"His Dark Materials" Movie News

Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:43 am

I read Golden Compass and Subtle Knife when I was in middle school and loved them. I still think of the very end of Golden Compass whenever I see the Aurora. The idea behind it is almost beautiful. Amber Spyglass ruined it, though. The ax was just sitting there in the middle of the room right next to the whetsone. It was too overt, and I loathe the ending, absolutely hate it. But I still read them for Lyra and especially for Lee and Will. Subtle Knife is one of the very, very few books that has ever made me cry. I try to ignore the ax and instead just see the wonderful worlds and ideas. (Wouldn't it be nifty to have a dæmon?)

But the movie? I'm planning on seeing it for Tom Stoppard.

Post by **Teremia** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:28 pm

The problem with rejecting Pullman is that when he's good, there's nobody better. If the first book didn't end with that unforgivable cliffhanger, it would be one of my favorite children's books of all time. The Subtle Knife had moments of brilliance, and other parts where my interest lagged. In The Amber Spyglass the oscillation between great and dreadful became (seems to me) even more extreme: sometimes I was enchanted, and sometimes I wanted to throw the book across the room. It wasn't the anti-religious stuff that got to me; it was the way he seemed to be changing the basic rules of his universe all over the place. Even though the books are linked by cliffhangers, they don't seem to be be quite "of the same cloth"; my sense is that his vision of his imaginary world really changed between Book 1 and Book 3.

Aggravating, because we'd love the things we love to be lovable all the way through.

Post by **Queen_Beruthiel** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:16 am

Official website: http://www.goldencompassmovie.com/

Post by **baby tuckoo** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:34 am

A blurb from Pullman appears on the back cover of The God Delusion, the newest from Richard Dawkins.

"Dawkins gives human sympathies and emotions their proper value, which is one of the things that lends his criticisms of religion such force. Many religious leaders today are men who, it's obvious to anyone but their deranged followers, are willing to sanction vicious cruelty in the service of their faith. Dawkins hits them with all the power that reason can wield, demolishing their preposterous attempts to prove the existence of god, or their presumptuous claims that religion is the only basis of marality, or that their holy books are literally true."

Post by **axordil** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:05 am

I am starting to feel very ground down indeed.

Post by **Pearly Di** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:50 pm

*jumps up and down waving her hand in the air*

Is this the time for me to say that I think that both Pullman and Dawkins are a pair of arrogant pillocks? Can I please? Pretty please?

*continues jumping up and down*

Of the two, I think I prefer Dawkins.

At least he doesn't knock Tolkien.

Well, not to my knowledge anyway.

Still want to see the film. The first one, anyway.

Post by **Alatar** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:04 pm

I'd laike to request that the non movie related posts be split from this thread. They likely belong in Lasto Beth Lammen, or Tol Erresea, or at the very least in the Library.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:12 pm

The discussion of the influence (good or bad) of religion in the world has been moved to the Tol Eressëa forum.

Link: http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=823

Post by **Queen_Beruthiel** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:40 am

There was an interview with Philp Pullman in The Sunday Times, which I can’t link to. Moderately interesting.

Pullman damns Tom Stoppard’s initial script with faint praise:

”I thoroughly enjoyed reading [it]. However, it wasn’t what the studio wanted, so the process began again.”

Probably too intelligent and literate for a Hollywood studio!

No comments are offered on Chris Weitz’s script, although Pullman thinks that the new guy knows “how to direct children” and furthermore he is able to “put the camera in the right place”. One would hope so, but it doesn’t exactly make him Stanley Kubrick does it?

Is Weitz capable of finding visual metaphors for the book’s literary metaphors? Has he got the guts to, and is he capable of, telling a story about the tyranny of organized religion? In a film intended for family audiences at Christmas? (I just love irony!)

Pullman likes the casting. Fine. Whatever.

I suspect this will be a bowdlerised (sp?) version of the first HDM book, with punches pulled all over the place.

Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:14 am

Queen_Beruthiel wrote:Pullman damns Tom Stoppard’s initial script with faint praise:
”I thoroughly enjoyed reading [it]. However, it wasn’t what the studio wanted, so the process began again.”
Probably too intelligent and literate for a Hollywood studio!

So is pretty much everything Tom Stoppard as written. However, so long as he's still the one writing the script, I have no doubt that that, at least, will be good.

Is Weitz capable of finding visual metaphors for the book’s literary metaphors? Has he got the guts to, and is he capable of, telling a story about the tyranny of organized religion?

One can only hope. If I recall correctly, the religion thing was nixed for the movie, but hopefully he'll find a way to work it in at least subtly. That is sort of the whole point, after all.

In a film intended for family audiences at Christmas? (I just love irony!)

Post by **Queen_Beruthiel** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:32 pm

Sorry Maiden, but Stoppard's script has been dumped. Weitz is both writer and director.

It don't look too good to me.

(Sorry if I did not make it clear.)

Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:16 pm

Mea culpa. I really can read.

And -- oh no! Who dumps Tom Stoppard? That's just crazy.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:39 pm

If they want to make a "safe" movie out of a "dangerous" book?

Post by **axordil** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:47 pm

Sort of like those memorably safe versions of Huck Finn? Which would be...let's see...well, not all that memorable.