…and this is a 
His Dark Materials will be incomplete
Category: Entertainment
Posted on: January 19, 2008 1:52 PM, by PZ Myers
While it had its moments, and was based on a provocative and interesting series, I wasn't that impressed with The Golden Compass movie adaptation. Still, I'm disappointed that the decision has been made that the subsequent books will not be filmed. It apparently did very poor box office in the US, so it isn't a surprise, I suppose.
I have to compare it to the Narnia movie, though. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was a great gilded turd, an awful piece of poor storytelling and suspension-of-disbelief shattering illogic, with nice cgi. The Golden Compass had a story that was given short shrift in the movie, was kind of a mangled mess, but was better than C.S. Lewis's fairy tale for the inane; it also had better and more imaginative graphics. Which one of those series is going to be inflicted on us many times over, though? The one with the comfortable Christian themes, of course. It had a guaranteed undiscerning and credulous audience.
Comments
Bummer.
I was sort of hoping that they'd do the equivalent of chucking out Chris Columbus for Alfonso Cuarón, and that The Subtle Knife would be the rockin' sequel to the bleh, had-its-moments original. All the more so, actually, because I know I'm not alone in thinking that the first book of the trilogy was the best, and that the others (particularly the third) were "spongy" enough that they needed a revision or an adaptation to let their good parts really work.
According to the post linked by PZ, "it did fairly well overseas, but unfortunately for New Line Cinema, that didn't help because it pre-sold those rights". Maybe a better adaptation will come out of Europe someday?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 19, 2008 2:21 PM
I agree that the Chronicles of Narnia wasn't very good, but at least the story made sense. I hadn't read the Golden Compass beforehand and I was completely lost throughout the movie.
Now we get to sit around and watch the conservative blogs explode in orgasmic Schadenfreude over this news. Someone should tell them that probably the majority of the movies they enjoy were likely written by agnostic and atheist screenwriters.
Posted by: Simon Owens | January 19, 2008 2:23 PM
BUM ...
Particularly as I was hoping for more work out of the sequels (as an extra).
It was fun making it, as well ......
Posted by: G. Tingey | January 19, 2008 2:24 PM
I have to wonder if "The Golden Compass" would have done better if it had stayed truer to the books.
Avoided by the religious because their leaders told them not to go and avoided by the fans because the message was diluted.
In trying to please everyone they pleased no one.
So far I have to agree that the first book was the best.
I am about halfway though the third book and it seems to have gone off the rails.
I am tempted to stop reading it but I have a hard time giving up on a book.
Posted by: spurge | January 19, 2008 2:28 PM
I have to say the first film absolutely RUINED the entire series. I'm not surprised that they decided to discontinue it. With all the major revelations ruined it would've been flimsy moving forward.
I'm just upset at how much they changed it from the books, and I'm frankly annoyed at the christian response to it. If any single one of them took the time to read it they would realize that it is about keeping an open mind rather than death to the Pope. (Which frankly I'm not sure would be a bad thing.)
Gyah... it just makes me so, very, angry.
Posted by: Sparky | January 19, 2008 2:30 PM
I think it bombed, beyond any boycott, because it was panned for suffering a major flaw: if you didn't know the story, you couldn't follow the story as it'd been filmed and cut. On a more positive note, at least they may try to salvage the story with a two-and-one-half hour director's cut version.
Posted by: Moses | January 19, 2008 2:54 PM
I notice that Kyle doesn't cite a source for the claim that there will be no sequel. He's probably right, but I want to see some sort of external confirmation of the fact.
Posted by: miller | January 19, 2008 3:01 PM
Ugh. This is roughly equivalent to adapting Animal Farm as a trilogy, cutting it off after the first installment, and being left with a chipper kid's movie about talking animals winning their freedom from evil farmers. It will be praised for the quality of its CG.
Posted by: Morgan | January 19, 2008 3:03 PM
Bad news all around. First a Christian blockade of an "athieist" film succeeds, showing everyone who's got the muscle...
... and now I learn that it's too expensive to be an atheist.
*sigh* What are those of us without faith to do?
Trust (in God) that it will all turn out all right?
Posted by: Pyre | January 19, 2008 3:07 PM
Of course there won't be a sequel. They changed the ending, plus there's almost no talk of religion. The other two books wouldn't make any sense if all the religious themes hadn't already been introduced in the first one. A huge part of the plot of the second and third books is that Lyra is 'Eve' and Will is 'Adam', and the church is trying to prevent a second Fall. Dust is supposed to be the product of original sin, as explained by Mrs. Coulter in the first book - they watered that down so efficiently in the movie that it would be impossible for sequels to be made - they'd have to completely rewrite the plot, and it would be about something very different and less profound. that's why i hated the movie so much - the important themes were completely lost.
Sorry if this is an incoherent mess....I'm feeling rather sick and incoherent myself at the moment...
Posted by: Lucy | January 19, 2008 3:10 PM
Frankly, I much preferred the Narnia series to His Dark Materials. Maybe it's just because I have fond memories reading Narnia from my childhood. I found the Narnia world to be much more filled with wonder and magic than Materials, which was cold and mechanical. Christian imagery aside, I just enjoyed it more.
Posted by: Narc | January 19, 2008 3:12 PM
I'm disappointed to hear that the series won't continue. Contrary to most others, I actually enjoyed the movie. After hearing that it was incomprehensible to people who hadn't read Pullman's novels, I went to see it a second time, paying close attention for the express purpose of trying to judge it as a standalone cinematic drama, although I had read the novels. It seemed to hang together quite well and I enjoyed it again. But perhaps I knew too well what to watch for. It was not a casual popcorn-chomping adventure, and I'm sure that detracted from its success. Certainly they tried to hard to compress it and pull the fangs of Pullman's original work. Bad idea, although it seemed defensible for now-discredited commercial considerations.
Posted by: Zeno | January 19, 2008 3:12 PM
that's a real bummer.
~C
Posted by: ~C4Chaos | January 19, 2008 3:13 PM
You know, that's fine. Despite the pans, there was enough in the movie to lead me to read the books, and I intend to do just that. Perhaps in another twenty years someone will re-do it, someone who loves the story enough to do it well.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | January 19, 2008 3:14 PM
I must disagree: I thought that the Narnia movie was really good. At the very least, it held true to its original story (with only one or two slight deviations), was well-paced, and had some nice design work (not just the CGI). A friend called it the best adaptation of any book that she ever cared about, and I am inclined to agree.
Now, it must be said, I care about the Narnia books only because I see them as fantasy entertainment, and I can ignore their obvious Christian apologetics. They are certainly not up to Tolkein's high standard, but I do not think them a waste of time to read, either. (They make much better reading than the Bible!)
Posted by: Opisthokont | January 19, 2008 3:15 PM
Y'know, Narnia kind of gets short shrift from the anti-Xian crowd. Maybe I have a unique perspective on it because I was raised as a Unitarian Universalist pagan, and I knew the books well before I knew the Christ myth. A couple of things one has to keep in mind:
The Xians we particularly dislike--the biblical literalists--are at least as pissed off about Narnia as they are about Harry Potter or the Golden Compass. Christ as a lion bothers them at least as much as witchcraft and anti-authoritarianism.
The sacrificed god story and the return of the king are central themes of Western literature. They were so well before Christ--that's part of the reason the Christ myth explores them, as they aren't any great part of the Hebrew prophecy. Analyzing Narnia in ignorance of its author, one can't really say they follow the Christ myth that much more closely than, say, the Matrix trilogy (which was actually a closer approximation of the Arthur myth, but I digress).
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is really the most in line with contemporary Xianity. It's the only one that explores the god's self-sacrifice--which is one of only two new testament stories that the Xians seem interested in these days. The Last Battle is an end-times narrative, I'll grant you, exploring the other new testament theme. It also gets quite nasty at times--I remember being shocked when I read it as a child, and I hope to see that it stays that way. I'll be interested to see whether the film version has the two key themes from the book: that one must doubt religious authority, and that it doesn't matter what lip-service one pays as long as one's heart is true.
The Narnia stories are fundamentally about taking initiative. Prince Caspian is a prime example of this. The story is motivated by the characters' decision to take their fate in their own hands. The supernatural intercedes on their behalf, true, but not to "make everything okay," only to give them the tools they need. In this, Caspian is in stark contrast to the first book, where Aslan roars and everything is put right. In subsequent books, there's even less of this godly deus ex.
The only real theology, or objectionable theology perhaps, as such I see nakedly articulated comes in the fourth book, where one of the characters has a speech about choosing to believe in the world as he knows it, rather than the dark and unpleasant one that's being pitched to him. But everybody does that--it's consciousness of the decision that's unusual here. For example, I prefer to believe in a world where people are intelligent and can, ultimately, be persuaded with rationality; this in stark contradiction to the observable reality in which people are obnoxious and bloody-minded.
Finally, Narnia is a clear gateway to an examination of faith. It's a Xian story presented as a story, a fable, a fantasy. This is probably the heart of what annoys the biblical literalists about it. To the fundamentalist, examined faith is not worth having--so anything that motivates him to examine his faith is a Good Thing in my book.
Posted by: lytefoot | January 19, 2008 3:17 PM
All is not lost. The only criteria the movie makers have is money, money, money. If they can figure out a way to film the sequels and make money, it will eventually happen.
There is so little in the way of good, original material in Hollywood that anything worthwhile eventually gets picked up.
It may even end up on TV eventually as a miniseries.
Notably there is nothing about how much money it made in the article I read. Movies get money for DVD sales, movie channel rights, TV rights, overseas rights, etc.. It all adds up.
Posted by: raven | January 19, 2008 3:26 PM
Actually, this is not really bad news. The books are so much better than the movie that I'd rather have kids read the books than see a bowdlerized and thus incomprehensible movie. And it is a lot easier to read a book without your parents figuring it out than it is to see a movie that your parents are freaking out about.
Movies, even good ones, are best for lazy and weak minds anyway; a good book can have a much more lasting effect.
Posted by: Albatrossity | January 19, 2008 3:28 PM
That's too bad -- I was looking forward to seeing what they did with the rest of the story (and I re-read the trilogy after seeing the movie). I agree, though, that if you haven't read the book, the movie didn't do a great job of telling the story. It was sort of like illustrations to the story, rather than the story itself.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | January 19, 2008 3:34 PM
Usually if I`ve read the books, i tend to avoid watching the movie, but not in the case. Even worse I finished reading the book not a week before I saw the adaptation, and spent most of the movie muttering under my breath because everything was moved around (ie event wise) Not only that, but the made Iorek sound like a pussy, rather than someone who had been dupped/framed...
So really I'm not terribly sad that the other books wont be made into movies, although I wish the same could be said for Narnia. Quite possibly the most gawdawful thing I've ever seen, so bad I remember the parody Epic Movie better than the actual Narnia... Anyways a sad loss either way, no semi-decent movie and lots of shitastic christian based woohoo. Yay world!
Posted by: Meraydia | January 19, 2008 3:48 PM
I had slugged through the Narnia trilogy and am slugging through the "Compass" trilogy. I have not seen any screen adaptation of either.
After reading the "Narnia" trilogy, and now halfway through the last of the "Compass" trilogy, I would not promote nor recommend either. They are, at best, lukewarm reading materials for the young. They are NOT the "great read" as so many have been lead to believe and/or promote.
As if my opinion counts, I give both a C-. Judging from the reviews of the movies made based upon these 2 books, it seems a C- may be generous.
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | January 19, 2008 3:49 PM
I wouldn't be too bummed; remember the first Lord of the Rings movie? The horrendous, Bakshi-rotoscoped abomination from the 70's? A few decades later and we had Jackson's version, and if the original movie did any damage, it was swiftly undone. HDM just needs to wait a decade or so for its own Peter Jackson to take up the helm.
Posted by: Karley | January 19, 2008 3:50 PM
I wonder what's going to happen to the last three chapters that they shot. Probably end up as deleted scenes on the DVD and that'll be that.
Really too bad that no one involved in the project seemed to have any respect for the audience, because everything about the movie was great except for that whole script business.
Posted by: Timothy | January 19, 2008 4:05 PM
The Golden Compass had a story that was given short shrift in the movie, was kind of a mangled mess, but was better than C.S. Lewis's fairy tale for the inane
I don't agree. In terms of pure storytelling quality and writing, Lewis has it all over Pullman. The Narnia books rock, if you're a kid.
Yes, the Xtian subtext is annoying. So just convince yourself that Aslan represents Zoroastrian Mithras, if you must. I read the Narnia books over and over as a kid and actually never gave a fig about the whole Xtian reference at all; I didn't notice it. Is Obi-Wan Kenobi's after-death plot involvement an annoying Xtian subtext, too? It's ironic that some of the folks on the blog make fun of the Xtiantards for being so touchy about - well, the same things PZ is being touchy about.
I read Pullman and I doubt I'll re-read them. There are some wonderfully drawn characters in Pullman but I thought the plot was meandering and pointless.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | January 19, 2008 4:06 PM
I enjoyed the books and didn't bother with the movie when I read that it had been neutered. So I think you're right. If they'd amped it UP then the controversy could bring in audiences just curious to see what the fuss is about.
Posted by: TW | January 19, 2008 4:21 PM
ZOMG! I almost brought that up but though nobody would remember it but me and a few stoned hippies! Unlike Jackson's movies which went book-by-book, the first Lord of the Rings was supposed to be in two parts.
I really didn't like the roboscopic-animation/animation hybrid aspect of the movie. It was just weird. But, as weird as it was, it made a lot more money ($36 million) than it cost ($4 million) and I'm still a confused why they didn't finish Part II.
Posted by: Moses | January 19, 2008 4:25 PM
LeeLeeOne, given that there are SEVEN books in the Chronicles of Narnia. Would you care to elaborate on the "trilogy" that you found "lukewarm"?
Posted by: Unstable Molecule | January 19, 2008 4:26 PM
I am new to the Dark Materials series and read it in a big hurry this summer trying to get to the controversial stuff and figure out why the Catholic League was in such a twit. After reading The Golden Compass I was bewildered at what they were so upset about. The really hard hitting smacks at religion come in the third book. Shortly before the movie came out, I reread the series and was not in the least bit disappointed by the film. Indeed, I liked it very much. True the director did not call it THE CHURCH, but there are plenty of visual allusions to churches in the buildings, clothing and even some of the manners of the "clergy". Azriel being accused of heresy is also a religious term and Mrs. Coulter tells the story of Adam and Eve, albeit in a veiled manner.
The sequels are unlikely to be made, but I am waiting for New Line to say so, not some grumpy critic.
I did not like The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, but it was not from lack of wanting to. Despite being an atheist I have fond memories of reading the books and seeing the television series as a child and the movie was magical (I loved the beginning) right through little Lucy meeting Mr. Tumnis (sorry about the spelling) and then it fell apart for me. It was dull and silly. Loved the actress playing the witch but as in the book she was shallow in her evil and frankly disappointing as a bad guy. Give me Chris's Magisterium or Jackson's flaming eye any day.
Posted by: Nadeen | January 19, 2008 4:26 PM
Karley, Jackson may have improved on the Bakshi animation, but he added many of his own vulgar embellishments to the films that leave a sour taste in my mouth. I wish he had stuck to making horror films.
Posted by: Unstable Molecule | January 19, 2008 4:31 PM
The film may not have done well in the USA, but it is picking up a lot of money elsewhere. There seems to be a reasonable chance it will make a profit in the long term. Films don't necessarily have to do well in the USA to make money. An example is The Fifth Element, which did badly in the USA, but was pretty successful overall.
The problem is that film companies usually need to get the money back quickly. Films are not long-term investments!
Posted by: Steve Zara | January 19, 2008 4:37 PM
Forgive me for double posting, but I wanted to add the film did not do well in the United States but it has been a big hit in the rest of the world. We (in the U.S.) do not have a corner on good taste.
I think the reason the film failed in the U.S. had several sources:
1. The controversy was not limited to Roman Catholics. I heard a good number of protestants refusing to see the film because "they kill God in it".
2. Bad reviews. Films sometimes made loads of money even when the the critics hate them, but coupled with the religious hysteria and
3. the rumors that the movie had been neutered kept people away. This is obviously a different crowd than those who thought god got bumped off.
Of course not everyone is going to like a movie but this is actually a good film and it deserved more of a chance than I think it got here in the U.S.
Posted by: Nadeen | January 19, 2008 4:38 PM
While the Golden Compass didn't do well domestically (hitting that ZOMG! ATHIESTZZZ! speedbump), it still pulled in $310 million+ worldwide. Probably was only JUST getting to pulling even after all costs were factored in, but they still have DVD sales and HD sales for ages to come, and they have the resources and vision crew and familiarity to pull off the sequels for less cost if they wanted to.
It's no "license to print money" the way a Harry Potter or a Narnia is, but it's not a pointless or fruitless endeavor--especially if they already had the celebrities locked into a multi-picture possibility.
Posted by: jfatz | January 19, 2008 4:43 PM
The problem is that film companies usually need to get the money back quickly. Films are not long-term investments!
Exactly. Although films are usually one among many revenue streams for contemporary media conglomerates, the are the centerpiece of these product packages. The opening weekend is central to the perceived success of a film. Although the international markets, peripheral products, tie-ins, and later releases via subscription services and DVD/Video, the opening weekend still maintains a certain mythological status. It's what creates a "blockbuster" (see the efforts by the "Expelled" folks to buy a first weekend success).
An exceptionally well done piece of TV journalism about this is the "The Monster that Ate Hollywood
" episode of frontline. Croteau and Hoynes' "The Business of Media" is a pretty good book tying together these factors with economic forces (it's a text I use in my intro to media courses--so it's written in that sort of text-book style--decent overview though, if you can get past feeling like a college freshman)
Posted by: MAJeff | January 19, 2008 4:44 PM
Nadeen,
Some good point. I didn't go to it. I don't have a lot of disposable cash, so my movie money gets reserved (esp as movie-going becomes more expensive). I'm not a huge fantasy buff (did enjoy LOTR, but I read those like 9 times each as a kid), so something that gets fairly bad reviews, in a genre I'm not inclined toward in the beginning, when spending limited funds...well, other movies are probably going to win (esp documentaries or anything by Almodovar).
I'll prob do a Netflix thing with it.
Shit, take Julia Sweeney's "Letting go of god" narrative and turn it into a screenplay. That I'll go see.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 19, 2008 4:49 PM
"I heard a good number of protestants refusing to see the film because "they kill God in it'."
That's exactly what I encountered when I went to see it. Getting popcorn, I was making small talk with the woman with a gaggle of kids in front of me. I asked if they were seeing it, and they went totally apeshit on me. The kid almost cried, the woman nearly bit my head off. "Whyyyy would they kill God, mommy?"
Most uncomfortable popcorn line ever. Don't know if they were Catholic or Protestant, but whatevs.
On the topic of Bakshi's LotR, here's an amusing critique;
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm
(Fun fact: When I went to see Sweeny Todd, I bought a ticket for tGC and snuck into the former's theater. Just to help the latter's box office. Lame, no?)
Posted by: Karley | January 19, 2008 4:52 PM
You know what's funny? The Golden Compass was the first movie I've seen in a theater in seven years. I took my wife and while neither of us was blown away, we liked the overall story and we love the cast.
So, they won't be making the second and third films.
No big deal. I guess I can put off that next trip to the theater for a long time.
That said, I'd never read the Pullman books and was holding off so that I wouldn't be judging the film in comparison to them.
I guess I can go read those books now.
Posted by: ice weasel | January 19, 2008 5:04 PM
totally OT, but someone over on the 'Thumb posted a link to a colloquim published by PNAS a few months back:
http://www.pnas.org/content/vol104/suppl_1/
the articles are free, but many of them have some pretty abusive titles:
Michael Lynch
Colloquium Papers: The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
the paper itself isn't much better.
can somebody tell me what the point of PNAS publishing this collection was?
if anything, it seems destined to be endlessly quotemined by creobots.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 19, 2008 5:08 PM
My elder daughter (now aged nine) has read the Narnia books, and The Golden Compass. The Christianity in the Narnia books, and the anti-religion themes in The Golden Compass went right over her head. She just loved the stories. (I'm holding the last two Pullman books back for a year or two - some of the themes and events in them are just too dark for a nine year old.) I'm betting that the Christians who support the Narnia films but not The Golden Compass on the grounds that they will affect precious young minds have no idea that kids don't even "see" those themes, and really just enjoy the story.
So... I wouldn't worry too much about trying to convince yourself that Aslan is an incarnation of Mithras.
Posted by: Deborah | January 19, 2008 5:15 PM
I think PZ was comparing the merits of the movies, not the books. I used to love the Narnia books as a kid too, but I doubt I'd enjoy them if I read them for the first time today, and I thought the movie sucked.
Posted by: windy | January 19, 2008 5:22 PM
I never read the Narnia books as a kid, and as an adult I found them to be mostly crappy and eye-rollingly nauseating. I read it when I was looking for a gift set of books for my niece and I hated it. And I resented the fact that I'd actually spent money on it. So I didn't give it short shrift or anything it didn't earn, except my own hard-earned money. Maybe a kid wouldn't notice it, but I did and I have my own conscious to answer for.
I threw the damn thing out* and ended up getting her the Little House series, which, while probably just as full of silly religious stuff as Narnia, still were better stories imo and had the advantage of being actually kinda true-ish.
That said, I didn't expect that the other movies would be made, but I was still kind of hoping. I really enjoyed the movie, and I think the criticisms of it not being followable mostly (no offense) result from people expecting to be spoon-fed a one-two punch kind of story line. It's a complex story that is by nature going to be difficult to condense, but I can't help but quote of my Calc 1 Professor (from India, so read this with the accent): "Stop thinking! You are thinking too much!"
And it seemed like nearly everyone forgot that it wasn't until the second and third books that the whole "let's go kill god, and holy crap, are those angels gay?!" thing became apparent. It shouldn't make perfect sense and there should be unresolved questions because, and I fear I need caps, it's a trilogy. Well, that and it's a work of fiction. The series is just beginning and not everything is explained from the outset. That's a plot device which is meant to make you want to read more, not a reason for huffing and puffing about how some vague "unresolved issues" made it a bad film. If you don't get it then read the god-damn book already and stop bothering us with your infernal questions! The witches have prophesies, the Gyptians are very wise and noble, Dust is sin and the fucking Magisterium is the bad guy. Any more questions? Shut up, stop worrying about the god damn destination and just enjoy the trip! ;)
And no, the Balrog does not have wings!
* Ok. I actually recycled them, but that doesn't really sound as good.
Posted by: Leni | January 19, 2008 5:24 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only person who despised the movie "Lion Witch Wardrobe". Thanks to PZ for coming up with the wonderful description "great gilded turd". I didn't find anything in the plot made sense, even if I accepted that the wordrobe was a portal to another world. I absolutely hate movies and books where the rules of logic and physics can be rewritten at the last minute to provide more a tear-jerking moment. Feh!
Posted by: Paige | January 19, 2008 5:24 PM
I threw the damn thing out* and ended up getting her the Little House series, which, while probably just as full of silly religious stuff as Narnia, still were better stories imo and had the advantage of being actually kinda true-ish
My parents live one block from the "Laura Ingalls Wilder Memorial Highway."
Posted by: MAJeff | January 19, 2008 5:26 PM
I can't find any other source for this. Anyone heard anything else, or was the original author just mistaken?
Posted by: Silmarillion | January 19, 2008 5:33 PM
btw, at SF Reviews there are positive reviews of the Narnia books from a non-believing point of view (I don't mean to say that anyone here needs these reviews to make up their minds, but for some reason I enjoyed them.)
Posted by: windy | January 19, 2008 5:38 PM
In Minnesota, MAJeff? Hey, I though MA had something to do with Massachusetts?
Posted by: Leni | January 19, 2008 5:39 PM
"I threw the damn thing out* and ended up getting her the Little House series,"
The Chronicles of Prydain. Excellent at any age.
Posted by: jfatz | January 19, 2008 5:40 PM
In Minnesota, MAJeff? Hey, I though MA had something to do with Massachusetts?
I live in MA; mom and dad are still in MN. I can see the highway from the bedroom when I visit my parents' house. Unfortunately, it's so rural that it's too quiet for me to sleep.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 19, 2008 5:47 PM
Gotta love a guy whose pseudonym is "Narc".
Posted by: Mooser | January 19, 2008 5:49 PM
Leni-you are my new hero! You said exactly what I tried to and 10 times better.
MAJeff-I am not trying to make people feel guilty. It is just like PZ said the film had a hell of a lot of baggage dragging along behind it and it got judged for being and not being things it wasn't and was never intended to be.
Hell, we are probably just lucky that the first film got made and that (with the fury from all the different groups)the theaters didn't get burned down.
:)
Posted by: Nadeen | January 19, 2008 5:59 PM
MAJeff-I am not trying to make people feel guilty.
I don't feel guilty in the least--and that's not what I was implying. Movie audiences are fickle things. Unfortunately, movie producers are simple thinkers.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 19, 2008 6:02 PM
The Chronicles of Prydain. Excellent at any age.
Seconded. + Susan Cooper's 'The Dark is Rising' series.
Posted by: windy | January 19, 2008 6:04 PM
Ah I see. I have that problem when I visit mine too. Can't even get NPR in on the radio. So much for the soothing British voices... All you get is the certainty that if you were murdered in the night, no one would ever hear your screams, and even if by some miracle your cell-phone actually worked and you were able to reach 911, the ambulance would never find you. At least not while you were alive.
Hope that helps you sleep next time you're visiting the Big Woods >;D
Man, I'm pretty sure I could not have paid my niece to read that, lol. I mean, it looks like a neat story and all, but the Conan dude on the cover? Kind of a non-plus for most grade school girls. Especially an uber-girlie one like my niece.
Posted by: Leni | January 19, 2008 6:04 PM
Hope that helps you sleep next time you're visiting the Big Woods >;D
Eh, I got til next christmas. I'll forget by then and have a laptop full of movies for background noise (I tried to hijack neighbors' wireless signals, but no luck, so no email). Until then it's ambulances and drunk undergraduates to serenade me to sleep.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 19, 2008 6:07 PM
And car alarms. Don't forget those.
And maybe by then The Golden Compass will be out on video, so you can re-watch it and stay up late and ruminate about what the witches actually do with their cloud pine switches when they fly.
And fret about how that was never properly resolved in the film ;)
Posted by: Leni | January 19, 2008 6:19 PM
I read the Narnia series as an adult (along with the Perelandra trilogy -- but not yet Lewis' other works of fiction, like Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man). Except for very evocative description of scenery, Narnia was definitely a preachy kid's series. And Perelandra was excruciatingly tedious.
His Dark Materials I read about two years ago, due to a confluence of recommendations from my daughter, a friend, and this blog. I thoroughly enjoyed it and don't see why it's classified as a kid's book.
My daughter wanted to see Narnia when it came out, so we went. I hated it, it was so smarmy, not to mention puzzling (for instance, Edmund was a traitor? to whom? and how was he to know?).
My daughter was also excited about the movie version of The Golden Compass, and we all enjoyed it.
On the other hand, I have some good friends who go to every grade-Z eat-em-up, but didn't go to The Golden Compass or Serenity.
No accounting for taste.
Posted by: CortxVortx | January 19, 2008 6:20 PM
Don't assume I disliked Narnia because it's a Christian allegory -- it isn't that simple. I disliked it because it made no sense. The lion sacrificed himself, and then pulled out a magic get-out-of-death-free card, and this was supposed to be good? A story with such a blatant deus ex machina just bores me, I'm afraid.
Of course, it might be indirectly related to Christianity -- I think you need to be thoroughly indoctrinated in Christo-illogic before you can find the major plot points of the movie at all satisfying.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 19, 2008 6:34 PM
It made ~250 million overseas which is 80% of its total gross. That percentage is unheard of for a blockbuster. To have stood a chance the spit needed to be something like 60:40.
On the plus side millions more books have been sold. I believe the series was number 2 on Amazon.com over Christmas.
Posted by: Lev | January 19, 2008 6:36 PM
It made ~250 million overseas which is 80% of its total gross. That percentage is unheard of for a blockbuster. To have stood a chance the spit needed to be something like 60:40.
Media conglomerate translation: Not a blockbuster. Those audiences are nice, but don't justify the kind of advertising and marketing expenditures that are primarily targeted toward American audiences.
On the plus side millions more books have been sold. I believe the series was number 2 on Amazon.com over Christmas.
Media conglomerate translation: Books are a nice plus. Now, what Will Smith sequel can we make?
Posted by: MAJeff | January 19, 2008 6:43 PM
Of course, it might be indirectly related to Christianity -- I think you need to be thoroughly indoctrinated in Christo-illogic before you can find the major plot points of the movie at all satisfying.
hmm, considering that one of my oldest friends used to try to convince me to become a xian by reading "Chronicles" when we were teenagers, I'd guess that applies widely. Evidently that series was quite instrumental in maintain or developing his "faith".
never did get around to ever reading them myself.
somehow, I don't think I would have found them illuminating.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 19, 2008 6:49 PM
Now, what Will Smith sequel can we make?
too easy:
Irobot 2: Son of Sonny
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 19, 2008 6:51 PM
Irobot 2: Son of Sonny
I was thinking MIBIII
Posted by: MAJeff | January 19, 2008 6:52 PM
I enjoyed the Chronicles of Narnia as a kid, and was quite able to ignore the Christian apologetics. I haven't seen the movie of the Golden Compass, but bought the trilogy of books and read them - I found them disappointing in that they aren't terribly well written, don't grip me with the narrative, nor are they thought provoking. Run of the mill alternative history science fiction, of which far far better examples would be Keith Roberts' 'Pavane', Edmund Cooper's 'The Cloud Walker' and Kingsley Amis' 'The Alteration'. Now a curious point comes up - why does the catholic church feature in so many alternative histories? Protestant paranoia I suppose.
Posted by: Lancelot Gobbo | January 19, 2008 6:59 PM
Actually, I had heard that all three of the books were already filmed, and could be released at any time.
Don't believe everything you hear, or read, seek proof.
Posted by: Branedy | January 19, 2008 7:00 PM
At least the books are doing really well on Amazon...just behind Harry Potter.
Posted by: Brando | January 19, 2008 7:06 PM
I can't recommend His Dark Materials, but thought the movie was well done, except for an annoying, heavy handed musical score.
I didn't find the books either clearly written or pro-rational. The concept of Dust, as particles of consciousness emanating from the stars, or pouring between multiverses, is not atheist. Multiple souls, and a world of the dead? Not Christian, but certainly not atheist, either. Pullman has a kitchen sink approach to characters and plots that I found unnecessary and distracting. His Lord Asriel, in The Golden Compass, is a rich explorer/scientist, and in The Amber Spyglass he's a Master of the Universes, battling Metatron for control of Everything - that's inconsistent. A polar bear kingdom on an otherwise normal Earth?
The mulefa and gallivespians are interesting concept peoples by themselves, but Pullman should either have invented several more species or just used fairly normal humans.
Posted by: dkew | January 19, 2008 7:19 PM
Speaking of great fantasy books that become execrable movies: the Earthsea miniseries. A butchered plot, wooden acting, cheesy CGI -- there's just about nothing that they did right.
Definitely up (ie. down) there with Bakshi's LOTR.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | January 19, 2008 7:34 PM
Or it could be because there's a rather obvious historical point of divergence not too far back in time, so the writer can use many familiar elements and doesn't have to invent a society from scratch. But don't let this explanation get in the way of your conspiracy theory.
Posted by: windy | January 19, 2008 7:37 PM
Dkew, it's a fantasy story. Get a grip, will you?
Polar bear on an otherwise normal earth? By *normal*, I expect you mean something like ours, except for the fucking deamons, Magisterium, dust, witches, and polar bears with opposable thumbs?
Go away. Maybe there is a balrog site somewhere that is better suited to your needs.
Posted by: Leni | January 19, 2008 7:37 PM
@jfatz:
The Golden Compass has taken in $313,500,000 so far (sans DVD sales/iTunes) and cost $180,000,000 to make
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=goldencompass.htm
=$133,000,000 profit
Posted by: EWI | January 19, 2008 7:48 PM
His Lord Asriel, in The Golden Compass, is a rich explorer/scientist
Actually he's a poor explorer, as a result of having his estates stripped.
I agree with him suddenly zooming up to Great Power status in the second book, though. Wtf?
Posted by: EWI | January 19, 2008 7:52 PM
Leni,
My point was intended to be that HDM isn't good fantasy, nor do I see why it has atheist support. Anti-authoritarian and even anti-clerical motifs are not rare in literature.
Posted by: dkew | January 19, 2008 8:07 PM
I will almost certainly buy it on DVD, and hope there is a director's cut. There is a great deal of potential in the movie with better editing.
Pullman is not an easy read but certainly thought provoking. While not a classic hero's journey, I think it is much more close to what actually occurs in a soul searching experience. I read it at a dark time of my own life and it was very helpful to me.
Posted by: donna | January 19, 2008 8:24 PM
Well, darn. Count me in as being rather sad now as well. I'd have liked to have seen the rest of the story, even if I'd have still said that the books were better. At least now I can read them to my significant other, rather than waiting until the movies come out.
I don't know how productive it is to blame the fundie boycott, though. Perhaps the story really doesn't translate that well; maybe it would work better with a smaller budget and a smaller audience. And hey, at least people are picking up the books.
And speaking of the books...
Dude, he tears open the sky with his huge Will to Power. Acquiring money and temporal might aren't really big challenges for the guy.Posted by: grendelkhan | January 19, 2008 9:28 PM
As for Narnia, while Eric S. Raymond has been wrong about many, many other things, he's dead-on in his critique of Narnia; the world never rises above being a puppet show, because an Aslan Ex Machina always shows up at the end, like Dumbledore on steroids, to explain things and point out that everything happens because of him. The characters are, at best, puppets.
I'm still going to see the next one for the effects, though. I won't complain when they keep making them, though I'm going to be very, very curious as to how they fit another, bigger, mass battle into each successive movie.
Posted by: grendelkhan | January 19, 2008 9:42 PM
*In Little Town on the Prairie, I think, Laura is forced to go to a series of revival meetings. (Nellie Olson tells her "People who don't go to revival meetings are atheists! She goes quite against her will and finds the whole thing stupid.
*Laura generally amuses herself in church by reconstructing the preacher's sentences to improve their grammar.
*When Laura and Almanzo plan to marry, one of Laura's conditions is that "...and obey" be left out of her vows. Almanzo goes along with her wish without a fuss.
*There are no instances of Providence stepping in and helping anyone anywhere in the books. All the good things that happen to the characters are the result of loyalty, determination and hard work.
So I've been able to enjoy reading the books aloud to my children without having to stop and explain away any objectionable theological foolishness as I have with many other "classic" children's novels. Bonus!
Posted by: RedMolly | January 19, 2008 9:57 PM
Y'all must have watched a different movie than I did. Sure, I found the explanations for actions or characters rather thin at times, but it was complex and multi-layered (with parts for the kids and parts for the adults), so I was willing to suspend disbelief for a few hours. Then I read the three books. Frankly, I was disappointed. I felt that the movie story line was far better grounded than the books'. (eg. How does Lord Asriel go from begging for money from his alma mater for a trip to the Arctic, to being the leader of a hugh, well funded multi-species, multi-universe rebellion (complete with a well establish "Q"-style research arm) in just a few short months?) I thought that the movie nicely changed some of the more awkward plot twists of the book. I'm very disappointed that they won't be making any sequels.
Posted by: Scott | January 19, 2008 10:46 PM
EWI,
while the way you interpret the box office numbers is logical, actual film profit/loss is even more illogical than Jonah Goldberg. Part of this is because generally quite a few people get shares of the net profits but few get shares of the gross movie take. Thus, the payback structure for the loans used to make the movie (and pay for the promotional campaign) generally have balloon payments due such that there are never any net profits unless the film makes huge money initially.
Posted by: BillCinSD | January 20, 2008 1:25 AM
The movie kinda sucked. Having the Magisteruim badie do the poison rather than the Master of Jordan do the poisoning made it too much good guys/bad guys. Also changing the sequence where the bear fight came before the Bolvanger sequence really confused me, and the whole Bolvanger part was too short. I think they originally intended to folow the sequence of the book. My gf asked me "Why didn't other bears come to Bolvanger?" Well, that's cause in the book Iorek isn't king yet.
Plus leaving out the final scenes of the book where Asrael opens the gateway, kills Roger and has a showdown with Mrs Coulter was just criminal.
As for Asrael's transformation in the second to Master of Universes makes perfect sense. If aliens came to our world, they'd have a lot of influence. Asrael is that alien to many worlds, though there's no mention that he came to our world. Even so, some of the weapons he has and the "flyers" mentioned in the second two books make me think he acquired friends here or in nearby possible worlds. I would be his ally.