His Dark Materials

[sir archely]

A thread for discussion of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series, consisting of The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass.


First off, what's the deal with the religious outrage over the movie/books? I feel like whoever is "outraged" is pretty much just trying to piggyback off of the publicity of a big hollywood movie. I understand why they might be outraged, but not why they would be for Golden Compass. As I recall, there's almost nothing in that book of religious significance at all. There's maybe one paragraph at the end where Lord Asriel talks about the meaning of Dust and it's religious significance. Readers might get the sense that the church is oppressive to scientific inquiry, but that's hardly unrealistic.

Not only this, but The Golden Compass has been out since 1996, and The Amber Spyglass since 2002. Is it that the outrage (as i will refer to it) has always been there over these books but it's just now coming to light with the movie, or is the outrage new just for the movie?

This is basically incomprehensible to me. Anyone who can explain it? If you don't like the subject matter, it's easy, don't read the books, and don't see the movie. How is it any more difficult than that? This is not a political issue, it's an entertainment issue. Just don't see it! nsh.



Anyway, otherwise, I haven't seen the movie yet, but given the book, I suspect it's a near Narnia clone in terms of look, feel and pacing.

I'm also curious about how they treated the end of the movie, because I wasn't so much a fan of how Golden Compass ended. imo, the book just sort of stops with Lyra walking off into a new world. there's not really a big final climax except for Iorek's battle, which, while cool and fairly important in keeping Lyra alive/free, doesn't have much to do with the overall plot of the book. So what does the movie have as the climax big ending? I don't think there are too many first movies in a trilogy that have cliffhangers as the end.

As far as just the books go, I'd peg these books at just above Harry Potter level. Good for guided children's reading, adults can have a quick easy ride and not be disappointed if they don't expect anything other than that.

[Anita Blake]

the Golden Compass:

I've been looking forward to seeing this movie for months. When I first discovered that the Producer and (uncredited) co-cirector of American Pie was the guy in charge of The Golden Compass, I got a little scared. I mean, I liked American Pie when it first came out as much as the next guy, but to put that guy in charge of something like the Golden Compass? Yes, it was the first warning.

The second warning came with all the "controversy" over the anti-religious content of the story, and the rebuttal from the director that it had been removed from the movie. He also went on to tell the reader that the final 3 chapters had been omitted from the movie in order to create a more "happy ending" for better box office. Yes, when the ending of a movie is written solely to guarantee better ticket sales, I begin to shake my head.

The final warning came to me a few days ago when I saw a commercial on TV promising "great visual effects" "amazing action" and "gorgeous visuals". When all the review blurbs are focused on anything but the story, you know there's trouble.

Still, having been led to the books a couple of years ago by my friend and having fallen head-over-heels in love with the story, the world, and everything to do with His Dark Materials, I was determined to see it. Then my bf got free tickets from his company (a branch of which did some of the visual effects), so it was sealed. Get to see it for free? Hell yes!

Sadly, even seeing this movie for free left me feeling ripped off and jaded. In many ways it was like X-Men 3 - there was a script that could have written itself, a stellar cast, and a great story & characters to drive the whole thing - a moron couldn't mess it up! Of course, there are spectacular idiots in Hollywood, and when a project has too much potential for awesomeness, these idiots are sure to pop their mindless heads into it and screw it all up. So it was with x-Men 3, so it was with the Golden Compass.

It all starts with some very dubious voice over narration to introduce us to the world, and then moves quickly into the heart of the story, never really slowing down to allow the audience to appreciate a character quirk or even really understand what was going on. If I hadn't read the book, I'd have been lost in the first few minutes.

As far as the changes made to the story: I get creative license. I get that movies from books necessitate certain changes owing to the media. Most of the changes made to the story make a bit of sense, and I can forgive them. I can even forgive the removal of religious overtones, in spite of the fact that really, at the core, the series of books is completely railing against religious dogmatism.

Possibly the worst crime the movie commits is simply rushing everything. The desire to make it a kid-friendly, under-2-hour film is understandable. If then, this was desired, it would have made more sense to remove more of the plot and restructure the story a bit to capture the feeling of the story, if not all the plot points. Unfortunately, what we've been given is the plot points, step by step, with none of the connecting strands to keep it moving. Entire chunks of plot are given away with a simple sentence of dialogue: "we found this paper in the garbage, it tells us everything we need to know to move on to the next bit of plot. now let's go and do that right now!"

The writing is so miserably bad that Phillip Pullman must be sitting at home this weekend crying because people will think his books were written so badly. The editing is so choppy and uneven - gah, it barely bears discussion.

The acting is actually quite good, when the actors are allowed to actually shine. Dakota Blue Richards was an excellent choice to play Lyra, she exudes the kind of charm and confidence that the character needs to have, a masculine swagger and boyish desire t get dirty and play rough. Nicole Kidman is perfectly cast as the villainous Mrs. Coulter, and Sam Elliott as Lee Scoresby.... man, that was brilliant!

Unfortunately, these great actors don't have much to work with, with poorly written dialogue, and many of their scenes pathetically short and ultimately meaningless in the greater context of the film. Christopher Lee shows up for a scene. One scene. And the thing is - it's like that for almost all the non-main characters. Lord Faa and Farder Coram - one scene. Serafina Pekkala - 3 scenes (and Eva Green gets top billing!). Apparently Daniel Craig is in the movie somewhere too. There's just so much lack of interaction between characters that they all become rather unnecessary. Why have a scene where people work things out when you can just have a shot of a little girl sitting there. ?!!? ack!

But hey, the visual effects are pretty gorgeous. It's pretty much the greatest visual effects demo reel ever. Too bad the music sucked, though

Anyway, I'd love to see what someone thought of it who hadn't read the book - I have a feeling it would have made very little sense.

Overall, it's choppy, disjointed, and lacking heart. This was the rare movie that actually needed another 30-60 minutes in it to beef it up (coming from the girl who thinks everything could be 20-30 minutes shorter!). In short: it's just awful.

4/10

[Amelia]

Anita,

My friend went and saw it last night and did not read the book and liked it. Maybe thats why I think I will wait and read the books after I see the movie. It always upsets me if the movie is too removed from the book. I was once told by somebody how to view a movie that was a book first. I cant really explain it. Maybe if I post his words.

ahh, here it is:

May I suggest another perspective on films made from books? A book is the author’s representation of a story that inhabited/inhabits their consciousness (active and sub-). It is only an interpretation of that. The author can never truly share what’s really going on in his mind. When the filmmaker adapts the book, same thing. It’s only their interpretation of how s/he sees the book. It’s neither wrong or right. It’s just another perspective. So, when I go and see a film adapted from a book, I always open my mind to what the filmmaker’s interpretation was. That way, I’m never disappointed. Unless, the filmmaker just did a lousy job as a filmmaker ;-)

I have never thought of it that way so the next time I go see a movie I will try to do that.

[Apoc]

May I suggest another perspective on films made from books? A book is the author’s representation of a story that inhabited/inhabits their consciousness (active and sub-). It is only an interpretation of that. The author can never truly share what’s really going on in his mind. When the filmmaker adapts the book, same thing. It’s only their interpretation of how s/he sees the book. It’s neither wrong or right. It’s just another perspective. So, when I go and see a film adapted from a book, I always open my mind to what the filmmaker’s interpretation was. That way, I’m never disappointed. Unless, the filmmaker just did a lousy job as a filmmaker ;-)

i think this misses the point, its good advice for watching an adaption regarding visuals but when the interpretation messes with the story thats when its fckn annoying and what annoys fans of the source material. A director making an adaption should always stay true to the story and simply visualize and create the world, when they start taking liberties with the storyline of the source material they're supposed to be adapting, that's when they suck.

You'll only ever get a for visualizing something unexpectadely different from what you thought it would be like...you'll near always get a when you fck with the story though ~nods~

[Amelia]

too true, that was his response to me when I complained about Tim Burtons version of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and how I hate it when books turned into films are rarely as good as the book. It was a suggestion that I might try next time I go to a book turned into movie.

[Anita Blake]

Actually, in terms of adapting the material for screen, I suppose they did an alright job. They got all the major scenes in there, and the characters, it follows the plot of the book pretty well - it's just a badly made film. I can understand the changes that were made, and even the reasoning behind them, and accept those changes for what they are, but I just don't think it was put together very well. Like the whole movie was made by a committee of people who spoke to advisors on what sells. That tactic has almost always proven to be foolish - do a good story well and people will come (regardless of controversy). Do a good story justice, and people will enjoy it. Try to pander to everyone who will walk in the door, and you lose. Quite frankly, with the way the rest of the movie was made to be dumbed-down, simplified, and "family-friendly" I was rather (pleasantly) surprised that Iorek Byrnison smacked the jaw clean off Ragnar. That was the only thing that provided a collective response from the audience I was with - no laughs, or chuckles, or sighs - just that one momentary gasp of shock. It was cool.

[Amelia]

Arch, so sorry I didnt see this thread.

I do plan on reading the books mostly to see what the big deal is. On Thanksgiving I went to a friends house and it is a Catholic family and the mom and dad were talking about the books and basically they read an article in a catholic newspaper or newsletter and were quoting the article. They havent read the books so Im wondering how they would know, if they havent read it themselves. One of the complaints is religious and then another was about in another book in the series it supports homosexulaity, which is a big no no in the Church.

So my same friend and I went to a local bookstore and they had a display of the Golden Compass series and she said she wants to read it to see what the big deal is but shes Catholic and she says shes not supposed to. Then she said , "well. maybe I will and just not tell my parents!"

oooh and the spoiler Anita, my friend thought that was cool as well!

[Apoc]

never listen to religious nuts, they're blind and often make declarations over things they haven't even tried, read, watched etc

read it coz its a good series, don't read it coz it somehow offends the nutcases.

i seriously don't have a clue what crawled up their asses...i mean i could kinda see why wildlife nuts would go into an uproar (which they haven't from what i know) but religious?

its an entertaining story set in a wonderful world with some great characters and ideas...its also pretty smart and makes a far more intellectual and worthwhile read i think for kids over the likes of harry potter.

I think they're the first kids book i've read that an adult can enjoy and be intellectually stimulated just as much as a child. I think for too long childrens books have underestimated the intelligence of their target audience, usually just sprouting crap and talking down to the kids with simplistic characters and a shiny vs dark storyline...His Dark Materials has great complex characters and intersting intrigue and mystery galore Nods~ put simply...its not dumb kid only drivel.

[dark fuschia]

hmm I'd never heard of these books until a while ago when I first heard about the coming advent of this movie. Some people I know were going on about how happy they were that it was getting made, because the series proves how bad the church is, and it really needs to be spread to the ignorant masses. Yes they really used the word "proves". I took this with a grain of salt, not even offended, because those people have never actually demonstrated to me that they know very much of religion at all, but it goes to show, there really are anti-religion zealots associated with this film. I guess that is what the catholic league has picked up on, because I certainly picked up on it before hearing anything of their reaction. Incidentally the Catholic league is a lay-persons group who has called for a boycott of the film... it is a group which the church neither supports nor condems.

I personally think a boycott is a really silly idea as it just creates a huge ammount of publicity. Also I am not really convinced the books are anti religious. I think thats just an interpretation, even if the author meant it that way, one might also easily construe it as anti authority, which I generally approve of And which, if one looks at the histroy of the church, the church even generally approves of (after the fact).

Still, I don't think I will see it given the bad reviews, and the cheesy trailer really put me off.

[Buck]

The religious groups are very nervous about this sort of movie b/c it seeds questioning god and faith with... gasp .. secular morality, which is a big no-no this last 8 years apparently. Yea, I was really perturbed when I heard that the christian coalition was throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this movie.

They are even calling this movie atheistic, which it isn't at all. Atheism by definition means you do not believe any god exists -- period, and from what little I know about this trilogy, is the fantasy world's God is the center of some sort of controversy.

Thats not atheism!!


I'm planning on seeing the movie just for the visual effects and reading the book to truly appreciate the underlying story. The little I did hear peaked my interest.

[Jennifer]

i seriously don't have a clue what crawled up their asses...i mean i could kinda see why wildlife nuts would go into an uproar (which they haven't from what i know) but religious?

I don't have a problem with people who are made uncomfortable by this movie. After all, they have a right to voice their opinions too, right? We have no right to suppress that. I know it's annoying because we know most of them have not even read the books, but that's unfortunately the way some humanity works. Arch says they don't need to read the books if they don't like the material, and he's absolutely right...but in the same token, it's actually pretty easy to ignore the people protesting the books/movie. I have. And like df said, this sort of thing just creates publicity, and in the movie business, any publicity is good, right?

This whole thread could turn into a huge religious/political debate, and maybe that was Arch's intention. But this is the Fantasy forum, not Deep Thoughts, so maybe we should have a separate thread for discussing the movie and books themselves instead of current affairs. Some religious overtones are inherent in that discussion, but it's possible to talk about that without reverting back to talking about the news, right?

[sir archely]

meh, i don't think it's going to get too serious. just keep comments related to HDM in particular and i think we're fine here.

as far as ignoring goes, yeah, i certainly haven't paid too much attention to the actual controversy. by which i mean, i've heard of it, but haven't really given them an attentive ear. honestly, i feel like this is more an attempt to piggyback publicity off of a large media event. someone saw an opportunity to gain publicity for their organization by railing against HDM.

i'm also nowhere near saying it'd be good to suppress any of the comments (and i don't think anyone else was either), but just trying to understand the whys behind the outrage. why HDM, why bother?

and buck, it's sort of atheism. without giving the plot of the books away... maybe moving towards atheism is a better way to put it?

so anita, do you want to spoiler me and tell me the note on which this movie ends? i'm really curious with the plot of the books to know how the ending was changed. i'm not so sure this was a good idea to adapt to a movie. maybe this is party 20-20 hindsight with your review, but it doesn't seem to have that sort of format. maybe overall with all three books it does, but i don't think the first book had a movie-adaptable format at all. it just doesn't end right for movies. and once you start messing with the ending of the book, it throws off the rest of the story's focus.


As far as just the books go, i was once a big fan of the badgers from the Mossflower/Redwall series of books by Brian Jacques (and still am i suppose, though i haven't read any of them in probably 15 years), and the polar bears in these books feel a lot like them to me. also, i like that Pullman attempted to sort of present a different race's consciousness that wasn't just a human mind in a strange body. i'm not sure he really succeeded everywhere, but that's something that's by nature exceedingly difficult to do.

[Anita Blake]

well, as for the ending of the movie ... they moved some plot bits around so that Iorek's battle with Ragnar comes before the children escape from Bolvangar, so it ends up with the freeing of the children, the Tartars trying to kill everyone, and the witches descending from out of nowhere to save the day. Then Lyra & Roger & Iorek hop into Lee Scoresby's airship to go find Lord Asriel. It all ends with some wishy washy shot of Lyra looking hopeful that it will all be fixed by Lord Asriel. Frankly, I think the ending of the book itself would have made a more interesting cinematic ending, but hey. I also thought that writing the script well and directing competently would have made a better movie too.

As far as the religious controversy, what I'm more astounded by is that it didn't happen until now. Which to me, just shows that His Dark Materials weren't selling that well in the US until people found out a movie was being made. I could load a lot of scathing tone into that, and make a lot of snarky comments about people who don't read books until they're getting made into a movie, but I'll refrain. It's irrelevant.

Yeah, the books are intensely anti-dogma. The Church is portrayed as being blind, ignorant, and power-mad throughout the series, obsessed with sexuality and sin (the two being linked by adolescence, naturally). I just re-read the books a couple months ago, and was really blown away by how amazingly anti-religious they are. Note: they are not anti-Christian, as some people have been making it out to be. Certainly, the Catholic Church is the one named in the books, but I think that's just a name chosen to be representative. What the books really rail against is overly dogmatic preaching. How anyone can read them and not think they are anti-religion is beyond me: by the end of the books, heaven is shown to be a corrupt parallel universe run by power-mad angels bent on dominating all life; hell is a form of slavery after death, where the goodness of life (consciousness; Dust) is trapped ghoulishly in an alternate dimension; and God dies a pathetic death after having been imprisoned by his own followers. So yeah - pretty anti-religion in my books.

Yet for all Pullman's asserted atheism, I found the books to be very spiritual, the whole notion that all our atoms are connected, etc.



oh and it took me a while to remember why people are saying that it supports homosexuality. I was like WTF?! Where was that? and then I remembered it was in the Amber Spyglass - the two angels, both male, who loved each other. Quite frankly, I never saw it as "gay". they're angels, for the love of god! whatever.....

they're good books, well written, and in terms of the story, it supports it's own reasons against dogmatism. Whether they stand up or not in the real world is something for every reader to decide. If it makes people think about the rightness or wrongness of a particular belief, how is that wrong? It doesn't come out and say "the Christian Faith in the world of the reader is evil beyond all salvation" at all. It does challenge a person to question authority and think for themselves. When people think for themselves, they might come to the conclusion that they love their faith. Good for them! At least they thought about it!

At the very heart, that's what I think His Dark Materials is all about - thinking things through and not just accepting everything you're told. i think that's very welcome in our society.

[jabbernaut]

Two cents from the closest thing to a religious nutcase y'all have around here ...

No matter what it's toward, I always shake my head at the rally cry of "Boycott!" I think it's stupid. People need to make their own informed decisions. So the better move for whatever organizations calling for a boycott would have been to simply make people aware of the story's undertones. If it's an atheistic or humanistic tale, then religious organizations have the right, I'd even say the responsibility, to let people know. Especially parents of young children who are excited about talking polar bears.

Of course, I'd like to think that there are better ways to inform people then publicity-whoring through major media outlets, but maybe there isn't any more. Hype is a virus, and controversy spreads like pinkeye. The TV reports what's on the Net, the Net is full of what's on TV, the Radio commentates on both and vice-versa and round and round.

As for the "controversy", I think it's laughable in some regards. Hollywood's made a humanistic, possibly atheistic allegory! ... uh, yeeeeaaah. It's Hollywood, people. In case you haven't noticed already, they're not very high on the Almighty out there. And yet so many of the religious are simply aghast every time something new comes along that they don't approve of. GASP, Harry Potter!! GASP, The Da Vinci Code!! GASP, The Golden Compass!! ... for Gods' sake, chill out before you hyperventilate. Skip the dramatics. Tell your people, hey, we consider this movie/book/whatever to be undermining to our beliefs, and leave it at that. Don't tell them not to see it or read it, that's THEIR choice.

I haven't read the books, but I have read about them, both for, against, and indifferent. I probably won't ever read them because the story doesn't interest me much. I may see the movie someday but it's not high on my list (never was, but especially not after Anita's review considering the X-Men 3 reference, which I believe we equally despise). So my ability to comment on the (dark) material is limited, but not totally irrelevant as some would say. To anyone who wants me to read HDM cover to cover with an open mind before deciding I don't care for it, I say okay... if you're willing to do the same with the Bible.

So in short, Christian that I am, I don't have anything "up my ass" about this movie. I may not care entirely for the message of the source material behind it, but that's nothing noteworthy. I don't deny it's right to be written or read or filmed or watched, but I've made the decision to not indulge in it myself, and not even entirely for reasons of beliefs and CERTAINLY not because some blusterous windbag told me not to. Such talking heads need to learn to pick their fights and educate people instead of intimidating them.

Though I must admit, I'm rather amused by the movie's low box office take on it's opening weekend. hehehe

[Buck]

Jabb, you soothe my thoughts. Thanks.

and buck, it's sort of atheism. without giving the plot of the books away... maybe moving towards atheism is a better way to put it?

As far as I am aware, atheism is the belief in the non-existence of a diety. Whether you actually worship said being does not enter into it. Atheists believe there are no deities -- period. I have a very loose grasp of what happens to the deity in these books, and as far as I can tell.

Basically they dethrone the god and he gets killed off , right?

If that is the case, these books are definitely anti-establishment, promote secularistic morality and free will. Atheism, not so much.