptation--if it hadn't soft-pedalled the author's anti-religious stance for the family trade, but had confronted it head-on? There probably would have been a full-scale protest by the Catholic Church (instead of the token one that happened) resulting in people standing outside theatres with signs and handing out flyers. This would have raised curiosity (it always does--religious right-wingers never learn) and made the movie a conversation piece you just HAD to see--a cultural touchstone. It might have really MATTERED, instead of fading so soon without leaving an imprint.

The movie as it was had many things to recommend it--almost all the performances, the production design, and Chris Weitz's direction, which was surprisingly empathic and detailed for a fantasy spectacle (you remembered the actors instead of the effects.) All it lacked was coherence--and nerve. What has happened to the artists who used to court controversy? Movies don't fail because they're too "daring" or "go too far" (what was the last movie you saw that did that, anyway?) They fail because studio executives dither around trying to please this or that demographic, terrified of giving offense to anyone. Then they wonder why their movies turn out incoherent and uninteresting.

[Urban]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 10:12pm

The thing I found with the trilogy is the first book didn't delve alot into the author's pro-atheism stance. It really only became alot clearer (to me at least) in the second and third book). I found the author was too busy trying to set up the world as well as the over all narative then to get on his pedestal for the first book. Yes, it was touched upon, but not as much as the second and third book.

[nitsua]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 10:16pm

From what I understand, and I have not read the books or seen the movie, the author is really anti-organized religion and not pro-atheism.

But I could be wrong.

[DG]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 10:18pm

"The movie as it was had many things to recommend it"

Except a built-in fan-base and a way to reach around a cynical audience burnt out on attempts to cash in on the hyper-succesful fantasy genre.

[nitsua]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 10:20pm

Oops! Wrong thread!

Updated On: 12/31/07 at 10:20 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 10:31pm

dg, how dare you! haven't you seen from the many threads here how popular this is?? and if it's popular here, then it's got to be just popular in the real world because bww is an exact microcosm of america and the world.

[DG]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 10:33pm

I'm sorry, papa - who are you, anyway?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 10:36pm

i am lothar of the hill people.

[Urban]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 11:33pm

nitusa - there are a couple of articles which refer to Pullman as being 'an outspoken atheist' among many things.

Here is something from The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/26/051226fa_fact

The term anti-organised religion encompasses alot more then just atheists - alot of people who are religous can also be anti-organised religion.

[roquat]

Posted: 1/1/08 at 2:15pm

Regardless--no one has answered the question yet--would a more faithful adaptation of the book (which was undoubtedly watered down and distorted for fear of religious protests) been better received, because it would have become something people HAD to talk about--in some cases, it would have meant being forced to choose sides?

[KelRel]

Posted: 1/1/08 at 4:01pm

I am in the middle of the third book and as a Christian I think that it is ridiculous that they had to dodge around the main point. The whole movie was ruined for me when they didn't show the end of the book at the end of the movie.

I teach at a Christian school and as a school the book has been banned. I had to explain to my students why they school chose to do this and I wanted to scream for joy when one kid looked at me and said, "Don't they think that we are smart enough to realize that its just fiction and not think that it is real? We're not that stupid and easily manipulated by a book." (I love this student) I just shrugged and said that it is up to their parents to decide what they should read and that if their parents want them to have access that that is up to them, but the school won't allow them in the building.

I hate to jump on a bandwagon uninformed so I have seen the movie and am reading the whole trilogy and frankly I think the whole upset is stupid. We don't believe everything we read so why should be worry about a series of books that have characters who walk around with talking animals, armored fighting polar bears, witches, weird elephant type things that travel on wheels etc...

The movie would have done better if they had just been up front about the intention of the series and not dodged it. We're not that simple minded that we can't decide what to watch or read or more importantly believe.

[nitsua]

Posted: 1/1/08 at 5:33pm

It's so upsetting to read about a school banning books. Christian, or not, students should be able to read anything.

I'd donate a few copies to the school library just to see what would happen, but that's just me.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/1/08 at 6:14pm

simple, kel would be fired, her husband would leave her and the state would take her child.

[nitsua]

Posted: 1/1/08 at 7:09pm

I didn't say Kel should do it.

I said I would it.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/1/08 at 7:13pm

too late, ivan the wonderful, your hatred for kel has already reared its ugly head and shown itself to be as virulent as your racism.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/1/08 at 8:24pm

Not having read the books or seen the movie, Ivan the Dunderhead would happily donate copies of the book to a school that banned it just to see what would happen.

[DG]

Posted: 1/17/08 at 11:39am

The movie obviously didn't perform up to expectations domestically, but thanks to the international market, it has now grossed a little over 313 million. This probably means that the next ones will get green-lit - as soon as someone can write them, of course.

[Pippin]

Posted: 1/17/08 at 12:18pm

Thats Great. I was just talking about that today, DG.


I remember a snippet from the director about his choice to "water down" the first film. Sorry, there is no link, but the basic statement was something like this:

"we needed to make sure the first film builds an audience, so we had to be careful about how much potentially offensive things we included in the movie. But if the first film does well, we will have more creative input in the following two, and will be able to be more faithful to the religious tone of the books."

whether or not that will come to fruition is anyone's guess, but I like that he at least mentioned something like that. I mean, it is a business after all, and if they find the right mix of artistic integrity and mass appeal, like Lord of the Rings, I have high hopes for the remaining 2 films.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/17/08 at 12:22pm

The criticisms of the film weren't that it was watered down, but overstuffed and incoherent.

[Pippin]

Posted: 1/17/08 at 12:39pm

yeah, Borstal, I think those two adjectives are exactly correct for anyone who didn't read the book before seeing the film.

Even though I went with a friend who didn't read the books - I tried to explain certain things afterward, but he loved the movie.

[*brina-doll*]

Posted: 1/17/08 at 1:04pm

The thing that made me rather pissy about the film was they cut out the original ending. I don't want to give it way for those who have not read the books, but in the novel the ending of The Golden Compass basically sets up the next book. I didn't understand why they would cut that out...unless it's going to be in the Subtle Knife (if they every make it)?

[Pippin]

Posted: 1/17/08 at 1:09pm

Brina- the director touched on that too.

he said that he wanted the first film to end happily, so he cut out the last four chapters, but he said in the second film, those last four chapters would start the second film.

It was a bad decision for purists of the book.

But Jackson did the same thing in Lord of the Rings between the second and third movie. The spider sequence actually happens in "The Two Towers", but Jackson put it in "Return of the King"

[*brina-doll*]

Posted: 1/17/08 at 1:16pm

Thanks for the info Pippin! I personally think that it be a really stupid idea NOT to include the real ending at all; but if they do continue with the films then adding the book ending to 'The Subtle Knife' could work.

[roquat]

Posted: 1/17/08 at 1:28pm

Yes, especially since the original ending was filmed and bits of it were shown in the trailers (deceptively). That ending is such a perfectly set up cliffhanger--if they had just had the guts to use it, even people who disliked the film, or couldn't follow it, would be begging to know what happens next.

And if they thought this film was overstuffed, wait till it really starts getting complicated in the subsequent books. I don't even know if it's possible to film "The Amber Spyglass" in a coherent manner (unless the movie is five hours long.)

[*brina-doll*]

Posted: 1/17/08 at 9:45pm

No kidding roquat! I just hope they get to continue with the films; it really stink if they only made Compass and left it hanging.