The Golden Compass

[Lathum]

We went to see this tonight and I must say we were supremly dissapointed.

They attempted to make and "epic" and failed pretty badly IMO.

I don't want to give to much away but if you read the book you will probably feel the way we did. They took WAY to many liberties and left WAY to much out.

I am curious to see how poeple who have not read the book feel about the movie.

[Lathum]

dola- I wil say Nicole Kidman played her part perfectly.

[korme]

theres a god damn last movie thread for a reason Lathum

/hitler

[Lathum]

/hitler

more like Napoleon ;)

[terpkristin]

Damn.
I've said for awhile that I thought this movie would either be *really* good or *really* bad, that there would be no middle ground with it.

Sad to see it appears to be the "bad" option. I'll admit, though, I'll probably still go see it on the 7th...

/tk

[Lathum]

did you read the book?

[Chief Rum]

The fact I haven't read the book will no doubt allow me to watch this on its own value and thoroughly enjoy it (if as a movie it's good). I know it's hard to separate oneself from the impressions from the books (although I managed with LOTR).

[terpkristin]

did you read the book?

Yes, I've read the entire trilogy.

/tk

[Lathum]

Yes, I've read the entire trilogy.

/tk

well then I am looking forward to your opinion. PM me after you see it.

[path12]

I just recently read the book, so am looking forward to seeing the movie.

[Peregrine]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I love the books, and I felt from the beginning that it was going to be very difficult to make good movies out of them. They are just such sprawling books with so many characters, and even reading the books at times can get a bit confusing about who's who, those things are always magnified even more in a movie.

[Marc Vaughan]

On a related but seperate note - to the people who've read the books ... what did you think to them? ... I'm considering giving them a read but have heard mixed things.

Most common vein I'm getting is that the first is very good but that the later ones are more intent on getting his 'message across' than really telling a story.

Having just waded through the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind* I'd prefer not to start up that path again.

*first few were fantastic, last 3-4 were very blech imho - I had to read them because, well I'd read the rest but the impetus and interest to the story had gone by that point. The first few were crafted around the 'Wizard Rules' and worked very cleverly, then simply they didn't ... the last book (Confessor) was especially stupid imho (but I won't post spoilers why here).

[path12]

On a related but seperate note - to the people who've read the books ... what did you think to them? ... I'm considering giving them a read but have heard mixed things.

Most common vein I'm getting is that the first is very good but that the later ones are more intent on getting his 'message across' than really telling a story.

Loved the first one, but it took me a couple of starts. I've kind of hit a wall early in the second one but will get back to it at some point, since some folks I trust tell me it's worth slogging through the early part.

[BrianD]

I'm only part-way through the second book, but I find the series interesting as sort of the opposite of the Narnia series...which I gather was part of the point of writing them. They seem every bit as heavy-handed as the Narnia series was, but interesting nonetheless.

[Dr. Sak]

The priest at my church told everyone not to go see this during his homily. He said that the writer is atheist and is teaching children not to believe in God.

I'd actually like to check this out to see if I see the same ideals...or if it is just the church overreacting.

[Lathum]

The priest at my church told everyone not to go see this during his homily. He said that the writer is atheist and is teaching children not to believe in God.

I'd actually like to check this out to see if I see the same ideals...or if it is just the church overreacting.

not trying to start a war, but that is why 90% of religion is absurd.

[cartman]

Chuck Norris is claiming copyright infringement as "The Golden Compass" has been the name of his penis for many years.

[Dr. Sak]

not trying to start a war, but that is why 90% of religion is absurd.

No I am pretty open minded about this stuff. I'm like a little kid when it comes to this sort of stuff...if someone tells me not to go see it, I want to go see it and judge for myself.

Plus even if this is true, if you let you child watch it and then discuss what is going on, they can be more open minded. Most of the time children don't see the deep meanings like this and look at it on a simple level.

[Celeval]

The priest at my church told everyone not to go see this during his homily. He said that the writer is atheist and is teaching children not to believe in God.

I'd actually like to check this out to see if I see the same ideals...or if it is just the church overreacting.

Not from personal experience, but I've read that from a handful of other sources. I've just started the first book, so don't have much to say yet.

[Lathum]

Plus even if this is true, if you let you child watch it and then discuss what is going on, they can be more open minded. Most of the time children don't see the deep meanings like this and look at it on a simple level.

bingo!!!

[BrianD]

No I am pretty open minded about this stuff. I'm like a little kid when it comes to this sort of stuff...if someone tells me not to go see it, I want to go see it and judge for myself.

Plus even if this is true, if you let you child watch it and then discuss what is going on, they can be more open minded. Most of the time children don't see the deep meanings like this and look at it on a simple level.

This is very true. I didn't notice all of the religious stuff in Narnia the first few times I read through the books. Once I got older, it became more obvious.

I have been reading that the movie dropped much of the anti-religious stuff so as to not upset anyone. Of course that means the the religious crowd is upset that they made a movie based on books by an atheist writer while the anti-religious crowd is upset that they took out the anti-religion stuff.

[path12]

I have been reading that the movie dropped much of the anti-religious stuff so as to not upset anyone. Of course that means the the religious crowd is upset that they made a movie based on books by an atheist writer while the anti-religious crowd is upset that they took out the anti-religion stuff.

Maybe. I'm not religious at all but I could care less that they made the changes they did. I can understand in today's culture why they would. I think generally the religious crowd gets more fired up about things than the non-religious crowd, but that's just my opinion.

[BrianD]

Maybe. I'm not religious at all but I could care less that they made the changes they did. I can understand in today's culture why they would. I think generally the religious crowd gets more fired up about things than the non-religious crowd, but that's just my opinion.

There is a big difference between the non-religious crowd and the anti-religious crowd.

[path12]

There is a big difference between the non-religious crowd and the anti-religious crowd.


I'll grant you that. I don't know offhand though of any anti-religion groups who get significant airtime, whereas you see that Catholic League guy all over the place (who even as a lapsed Catholic embarrasses me a bit...)

[BrianD]

I'll grant you that. I don't know offhand though of any anti-religion groups who get significant airtime, whereas you see that Catholic League guy all over the place (who even as a lapsed Catholic embarrasses me a bit...)

The anti-religion crowd is definitely smaller and less organized than the religious crowd. The outcry we heard surrounding this movie or The DaVinci Code, or others like that was much louder and more organized than the outcry surrounding the Narnia movie.

I would love to discuss the similarities between groups protesting this movie and other religious groups protesting what they view as an attack on their religion, but I don't really want to take this thread down that path.

[terpkristin]

On a related but seperate note - to the people who've read the books ... what did you think to them? ... I'm considering giving them a read but have heard mixed things.

Most common vein I'm getting is that the first is very good but that the later ones are more intent on getting his 'message across' than really telling a story.

Having just waded through the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind* I'd prefer not to start up that path again.

*first few were fantastic, last 3-4 were very blech imho - I had to read them because, well I'd read the rest but the impetus and interest to the story had gone by that point. The first few were crafted around the 'Wizard Rules' and worked very cleverly, then simply they didn't ... the last book (Confessor) was especially stupid imho (but I won't post spoilers why here).

I don't know, maybe it was a factor of how I "read" the books the first time through, but I didn't feel like the second two books felt different in terms of story flow/getting the message out/ramming the message down my throat. I listened to the books the first time through files I downloaded at audible.com, the unabridged versions of the story. What was unique (or at least, different) about the books was that they were a production, with different voice actors doing the various voices of the characters. If I'm not mistaken, one of the actors was Phillip Pullman, who wrote the books. It was fantastic to listen to, and through some of the events in the 2nd and 3rd books, I found myself on a roller coaster of emotions, including being sad when sad things happened. I don't think I'd have felt that way if I felt that Pullman was trying to ram a message into my brain.

I also went into the book without knowing about all the...controversy surrounding it. As a Catholic, I recognized that many of the things said could be considered highly critical of organized religion (and to a large extent, Christianity), though I didn't feel like that was taking away from the story. Pullman created characters I truly felt for, parallel worlds that I became immersed in.

I think some people here have likened it to the Christian-message-heavy Narnia books. I guess it's all about how you approach the book. If you go in expecting a good story, you won't be disappointed. However, if you go in "looking" for all the "atheist messages" in the book, you'll probably focus on them more.

Regardless, I highly recommend the audio version of all 3 books (for everybody). It was a fantastic way to "read" them, and helped me immerse myself in the world all that much more.

Oh yeah, I guess I should say that I found the first book the hardest to get through, but by the time I got to the end of it, I couldn't wait for the next month to come so I could grab the next one from Audible.

/tk

[revrew]

I heard about all this anti-Narnia, atheist allegory bizness on emails and decided to check it out on snopes. These kinds of rumors are always buzzing around, but in this case, snopes confirmed it.

Turns out the author has admitted that he wrote the books as sort of an answer to Narnia, an "evangelistic" tool for atheists as it were. In his allegory, Adam and Eve kill God and everyone lives happily ever after, free to do what they want without an oppressive religion or God telling them what to do.

Also admitted was that many of these elements were omitted from from the movie, in the hopes of duping parents into ignorance of the allegory. "See the message-less movie, then buy the message-laden books for your kids unaware."

The movie itself is pretty innocent of agenda. The books are not. The marketing isn't either. I would caution those that consider gifting the books.

[Marc Vaughan]

The movie itself is pretty innocent of agenda. The books are not. The marketing isn't either. I would caution those that consider gifting the books.

(somewhat off-topic - sorry)

This isn't something I've ever understood - why 'caution' people about getting a book because its not saying what you believe?

I've kids who are being brought up Christian, however if they are left 'pure' and never exposed to non-christian thoughts then I'd fully expect that they'll be more likely to be intruiged by their theories than if they're allowed to explore to some extent and encouraged to discuss such things with their parents.

[Celeval]

(somewhat off-topic - sorry)

This isn't something I've ever understood - why 'caution' people about getting a book because its not saying what you believe?

I've kids who are being brought up Christian, however if they are left 'pure' and never exposed to non-christian thoughts then I'd fully expect that they'll be more likely to be intruiged by their theories than if they're allowed to explore to some extent and encouraged to discuss such things with their parents.

From my POV, it's more a question of cautioning parents in particular that the book (or whatever) may not be what they think it is... a good, non-religious reference is a friend of ours who was going to pick up 'Wicked' for their 14-year old daughter because she liked the Broadway play...

[revrew]

(somewhat off-topic - sorry)

This isn't something I've ever understood - why 'caution' people about getting a book because its not saying what you believe?

I've kids who are being brought up Christian, however if they are left 'pure' and never exposed to non-christian thoughts then I'd fully expect that they'll be more likely to be intruiged by their theories than if they're allowed to explore to some extent and encouraged to discuss such things with their parents.

The point of "caution" was that of advising a person against gifting a child a book that might contradict the worldview that the child's parents are attempting to instill. Of course, if it's your OWN children, do as you please. But by "caution," I meant to beware gifting it to your neices and nephews, neighbor children, etc. You don't want to step on their parents' rights, values, etc.

[Butter]

This isn't something I've ever understood - why 'caution' people about getting a book because its not saying what you believe?

Because the continuing dominance of world religion depends on the indoctrination of children, without exposing them to thoughtful counterpoints. By the time kids are old enough to question why religion is the way it is, they better believe it is true backwards and forwards.... otherwise, many of them may well decide that the whole lot is a well-intentioned story rather than the Truth.

But then, I've said too much. :)

[Marc Vaughan]

The point of "caution" was that of advising a person against gifting a child a book that might contradict the worldview that the child's parents are attempting to instill. Of course, if it's your OWN children, do as you please. But by "caution," I meant to beware gifting it to your neices and nephews, neighbor children, etc. You don't want to step on their parents' rights, values, etc.

Ok fair enough - thanks for clarifying and apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Peregrine]

I saw the movie today and really liked it, as a fan of the books. Of course it had a rushed pace and could have used another 20-30 minute running time (they filmed the last three chapters of the book but cut them due to time.)

[Alan T]

I saw this movie last night with my wife. Both of us enjoyed the movie. I didn't really feel any imposed hidden message that was out front of the movie that really bothered me any at all, even knowing all of the discussion here going in. I don't know that I would feel any more or less worried about my 7 year old daughter watching it than I would about Narnia.

From what everyone says about the books, I doubt I would have any interest in them however, but the movie was decent at least.

[Lathum]

(they filmed the last three chapters of the book but cut them due to time.)

and that didn't bother you?

[Peregrine]

Sure it bothered me, but I go in understanding that certain sacrifices have to be made to go from a book to a movie. I would have preferred them to extend the running time of the film and put it in.

[Lathum]

Sure it bothered me, but I go in understanding that certain sacrifices have to be made to go from a book to a movie. I would have preferred them to extend the running time of the film and put it in.

If the movie was already 3 hours long I would have understood but it was 110 minutes.


I am amazed anyone who read the book wouldn't be hugely dissapointed.

[Tigercat]

A little opinion on the books(Well the first two, only read the first two), somewhat spoiled but not specific spoilers:

I am a non-religious person for the most part. If anything I would be a unitarian, so somewhere in the agnostic realm. I found the books overtly aethist without knowing anything about the readers background, and it bothered me.

As an agnostic, I respect and understand both those who choose to believe in God and those that don't. But what I can't understand is the storytelling viewpoint where one can write characters and make their viewpoints seem neutral while they are going to kill their creator. (Including very little moral outrage from "Good" characters as said characters talk about and go forward with trying to kill God.)

It just really turned me off to the books. Its like reading a book where a child's desire to kill their parent is treated neutrally, I just don't buy it. If I hear someone talk about killing a parent I am morally outraged, even if the parents are bastards. If I were ever to hear someone realistically talk about killing God, even if God is a dick, I will be morally outraged.

How am I suppose to sympathize with all the good characters, when through two books none(all be it the main two are kids) have said "What? kill God? Thats just doesn't seem right.."

[BishopMVP]

They had an article in the Boston Globe about the controversy - http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/11/25/god_in_the_dust/

[Tigercat]

Thanks for the article Bishop, I've never been spoiled on the third book, but I didn't mind it because I hadn't intended on picking it up. Knowing the resolution to the series will make reading the third book in the future a possibility for me. But still, given that most if not all the characters in the books don't know the nature of God, whom some are trying to kill, I still find it hard to stomach that none of them find killing God a very horrible thought to begin with.

[terpkristin]

I saw it on Friday night and contemplated walking out halfway through and asking for my money back. What a travesty! It seems to me that the screenwriter and/or director decided to take random excerpts from the book, threw them in a bag, and wrote them down in an order that they were randomly pulled out. To help pad it out, to make up for everything they skipped in pulling random excerpts, they decided to go to Wikipedia to read about the controversy surrounding the series and decided to heighten that aspect of the books. Oh, and then just for fun, added some things and changed the story in such a way that things made no sense. Stupid thing wasn't even consistent with itself, I feel stupider for having watched that travesty of a film. It's right up there on the list of horrid movies for me, along with Happy Feet.

/tk

[Alan T]

Just out of curiosity, for those who are a big fan of the books, why is this a bad movie? I haven't read the books, and from the sounds of what you all say, i wouldn't enjoy the books too much. The movie however wasn't a great piece of work, but it wasn't bad, I enjoyed the movie and I definitly don't have it on my bottom half of bad bad movies I have seen.

I doubt I would buy it on dvd or see it again or anything, but I don't understand what was so awful about it according to you all. Is it just a case of people who really like the books not enjoying how the movie was changed from the books, and aren't able to seperate yourselves from that?

[Chief Rum]

Just out of curiosity, for those who are a big fan of the books, why is this a bad movie? I haven't read the books, and from the sounds of what you all say, i wouldn't enjoy the books too much. The movie however wasn't a great piece of work, but it wasn't bad, I enjoyed the movie and I definitly don't have it on my bottom half of bad bad movies I have seen.

I doubt I would buy it on dvd or see it again or anything, but I don't understand what was so awful about it according to you all. Is it just a case of people who really like the books not enjoying how the movie was changed from the books, and aren't able to seperate yourselves from that?

+1

I realize it's impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of fans of the book series, but it seemed a solid, if relatively unspectacular fantasy movie to me.

Having been through this with LOTR, honestly, I learned to enjoy it for what it is, some well done epic movies, rather than forcing it to match to likely unmatchable expectations with Tolkien's books. I highly recommend that approach for fans of this series.

[ISiddiqui]

Just out of curiosity, for those who are a big fan of the books, why is this a bad movie? I haven't read the books, and from the sounds of what you all say, i wouldn't enjoy the books too much. The movie however wasn't a great piece of work, but it wasn't bad, I enjoyed the movie and I definitly don't have it on my bottom half of bad bad movies I have seen.

I doubt I would buy it on dvd or see it again or anything, but I don't understand what was so awful about it according to you all. Is it just a case of people who really like the books not enjoying how the movie was changed from the books, and aren't able to seperate yourselves from that?

I haven't seen either, but... I know of someone who is absolutely and completely enraged whenever the topic of "Contact" the movie is brought up. Saying how the ending of the movie completely pissed all over the message of the book. I forget exactly what the difference was now, but he absolutely hates the movie, while I found it to be fairly decent.

I think its about a percieved betrayal of the source material. And not being able to seperate both as different pieces of work because of the percieved "pissing all over" something you love. Like the screenwriters or directors thought what was the part that a lot of readers considered to be the message of the work was useless.

I remember being pissed at what they did with "I, Robot". I realize its supposed to be completely different and it's a decent robot attack movie, but I, personally, hate how they sullied the name of such a great book.

For something like this, though, trying to minimize or change the entire POINT of the written work, I can easily see it pissing off people who loved that work.

[Peregrine]

I'm a fan of the books, but I guess I went into the movie with low expectations. I felt they made a movie that was fun, and got the adventure and mostly the atmosphere of the books right. However, there's no doubt a lot was left out, a lot was moved, etc. I understand they wanted to make a movie that wasn't too long, given how many kids would be seeing it, but it really needed another 30-40 minutes to fill in the gaps.

The other part of course, is the magic, the real wonder of the books is all left out. These things are not like the Harry Potter books, there's all kinds of more adult references if you dig a bit, and of course Paradise Lost is all over the place in them. The problem with the whole "controversy" over the books is not that they had to make changes in the movie, of course they did, but in doing so they added a bunch of nonsensical cardboard cut out "bad guys." In the book the bad guys are the beautiful people.

So in my opinion, see the movie, especially if you haven't read the books, and then read the books afterward, to see all that you've missed.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Having been through this with LOTR, honestly, I learned to enjoy it for what it is, some well done epic movies, rather than forcing it to match to likely unmatchable expectations with Tolkien's books. I highly recommend that approach for fans of this series.

Well, it certainly helps when the movie far surpasses the book. (e.g., LOTR).

[Alan T]

Well, it certainly helps when the movie far surpasses the book. (e.g., LOTR).

That is a horrible thing to say :) I won't derail this thread, but I completely disagree there! :)

[Honolulu_Blue]

That is a horrible thing to say :) I won't derail this thread, but I completely disagree there! :)

Good man. It will certainly derail thread and that'd be unprofessional.

[BrianD]

I saw the movie today and really liked it, as a fan of the books. Of course it had a rushed pace and could have used another 20-30 minute running time (they filmed the last three chapters of the book but cut them due to time.)

I am currently part way through the third book, but I watched the first movie today. I think cutting the last three chapters of the book was a perfect way to end this movie. When reading the book, I thought the ending after the ending felt out of place. In movie terms, that second ending would be much better placed at the beginning of the second book. There is just no way that the book ending would have been a satisfying movie ending...especially considering the next movie (if it ever comes) could be a year or two away.

As far as liberties or changes go, I didn't see anything overly upsetting. Some details were changes and some actions were done by different characters, but really nothing with much meaning. I believe that most people that are upset at the changes are upset mostly because there are changes at all. Understanding that a movie needs to take 10 hours of reading entertainment and condense it into 2 hours of movie entertainment, I think this adaptation was just fine.