The Golden Compass

[Stargate525]

Or His Dark Materials.

Sit down, pull up a chair, have a scone. I'm somewhat looking forward to a lively debate on this movie, which is what this thread is for.

Alright, off the bat I'll admit I've never read the books, but I've seen the first movie, and have gotten that e-mail telling me to boycott it (did any of you get that one?).

The first thing I'd like to discuss is the absurdity of this movie's plot. The plotline (no idea if it's spot-on to the book, the reviews have hinted that it is) is utterly boring. The kid's a stuck up prick and liar and as per prophesy books, all the rational, world-experienced, armed adults fall in behind the girl for no particular reason. The 'church' (remove the word 'heresy' and it's Communist Russia) seems completely impotent. They should have massive amounts of manpower at their disposal, not five chimneysweeps and a regiment of Russians at the North Pole. There's no real suspense, since it seems blatantly obvious that the girl's the 'child of prophesy' and that nothing could possibly happen to her. I was in more suspense in the chronicles of Narnia, and I knew the plot of that one. In short (I know, I put it at the end, haha), the plot feels watered down to drivel.

Setting. I love the setting, which is unfortunately one of the only things that I like about the movie. Very steampunk, very Eberron. I liked it. The idea of the Daemons (something from the book, I know) was quite frankly inspired. I wish they had explained what dust was more in the movie, besides golden stuff that dwells within a compass. I'm also curious how they can supress discussion of dust when THEIR DAEMONS DISSOLVE INTO THE STUFF WHEN THEY DIE. Seems kinda obvious.

I'm sure I'll think of more stuff as the discussion progresses, but I believe that this'll do for now.

*sips tea, waits for rebuttal*

[psychoticbarber]

The movie is, well, not exactly very good. I loved the books. Still love'em. My *dad* liked them, and he doesn't like *anything*. ...Not quite true, but still.

The dissolving of daemons is not book-canon (I thought it was really dumb). The richness of the plot and writing was lost in the attempt to make the movie happen quickly enough.

As for what dust is...well, the first book doesn't really cover it. It's a trilogy, and it IS clearly explained, just not right away.

I don't disagree that the movie wasn't very good, but as my sister likes to say, "Don't judge a book by its movie."

[SDragon]

It's been quite awhile since I've read the books, so I can't really compare all too much, but I think alot of the major complaints I've heard about it boil down to one thing:

the first book doesn't really cover it. It's a trilogy, and it IS clearly explained, just not right away.

Yes, there's a lot going on in this movie. No, not all of it i resolved-- in fact, most of it isn't. There's a fleeting mention of "other worlds", and the best explanation given for dust was obviously biased, as it was an allegory for the Original Sin.

One major complaint I had, though, was the way they treated the witches. I remember one bit of dialog from the books that was very clearly left out of the movie, that changes the religious message dramatically. The movie seems much more anti-religion then the books (which is saying something), which, I felt, were more anti-dogmatism.

Other then that, though, I thought the movie was fairly well done. I enjoyed it.

[Jharviss]

I enjoyed the Golden Compass for it's setting, not so much its plot.  I think that's become pretty typical of me, though, especially regarding fantasies.  It seems quite rare that a book combines both good setting and good storytelling.  I think most writers are gifted with either one or both.  I recently read Dune, and that definitely had both a good plot and good story.  I can't think of another book I've read in recent history that was inspired in both.

I heard the stuff about the movie being anti-religion, but I feel it was more against the church and organized religion than in any particular religious belief, and even that was a stretch.  I liked what Stargate said about it being more akin to Communist Russia.

But I completely believe that the daemons idea was brilliant.  I loved that usage and I liked the idea of the icebears (though their execution left me feeling somewhat empty).  

Oh, and I believe that the way the daemons turned to dust was something the movie writers thought up to keep the blood  and corpse level to a minimum.  Was it a PG rated movie?  Yeah, it felt like it.  Especially since every time somebody died, poof, there's golden sparkles in the sky!

[Stargate525]

The dissolving of daemons is not book-canon (I thought it was really dumb). The richness of the plot and writing was lost in the attempt to make the movie happen quickly enough.

It did seem like a poor attempt to add something flashy to battle scenes which, apparently, weren't flashy enough.

The battles could have been better, especially the last one. A whole division CHASING children, and they outrun them. WHA-HUH?

I don't disagree that the movie wasn't very good, but as my sister likes to say, "Don't judge a book by its movie."

That was a triple negative. Ouch.

And I never put weight on the book by it's movie. Doesn't make sense.

It's been quite awhile since I've read the books, so I can't really compare all too much, but I think alot of the major complaints I've heard about it boil down to one thing:

I dunno. I don't think that can really cover the fact that several of the supporting characters get almost no screentime, and are really flat.

Yes, there's a lot going on in this movie. No, not all of it i resolved-- in fact, most of it isn't. There's a fleeting mention of "other worlds", and the best explanation given for dust was obviously biased, as it was an allegory for the Original Sin.

That explanation doesn't even need to be in there; we learn more just by observing the compass and the one severing... thingy.

One major complaint I had, though, was the way they treated the witches. I remember one bit of dialog from the books that was very clearly left out of the movie, that changes the religious message dramatically. The movie seems much more anti-religion then the books (which is saying something), which, I felt, were more anti-dogmatism.

Curious. What was that dialog? I thought the witches in the movie were a bit of a deus ex machina; we're loosing: oh look, the witches: We're winning!

The movie is more anti-religious than the book? Really? Remove the word heresy and the movie is anti-'the Man.' What are conservative Christians complaining about again?

[SDragon]

The movie is more anti-religious than the book? Really? Remove the word heresy and the movie is anti-'the Man.' What are conservative Christians complaining about again?

What about the allegory of the Original Sin? The whole point of that severing thingy was to keep adults from being inherently "evil" creatures, a way to metaphorically spit out the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Fortunately, though, you got the whole anti 'the Man' thing, because from what I remember, that was the point.

I forget the dialog, exactly, but what I remember of it is that religion wasn't the problem, dogma was. The witches had their own religion, but it wasn't dogmatic, and thus, not problematic.

[Stargate525]

What about the allegory of the Original Sin?

Score one. I had forgotten about that, but in any case, the religion aspect could have been far more present.

Fortunately, though, you got the whole anti 'the Man' thing, because from what I remember, that was the point.

I forget the dialog, exactly, but what I remember of it is that religion wasn't the problem, dogma was. The witches had their own religion, but it wasn't dogmatic, and thus, not problematic.

Which makes you think about why certain denominations are decrying this book, and others don't give a damn.

Which is probably the point.

It's one of the reasons I love 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett. It's got the concept of Gods living off of belief, and that when a significant hierarchy surrounds a God, the people believe in the structure, and not the god, so the god dies and leaves a hollow shell of hierarchy.

As for what dust is...well, the first book doesn't really cover it. It's a trilogy, and it IS clearly explained, just not right away.

I remember a discussion me and my roommate (who has read the books) had over this when he was trying to explain it. Isn't it like the force, just without the flashy abilities?

[SDragon]

Before I say anything, I'm curious just what you gathered about Dust from the Compass and the severing machine. I have a spoiler that gives, what I think, is a fairly decent explanation of Dust, but I'd like to see what your thoughts on it are, before they might become influenced by that.

Anyways...

 

What about the allegory of the Original Sin?

Score one. I had forgotten about that, but in any case, the religion aspect could have been far more present.

Maybe, but again, it's a series. You may want to wait for the other two movies before you pass that judgment.

Fortunately, though, you got the whole anti 'the Man' thing, because from what I remember, that was the point.

I forget the dialog, exactly, but what I remember of it is that religion wasn't the problem, dogma was. The witches had their own religion, but it wasn't dogmatic, and thus, not problematic.

Which makes you think about why certain denominations are decrying this book, and others don't give a damn.

Which is probably the point.

It's one of the reasons I love 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett. It's got the concept of Gods living off of belief, and that when a significant hierarchy surrounds a God, the people believe in the structure, and not the god, so the god dies and leaves a hollow shell of hierarchy.

Of course, coincidentally or not, it seems as if those denominations tend to be more vocal, anyways. I'd imagine it might be easy to mistake these denouncements as being "just more noise from the far right".

By the way, was Small Gods the book he did with Neil Gaiman? If so, you might want to check out Gaiman's American Gods, which features essentially the same concept.

[blockquote]As for what dust is...well, the first book doesn't really cover it. It's a trilogy, and it IS clearly explained, just not right away.

I remember a discussion me and my roommate (who has read the books) had over this when he was trying to explain it. Isn't it like the force, just without the flashy abilities?[/blockquote]

I can see how it might be explained that way. I think [spoiler=a better way to describe Dust]might be that it's the consciousness that allows adults to act with free will. Apparently, this consciousness- at least in this particular setting- is what allows us to use various methods of divination, notably the compass.[/spoiler]

[Stargate525]

By the way, was Small Gods the book he did with Neil Gaiman? If so, you might want to check out Gaiman's American Gods, which features essentially the same concept.

Nope, that was Good Omens.

As for dust, that's what I've heard it as.

What I picked up from the movie was that it seemed to be the 'essence' of stuff, like Plato's Perfection of Forms. Daemons dissolved into it (not cannon, I know), and the only visual of the severing was the daemon loosing the dust and going into the person. The compass, all that did was dissolve into dust as you went deep.

[Slapzilla]

I felt Dust is an allegory for free will, maturity and self determination.  'The Man' needs you to be empty of such qualities, therefore reliant upon Him.  Think about Billy Costa before and after.  The daemons are the manifest reflection of your inner self.  Mutable with immaturity.  Did you see how Lord A's daemon entered the Jordan room before he did?  Confidence and control.  The Man wants none of that in you.  Exploding upon death, well, your personality ceases to exist so the daemon dissipates into what it is made of.

The movie was clunky as heck and even without being a fan of the series, I'd have thought the movie lacked cohesion, flow and emotional impact.  But then again, look at Star Wars.  There's a movie with no cohesion, flow or emotional impact if ever there was.  But it captured the imagination and if Golden Compass can somehow do that, the maybe the second movie won't be targeted at an audience younger than the books were and it will trust the young audience to follow the emotional themes just as well.

I think the message from the series is more of a 'critical thinking saves you', message rather than The Man is Bad.  The compass uses Dust in the same way true wisdom sees the truth as it is.  Wisdom can only ever come from maturity.  Free will and self determination can only come from Wisdom.  The same ideas were present in Brave New World too.  Soma taking the place of maturity, preventing free will and self determination.  The 'little cut' that separates the personality from the immature isn't lethal as the immature can adapt to submission whereas the free, confident and wise cannot.  The Majesterium is just a construct to convey the danger of not heeding the message and it just so happens Phillip Pullman (according to an interview in Vanity Fair in ...2000..?) hates organized christianity.

Just my two cents.

[Wensleydale]

Well, as I remember the books are a lot more anti-christian than the film. The film was toned down a bit on the religious side, in my opinion, and toned up on the whole 'LOOK AT US WE ARE FANTASY WE NEED FLASHY EFFECTS' thing that certain films have going on. Although I think the anti-christian message becomes more obvious in the second two parts of the trilogy.

I prefer the books. The trailer for the Golden Compass turned me off it instantly anyway - as it had almost nothing to do with the plot, as far as I could see. The Compass itself (I forget its actual name) is a divination device, and it's given to Lyra. There isn't some big search for it, and it doesn't give the wielder the power to rule the world. So...

[Stargate525]

look at Star Wars.  There's a movie with no cohesion, flow or emotional impact if ever there was.  But it captured the imagination

Again, I love everything except the plot and characters.

[SA]

Alas, perhaps I shouldn't have clicked on this thread in the first place.  My expectations will be all skewed now.

[Haphazzard]

Well, as I remember the books are a lot more anti-christian than the film. The film was toned down a bit on the religious side, in my opinion, and toned up on the whole 'LOOK AT US WE ARE FANTASY WE NEED FLASHY EFFECTS' thing that certain films have going on. Although I think the anti-christian message becomes more obvious in the second two parts of the trilogy.

I prefer the books. The trailer for the Golden Compass turned me off it instantly anyway - as it had almost nothing to do with the plot, as far as I could see. The Compass itself (I forget its actual name) is a divination device, and it's given to Lyra. There isn't some big search for it, and it doesn't give the wielder the power to rule the world. So...

Having read the first two books and not seen the movie, I can safely say that the books really aren't anti-christian.  I am a christian myself and in no way offended by the book.  This is because, very rarely can a book be translated literally.  I really like how Slapzilla put it, it's more of a warning about just falling in line behind the government and not thinking for yourself and having your own opinions.  

By the way, I do have problems with organized religion, the government, the party system, and people who do things JUST because they're told to.

[Wensleydale]

I'm a christian, and I was unoffended by it because it's a STORY.

But, well. [spoiler=SRS SPOYLERZ]God is depicted as an upstart angel who CLAIMS to be the creator, and dies of old age in the third book. By that point he's basically senile. Personally, I'd call depicting god as a senile old man who tried to usurp the position of creator through lies slightly anti-christian.[/spoiler]