[Movie] The Golden Compass

According to metacritic, The Golden Compass is receiving a hammering from critics. Most of the negative reviews blast it for having a terrible plot that has very little to do with the book. To some people I've talked to, the reviews are split pretty evenly. Some people enjoyed it greatly, while others thought about walking out.

As a fan on the books and trilogy, I am a bit saddened. But I'm wondering, have any of you seen it over this weekend? And so, what's the down low?

How ya doing, buddy?

It's weird that it got such bad reviews from people.

I read the first book and I loved the movie. Some critics said the pace was rushed, but I liked that it kept a quick pace because the book has such a slow beginning. I got choked up at some scenes, it was very well done.

The only bad part that I could find was that the end credits song "Lyra" has some of the most god-awful lyrics ever.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I've heard all references to religion have been severed. This makes me fucking WRATHFUL. Initially I was apprehensive for what would be in store for the film adaptations of the second and third books, but when I read that the opening weekend barely scraped $9mil, I realised that there's not much chance of the sequels happening.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I don't know why everyone is bitching about the "religion" being taken out of it. There wasn't even direct references to religion in the books.

I think the movie had about implication of the allegory as the book did (the first one anyways).

I saw it over the weekend. I was not pleased. The plot was incredibly rushed. They should have possibly extended the length of the movie from it's 1h50m run time to maybe 2h20m+ to at least give the clueless audience who hadn't read the book an idea of what the fuck was happening.

My best friend Sarah and I read the books - Chris had not. Chris was completely lost with the whole Dust thing ("what the hell was the point of mentioning it?") since they really didn't involve it too much in the whole movie. It was unclear as to why Lyra and her crew were running all over the place - no one knew what the fuck was going on.

The characters weren't very developed, the story was hacked into pieces and re-arranged. While the acting was acceptable, the screenplay was horrific.

It isn't EXTREMELY different from the book - just re-arranged a little and edited for time constraints, I imagine.

I also hated how they ENDED it. I had seen in trailers that they were going to INCLUDE the Northern Lights bit at the end where Asriel and Coulter dance around after slicing Roger's daemon away from him.

The only showed Lyra and Roger aboard Scoresby's airship with Iorek at the end, flying away into happy land.

Awful, awful, AWFUL way to end it - ESPECIALLY if they had any intentions of continuing the series in the film medium. (Which I doubt they'll be able to do after this)

How ya doing, buddy?

I agree with Sass, they rushed the whole thing too much, especially the part about the witches. Started really quickly, lacking in enough character work, the editing was far too choppy and they left out at least 1/2 hour of plot at the end. I'm told the ending was made so that the movie could be a stand alone in case they couldn't make the Subtle Knife which looks likely, but still that's a major thing to leave out. I don't see how they'd work that into the beginning of the 2nd movie without an adequate introduction.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I watched the movie on Friday and hated it. I have to agree with everyone else, the movie's pace was much too rushed. If I had not read the book I doubt I would of known what the fuck was going on. After about 20 minutes I began to wonder why I wasted 10.50 to see it.

The company I was with had not read the book and was constantly asking me what the hell was going on or what certain things were supposed to mean.

It made me sad. I was expecting something better than that.

Most amazing jew boots

Sass - There were direct references to religion in the books, but it didn't start until midway through book 2 and especially in book 3. It gets heavy about when the two angels are introduced.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by CelticWhisper

Sass - There were direct references to religion in the books, but it didn't start until midway through book 2 and especially in book 3. It gets heavy about when the two angels are introduced.

Yea, I've read them all. The "angels" weren't angels in a Biblical sense, though. I kinda hated 'em in the book(s). Stupid little gits who answered to the least religious person in the series. (Asriel, wasn't it)

There was, though, very little direct reference (if at all) to religion in the first book. You're supposed to catch it in between the lines.

Like C.S. Lewis. Of course, I was a kid when I read the Narnia series, but he never directly wrote about what his series was a parallel to.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

There wasn't even direct references to religion in the books.

HUH. I don't know if Pullman was forced to pussify the American version of the trilogy, but it was definitely there. Especially in the last chapter. You know, when Asriel's talking about castration and original sin. And quoting Genesis. Seems pretty damn direct to me.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by KrelEN

HUH. I don't know if Pullman was forced to pussify the American version of the trilogy, but it was definitely there. Especially in the last chapter. You know, when Asriel's talking about castration and original sin. And quoting Genesis. Seems pretty damn direct to me.

I do not recall this at all. For real. I am going to have to check my version (which is in my truck in the snow at the moment).

I will report back, but honest - I don't remember it at all. It wouldn't shock me if we have a pussified version. ;_;

There's nowhere I can't reach.

He quotes their world's version of Genesis, if I remember correctly. I hope to see the film in the next couple of days. I've heard good and bad things from folks who're intimately familiar with the novels. One thing I do not like is rushed pacing.

Most amazing jew boots

I'm disappointed.

I really enjoyed all three books when I was a kid. It's been quite a while since I've read the first one, but I've recently started The Subtle Knife again and I still like it. So it has to be something with the film itself that bothers me, not the initial story.
I think it's that basically all scenes after Lyra leaves Jordan College seem so thrown together, with no connection between them at all. After the moment Lyra escaped from Mrs. Coulter's home, everything seemed like a big list with individual scenes that had to be ticked off.
"Introduction of Serafina"? Check.
"Fighting ice bears"? Check.
"Rescuing Roger"? Check.

And that damn wannabe-epic-feeling destroys all real emotion the source book had. The whole movie is like "Well, okay, guess I'm off to saving Roger then. I don't really have that much motivation, but a promise is a promise."


The delivery of in-universe information also was pretty crappy, it just seemed so damned unnatural.

Pan: "You do know that if you get a smack, I'm hurt too! There's absolutely no reason to tell you that right now, but weeeeell - whatever!"

Mrs. Coulter: "King Ragnar is desperate to have a dæmon in his home. This is totally irrelevant right now as I've been introduced to you just one minute ago, but remember that for later in the movie!


The ending was absolutely horrible. Would have been more effective if they played "Shiny Happy People" over it. How could they ever even think it would be good to have that outcome to the movie? If I had seen this film and didn't know the books, I would've found it boring and sure as hell wouldn't have watched the second one.


And to all religious fanatics bashing the movie because of its critisizing religions: You're batshit insane. Disregarding the "heresy" line, there are no explicit allusions at all. You'd rather buy your kids the books to make them turn against your church.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by KrelEN

HUH. I don't know if Pullman was forced to pussify the American version of the trilogy, but it was definitely there. Especially in the last chapter. You know, when Asriel's talking about castration and original sin. And quoting Genesis. Seems pretty damn direct to me.

Spoiler:

And you know, killing God and all.

I'm not sure if I want to see the movies now since one of the major points of the story has been ripped out. Religion is a touchy subject; I wouldn't be suprised if the American version of the trilogy was slightly altered.

How ya doing, buddy?

There was religion in it?

I watched it on the weekend - there was a lot of eye-candy, but everything felt so shallow. I went because my mother wanted to see it (she´s always too lazy to get in the cinema on her own), she loved the books but isn´t going to see the sequels. According to her judgement there is not really enough substance to make another two movies.

Well, my opinion is - another hyped wannabe-LOTR.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I'll have to see it again (as with Stardust), because I seriously can't watch a movie after reading the book its based on - the whole time I'm just criticizing all the things they did wrong and could have done better.

Which is very much the case with The Golden Compass (movie). Especially considering that His Dark Materials is probably my all time favorite trilogy ever written.

As soon as the movie started I was seriously having trouble not crying "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?!?" at the screen. Why, in the name of anything holy, did they do that craptastic intro to deamons and OTHER WORLDS WHICH DON'T COME INTO PLAY TILL THE SECOND BOOK!?! Way to spoil the enjoyment of discovery. I just pray it was the studio execs who have the misconception everyone is as stupid and useless as they are, because if that was the director's decision, he needs to be flogged.

It was ridiculously fast paced in the beginning, but to their credit there's enough in The Golden Compass alone for a full trilogy, so it is a challenge to deliver the vital information. Personally I wished they stripped the whole thing down to the basic and essential ideals and rebuilt it from the ground up into a film, maybe using the lost art of subtlety instead of shoving a tube down my throat and force feeding me plot points.

But I'm still on the fence.

As for religion, they only difference i noticed was the substitution of MAGISTERIUM instead of CHURCH ("What, no! I didn't say GOD was evil, i said, um, the AUTHORITY was evil. Definitely NOT the SAME."). If zealots are that easily fooled, then why the hell do they give us so much trouble?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

Spoiler:

And you know, killing God and all.

I'm not sure if I want to see the movies now since one of the major points of the story has been ripped out. Religion is a touchy subject; I wouldn't be suprised if the American version of the trilogy was slightly altered.

I had actually heard/read (Time magazine online, I think) that they stripped some sexual elements out of the US versions of the books. Can anyone confirm this?

How ya doing, buddy?

depends on what sexual elements you're talking about. In the last one, at least in the version I read (year's ago) Lyra and Will essentially have sex, though not in a normal biological sense (they stroke each other's deamons). That's about the only highly sexual act. There's some other seduction type stuff with Coulter, but nothing too riské.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by whinehurst

depends on what sexual elements you're talking about. In the last one, at least in the version I read (year's ago) Lyra and Will essentially have sex, though not in a normal biological sense (they stroke each other's deamons). That's about the only highly sexual act. There's some other seduction type stuff with Coulter, but nothing too riské.

Supposedly, it's implied they have sex when they feed each other fruit and go swimming.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

This movie didin't have the same budget as the LOTR trilogy, and I think people have come to expect that degree of epic quality from every fantasy film released since. It's unfortunate, because the film isn't bad. It's just a VERY typical film adaptation of a book. In terms of the reviews, it's a lose-lose. If the film was an hour longer and included more exposition and character development, it'd get panned because it was too long and slow-paced.

The faster pace of the film may have been a little bit off, but just about every major plot element was hit.

I thought it was a perfectly acceptable, and particularly beautiful, rendition of the book. The casting was great (Lyra, Scoresby and Coulter especially), the visuals were top-notch and as a whole package, it's a good movie.

Like I said, you can't go into movies based on books and expect everything to be there.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The Golden Compass (oh how I hate that name) actually had a larger budget than LOTR, which had $300 million for 3 films, whereas The Golden Compass had $180 million alone.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I dunno, I enjoyed it. I never read the books, though. I wasn't expecting much out of it, and it exceeded those expectations. It was just... entertaining. Especially the polar bear combat. Do you have any idea how much more thrilling that is when you don't see the end of the battle between Iorek and Ragnar coming?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Majin yami

The Golden Compass (oh how I hate that name)

I only recently learned that the original working title for the trilogy was The Golden Compasses (as in a pair of compasses, drawing a circle, held by GOD GOD GOD!), but when Pullman was pitching the idea to American publishers, they seemed to be under the impression that the 'Compass' referred to the Alethiometer.

Until now I'd heard reports that it was a Harry Potter-esque situation (supposedly they retitled Northern Lights because American kids don't know that shit, so why make them learn).

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I'm guessing they're not going to have any implications of children having metaphysical sex too, right?

FELIPE NO

As on IMDB,

Quote:

According to Philip Pullman, the title "The Golden Compass" came about when he was deciding what to name the trilogy that the book this film was based on was to be the first part of. He came across a passage by John Milton referring to "golden compasses" as in instruments used to draw perfect circles. Ultimately, he ended up calling the trilogy "His Dark Materials" based on another passage by Milton, and named the first part "The Northern Lights." However, the American publishers heard about the term "golden compass", mistaking it for a reference to the alethiometer, and insisted on using it as the title of the first book.

An even longer quote from the author can be found on a fan site The Golden Compass | The HDM FAQ | His Dark Materials | BridgeToTheStars.Net

"Meanwhile, back in the USA, the publishers had become so attached to THE GOLDEN COMPASS that nothing I could say could persuade them to call the book NORTHERN LIGHTS. Their obduracy in this matter was accompanied by such generosity in the matter of royalty advances, flattery, promises of publicity, etc, that I thought it would be churlish to deny them this small pleasure."

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I saw it yesterday; I don't have much to add to what's already been discussed except to echo Jazzflight: that ending song was just torture. Oh my god, I hated that song. I can't believe they included something like that, so tacked on as a May It Be, Part 2. The film just didn't warrant such a surprising credits song!

Whatever. The film wasn't perfect but I dearly hope New Line decides to make the rest.

Jam it back in, in the dark.