I suspect that many reviews of this movie are going to begin with some variant of the sentiment, "I was disappointed." This one is no exception. It's just not a very good movie; it's one that packed in lots of miscellaneous detail from the book it is based on, but thereby threw away the core of the story … and it shows. It's a movie that races along inventively, but futilely, leaving you wondering at the end what the point of all the rushing about of armies of strange characters was all about.
This is an intrinsic problem to translating Pullman's books to a different medium. They aren't just a medieval world with elves and magic rings added—they are fundamentally askew in a thousand different ways, and while a book can take the time to set them up and explain them, a movie can't. At least, this movie couldn't. For instance, one of the climactic battles in the movie has a flock of witches swooping in to save the good guys, but doesn't address anywhere the basic, non-fantasy questions here: how did the witches get there? How did they know to come to this remote spot in the Arctic? Why are they helping our heroine? It begins to seem entirely arbitrary; the witches are cool, they're in the book (where their motivations are actually explained), so presto, they must be in this scene. Everything seems to be arbitrary; interesting characters gallop on stage, speak a handful of lines, and then scurry off to make room for the next oddity in the parade.
The Dark Materials books are fascinating precisely because Pullman doesn't shy away from tossing in strange details and peculiar backstory; it all hangs together like some elaborate clockwork, with a clutter of cogs and wheels and gears all spinning away to keep the story moving in a clear direction. The writers behind this adaptation seem to have preserved as many of the cogs as they could, but at the expense of throwing away the story that kept them meshed. What this movie demanded was a complete rewrite that ruthlessly pared away many of the intricacies but kept the core intact.
Of course that couldn't happen. Fans of the story would have a checklist of their favorite cogs, and a movie that altered any of the elements would have roused howls of protest from the fanbase, who wouldn't give a damn about narrative economy. The other is that exposing the thrust of the story would have driven the non-fanbase nuts. This is a coming-of-age story set in a conflict with an evil religious empire bent on expanding their control, and willing to experiment on children to do it. It's barely detectable in this movie. I think if the producers had been a little braver and set this up as a clearer parable for the dangers of wedding political control and religious belief, it would have been a much more comprehensible and powerful movie.
Another fundamental flaw is that the movie is disneyfied. It's aimed at kids and anything that might trouble an imaginary Pollyanna has been stripped away. No children die anywhere in the story, for instance; in the book, the experiments of the Magisterium kill children or drive them into a horrible madness from which they don't recover. In the movie, we see one child who has had his daemon snipped away from him … before he is restored to his mother and vanishes from the story.
One of the most important events in the book and the movie is the battle between Iorek and the king of the polar bears. The CGI bears are so darned pretty that they just look like the charming characters used in the seasonal Coca-Cola commercials — pure, glossy white with expressive faces (although they are loud and roar fiercely). The big battle is a tamely anodyne thing, because not one single drop of blood is spilled. The impression I had was of big plush animals gumming each other, and occasionally slapping at each other with overstuffed paws, as if the leadership of the savage Panzerbjorn was settled by a pillow-fight.
So, yeah, I was disappointed. It's an interestingly complicated story, it flies by with surprising speed, and it's got great eye candy, but it's reduced to fluff and chaos by trying to cram almost everything in the book into two hours. It simply doesn't work. I can't imagine how they could possibly cope with the two sequels, which get ever weirder and offensive to prudish religious zealots — wheeled aliens, a knife for slaying gods, gay angels, a God who is mad and decrepit, and an extremely dismal afterlife — since the first book is the one with the simplest story line and the most traditional fantasy elements, and they blew that.
I won't quite go so far as to say that you should stay away from the movie, since it is inventive and fun to look at … but don't go expecting any thoughtful revelations or dramatic, atheist-friendly insights. That part is treated like a well-padded pillow-fight, too.
- Log in to post comments
This is sort of what I was expecting: that it would be unlikely for the movie to be good (because so few in general ever are, and then mostly it seems by luck) and that because of its "atheist" tag that it would also be a cheap and easy way to whine on about atheism being lousy, or being a fad that has broken, and so on.
Plus, ANIMALS CAN'T TALK, AHHHHH!
I've hear rumblings that this is a studio cut of the movie, with the director's cut being at least somewhat more true and filling in the story better. I'll likely see it, then check out the DVD later on to see if it's true.
That's about what I expected. I'm still going to see it, though.
OH, and to be somewhat fair to this movie, I pretty much had the same experience watching Lord of the Rings that you describe. As an avid fan who had read those books over and over and even listened to the fabulous BBC production every night for years, any diversion from the original story, any off-key hollywood line: it all just grated to the point where most everything brought irritation instead of wonder. Movies just don't do deep mythology or complex storytelling very well unless the stories are written explicitly for the medium.
The Harry Potter books are the same way. A miniseries would do that story FAR more justice than the incoherent mad dash through the plot that the movies have to go with (especially since, as a sort of school serial, the Potter stories really lend themselves to lots and lots and lots of short chunks rather than only seven almost equally short ones).
Saw commercials, commercials looked like crap, figured movie would be crap, saved the money. ;o)
Here is an article on the extra material.
Not a fan of fantasy, but I'm sick of Narnia.
Well, I'm not terribly surprised that the movie was weak, but I will probably see it anyway, if only to stick one to the Catholic League.
I disagree.
I thouroughly enjoyed it as a movie, and was enthralled.
I hope it gets people to read the books, and discover the additional depths of Pullman's works, but - wow. It was enchanting, and all a movie is supposed to be.
Stop comparing to the book - you'll never get that much texture and richness into the movie.
I saw the movie last night with my nephew. He loved it and I loved it.
Of course I went into it expecting that it would be oversimplified and would be missing major story elements from the book. Seeing any book-made-movie you can expect the same. I just enjoy seeing some cool special effects for a fantasy story giving me two hours of entertainment.
I expect him to now ask to borrow the books as he did with Harry Potter. Consider the movie a $10 appetizer for the more intellectually satisfying experience of reading.
I am not to surprised that the cut down on the blood in the final conflict, though I am sadly sorry to hear that it is true. I am very disappointed that the daemonless child lives, that was a big part of the story and defining "sciences" of the world.
I am also quite sad they cut down on the actual church role etc, but am not surprised there either, they cannot exactly have an atheist movie in America. Though, the first book at the very least isn't exactly what I would call atheist either. The person who's really out to get the church believes all the religious crap and simply wants to change religion for what he or she sees as the better. (hope that's vague enough) Having just started the second volume, I can't say more than that about the general theme.
I will be seeing the movie with people from school tonight, so I'll know more about that part tomorrow.
I also disagree. I thought the movie was far better than I expected it to be, and the other eight atheists that came with me agreed.
The religious sentiments were far more obvious in the movie than in the books (at least we thought so) so that was cool. And yes, details were definitely lost in the translation to film, but they got the gist of the story out. If they were to put in all the details, the first book alone would probably make two movies.
I agree that the bear fight was toned down quite a bit. But the producers, I'm sure, had to make these changes for kids as you say. They could have made it an adult film. But they chose not to. This speaks more about our sheltering oh-man-close-your-eyes, child! culture than of the mistakes of the producers of the film.
I know the harry potter films have gotten more serious as they progress (from G to PG13, etc), so maybe if we're lucky, so will these.
"Stop comparing to the book - you'll never get that much texture and richness into the movie."
At least NONE of these adaptations are anywhere in the same class of bad as Disney's The Black Cauldron "adaptation" of the Llyod Alexander's Prydain books. "Loosely" based on the first two books was a huge, huge understatement. "Missing pretty much everything that made the books enjoyable and passionate so as to fit into a cookie-cutter Disney movie mold" is nearer the mark.
I had the same problem with the big-screen adaptation of Dune a few years ago. If you were a fan of the book and the series after it, the movie left out way too much for you to like it. If you had never read the book, the movie was a confusing, un-entertaining mish-mash.
It's interesting - a French film company bought the rights to Dune back in 1974 and started pre-production on the film. Eventually, they had a massive script that would have made the movie about 14 hours long, but the financial backing dried up after that.
In 2000 the Sci-Fi Channel re-made Dune as a 6-hour mini-series that was excellent, everything the movie should have been. Then they created another 6-hour mini-series called "Children of Dune" that distilled the next two novels after Dune into a pretty good series.
Pullman's works are like that too. To do them right you would have to do it in a mini-series format, or even a full-season series format. But it would never happen. Too controversial, and too expensive. Maybe the Sci-Fi Channel will try it one day. :)
I was just getting ready to leave for the theater when I read this. Now, I'm not sure if I want to spend the money, or wait for the DVD. Christmas is tight enough as it is.
Maybe I'll just let the kids finish the book before we go. Then they probably won't want to spend $20 or so on somethine we can wait and rent for a couple bucks... and probably see more of.
Nicole Kidman is a Catholic, apparently, and didn't want to make an anti-Catholic movie.
Entertainment Weekly:
It has been watered down a little,'' admits Nicole Kidman, who stars as the icily evil Mrs. Coulter. Not that she's complaining. Quite the contrary. ''I was raised Catholic,'' she says. ''The Catholic Church is part of my essence. I wouldn't be able to do this film if I thought it were at all anti-Catholic.''
And so it goes.
I really enjoyed the movie for the enrichment it brings to my mental pictures of the books -- I thought the casting was very well-done, and the visual images were stunning.
I do agree that much of the motivation was cut out, which I imagine makes the movie very hard to understand for people who haven't read the books. But seeing the movie made my husband (who hates books) curious enough to take the series off the shelf last night. If that's what it does to other people who have seen the movie but haven't read the books, then I'm happy.
I liked the movie. Sure it felt rushed in places and could have been more gory, but that is to be expected. The girl that played Lyra did an outstanding job, worth the price of admission alone. And Sam Elliot was amazing as Lee Scoresby, just as I imagined him in the book. The film has a lot wrong with it, but overall it is an enjoyable affair. Go see it, there are a lot worse films out there.
I propose that atheists "announce" a surreptitious boycott of the movie because it shies away from the religious, atheist angle. Then, maybe, a bunch of catholics will insist on seeing the movie.
Then they'll buy the books. We win!
Myself, my wife and my daughter really enjoyed it last night. I read the books about 2 years ago, and felt the "moveie people" had actually done a good job of hitting the key milestones, and keeping them integrated.
For example, there are a number of references to the prophecy of the witches regarding the child, so it really shouldn't be such a surprise when they show up. The girl who plays Lyra really pins it together though. She conveys the emerging "burden of command" that is central to the character, as well as her capacity for machiavellian machinations, I really didn't expect to see the movie do that justice, but there it was. I really liked it:-)
Everything seems to be arbitrary; interesting characters gallop on stage, speak a handful of lines, and then scurry off to make room for the next oddity in the parade.
Funny...that's how I felt about the books.
My local radio/television not-very shock jock show did a mildly amusing ripping it to shreds. They hadn't read the books and were particularly aware of "the controversy". The basically found it utterly arbitrary and chaotic and had no idea what was going on "I mean, so every has this animal" "Are the potty trained?" "Don't think to need to.." "So they're ephemaral" "No, Nicole slapped her monkey around. But get this: there were polar bears in armor! Oh, and oriental ninjas in the snow."
I still want to see it. And I guess we have a moral obligation...
''The Catholic Church is part of my essence. I wouldn't be able to do this film if I thought it were at all anti-Catholic.''
>>>And so it goes.
Yeah, but actresses will always say what the think will put the movie in the best light.
PZ, you seem to be trying to evaluate the movie from the point of view of someone who has not read the book, yet you have read the book. You're trying to do the impossible. If you want to know how well the story works for people that haven't read the book, you need to ask people who haven't read the book.
I have read the books, and I've seen the movie twice now. The first time through, I spent all my time trying to compare the movie to the book, and it all felt rushed and jumbled. The second time, I just sat and enjoyed the movie, and it actually worked rather well. Certainly an extended version would be great, and hopefully there will be one on the DVD. But even if not, it works well enough as is.
As for the core of the story, in what way was it not there? True, they use the terms Majesterium and the Authority exclusively (rather than freely interchangeable with "Church" and "God" as used in the books), but it's not exactly difficult to figure out what they're talking about. Anyway, most of the deep delving into religion takes place in the second and third books.
Anyway, I enjoyed it, my fellow atheist that saw it with me, who has not read the books, enjoyed it, and his kids enjoyed it, and everyone got the point of the story. Plus, they all want to read the books now, which is certainly a good thing. I say well done.
I wasn't disappointed. It's a movie, and thus not as good as the book, but I still felt the anti-religious message was there, and anyone who didn't hear it (particularly in the scene where Mrs. Coulter is telling Lyra about the "ancestors" who disobeyed "authority" and gave us Dust-It's fairly clear this is Adam and Eve) is either too young or not paying attention.
The softening for kids didn't bother me too much (except for Billy Costa and the fact that Iorek wasn't a murderer), and I'm glad they did it, because if they hadn't, the movie would be rated R, and however cool it would have been to see Iorek eat the bear king's heart after smacking off half his face, the second and third one would never get made.
Anyone who expects this book to be completely true to the book will be disappointed, but people who expect that of movies are always disappointed. I was impressed with how much anti-religious, anti-authority sentiment was NOT cut out, and some of it made the Magisterium look more evil than in the book (in particular that a member of the Magisterium, dressed obviously in a sort of cleric outfit, tries to poison Asriel, not the Master).
I tried to verify this and couldn't so take it for what it's worth, but I remember reading that showing blood usually gets a movie an R rating. Not what New Line wanted, I'm sure.
I liked it very much and thought the director/writer did a great job of condensing the story and hitting on all the major plot points in a coherent way. The Magisterium was repulsive, Kidman was a fantastic Mrs. Coulter, loved Richards Lyra, and loved the special effects.
I have little hope the next two movies will be made, but I would dearly love to meet Will on the big screen.
Sorry you didn't like it P. Z. You might feel better about it if you saw Beowulf-now that's a putrid and stupid movie with a plot as thin as gauze.
Movies of books always seemed rushed, which tends to disappoint me a lot. I was hoping that this was a short book they wouldn't have that problem, but it looks like they did. I think that might definitively be a problem with this book, because it seems that from Lyra's perspective there should be a feeling of time and of periods of waiting and uncertainty as the world positions itself for the next piece of action.
If the movie goes right from one point to the next, I could imagine it missing this portion the narrative.
Ha! I knew PZ would be a Pullman fan.
The Harry Potter books are the same way. A miniseries would do that story FAR more justice than the incoherent mad dash through the plot that the movies have to go with...
I completely and totally agree with this! I really wish they'd do a BBC production, with crappy Dr. Who-level special effects, but lingering over all the crazy details you have to zoom over in the movies. Alas, probaby a pipe dream now they've already gone and done kajillion dollar movies.
Will probably drag Mr. Tikistitch to see Golden Compass at some point, just 'cause it looks pretty, but the film I'm *really* anticipating this Squidmas season is Sweeney Todd.
No children die anywhere in the story
WHAT?!
But... isn't....
Ok, SPOILERS!!!
Seriously, spoilers for people who haven't read the books.
You've been warned!
Isn't one of the main plot points Lyra's attempt to save her friend Roger from the Magisterium? And she succeeds ONLY to have her own father kill him in order to open a portal himself? Did they cut that?! If they did, I'm not going to bother seeing it in theaters. That's terribly disappointing...
Or possibly she really doesn't see it as "Anti-Catholic". I'm an atheist and I still see it as more of a criticism of religious orthodoxy. Insofar as that is synonymous with Catholicism, I suppose it could be considered specifically anti-Catholic. To me it seems more incidental, though. Any suitable religious orthodoxy would do. Catholics just happen have the biggest churches, best robes and silliest hats... I mean the most iconic imagery in our culture.
Brent Rasmussen (#14) wrote:
That would be awesome. That's exactly what I was thinking. It would have to be cable though, or made overseas, because if it were made for the American tv market it would have to be some family friendly crap that wouldn't be worth the trouble.
(Sorry families, but as a childless adult I resent the way the American tv content and program scheduling revolves around your annoying children, who should be outside playing anyway. I was just talking to a friend who now lives in New Zealand and oh. my. god. They get Weeds and The Flight of the Conchords on regular tv!! I hate America. And Jesus.)
Sounds like I'll be waiting until the Golden Compass comes out on DVD before I watch it. Ah well. I want to read the books first anyway.
A movie I'd really recommend for Squidmas is the Hogfather mini series. I loved it, and it even allowed me to finally convince a friend of mine that the Discworld books were worth reading (she's now borrowed all of them that I own). It's out on DVD, but in the US only available from Border's Books if Wikipedia is to be believed.
Bad：you are what is wrong with fans today. One day you'll go to college, grow up, and learn to appreciate reality. PZ: try to take a shot of vodka before the next Harry Potter movie. Relax and enjoy.
There's no way in hell this trilogy won't run to completion--Hollywood is completely famished for any movie plot whatsoever, and something with a guaranteed line/progression is like moving in with your dealer.
I couldn't stomach the writing in the third book, and barely made it through the first two, but I will certainly be seeing this one. Solidarity!
SPOILERS (of book)
Ok, SPOILERS!!! Isn't one of the main plot points Lyra's attempt to save her friend Roger from the Magisterium? And she succeeds ONLY to have her own father kill him in order to open a portal himself? Did they cut that?! If they did, I'm not going to bother seeing it in theaters. That's terribly disappointing...
I haven't seen the movie but what I've heard is that the movie ends 100 pages early so I think it ends right after the ice bear fight.
Oh, Does anyone remember what Christ's daemon was supposed to be or if Adam and Eve's daemon's were known. Or any other biblical figures?
PZ:
No! The movie is not two hours long--it's barely over an hour and a half.
I saw the flick last night; I'm lukewarm about it for reasons similar to PZ, and I too am a fan of the books. But I really think the movie could have been improved drastically if they had used another half hour of screen time. (Though I'm skeptical that that issue can be fixed in a "director's cut" of the movie; in a few notable spots, the story has been basically restructured to cram it into the running time.) PZ's right that the movie blitzes by interesting, if not crucial, elements of the story--character development especially--in its mad dash forward. Yeesh.
If they slow down and take a little more @#$@# time with the storytelling, I think the last two volumes of the film trilogy have a shot at being noticeably better than this one.
SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS, etc.
Woozy (#32):
Many pages early, yes. Actually the escape-from-Bolvangar fight is the last action sequence in the movie.
Roger's fate does indeed appear to be an early plot element of the second movie, rather than a late part of the first. But there's a dark-joke reference to it in the first movie: in the closing scene, as she, Roger, Iorek and company fly to meet Asriel, Lyra announces that the alethiometer has told her that she is "bringing Asriel what he needs." She thinks that means the alethiometer. She's wrong.
In Pullman's version, I'm not sure that the alethiometer is as much of a sneaky-veiled oracle as that (look out, Macbeth, "of woman born" doesn't mean what you think it does...), but whatever; I thought it was funny.
I actually thought the way the whole Roger thing was handled was very good in terms of keeping the flow between the first movie and the second. It's much easier to make a linear story that the audience will remember if Roger dies and Lyra crosses into the next world and then the Subtle Knife story line picks up in the beginning of the second film. But then again, I liked the movie on a whole, even if it was a bit rushed.
Two things bugged me: Lord Asriel wandering around the Arctic with no sled, not even a pack. And Lyra running across a bridge of glacial ice (two evils here - a bridge of glacial ice? And that stuff is so slippery it's difficult to stand still on it).
So. Apparently this shows that I 1. like the movie 2. have enough experience with snow/mountain wilderness travel that I know when people are going to die. And then somehow get bugged when they don't.
For the record, Lyra would totally carry crampons.
Phillip Pullman, author of The Golden Compass, excerpts of an interview with Christianity Today movie critic Peter T. Chattaway, 11/28/07:
"(T)he purest example of theocracy in the twentieth century was Soviet Russia."
"There are various ways of explaining consciousness, many of which seem to take the line that it's an emergent phenomenon that only begins to exist when a sufficient degree of complexity is achieved. Another way of dealing with the question is to assume that consciousness, like mass, is a normal and universal property of matter (this is known as panpsychism), so that human beings, dogs, carrots, stones, and atoms are all conscious, though in different degrees."
[Note: I accept the emergent phenomenon model of consciousness rather than "panpsychism."]
"As for 'spirit', 'spiritual', 'spirituality' - these are words I never use, because I can see nothing real that seems to correspond with them: they have no meaning."
Much more interesting discussion in the link:
http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-pullman-extended-e-mail…
I would see Golden Compass this weekend were it not for the fact that I can no longer tolerate the behavior of moviegoers - chatting with each other, answering cell phones, texting, bringing infants, getting up for more candy etc. So I'll wait for the DVD.
This book really can't be done in a feature-film amount of time. I just know it's going to piss me off. This is also part of why I'm dreading the movie version of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell -- same problem. That thing needs to be an 8-hour miniseries, and then it would be awesome. Same with each of these books.
Haha, just remembered. A bunch of Techers went to see it last night and were all excited about seeing the BEAR FIGHT!. Bet they were disappointed.
In other news, where can I get a copy of the Hogfather miniseries?
The pacing didn't bother me but it might bother those who haven't read the books.
Also, the movie was much more anti-religious than I expected it to be from the rumors.
For the rest of my response, I'll just repost part of my reply to MaryAnn 's review:
There was a lot of condensing but none of it bothered me.
On the other hand, I do have one quibble with the movie. It is not required to follow "alethiometer" with "or golden compass" every time the word is mentioned. After the first few times, the audience should understand that they are the same thing.
Besides my minor quibble, almost everything else I liked: the casting was superb especially Lyra and Lee Scoresby, the CGI blended very well and made Lyra's world appear to be a real alternate world, etc....
I saw it last night with my partner. I have read the book, she has not. I liked it, but I thought it was rushed and slightly incoherent, and I mourned the missing backstory. My partner absolutely loved it. She thought it was a bit rushed, yes, but she understood how all the parts fit together and why people did what they did. We both loved the casting and the effects, and although there was no blood, the end of the fight between the bears was still pretty stunning.
Does anyone remember what Christ's daemon was supposed to be
Sand dollar.
or if Adam and Eve's daemon's were known.
Adam: Clay-colored Sparrow
Eve: (duh) serpent
Or any other biblical figures?
Noah: una Paloma blanca
Jonah: Whale shark
Job: salty dog
Samson: wooly mammoth
David: Bolo spider
Goliath: Goliath frog, evidently
Virgin Mary: Cnemidophorus uniparens
Joseph: cuckoo
I'm obviously making these up, but it's kind of fun...
Jared - I completely agree with you on the "alethiometer, or golden compass" thing. It was so annoying!
"There are various ways of explaining consciousness, many of which seem to take the line that it's an emergent phenomenon that only begins to exist when a sufficient degree of complexity is achieved. Another way of dealing with the question is to assume that consciousness, like mass, is a normal and universal property of matter (this is known as panpsychism), so that human beings, dogs, carrots, stones, and atoms are all conscious, though in different degrees."
[Note: I accept the emergent phenomenon model of consciousness rather than "panpsychism."]
Well, they aren't mutually exclusive. It seems consciousness would be relative to its complexity. I remember my brother-in-law studying for some post-doc philosopher exam (or talk or interview or something) about ontology and rationalism which was a branch of philosophy he hated, scoffing at a philosopher possiting that a thermometer toggle "know" one thing, whether it is hot or not. We can be presume rocks know nothing (at least I hope they don't) and we can assume simple machines simple dear eliza programs no nothing but insects or anything with any degree of complexity get pretty borderline. (I personally assume nearly all mammals are conscious). The pansych could be a straightforward method to "how" conscious things are. Insets are aware but utterly memory-less, while a light-bulb is only aware of "this/other" (in context of nothing.
This would answer the magical threshold level probrem as to when is something complex enough to aware and when is it dumb as a rock.
Now, going back to my "Universe is concious because it is complex and therefore can be fairly called God" conjecture; How complex *is* the universe? Or would something smaller with fewer more intricate gravitional workings be "more" conscious. Is the milky way galaxy more complex and thus more conscious than the human mind or is it more on the level of an amoeba? And what about that old Hofstadter fantasy; how complex is a beehive. Is it as concious as, say, a goldfish? A poodle? A person? Or dumb as a brick?
Likewise it'd be kind of creepy and fascinating to know that several other beings in our bodies (our lymphatic systems???) might be conscious. (Or are our brains several degrees of scale more complex than anything else in our bodies?) I've often thought it'd be fun to write a sci-fi story where our individual consciousness is the perception of complex patterns viewed in a temporal linear way, but that other consciousnesses would exist "in" the same materials/bodies but as viewed in alternative manner for a completely alien existance.
Ooops, back to your regularly schedule discussion.
I agree completely with your review PZ. Great acting, cgi and source material but awful script and directing.
Yes, but... there was one gruesome part of the battle that I was frankly amazed, and pleased, they put in the film (i.e. exactly how the victorious bear gets the upper hand)
Does anyone remember what Christ's daemon was supposed to be
I don't remember if this was ever mentioned in the books (althought there was a mention of the origins of daemons as a verse in Genesis. Gad. I'll have to get these books out of storage.
Eve: (duh) serpent
Duh, indeed! Actually, that'd be quite interesting to speculate whether belief that the serpent was eve (as daemons are "souls") or external to Eve would coorespond or not to the religion of "our" world.
Although, now that I think of it, I suppose daemons (according to "their" bible) occured after the fall.
I think Christ's daemon would be of great significance to the Magisterium but I don't believe this was ever commented.
Well, in this bit of fan fiction Christ's daemon was a dove named Magdelena (which was flayed alive at the same time Christ was cruxified-- and according to biblic lore never changed from anything but a dove even in child and infancy).
I guess that's as good as any... I take it from this fan fiction that the question was never addressed in the actual books.
@octopod:
You can get it here, for instance: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-k…
My take on the movie is here:
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2007/12/reviewing-golden-compass.html
I took the seven-year-old in my life to see it today and he LOVED it. Sat speechless through the whole two hours. When I told him that it was originally a series of novels, he expressed interest in having his father and me read them to him.
It wasn't the best movie of the year by any stretch of the imagination but if it gets a kid interested in books: Mission Accomplished!
Or any other biblical figures?
Noah: una Paloma blanca
Jonah: Whale shark
Job: salty dog
Samson: wooly mammoth
David: Bolo spider
Goliath: Goliath frog, evidently
Virgin Mary: Cnemidophorus uniparens
Joseph: cuckoo
I'm obviously making these up, but it's kind of fun..
And the deer that went with Lot's wife was thrilled with its salt lick.
I thought it was rushed too. I think if they had
taken the same sort of butt-numbing approach that
Peter Jackson did in the Lord of the Rings the story
would have held together better.
As it is, I did like it and I do wonder if there is
an extended cut. I know this isn't the way it is, but
wouldn't it be interesting if there had been one version
of this film for the European market and a dumbed down
special edition for sensitive American audiences?
Charon, I wondered about the ice bridge too. The lesson, I guess, is if you're ever forced to cross a bridge with Ian McKellen, be very, very careful.
Oops! "salty dog" was supposed to be Lot, not Job. Shit, that was myu favorite one too.
Who was Job again?
Octopod, you can get Hogfather at Borders and it's awesome.
...
...
The short version: I liked it a lot. Talking warrior bears? Shape-changing ferrets? Friendly flying witches who do battle via airborn archery? I'm there, dude.
There was one moment of subtle humor that made me laugh out loud with delight. Lyra and Pan are talking about journeying north. Pan, in his ferret form, says something like "I hear it gets really cold up there!" And the instant he says it, his fur turns pure ermine white. Delightful!
One scene will stay with me for a long time: Lyra rides the bear Iorek on a night trip to the next valley. The bear gallops over the snow, first at near-normal speed, then cut down to slow motion. Beautiful!
Daniel Craig didn't have much time for showing his acting range, and that was too bad. Nicole Kidman was good, and the young actress who played Lyra, Dakota Blue Richards, was VERY good.
Also kinda fun to hear the voices of Deadwood's Al Swearengen in the person of the bear king, Gandalf the Grey/Magneto as Iorek, and Chocolate Factory's Charlie Bucket speaking as Lyra's daemon Pan.
Sam Elliott can be on screen for two minutes and make an entire movie worth seeing. The man's voice and mustache should each have their own stars on Hollywood Boulevard.
...
...
Who was Job again?
God: Job's a virtuous righteous man.
Devil: Oh, he's only virtuous and righteous because you've given him so much.
God: No, he'd be virtuous and righteous if I took it all away.
Devil: I don't believe you.
God: I'll prove it.
[God kills Job's wife and children. Salts his land. Kills his livestock with plague. Has his land overrun by enemies enslaving Job into slavery. Inflicts Job with painful boils all over his body.]
Job: Oh, how great is God that he can give so much and take it away.
Devil: Wow! You were right! He still praises you and is righteous and virtuous! I really thought he'd get bitter!
God: Told you!
Devil: I guess I owe you a coke.
Job's daemon (candidates): swamp rat (takes whatever he gets), Housefly (give him shit and he's happy), fawn (pun), God's bitch. Albatross, opossum, doormat, castrated three-leg dog, blind in one eye, missing ear, infected tail, named Lucky etc.
I just got back from a second viewing and enjoyed it even more than last night. Probably because I wasn't comparing it to the books.
There seemed to be quite a few people unfamiliar with the story and they enjoyed it thoroughly. No one seemed to lose the story line and they really liked the daemons. I kept hearing people chuckling and commenting over the type of daemons associated with various characters.
I am from Texas-the-Pariah-State where Sam Elliott is very popular and he and Hester were greeted with delighted laughs both times I saw the movie. The bear losing his jaw shocked people both times also. That surprised me, considering how much violence there is in many movies.
Just a thought about Billy Costa not dying, originally Roger was supposed to die at the end of the movie and Weiss may have thought Billy dying would have lessened the punch in the gut of Roger's death. Perhaps he was trying to avoid a feeling of been there, done that?
I am encouraged that people other than atheist (joke! joke!) are enjoying the movie. I want the other two to be made.
#34 the alethiometer tells Lyra her mother is after her and that she (Lyra) has something both her parents want to do an experiment. Of course Lyra thinks it's the alethiometer. So the film gets it right in a different way.
woozy: oh, yeah...that guy.
"Housefly" was funny!
According to the website, Jesus' daemon was a Snow Leopard named Loreana. Though it is possible that I didn't answer the questions entirely correctly, I suppose.
I just saw it and liked it better than I expected, given PZ's comments :) I think I'd have found it confusing if I hadn't read the books, but as it was I think it worked fine, as a sort of live-action reading of the book, if that makes any sense.
Excellent use of the daemons, very convincingly animated. The bear fight was a tad bloodless but I think punching his jaw clean off at the end made up for that. (Spoiler alert? I know no spoiler alert). I covet those dirigible airships.
They definitely gentled off on the anti-religious aspects. Shame, but probably necessary for it to get screened.
Sister Shrieky McJesus of the local Catholic diocese wrote an overheated letter to the newspaper warning all good Christians to avoid this movie, and boycott the books associated with it.
After having seen the movie, I'm completely certain that no viewer would associate the Magisterium with the Catholic church without being clued in beforehand.
I've considered calling Sister McJesus and asking her just how totally clueless you have to be to actually write self-humiliating letters like hers, knowing they'll be seen by other members of the public. But I guess if she had a clue, she'd never had written the letter.
Speaking for myself, I despise the church she belongs to, the poison nest that produced someone like her, FAR more than I would if I'd only seen this movie. The Golden Compass is only fiction, but she is disgustingly real.
Eh, I wasn't crazy about it. They still left out way too much -- e.g., you never hear the word "mentat" or the name "Usul" in the whole thing. And so much of the story in the book was driven by Paul's internal monologue, of which we got none. Lynch's version had more pizzazz, but was wrong-headed in many respects.
Of course my favotire part of Dune was the story of Liet-Kynes, which is in a freaking appendix. No one's ever going to shoot that.
Ahem.
" ... never HAVE written the letter."
Douglas Adams made a good point that short stories made better starters for movies than full novels. I think that's why so many Phillip K Dick stories have turned up as movies.
Disappointed? Yes.
Even if Pullman's thesis had been completely stripped from the screenplay the end result would still be a middling feature film. The narrative is simply too congested, having been shrunk down to a series of plot points which are settled in so expeditious a fashion they fail to offer little in the way of dramatic pay-off.
It's just poor story-telling. Wiesz was correct to walk away from the project the first time--Pullman's narrative, as is, simply can't be coerced into a miserly 114 minutes.
I only clicked "Post" once. I swear.
"The big battle is a tamely anodyne thing, because not one single drop of blood is spilled."
Oddly, this is a problem I had with the incredibly bad, boring Narnia movie!
According to the website, Jesus' daemon was a Snow Leopard named Loreana. Though it is possible that I didn't answer the questions entirely correctly, I suppose.
Cool! I tried answering the questions as a Xtian would view Christ, and I got a female racoon named Artemis. The questions about "what will be will be" and fate, were heard to answer as was "I love meeting new people".
Hmm, got the books from storage and it says daemons were mentioned in Genesis III and, argh.... I left my bibles in storage.... argh.... Anyhow, (exceedly mild spoiler) Adam and Eve saw their daemons for the first time when they ate the fruit but the Bible doesn't say what they were. The serpent was not Eve's daemon.
googles Bartleby for Genesis three....
http://www.bartleby.com/108/01/3.html#S3
Hmmm, maybe I really *should* have been curious while reading the book the first time and looked this up.
(very mild spoiler but only a teensy bit less minor than the one above)
I had assumed the King James Bible in Lyra's world had two or three added verses but actually it is exactly the same as ours accept where ours says "to be wise" hers says "to reveal the true form of one's daemon" (which, !!!D'OH!!!, makes sense as the whole third book is.... you know.)
The bit about "dust" is identical in both bibles.
I once ran across a comment to the effect that there are two ways of cutting down the length of a movie (as they had to do to fit several hundred pages of novel into two hours of screen time): the first is to trim here, toss out a line of dialog there, until you're down to the requisite length. The second is to sacrifice whole subplots and storylines.
The Lord of the Rings movies took the second approach. This may annoy fans of Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and Glorfindel, but at least the movies tell a coherent, if simplified, story.
The Golden Compass, unfortnately, takes the first approach. The result is that you can see that the original story was a lot bigger and more complex, but you can't tell what it was.
Bad @ 1:
Then are human beings (a) vegetables, or (b) minerals, or (c) mute?
HUMANS CAN'T TALK, AHHHHHH!
I saw the movie yesterday with my fiancé at a matinée showing to a packed theater. I was really surprised to see a packed theater at 3 in the afternoon, we almost didn't get a seat.
I have not read the books (nor had I ever heard of them or the author) but after seeing this movie I will definitely buy them now. My fiancé and I loved the movie. We kept whispering to each other how cool the movie was, and how beautiful the art direction was (we are both artists).
The best thing about it though was after the movie had ended. There was some clapping, and nearly everyone was sitting around talking about the movie. They were talking about how beautiful the movie was, and how cool the concept was. If anyone had caught on to the atheistic nature of the movie, it didn't seem to bother them much. I laughed when a group of older adults were talking about the daemon concept. One of them was joking about how it would suck if there daemon turned out to be a bug.
I'm sure had I read the books before hand, I would have been disappointed as is the case in all the movies I've seen based on books I've read, but I'm glad I didn't and was able to thoroughly enjoy this movie. It was really great to hear people actually discussing the movie afterwards, especially in a positive way.
1. Yes, it was rather too headlong. So much so that I almost couldn't get involved in it, despite being very fond of the book.
2. Very good-looking, but the bears did lack emotional animation.
3. Thirty years after "Once an Eagle," Sam Elliot still comes over the screen far better than 99% of other actors.
I went last night - it's about what I expected: a fun, entertaining highlights reel of the book. I did notice that it was racing to and fro between set pieces, never stopping to catch its breath or even let the world exist as more than a whirling backdrop for Lyra. But I felt that a little in the last third of the book, as well.
The weirdest thing was the trailers; Alvin & the chipmunks, then Narnia 2: Eclectic Boogaloo, and then a trailer for Sex & the City. I was surprised at the juxtaposition, to say the least.
Here's my Christ daeman. It'd be interesting if one could search for other daemons. I'd be curious to see other folks daemons.
One of them was joking about how it would suck if there daemon turned out to be a bug.
Yeah, I thought that as I was reading the book.
I think the role daemons play in day to day life is supposed to be ... subtle. Daemons are mostly seen as a fact of life. But daemons are one's "soul" (and how often do we think about souls) and do reflect one's personality. Servants *always* have dog servants and "better" servants have "better" dogs (I reread the first three pages this morning). However this could be in part that servitude is a class and people only hire people with dog daemons. I think it'd be rather odd and disturbing to have one's "worth" on visible display for all to see. However the day to day workings with a life with daemons seems to be that falks don't think about them much. People *can* talk to others' daemons and daemons *can* talk and interact with other daemons but they almost never do.
Was the ship captain with a dolphin daemon in the film? I thought it was interesting sometimes folks would have daemons whose biological niche which limit physical movement. (The ship captain knew he had to spend his life on the ocean and never go more than a few feet ashore.)
Molkien-Maybe you would not have been disappointed. I am through my second reading of the trilogy and I loved the movie!
Keep your fingers crossed they can make the sequals!
I liked Lynch's Dune infinitely more than the SciFi miniseries version, on every level. For one thing, Lynch has the genius to understand the genius (and depth) of Frank Herbert.
As for the effects of the movie. Here at our local library, there are 7 copies of the golden compass already, all checked out, and always 7-10 holds. and that was true after the movie was just announced. It won't be harry potter, but nothing is. And remember, too, that the Harry Potter books, whether (not too) "Brights" want to realize it or not, are also freethinking.
I thought he did a nice job trying to corral the book into a film. Perhaps not all the storylines were included but the bulk of the main plot points were there. True, the religious aspect was toned down and hidden into the costumes and stuff, but the story was there.
I thought all the choices were made played out well in the cinematic world. The choice to end it where they did. And some of the other ones.
I think I may have been a bit too kind as I had just finished the book and then saw the movie. I think I wanted it to be too much like the book and saw it that way. I guess I'd meet you half way. It's a good FILM, but perhaps not a good adaptation, unlike my previous assessment.
This movie was a lot better than I'd thought it would be, but way more disappointing than I could have imagined. They had so many parts right and really nailed the feel for the movie in almost every way and then totally blew it by having a lousy script and a poor-to-terrible score. If only the producers had had even a little respect for the audience it could have turned out great.
Let's all hope that they bury the remaining two films so that 20 or 30 years from now someone else can pick up the license and do it right from the start.
I concur with PZ. The movie felt too rushed at the end. Disappointed.
http://www.skyseastone.net/jvstin/unjvst/007265.html
Well, this thread is ancient, but I just saw the movie and feel compelled to stick my proverbial tongue out at PZ. I really liked it.
There are, of course, details I wish they hadn't excluded (especially about the bears), but I was not overly disappointed. When the director's cut comes out I suspect they'll restore some of the content I wish was in the feature length film.
Also, it's obvious how the witches knew where to be. Duh, they're witches. They are very wise and know things they shouldn't and that's why the Chur- I mean the Majesterium hates them. Plus, Serafina clearly mentioned the prophesies several times.
It won't be harry potter, but nothing is. And remember, too, that the Harry Potter books, whether (not too) "Brights" want to realize it or not, are also freethinking.
that would be trolling at its best, except that nobody here bought into the old joke about "brights".
I guess you did, huh?
oh well.
Apologies for resserecting an old thread, but I'm a bit behind on reading blogs. Apologies too if this has already been said -- I only managed to skim over the comments so far. Anyway, re: the church element being downplayed. Nonsense. It wasn't downplayed at all, rather it was made far too obvious. The dialogue may as well have gone "Look at my collar and snake daemon: I am an evil church man. I wish to take away everyone's free will to asure my political power." They needed to do less telling and more showing.
I haven't read all the comments yet, so apologies if this has already been said.
I enjoyed the movie, although I was disappointed that several huge chunks had been taken out of the plot. There was not even any mention of the war on Heaven - what's that about? And how come Lyra's alethiometer is suddenly the only one left? Where did that come from?
Plus, I agree about the wussing out where it comes to the violent bits. Seems that Hollywood is incapable of producing a movie that contains kids and is about the kids without making it for kids.
What I object to most of all, though, is that Hollywood is so afraid of the religious nutters that they tried to tone down the atheistic elements (even where the "evil churchmen" aspect of the plot exists, it resides with individuals, not with institutionalised oppression). Surely the USA is heading for a New Middle Ages.
It has been watered down a little,'' admits Nicole Kidman, who stars as the icily evil Mrs. Coulter.
I'm watching the DVD version right now, and am a little surprised nobody found an amusing coincidence in the main evil female character being named "Coulter".
cracked me up first time I saw Nicole Kidman being named such.
she's an evil whacked out blond.
that didn't remind ANYBODY of another well known evil whacked out blond with the name Coulter?
strange.