His Dark Materials

[Buck]

Not to play devil's advocate, but didn't the first LotRs movie lack the book's ending as well? Wasn't Frodo's confrontation with the spider in FotR? That didn't happen until the third movie, no?

A lot of times the movie rendition either reshuffles the order of events or drifts away from the book's story arc for the sake of the screen. It happens. The missing bit in golden compass is it completely gone or is it just left out? Maybe it will show up in movie 2 or 3? In which case the old couple was right to bring up the rest of the trilogy...

*ducks projectiles and flees*

[Apoc]

nah duder,

there was no good reason to cut the ending in golden compass-the excuse of they wanted a happier ending is just rubbish-seriously 10 more mins and the film would of ended as it was supposed to and a hell of alot better and more conclusive, it'd definately make you want to see a sequel far more.

The LotR's thing was in regads to Two Towers finale with Shelob. Reason for Shelob moving to Return of the King, though i was annoyed, it made sense, in regards to timeline, Shelob was during the Pelannor Fields...there was a good reason for it being moved to the third film.

Seriously...if you read the GC, then see the film you will understand mine, anitas and every other person who's read the books and seen the films annoyance at the endings exclusion...coz simply, there is no reason for it, its just an awful move by the director.

[Anita Blake]

while i wasn't for cutting the end out, it made a kind of sense. However, I"m going to digress a moment....

I read Stardust again last night. I hadn't read it for a few years, and I loved the movie, which prompted me to beg my brother to return my copy of the book. (I had been looking for it everywhere, having forgotten I could have lent it out... ) So finally I had time last night to sit down and read it. Excellent book, by the way, if you haven't read it.

Anyway, what it really made me think of was this: The movie was not always very faithful to the book. There were lots of changes (the way Dunstan & Tristran both cross the wall was changed; Tristran's knowledge/lack thereof of where he came from at the onset of his adventure; violent deaths meted out/avoided in certain characters; personality traits of other characters; and that whole stupid Robert DeNiro thing that was about 2 pages in the book that was not at all about a mincing pirate, but rather a friendly helping hand; the bit about the Unicorn; the end...) that when you read the book you go, aww! man, it's too bad they changed/omitted that! But when you watch the movie, the changes are all logical (except Robert DeNiro's flaming pirate act). What's more, they work within the context of the film. You could watch the film quite happily and walk away feeling like you watched a fairy-tale love story, which is pretty much how you feel after reading the book. The movie maintains the light, Gaiman-esque tone and sly, dry British cheek, and overall, conveys the story quite well. If Yvaine's leg was not broken for the whole movie, (something which, in the book, plays into the plot quite frequently) then at least her character was consistent. As a film, it allowed you to get to know the characters and care about them, chuckle at their foibles, and overall, understand who and what everything is about.

With the Golden Compass, it was really quite the opposite. They stuck so closely to the plot of the book that every deviation was really quite painful. Not because, "oh no, my favorite part was changed!", but because in the context of the movie you're watching, things start making less sense. Instead of getting to know characters, you're given non-stop plot. Now, normally, I am all for lots of plot, but really, you need to care about what's going on. In GC (or, as my boyfriend pointed out, the way the title has been stylized, it's really "CG" ) You just get a tantalizing view of the depth of the characters, without ever really getting to know them. It's so frustrating! I wanted to love Sam Elliot at Lee Scoresby, but it was just so hard to get to know him, he was such an absentee character.

Fah.... I keep hoping that maybe New Line will see the error of their way and release a super-mega-ultra extended DVD version, one that's about 3 hours long. But I doubt it.

[Waffles]

Well... I haven't seen the movie yet (it comes out Boxing Day here), but I am looking forward to it. Not because it will faithfully reflect the book (which I liked, but didn't love), but because it looks like it will be a visual pleasure. Yes, I think I will be enjoying it on a shallow level, but hey, sue me? Now... as for the books. The first one was a good book, I enjoyed it, and any anti-religious sentiment was minor, and was the usual "Inquisition? NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!" sort. The second? That was still pretty good, but you started to feel Pullman's whole anti-church theme. But as for the third book, well, I was actually rather offended. Phillip Pullman's atheistic rantings detracted from what should've been a great ending to a good series. Yes, atheistic. Because he denies the existence of a supreme creator, and posits God, or the Authority, as yet another super-human being that acts as an imposter. The third book seemed to be merely a propoganda machine. And that is what really sucks... because I can't see how they can make a movie out of it. If you take out all the anti-religious themes which WILL cause outrage amongst the highly religious US population, you don't really have a story. And I think that is rather sad. It certainly isn't a children's story in any way shape or form. Please don't get me wrong, I may believe in 'The Authority', but I am a very open-minded sort of chap. It is up to you whether you believe or don't, and both choices are equally valid.

But I am still glad they are making the first book into a film, because I'm sure it will be a nice children's movie. And I am sure I will enjoy it, despite these harbingers of literary rape

[Arianna]

so am i right in thinking that only anita, jonboy and I are the only ones now to have seen the film AND read the book?

i have too.


and on that note, i wanted the original ending and i think that (like most movies from books) a lot was lost in translation. i still enjoyed it on a purely childlike fantasy basis. but, b/c i had also read the books, i got a lot more from the movie than the people i've talked to who haven't. that is the main reason i see movies based on books i like; to see the world i've envisioned brought to life. (i'm pretty sure HBO is making a miniseries of ASoIaF which i'm excited about). if they're good quality movies i can enjoy them on that basis as well but i wont be disappointed if they're not.

sorry if that made less than perfect sense. i'm pumped full of drugs and can't seem to make my brain cooperate.

[Buck]

With the Golden Compass, it was really quite the opposite. They stuck so closely to the plot of the book that every deviation was really quite painful. Not because, "oh no, my favorite part was changed!", but because in the context of the movie you're watching, things start making less sense. Instead of getting to know characters, you're given non-stop plot. Now, normally, I am all for lots of plot, but really, you need to care about what's going on. In GC (or, as my boyfriend pointed out, the way the title has been stylized, it's really "CG" ) You just get a tantalizing view of the depth of the characters, without ever really getting to know them. It's so frustrating! I wanted to love Sam Elliot at Lee Scoresby, but it was just so hard to get to know him, he was such an absentee character.

I think I understand a bit more why this movie rubbed you the wrong way. I was planning on reading the books eventually when I got that far down my to-read list, but I may put it off firmly until after I see the film.

I'd like to see what a point of view based on complete ignorance brings to the film. From what I gather from this latest round of posts, it seems like I'll be bothered to much by the same type of gems that grated you.



(slight derail -- I have so many damn books and movies and shows Id like to get to but my list seems to be getting bigger faster than I can manage to have at it... so much to read/watch, so little time. sigh)

[dark fuschia]

I saw it in the end. I found it ironic that the story seemed to be all about the value of "truth" and yet the heroine was a compulsive liar. I am curious to read the books now to see how that is reconciled. I think that the compelling world Pullman has created shone through quite well, even had some enjoyable daydreams about it which hasn't happened to my stifled imagination in ages! But I also agree with all those who have said the movie was lacking in everything that could have made it exceptional. I might get around to reading the books some time when my memories of the film have faded a bit.

Still I give the movie a thumbs up. Stale, yet agreeable. Better than I expected.