COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[Sauron the White]

Film Journal has a good essay giving their review of THE GOLDEN COMPASS.
http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/reviews/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003682398

One of the more interesting things to Tolkien fans is the following key paragraph

The Golden Compass is a textbook case of what can happen when an epic fantasy is put in the hands of a director with only a modicum of visual imagination. At one point during pre-production, Weitz himself sensed he wasn't up to the task of bringing the book to life and temporarily gave up the director's chair, only to be coaxed back after his replacement experienced "creative differences" with the studio and jumped ship. Cruel as this may sound, his first instincts were correct. Directing a film like The Golden Compass demands a strong, clear vision that Weitz—a smart guy and a talented writer—doesn't possess. Say what you will about Peter Jackson's occasional lapses into self-indulgence, he's a filmmaker who completely immerses himself in the worlds he's creating and his passion comes through onscreen.

I realize that there are times it seems like I am Don Quixote battling windmills here because so many Tolkien readers are characterized as print purists who hate the films. But I believe this paragraph, and the article will tend to show that the dominant opinion in the film industry is decidely in favor of the films and Jackson.

[Aiwendil]

Say what you will about Peter Jackson's occasional lapses into self-indulgence, he's a filmmaker who completely immerses himself in the worlds he's creating and his passion comes through onscreen.

I doubt that many of Jackson's detractors would disagree with this. I don't think I've ever heard anyone criticize him for a lack of visual imagination.

[davem]

Should a director attempt to stamp his own vision on an adaptation, or submit to the author's?

Difficult. the main problem with Jackson as far as LotR goes was that he lost it too many times & just went too far. The Aragorn/Eowyn/Gimli episode in TT springs to mind - a perfect scene - till Gimli falls off the horse: one step too far. Same with the flaming Denethor 3 mile run. The main problem was that no-one seemed to be present to tell Jackson when enough was enough.

As to the Golden Compass - I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know how bad/good or average it is. It doesn't seem to be doing too well - though that could simply be down to the attempted boycott by various religious groups.

I know Jackson has earned a lot of praise for LotR, but looking at his other movies I suspect that's down to the material rather than his skill. His King Kong was as mind numbing as it was bum numbing....

[Nerwen]

Davem, while I agree that Jackson's version tends to lack subtlety, I don't think you're being fair to him– he brought off some incredibly difficult things in the Lord of the Rings movies. I don't see a lack of skill there. You're talking about a lack of taste. (Well, I mean, he made a film called "Bad Taste"– what did you expect?)

I think this may be the reason some Tolkien fans can't reconcile themselves to the films, rather than because said films fail to adhere blindly to the text.

Myself, I just think it's a regrettable failing in an otherwise good movie trilogy.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Should a director attempt to stamp his own vision on an adaptation, or submit to the author's?

If you could make a list of the first few major responsibilities a filmmaker has, would a question such as this make that short list? As such, I think it is one of those esoteric exercises which has very little to do with the real task before a filmmaker.

Difficult. the main problem with Jackson as far as LotR goes was that he lost it too many times & just went too far. The Aragorn/Eowyn/Gimli episode in TT springs to mind - a perfect scene - till Gimli falls off the horse: one step too far. Same with the flaming Denethor 3 mile run. The main problem was that no-one seemed to be present to tell Jackson when enough was enough.

Dwarves were suppose to be rather poor equestrians were they not? How is having one fall off a horse evidence of going too far when an event such as that was probably likely to happen if attempted? Later, the director does have a bit of redemption for Gimil's horseman skills when he mounts a steed and bravely attacks the warg riders on the way to Helms Deep.

The Denethor "3 mile run" lasted exactly ten seconds from start to finish. Time it. I have. The worlds fastest runner could do three miles in 12 minutes plus. I hardly think anyone was sitting there plugging all the distance together and coming up with three miles. ANd if they were Jackson had lost them a long way before that. How many times have audience members sees a flaming person in a previous movie and that lasted a similar time? Numerous I would think. So much so that some stuntmen now consider it a normal part of the job and there are industry standards for such a thing. I hardly think that particular scene tipped the balance.

There may have been people there to say when enough was enough. One of whom was Jackson himself. When he saw the early footage of Arwen at Helms Deep, he canned it saying it just did not work. It could be that even Jackson felt he had gone too far and could recognize it.

I know Jackson has earned a lot of praise for LotR, but looking at his other movies I suspect that's down to the material rather than his skill.

Ah yes - the old claim raises its head once again. The Directors Guild - people who know a little bit more about film than most of us - obviously felt Jackson did a more than competent job when they gave him their top award. And its very difficult to compare two different films from the same man and judge one by the faults of the other. I probably share some objections about KONG with you, but as far as the quality of LOTR goes it is irrelevant.

Its interesting that anyone can claim the material was what made the films great when many of those same voices continuilly bemoan the near destruction of that same material. I have read where some purist critics claim its not JRR TOlkiens LOTR that is one the screen due to all the additions, subtractions and changes. They can hardly recognize the material. But now that same material came through enough to make the films successful and good? Its hard to have it both ways.

And the excellence of the source material (and I agree that it was excellent) did nothing to help poor Ralph Bakshi in his earlier effort at the first half of the book, nor the Rankin & Bass studio in filming the last part. Neither of those. based on the same excellent material, were hits with the audience or with critics. If LOTR is an excellent steak that anyone can cook, it ended up as a bad meal two out of three times when tackled by different chefs.

[Groin Redbeard]

Lord of the Rings is based on a christian perspective were good truimphs over evil.
The Golden Compass was written by an atheist, and, in the books, evil truimphs over good.

The two trilogies are completely opposite of each other!

[Thenamir]

Opening Weekends (USA):

Fellowship of the Ring: $47 million
Two Towers: $62 million
Return of the King: $72 million

Narnia: $65 million

Golden Compass: $26 million

I couldn't be happier...well, I might have been happier had GC's numbers been lower...

All figures taken from www.boxofficemojo.com

[Lalwendë]

Lord of the Rings is based on a christian perspective were good truimphs over evil.
The Golden Compass was written by an atheist, and, in the books, evil truimphs over good.

The two trilogies are completely opposite of each other!

Wow...feightin' talk :D

I haven't seen the Golden Compass yet (and nor am likely to until it's out on DVD, sadly) but I have seen the first five minutes and as many snips as I can online and I was impressed by the look of the piece. However I have also heard that the narrative has been mucked about with a little too much.

How the film can be offensive to anyone I can't grasp as the Magisterium can at worst only be an allegory of organised religion in general (and isn't even based on Catholicism but on Calvinism) and I understand even this has been downplayed. And organised religions can indeed be bad news just as politics can be bad news - Pullman's allowed to say that if he likes. There's a very interesting interview on BBC Radio Oxford* with the guy doing the whole protest thing and he failed to answer the thorny question of why if TGC is 'offensive' to Christians because it's somehow underhandedly tempting them towards Atheism and therefore should be banned, is a film of Narnia OK?

Wonder what sort of a froth they're in on Lewis forums? Meh. ;)

If you could make a list of the first few major responsibilities a filmmaker has, would a question such as this make that short list? As such, I think it is one of those esoteric exercises which has very little to do with the real task before a filmmaker.

You know, I'm inclined to think of late that there is some merit in film-makers being either 'economical with the truth' or taking liberties with precious literature. Why? In the first example the Tudors has just finished on the BBC and even though Henry VIII was rather too young and virile amongst other yawning historical inaccuracies it didn't matter because it was right rockin' viewing (very much not for kids, heh). In the second example Cranford is also drawing to an end - though this adaptation is about as close to the actual novel as chalk is to cheese - it's much better!

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2007/12/04/golden_compass.shtml

On one of these links you'll also find a quite disrespectful anecdote about when Pullman had dinner with Tolkien. I found it funny anyway, you can't be preciousss all the time. ;)

[Thenamir]

There's a very interesting interview on BBC Radio Oxford* with the guy doing the whole protest thing and he failed to answer the thorny question of why if TGC is 'offensive' to Christians because it's somehow underhandedly tempting them towards Atheism and therefore should be banned, is a film of Narnia OK?

Let there be no banning of movies on the basis of philosophical disagreement. By all means, make Pullman movies, Michael Moore movies, whatever floats the boat of the persons putting up the production dollars. Let them compete in the open marketplace. That was the point of my prior post with the box-office numbers. <cackles with barely-suppressed laughter and runs away...>

[Lalwendë]

Let there be no banning of movies on the basis of philosophical disagreement. By all means, make Pullman movies, Michael Moore movies, whatever floats the boat of the persons putting up the production dollars. Let them compete in the open marketplace. That was the point of my prior post with the box-office numbers. <cackles with barely-suppressed laughter and runs away...>

Actually, I was beginning to wonder if it was more to do with the 'bottom' falling out of the Fantasy Film Market, a kinds 'credit crunch' on Swords 'n' Sorcery? After all, the whole trend began with the Daddy of 'em all and is now attempting to film the unfilmable on an increasing basis. I have a sci-fi mag floating around somewhere (appropriate, for a sci-fi mag, what?) which lists all the fantasy films currently in talks or production including some very poor prospects indeed.

Plus there's the Shrek-like Enchanted out this week so 'the kids' might much prefer that.

From what I've heard GC fails to get the story across properly, and Northern Lights is the 'easiest' of the trilogy (such as any of them can be said to be 'easy') to understand so I dread to think how they'd even begin to film the second and third books - especially as one of them is missing a major protagonist for about a third of the story! And after the brou-ha-ha over The Two Towers I think too much 'meddling' can ruin a narrative...

[Thenamir]

there's the Shrek-like Enchanted out this week so 'the kids' might much prefer that.

Speakin' of feightin' words...

My wife and I are, shall we say, unsophisticated in our moviegoing tastes -- at least, that's what our kids say. They'd rather see Beowulf and The Invisible. We would rather see Ratatouille or Transformers. I took my wife to see Enchanted, and it was wonderful! I often lament the dearth of movies like The Music Man, Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, movies with real music (not pop-chart soundtracks) and elaborate dance numbers (not beat-boxing breaks). Enchanted is not quite like those movies, but there was enough of what I miss in the good movies-of-old to recommend it highly. That is, if you've not been ruined by movies like Dewey Cox, Talladega Nights, and Superbad...

And the fantasy movie genre has not yet begun to complete its course. Prince Caspian will be out in May, and the buzz on that one is quite good.

[Lalwendë]

I want to see Enchanted too, but like all other films I won't be seeing it for many months...I may have to make friends with someone who knows someone who knows a man in the pub who can get naughty copies of new films or something at this rate :(

I'm a bit worried that they have spent so long making the next Narnia film that all the hype will have died away for it. The biggest fans of films like that are young and fickle, it's more the grown-up nerds who can and will wait for a sequel for a couple of years, so I'm afraid Prince Caspian won't be so much of a hit either. They ought to have kept up with the punishing yearly schedule the Potter films are keeping to...I hope it does come out though because I much preferred the film of Narnia...oooh, controversial... ;)

[Thenamir]

I much preferred the film of Narnia...oooh, controversial...
:eek:

<whispers "You're not alone," and disappears like an ephemeral smoke...>

[Sir Kohran]

I found the Narnia film to be boring and empty in comparison to LOTR. The CGI was good but there was no real emotion or reason to care about anything that was actually happening. Due to a lack of any real development of Narnia and its land I didn't really care about what Narnia's fate was - we see a load of wonderful but empty scenery and then a big battle. Watch the sequence in ROTK where Theoden leads the Rohirrim charging across the field with Howard Shore's Rohan theme thundering along and the golden sun in the background, and then the bit in Narnia where Aslan appears with 'reinforcements'. One was epic and glorious and the other was flat.

[Lalwendë]

"In comparison" maybe, but had I seen it without ever seeing the film of LotR I'd probably have thought it awesome - as it was, I found it a fab film, very enjoyable (apart from the WWII inaccuracies...).

There's the thing though, just about anything, whether book or film, in the fantasy genre will always be compared to Lord of the Rings and just about anything will be found lacking "in comparison".....which is exactly why people like Philip Pullman feel they need to be especially vocal in disassociating from Tolkien.

[Sir Kohran]

"In comparison" maybe, but had I seen it without ever seeing the film of LotR I'd probably have thought it awesome - as it was, I found it a fab film, very enjoyable (apart from the WWII inaccuracies...).

There's the thing though, just about anything, whether book or film, in the fantasy genre will always be compared to Lord of the Rings and just about anything will be found lacking "in comparison".....which is exactly why people like Philip Pullman feel they need to be especially vocal in disassociating from Tolkien.

Therein lies the problem - they tried to make it like LOTR. They filled it with weapons, monsters, armies, CGI and battle sequences and it didn't really work because that's just not what Lewis had in mind when he wrote the story. Lewis was not writing a grand, edge-of-your-seat epic, he was writing a child's fairy tale. As it is you're left with a fairly generic fantasy film about good vs evil - relatively entertaining and enjoyable for a family night in maybe, but not really much else.

[Nerwen]

That, and the White Witch had one of the worst make-up jobs I've ever seen.

I mean, I enjoyed the film... but honestly, half of it looked like left-over footage from The Lord of the Rings.

[Bêthberry]

Opening Weekends (USA):

Fellowship of the Ring: $47 million
Two Towers: $62 million
Return of the King: $72 million

Narnia: $65 million

Golden Compass: $26 million

I couldn't be happier...well, I might have been happier had GC's numbers been lower...

All figures taken from www.boxofficemojo.com

Does boxofficemojo say how many theatres the movies opened in? I don't know about this one, Compass or FotR et al, but I know that movie revenues can often depend on the number of cinemas showing the movie. For instance, I find it fascinating that apparently Beowulf took in more in the box office in Canada than in the US (if I read the stats right in a local newspaper) and I really wonder what's behind that and I know that some movies are specifically limited in the number of their opening appearances.

[Sauron the White]

Films such as LOTR, NARNIA or COMPASS usually open very wide - a couple of thousand theaters. Art films have much higher per screen revenues when you consider that a film like the latest biopic on Bob Dylan might open in a 3 million person metropolis in one theater. In the end, per screen figures matter little compared to gross revenues.

[davem]

Found this interview with Pullman interesting : http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1439673.

Certainly calls into question Pullman's 'militant athiesm' - he states he's perfectly happy for the interviewer to see 'Dust' in the novel as the divine - but more interesting is where talks about 'mutual interdependence' of humans & Dust, - its a mysterious force encompassing human thought, imagination, kindness, love, intellectual curiosity, & that our duty is to introduce more Dust into the world - that without Dust we will dwindle away, & without us Dust will dwindle away.

The reason I found it interesting is that it is almost exactly what Tolkien says about Faery in the Smith Essay:

It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men. The relationship must therefore be one of love: the Elven Folk, the chief and ruling inhabitants of Faery, have an ultimate kinship with Men and have a permanent love for them in general. Though they are not bound by any moral obligation to assist Men, and do not need their help (except in human affairs), they do from time to time try to assist them. avert evil from them and have relations with them, especially through certain men and women whom they find suitable. They, the Elvenfolk, are thus 'beneficent' with regard to Men, and are not wholly alien, though many things and creatures in Faery itself are alien to Men and even actively hostile. Their good will is seen mainly in attempting to keep or restore relationships betWeen the two worlds, since the Elves (and still some Men) realize that this love of Faery is essential to the full and proper human development. The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies e spirit of possession and domination. Without it even plain 'Utility' will in fact become less useful; or will turn to ruthlessness and lead only to mere power, ultimately destructive. The Apprentice relation in the tale is thus interesting. Men in a large part of their activities are or should be in an apprentice status as regards the Elven folk. In an attempt to rescue Wootton from its decline, the Elves reverse the situation, and the King of faery himself Cmes and serves as an apprentice in the village...

But Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emlssares of God (direct). The tale does not deal with religion itself. The Elves are not busy with a plan to reawake religious devotion in Wootton. The Cooking allegory would not be suitable to any such import. Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, stilI more from the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of a world beyond these rings. More strongly it represents love: that is, a love and respect for all things, 'inanimate' and 'animate', an unposessing love of them as 'other'. This 'love' will produce both ruth and delight. Things seen in its light will be respected, and they will also appear delightful, beautiful, wonderful - even glorious.

[Lalwendë]

Pullman isn't a 'militant atheist' - it's a ridiculous thing to attach to the man, nor is he at the helm of some sinister recruitment campaign to secularism. His books simply (complexly?) put an alternative view that the path to wonder and joy can also be found outside of religion. And it can. Don't we all get exactly that from reading Tolkien, having a walk in the woods or watching kids smile? ;)

One of the 'points' to Lyra is that she is an ''Eve" figure, one of the symbols of the Bible which Pullman finds most interesting as it is Eve who discovers Learning and Knowledge and yet she is thrown out of Paradise for having a mind. Lyra defies Authority in seeking to find out what this Dust business is all about and she too acts like Eve - but in Pullman's case, he has written about what would happen if this 'Eve' did not get punished. And what happens? Some quite beautiful things, actually ;)

In HDM what happens to people who have had their daemons forcibly severed? They become hollow, and in the case of children, they even die - they clearly need the daemon, it being representative of something within us, either soul or imagination, whichever you like. This is done in an attempt to stop Dust settling on them as they begin to become young adults. The Dust is seen as 'bad', as 'sin', but it turns out not to be like that at all - we don't get told what it is exactly, but we have a good idea that it's something essential to human life, something which separates conscious (self-conscious?) beings from animals. It's also fading from the Universe/s.

Lyra, in defying Authority, and in being brave and learning things, discovers all of this and learns how Story is one of the few things we have - that when we die what is left but our Story.

All of this is incredibly similar to Tolkien's way of thinking, that to attempt to trap and control the imagination and to suppress it is a terrible thing. Lyra discovers the limitless possibilities of other worlds, learns not to tell lies and be true to her own Story and most of all to see Learning as important. This is also what Tolkien tells us, that liars and cheats do not win out, that we must learn for ourselves what is right and wrong (who's there out in the wilds telling Frodo and Sam what to do? Nobody, they must decide for themselves), and to be brave.

I think it's a sad thing if people refuse to read this wonderful book by Pullman purely because a man tells them not to. Terribly sad...

I suppose one of the problems is one it shares with Lord of the Rings - it's hard to tell "what it's about" and people feel they must fix a 'meaning' on it all. After all, in this cost conscious modern society every large effort made must have some kind of 'pay-off', mustn't it? And that's probably why lengthy shaggy dog stories like Tristram Shandy aren't popular these days - all our reading must have some kind of 'purpose' - pur-lease.... Well, meanings are there to be found if you so wish, but it is just a good story, just like the equally daunting Lord of the Rings.

[Bêthberry]

It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men. The relationship must therefore be one of love: the Elven Folk, the chief and ruling inhabitants of Faery, have an ultimate kinship with Men and have a permanent love for them in general. Though they are not bound by any moral obligation to assist Men, and do not need their help (except in human affairs), they do from time to time try to assist them. avert evil from them and have relations with them, especially through certain men and women whom they find suitable. They, the Elvenfolk, are thus 'beneficent' with regard to Men, and are not wholly alien, though many things and creatures in Faery itself are alien to Men and even actively hostile. Their good will is seen mainly in attempting to keep or restore relationships betWeen the two worlds, since the Elves (and still some Men) realize that this love of Faery is essential to the full and proper human development. The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies e spirit of possession and domination. Without it even plain 'Utility' will in fact become less useful; or will turn to ruthlessness and lead only to mere power, ultimately destructive. The Apprentice relation in the tale is thus interesting. Men in a large part of their activities are or should be in an apprentice status as regards the Elven folk. In an attempt to rescue Wootton from its decline, the Elves reverse the situation, and the King of faery himself Cmes and serves as an apprentice in the village...

But Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emlssares of God (direct). The tale does not deal with religion itself. The Elves are not busy with a plan to reawake religious devotion in Wootton. The Cooking allegory would not be suitable to any such import. Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, stilI more from the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of a world beyond these rings. More strongly it represents love: that is, a love and respect for all things, 'inanimate' and 'animate', an unposessing love of them as 'other'. This 'love' will produce both ruth and delight. Things seen in its light will be respected, and they will also appear delightful, beautiful, wonderful - even glorious.




This is going to stray a wee bit off toipc, but that quotation from Tolkien's Smith essay is too fascinating to let my thoughts stray off--won't be so vein as to say I want to catch the Dust before it scatters. ;)

The idea that Fairie is Love and that the elves are part of that love is intriguing, but does this attribute really adequately explain or suit the elves as we know them in The Silm? I hardly think it does, with their stiff necked arrogance and honour and oath-dependency.

What I think the Smith essay shows most clearly though is how Tolkien's ideas underwent change, development. I would use the word progress but I know how much the man himself distrusted that word. ;) Tolkien was working through ideas, trying to find a core theme in all his work beyond some of the culturally-determined qualities which mark their debt to the northern warrior epic and mythology in general and that is what I think Pullman is also doing. Pullman is moving away/beyond the authoritarian model of human society/culture and that includes authoritarian ideas of divinity as imposed domination and punishment for deviance and forceful control. They might come to the topic from initially different perspectives--Augustinian versus Miltonic--but both are attempting to capture in a gloriously entertaining and compelling story hopeful possibilities for humanity, life, and the universe.

Really, I think it's kind of sad to wish ill of Pullman and Compass on some preconceived notion of hierarchy that one has to be better than the other, that Tolkien alone got things right where others fail, that somehow Tolkien's star will shine the brighter if the Pullman movies fail to be as successful as the LotR movies.

[davem]

In the Essay Tolkien also states:

Faery might be said indeed to represent Imagination (without definition because taking in all the definitions of this word): aesthetic: exploratory and receptive; and artistic; inventive, dynamic, (sub)creative. This compound - of awareness of a limitless world outside our domestic parish; a love (in ruth and admiration) for the things in it; and a desire for wonder, marvels, both perceived and conceived - this 'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life: sunlight as distinguished from the soil, say, though it in fact permeates and modifies even that.

& But in this tale Forest and Tree remain dominant symbols. They occur in three of the four 'remembered' and recorded experiences of the Smith — before his leave-taking of the Queen. They do not occur in the first, because it is at that point that he discovers that Faery is 'limitless' and is mainly involved in vast regions and events that do not concern Men and are impenetrable by them. ..

It is probable that the world of Faery could not exist* without our world, and is affected by the events in it — the reverse being also true. The 'health' of both is affected by state of the other. Men have not the power to assist the Elvenfolk in the ordering and defence of their realm; but the Elves have the power (subject to finding co-operation from within) to assist in the protection of our world, especially in the attempt to re-direct Men when their development tends to the defacing or destruction of their world. The Elves may thus have also an enlightened self-interest in human affairs. ..

The last paragraph in particular seems to echo Pullman's statements on Dust & the interdependence of it & us. Yet what's odd is that Pullman is quite happy for his interviewer to see Dust as Divine, but Tolkien is at pains to stress the difference between Faery & Paradise:

But Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emlssares of God (direct). The tale does not deal with religion itself. The Elves are not busy with a plan to reawake religious devotion in Wootton. The Cooking allegory would not be suitable to any such import. Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, stilI more from the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of a world beyond these rings. More strongly it represents love: that is, a love and respect for all things, 'inanimate' and 'animate', an unposessing love of them as 'other'. This 'love' will produce both ruth and delight. Things seen in its light will be respected, and they will also appear delightful, beautiful, wonderful - even glorious.

SoWM, according to Tolkien, 'does not deal with religion itself' - but the concern of HDM is religion. One could argue (from the perspective of the interviewer) that Dust is truly 'God', the 'Divine', & that the Magisterium has created & supported a false belief & so encouraging the creation of Dust is a 'Holy' work, but for Tolkien, while Faery & our world are dependent on each other (but note, he also states clearly that Faery is not dependent on Men), Heaven/Paradise exists as a True third state above the two.

Another difference is that Pullman refers to Dust as a metaphor or visual image, whereas for Tolkien Faery is a place, in which living creatures live, move & have their being. Yet it seems that the concern of both writers is communicating the idea of some kind of immanent 'reality' which exists alongside/within the material universe, that the two are mutually dependent & cannot exist one without the other - & what's really interesting is that both use terms like love & imagination to describe this other 'reality'.

[Lalwendë]

Tell you what tickles me with all this faith-driven comparison of Tolkien and Pullman and the business of whether it's anyone else's business to tell us what's good for us...that Lord of the Rings is religion-free and yet His Dark Materials takes religion on board as a theme! And even compare what you can find of earthly religion in Tolkien's work (which it takes a serious fan to do) to what's in Pullman's work; Eru is really quite an unpleasant and negative character - nowhere even close to my idea of God, whereas the 'God' in Pullman's work is a sad figure, beaten by what people have done to him, and he is treated kindly in the end.

The idea that Fairie is Love and that the elves are part of that love is intriguing, but does this attribute really adequately explain or suit the elves as we know them in The Silm? I hardly think it does, with their stiff necked arrogance and honour and oath-dependency.

Though I often think the Elves of the Silm are Elves as they ought not to be - fallen, jealous, angry, snobbish, violent, proud etc...etc...

Faery might be said indeed to represent Imagination (without definition because taking in all the definitions of this word): aesthetic: exploratory and receptive; and artistic; inventive, dynamic, (sub)creative. This compound - of awareness of a limitless world outside our domestic parish; a love (in ruth and admiration) for the things in it; and a desire for wonder, marvels, both perceived and conceived - this 'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life: sunlight as distinguished from the soil, say, though it in fact permeates and modifies even that.

Ties in almost perfectly with the idea of Dust and Daemons...can the words Love and Imagination be interchangeable here? Tolkien's idea of a world without Imagination conjours up the same thing portrayed by the Severed Child who has lost contact with his Daemon. And if you think about it, what could possibly be more sad than a child who has lost his ability to Dream?

There's a very close link between Gollum, wandering the wild in search of his Precious and the frightened boy huddled in the shed without his Daemon.


Really, I think it's kind of sad to wish ill of Pullman and Compass on some preconceived notion of hierarchy that one has to be better than the other, that Tolkien alone got things right where others fail, that somehow Tolkien's star will shine the brighter if the Pullman movies fail to be as successful as the LotR movies.

I agree. Tolkien has in some ways 'failed' to move me, not in any way with Lord of the Rings etc, but in what he showed us of Eru in the Silm, well, this god he created leaves me utterly cold. Eru is fascinating in a Jovian kind of way, but he also disgusts me more than a little bit; I simply cannot reconcile the idea of an often petty, bad-tempered and disinterested god (he actually reminds me of Henry VIII quite often ;) ) with anything good - indeed, does Tolkien think Eru is "all that", I suspect not... ;) But what I saw of the possibilities of the Universe/s in His Dark Materials was not a little mind-blowing...it moves me the way some of the concepts of Doctor Who do.

[davem]

I find it difficult to comment in any real depth about Pullman's 'vision' - its years since I read HDM. I enjoyed the first volume & liked the next two less & less & by the end I just didn't care because I just felt Pullman had stopped telling me a story & was just ranting at me. I also wonder how geniune he is being in his comments - Tolkien was not averse to taking up 'meanings' into his work suggested by readers which had clearly not occured to him before. One can't help thinking that LotR became a whole lot more 'Christian' in his mind after it was written than it was during the process... I don't know how much of what Pullman is claiming to be in the book was put in there deliberately.

In many ways I find Tolkien's creation more interesting than Pullmans because I dislike Eru (what there is of him in the story). One pities the inhabitants of M-e more than those of Pullman's multiverse because Eru is not removable: one is stuck with him & has to make the best of it - of his cruelty, his petulance, his stand-offish smugness & his obsession with his composition & his callous disregard of those who have to live in the world his foot-stamping response to Melkor's variations on his themes brings into being. Of course, one can start waffling on about 'inscrutability' & divine mystery & the like, but in reality the inhabitants of M-e have a generally poor time of it & Eru does very little, if anything, to alleviate their suffering.

Yet as I say, this makes for a greater tragedy in its way - Eru can't be overthrown & Men, Elves & Hobbits have to find a way to live with him. Pullman's 'God' is a fake & can be overthrown & one can be liberated to find one's own way & meaning - even if one chooses the loopy option of trying to build a castle in the air (or 'building the 'Republic of Heaven' as Pullman has it, & which comes to the same thing, meaning precisely nothing).

The weakness of HDM for me is that he makes the 'Magisterium' so OTT in its totalitarian hatred & desire for dominance that we end up in Python territory

NOBODY expects the Magisterium! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

No complexity, & so no real tragedy. Also no real sense of exultation when the pantomime villains get their come-uppance.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:
Tolkien has in some ways 'failed' to move me, not in any way with Lord of the Rings etc, but in what he showed us of Eru in the Silm, well, this god he created leaves me utterly cold. Eru is fascinating in a Jovian kind of way, but he also disgusts me more than a little bit; I simply cannot reconcile the idea of an often petty, bad-tempered and disinterested god (he actually reminds me of Henry VIII quite often ) with anything good

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time seeing things from this point of view. Your description, it seems to me, might be applied to the God of the Old Testament (and to Pullman's Authority before he became feeble), but it doesn't seem to fit Eru. Eru and Yahweh, as literary characters in their respective stories, are portrayed quite differently. Eru does no smiting, lays down no jealous commandments against idols, does not select a 'chosen people' whose foes are disfavoured. Eru actually does very little after creating Ea. He gives life to the Dwarves (surely the act of loving god), he advises Manwe from time to time, and then he destroys Numenor. Now certainly that last act could be seen as vengeful, and called into question (it is of course on par with the Judeo-Christian God's deluge). I believe there was a thread on that a while back. But it's a single incident (not even in the 'Silmarillion proper'), and hardly seems to merit your sweeping characterization.

Insofar as the charge is 'cold and disinterested' (which is altogether a different thing from petty and bad-tempered), I will agree with you. But this is 'problem of evil' territory. Anyone who posits an omnipotent God is going to have to make him or her either petty and malicious or cold and distant, as it is certainly a fact that bad things happen to good people. If you are going to take Pullman's Dust as his true, loving and merciful, God (which I think is inevitable) then doesn't the charge of 'cold and distant' apply to it as well? Though I suppose the Dust is different, as it is explicitly (and emphatically) not omnipotent.

[Lalwendë]

Lalwende wrote:


I'm afraid I'm having a hard time seeing things from this point of view. Your description, it seems to me, might be applied to the God of the Old Testament (and to Pullman's Authority before he became feeble), but it doesn't seem to fit Eru. Eru and Yahweh, as literary characters in their respective stories, are portrayed quite differently. Eru does no smiting, lays down now jealous commandments against idols, does not select a 'chosen people' whose foes are disfavoured. Eru actually does very little after creating Ea. He gives life to the Dwarves (surely the act of loving god), he advises Manwe from time to time, and then he destroys Numenor. Now certainly that last act could be seen as vengeful, and called into question (it is of course on par with the Judeo-Christian God's deluge). I believe there was a thread on that a while back. But it's a single incident (not even in the 'Silmarillion proper'), and hardly seems to merit your sweeping characterization.

Insofar as the charge is 'cold and disinterested' (which is altogether a different thing from petty and bad-tempered), I will agree with you. But this is 'problem of evil' territory. Anyone who posits an omnipotent God is going to have to make him or her either petty and malicious or cold and distant, as it is certainly a fact that bad things happen to good people. If you are going to take Pullman's Dust as his true, loving and merciful, God (which I think is inevitable) then doesn't the charge of 'cold and distant' apply to it as well? Though I suppose the Dust is different, as it is explicitly (and emphatically) not omnipotent.

You've answered my issue in that second paragraph right away!

It's Eru's very omnipotence which causes the issue. He creates everything, including Melkor, free will and the whole caboodle - therefore Eru must logically also create the potential for evil if nothing can exist without his having created it.

Even laying this aside he also has the power not to call the world into being after Melkor has interjected his themes. But he still does it. He also destroys Numenor as has been discussed many a time. He leaves dealing with Melkor to his servants, does nothing himself. He creates two races which simply cannot live alongside each other without coming into conflict because their very natures are incompatible.

And I actually don't think Tolkien had any problem with this Omnipotent thing himself - it would certainly make sense coming from the mind of a man who had to reconcile devout belief in the Catholic God with being in the very heart of the unimaginable (because it is unimaginable to any of us) slaughter of the trenches. This may or may not have been his particular view of his own God that he painted in Eru - but we don't know that for sure, we can only guess.

Whatever, I've never much liked Eru. He's a very negative figure and doesn't inspire me...but then did Tolkien intend him to do that? I think not - we have ordinary people like Frodo and Sam for that purpose.

The weakness of HDM for me is that he makes the 'Magisterium' so OTT in its totalitarian hatred & desire for dominance that we end up in Python territory

That's why people in our society getting so worked up about HDM having caused them 'offence' puzzle me. The Magisterium is a literary creation, at worst an analogy of things in our own world, and so drawn colourfully. We know that in the main, religions in our own world, setting aside those extremists of all creeds who use them as big sticks to beat people with, are not so extreme, so if someone is upset about their own religion being examined in the form of this one particular analogy, does that mean it is indeed one of the extreme ones? ;)

Pullman himself has no issue with belief where it does not hurt people, and that's fair enough, surely that's what anyone should believe? His beef is with abusive and restrictive religions - he shows what they have done to God in his books. Interestingly, revealingly, the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks every school child should read His Dark Materials.

And remember, Pullman did not write a tragic story in the way Tolkien did. In Tolkien's world, there is only the Long Defeat and one day, maybe, an end to the world. In Pullman's Universe/s, Lyra comes to save the day/s!

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:
It's Eru's very omnipotence which causes the issue. He creates everything, including Melkor, free will and the whole caboodle - therefore Eru must logically also create the potential for evil if nothing can exist without his having created it.

All right - if this is the charge against Eru, then I think it makes perfect sense. It also should be noted that the charge applies generally to omnipotent deities. I was merely pointing out that there is a worse charge made by some (most relavantly, by Pullman) against the God of Abraham - namely, that he is petty, ill-tempered, jealous, and vengeful.

That's why people in our society getting so worked up about HDM having caused them 'offence' puzzle me. The Magisterium is a literary creation, at worst an analogy of things in our own world, and so drawn colourfully.

Yet the thrust of the analogy is very clear. I have to say that I am not at all surprised at the outrage; that the Magisterium is a metaphor for the Catholic Church (or Christian Church, as this is a world without the Reformation) is fairly transparent. And if the metaphor is dealt with subtly in The Golden Compass, it is not so in the second and third books. This is not intended in any way as a criticism. On the contrary, I am very much in sympathy with Pullman on the matter of organized religion (though I certainly do have other criticisms for HDM). But if one considers the degree of 'offence' taken at, for instance, The Life of Brian, one will not be shocked at an outcry over a series of books in which . . . well, I won't say it, as I don't wish to spoil The Amber Spyglass for anyone - but consider the Authority as portrayed in that book.

And yet, as you pointed out earlier, Pullman does not, in the end, come across as anti-religion in HDM. Anti-Islamo-Judeo-Christianity, even anti-organized religion, yes, but anti-religion no. And I suspect that for many Christians of the less extreme sort, the Dust comes closer to their conception of God than does the Authority. Whether this is a virtue or a flaw in HDM is another matter, of course.

[davem]

Well, it looks like TGC has fallen to number 3 in the US charts & will struggle to make back its production budget, so there probably won't be any sequels. I wonder why? I haven't been able to see it, so I don't know if its a bad movie or if its because people don't like the message - or even if they've gone along with the boycott.

Whatever, it seems like the LotR movies have won this one. I wonder if this is because if the 'message' is removed (& it has been apparently) the story itself simply isn't enough to sustain interest - remove the whole 'wicked Church'/death of God stuff & you have animal 'spirits' & armoured polar bears knocking seven bells out of each other & that doesn't seem all that attractive to movie goers. Yet LotR, for all the claims of religious symbolism running through it, is basically an entertaining story.

So what I'm asking is, is HDM really a good, entertaining story (as Pullman likes to claim) or is it actually an average/poor story which relies on a controversial message to attract readers?

[Sauron the White]

This from Deadline Hollywood site on COMPASS revenue.

And in only its second weekend in release, the bottom fell out of costly domestic flop The Golden Compass from New Line, which forked over $200+ million to make it. I know, I know, the pic is doing OK overseas after earning $50.9 mil from 27 territories December 7th-9th. But the fantasy epic is so lost domestically it earned only an anemic $2.6 million Friday and $3.7 million Saturday from 3,528 nearly empty runs for 3rd place and a new cume of just $40.5 mil. I hear studio topper Bob Shaye once again is blaming everyone but himself -- including the movie's director Chris Weitz, and also New Line's own prez of production Toby Emmerich.

That type of dropoff is extremely severe. Remember what happened with the RINGS movies? They managed to be the top film for several weeks running and the films stayed in the theaters for over two months. COMPASS is officially dead after only ten days in the theaters.

I have not seen it and probably will not until its on cable down the road. For what its worth, I have a six year old grandson who is just head over heels in love with the LOTR movies. Go figure. Earlier I had shown him trailers for COMPASS and the only thing he was even mildly interested in was the bears. When the film came out i offered to take him but he would much rather sit here and watch the LOTR films. If that is any indication, they simply are not reaching an audience.

I wonder how long the act of Bob Shaye can keep going like this? He bombed with his own film earlier this year and now the big series they had bet the farm on is not going anywhere - anywhere good that is. If this does not put pressure on New Line to come to a quick agreement with Jackson on the HOBBIT I really do not know what will.

[Thenamir]

Well, it looks like TGC has fallen to number 3 in the US charts & will struggle to make back its production budget, so there probably won't be any sequels. I wonder why?<cackles with glee>

I am not a movie producer, director, or even a hack grip, and I don't play any of them on television. However, it seems to me that perhaps Pullman isn't quite as "loved" or "revered" an author as JRRT or C. S. Lewis, and probably for the reasons given earlier:I enjoyed the first volume & liked the next two less & less & by the end I just didn't care because I just felt Pullman had stopped telling me a story & was just ranting at me.Now Tolkien paints his stories in painstaking detail, Lewis in broader strokes and more primary colors (colours for you non-USian folks ;) ) but neither forgets that the tale is the real focus. Don't know if Lewis meant his stories to be overtly and primarily a tool for proselytization, but from all my sources (I have not yet read HDM, so all my info is second-hand) it appears that davem is hardly alone in his assessments -- Pullman's focus seems to be less on the tale, and more on his not-so-subtly-hidden ideas and ideals.

My main point, at which I am only now arriving via a circuitous path, is that Pullman's readers just don't care as much about HDM as do the readers of LOTR or Narnia. In fact, the fans of Tolkien and Lewis are so keen to see the movies based on their favorite works that they are willing to put up with what the more pedantic ones would view as grievous errors in the print-to-screen translation. Pullman might have been read by many, but it didn't affect them as deeply or as strongly, and not in such a way that they seem to care much about seeing it onscreen.

Either that, or the movie was so badly made that it deserves its fate. I will defer that judgment to those who care to plunk down the cash to see it. As I said earlier, having seen neither book nor flick, I am certainly open to correction.

EDIT: If this does not put pressure on New Line to come to a quick agreement with Jackson on the HOBBIT I really do not know what will.If that is indeed the case, then The Golden Compass might actually have a redeeming quality!

[Lalwendë]

All right - if this is the charge against Eru, then I think it makes perfect sense. It also should be noted that the charge applies generally to omnipotent deities. I was merely pointing out that there is a worse charge made by some (most relavantly, by Pullman) against the God of Abraham - namely, that he is petty, ill-tempered, jealous, and vengeful.

Indeed, for some Christians, that kind of God is the God they have, so Pullman's justified in that criticism as it's a type of God in the Real World anyway. And in this day and age of religion-driven hatred and violence it's a very pertinent point to make as some wish to hasten the end of the world because of what they perceive God to be. In that respect, Pullman is doing a wonderful thing by raising such difficult questions.

Yet the thrust of the analogy is very clear. I have to say that I am not at all surprised at the outrage; that the Magisterium is a metaphor for the Catholic Church (or Christian Church, as this is a world without the Reformation) is fairly transparent. And if the metaphor is dealt with subtly in The Golden Compass, it is not so in the second and third books. This is not intended in any way as a criticism. On the contrary, I am very much in sympathy with Pullman on the matter of organized religion (though I certainly do have other criticisms for HDM). But if one considers the degree of 'offence' taken at, for instance, The Life of Brian, one will not be shocked at an outcry over a series of books in which . . . well, I won't say it, as I don't wish to spoil The Amber Spyglass for anyone - but consider the Authority as portrayed in that book.

And yet, as you pointed out earlier, Pullman does not, in the end, come across as anti-religion in HDM. Anti-Islamo-Judeo-Christianity, even anti-organized religion, yes, but anti-religion no. And I suspect that for many Christians of the less extreme sort, the Dust comes closer to their conception of God than does the Authority. Whether this is a virtue or a flaw in HDM is another matter, of course.

Yes, and there is the quite beautiful thing about His Dark Materials - that in the end God is to be found in the very fabric of existence, not merely in the anthropomorphic figure of an aged man. This where davem's derided Republic of Heaven comes in - it is a state of existence which all share, not just those who have paid the subscription fees - and that in itself is yet another message from these stories, that God cannot simply be accessed by putting your cash onto a brass dish; the Magisterium is also a symbol of money and how it has done and very much still does corrupt churches.

The only way anyone can honestly form a criticism of these books is to go out and read them - and read them a couple of times as they are incredibly complex and ambitious and draw on so much more than mere criticisms of religions (they draw on philosophy, poetry, psychology, science, myth, art and literature amongst other things).

So what I'm asking is, is HDM really a good, entertaining story (as Pullman likes to claim) or is it actually an average/poor story which relies on a controversial message to attract readers?

Well I read them when they were very much 'just books' and hadn't heard of any of the controversy. I just saw them in a bookshop, noticed they had won several of the literary prizes and thought they looked interesting. I found I was deeply moved by them, fascinated by the new ideas (and these are very hard to come by in fantasy, how often do you think "Oh yawn, another sword wielding village boy?! Another Dark Lord?!") and have to say that I found it completely refreshing that they had a girl as the lead character, and not only that, but a girl who wasn't stereotyped and who was admirable.

[davem]

Yes, and there is the quite beautiful thing about His Dark Materials - that in the end God is to be found in the very fabric of existence, not merely in the anthropomorphic figure of an aged man. This where davem's derided Republic of Heaven comes in - it is a state of existence which all share, not just those who have paid the subscription fees - and that in itself is yet another message from these stories, that God cannot simply be accessed by putting your cash onto a brass dish; the Magisterium is also a symbol of money and how it has done and very much still does corrupt churches.

.


But is Dust an actual physical thing (a form of matter) or is it a metaphor for imagination/love? Can't really be both - unless Pullman is actually writing a parable & not a story at all. Pullman seems to be doing a Humpty Dumpty, & having Dust mean whatever he wants it to mean at any particular point in the story. Is this 'Divine' Dust a physical thing - in which case it can't be something as abstract & metaphysical as love or imagination, or is it simply a floating metaphor for 'nice' things - in which case how can its presence be registered on machines, or anything be done with it at all?

[Lalwendë]

But is Dust an actual physical thing (a form of matter) or is it a metaphor for imagination/love? Can't really be both - unless Pullman is actually writing a parable & not a story at all. Pullman seems to be doing a Humpty Dumpty, & having Dust mean whatever he wants it to mean at any particular point in the story. Is this 'Divine' Dust a physical thing - in which case it can't be something as abstract & metaphysical as love or imagination, or is it simply a floating metaphor for 'nice' things - in which case how can its presence be registered on machines, or anything be done with it at all?

The inspiration comes from a few things including Dark Matter, Dante and Genesis:

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return

Dust is very much a real thing in Pullman's creation - it is a lot like Dark Matter in appearance and as an idea in that it's quite a mysterious substance sought after by scientists. But it's also conscious, and is attracted to conscious beings - it exists in a symbiotic relationship, needing conscious beings to survive itself, and the conscious beings needing it in order to have imagination and knowledge (i.e. consciousness!).

Dust can be a metaphor for things in our world because unless Pullman is cleverer than all the clever people in the world put together then I doubt Dust is the answer to our own existence and is just a 'thing in a book'. So of course it can be a metaphor. ;)

[Thenamir]

Darn it, now I'm going to have to actually read HDM so I can see what you guys are talking about and write a thorough refutation.:rolleyes:

-- Thenamir The Gadfly

[Lalwendë]

Darn it, now I'm going to have to actually read HDM so I can see what you guys are talking about and write a thorough refutation.:rolleyes:

-- Thenamir The Gadfly

You might find you like it ;)

And some more on Dust...It falls, in Lyra's world, on those who have got a fixed Daemon, as opposed to children who have shifting Daemons - so it must be linked to what the Daemon 'is'. Which cannot be firmly defined, but we can guess that the Daemon is part of the human which feels, which thinks, which learns, judging by what has happened to the nurses at Bolvangar who have undergone intercission as adults:

she would be able to stitch a wound or change a bandage, but never tell a story

Adults also make even more Dust:

by thinking and feeling and reflecting, by gaining wisdom and passing it on

So aside from the notion that teachers must be Dust-y old things ;) that tells us that in many ways Dust is indeed divine, is just like Tolkien's own notions of the importance of Imagination and Art. Love is also a part of what Dust is about as when children grow old enough to have a crush on someone (or something) they tend also to become adults and the Dust settles on them - so Love too is linked with Art; this has to be something Pullman gleaned from Blake.

[Thenamir]

As I noted to someone in PM, my delay in approaching HDM is not from protest of any sort (I have read and thoroughly enjoyed most of the Harry Potter books), but rather of time and the fact that I'd never heard of it until a couple of years ago. I have to admit it's not high on my to-read list even now, but if this row keeps up for much longer, I'll have to up the priority on it. :cool:

[davem]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKL1958884920071219?sp=true

[Lalwendë]

There's some irony for you ;) By being so critical of the books and advising people not to read them, they're in effect doing Pullman's work for him.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Wish I had seen the film or read the books so I could contribute to this thread. For what it's worth, I will say, as a Christian whom most would describe as a "right-wing fundamentalist", that I have zero problem with these films being made. Doesn't affect me one iota. I'm not gonna take my kids to them (assuming I have kids, which I don't, yet), but censorship is idiotic and immoral.

I don't see my God (the God of the New Testament and Old alike) as petty, vengeful, spiteful, or distant. Tolkien didn't either, and I doubt he would appreciate his Eru being characterized as such. But that goes way beyond this thread's topic.

[davem]

Wish I had seen the film or read the books so I could contribute to this thread. For what it's worth, I will say, as a Christian whom most would describe as a "right-wing fundamentalist", that I have zero problem with these films being made. Doesn't affect me one iota. I'm not gonna take my kids to them (assuming I have kids, which I don't, yet), but censorship is idiotic and immoral.

I don't think censorship played any part in the movie's failure at the box office - this is a book which, in comparison to LotR, hardly anyone had read, so the fan base was fairly small. The trailer was too confusing & by removing the 'dangerous' message the movie was reduced to a bland adventure movie about a little girl & her best friend, a polar bear in a suit of armour. It wasn't going to attract the kind of audience New Line needed. Let's face it, the same people calling for a boycott of TGC called for a boycott of the Harry Potter movies - & look how far that got them.

Of course, I'm sure they'll claim it was all down to their boycott - though what effect that claim will have - whether it will be believed by the studios & lead to a situation where only movies (& possibly in the longer term TV series & books) that don't challenge religion get green-lighted - is something we'll have to wait & see about.

I don't see my God (the God of the New Testament and Old alike) as petty, vengeful, spiteful, or distant. Tolkien didn't either, and I doubt he would appreciate his Eru being characterized as such. But that goes way beyond this thread's topic.

The problem is, taking the books on their own, & seperating them from primary world elements/concepts//beings like God, one has to say that Eru is a very minor character who is not developed at all. The only thing Tolkien gives us is a few lines from him in Ainulindale & then the odd reference to him in some of the minor, posthumous, works - his two big moments are, one, the propounding of the Themes, in which he comes across as a kind of ultra petulant Beethoven, & the creation of Arda, in which he basically calls Arda into being, snaps 'Now see what you've done! Don't you think you should go sort that mess out?' & stomps off &, two, his totalling of Numenor, in which he comes across as more than a little trigger-happy, & less than a little creative, in his response.

The point is, if we avoid importing aspects of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/(fill in the blank) Deity into Eru, we have a character who actually is 'vengeful, spiteful & distant', not to mention a major league egotist, & probably the least interesting character Tolkien invented - & one, as I've argued before, who seems only to exist in order to make the Legendarium a monotheistic mythology. When he does crop up its to be thoroughly irritating & the worst kind of deus ex machina.

[Lalaith]

the movie's failure at the box office

Hey, hold your horses, guys. Success and failure doesn't begin and end in the United States, there is a world out there....the film seems to have done really very well outside the US, and made $135m as of December 19th, and it hasn't even opened in Australia, Japan or Latin America yet.

I've got no axe to grind here, I haven't seen it yet, and I prefer Tolkien to Pullman, myself. But movie success shouldn't just be measured on US box office takings alone. The Passion of the Christ, for example was a huge hit in the US but it was more or less a flop everywhere else.

[Thenamir]

New Line will have to make $250 million on TGC in order to recover only the expenses and marketing. If in over two weeks of release they've made only half of that, I'd bet a fiver on the wager that they'll not make $250 million. Any takers? :D

[Aiwendil]

The point is, if we avoid importing aspects of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/(fill in the blank) Deity into Eru, we have a character who actually is 'vengeful, spiteful & distant',

You clearly have a deity who is 'distant'. But I think that when you say 'vengeful' and 'spiteful' you are actually reading the Judeo-Christo-Islamic God into Tolkien's work. As I argued earlier to Lalwende, the only Old Testament style smiting we ever see from Eru is the destruction of Numenor. Now that may certainly be interpreted as an 'evil' act (though that interpretation is not the only one), but I think it would be quite a stretch to say that this alone gives the reader sufficient insight into Eru's character to label him 'spiteful'.

As for your caricature of Eru's acts of creation, it might be countered by a different caricature: a loving Eru gave the wonderful faculty of creativity to the Ainur, propounded a theme to them out of which they fashioned a great and beautiful thing, and even suffered one of them to attempt to distort and destroy the Music. Then he showed them the beautiful thing they had made and, in accordance with their wish, brought it into being so that they might enter it if they wished.

Now, I don't wish to enter into a debate concerning the Ainulindale. But surely it will be granted that if a negative caricature is possible, so is a positive one. And I would say that neither is correct - the one is a humanist reading of the God of the Torah, the other a Christian reading of the God of the New Testament. Both bring in preconceived notions that derive from other sources than Tolkien's Legendarium.

[davem]

New Line will have to make $250 million on TGC in order to recover only the expenses and marketing. If in over two weeks of release they've made only half of that, I'd bet a fiver on the wager that they'll not make $250 million. Any takers? :D

Well, taking into account TV & DVD sales I suspect they will turn a profit on it - however, there are things working against a sequel: how much profit they turn - I suspect it won't be much at all, the fact that the next two volumes in the trilogy get increasingly bogged down in Pullman's Message, & while the ending may look spectacular on screen they whole 'death of God' thing itself is a bit of an anti-climax, given that he just whimpers & falls out of bed, & audiences for fantasy movies tend to be teenage boys in the main who won't shell out to see two hours of strange characters arguing about the nature of God & free will. And when you throw the implication of under-age shennanigans between Will & Lyra ....

In short, I can't see New Line, even if they do just go into profit on TGC - & as I say I'm sure they will deciding to risk another half a billion on two more movies - especially as they haven't really turned much of a profit on anything they've produced since LotR.


Now, I don't wish to enter into a debate concerning the Ainulindale. But surely it will be granted that if a negative caricature is possible, so is a positive one. And I would say that neither is correct - the one is a humanist reading of the God of the Torah, the other a Christian reading of the God of the New Testament. Both bring in preconceived notions that derive from other sources than Tolkien's Legendarium.

OK - maybe you have a point there. But... its difficult not to try & give some kind of character to such a figure, who is both a minor (in terms of his appearances) & major (in terms of his role) character in the Legendarium. Personally I find him annoying because you have an all powerful character who simply will not get off his backside & help those in need - those who are suffering because he chose to create Arda & allow Morgoth in there in full knowledge of the suffering & pain the would result. And why? Because it would redound to his greater glory. The horrific suffering of Numenor could have been prevented by one personal appearance, but he couldn't be bothered to pop up in time in a nice way - he pops up too late to prevent the tragedy of their corruption but in time to drown a good few thousand people.

As I've said before, I don't see any need for him to exist as a character - everything he does could be done by other characters or not done at all. The wrath of Ulmo is more acceptable & satisfying as justification for totalling Numenor than the intervention of a distant God who has finally decided to throw down his Newspaper & spank the naughty children.

[Lalaith]

Hmm... I will take your wager, Thenamir, because of Japan etc, and because the school holidays have only just started in a lot of European countries.

What's your axe against Pullman, out of interest?
Is it because you see him as a rival to Tolkien? I ask because I just spent some time at the work Christmas dinner, talking to two colleagues who were big Tolkien fans in youth and now have turned against him, much preferring Pullman and seeing the Prof as long-winded and dull.
I just don't feel the same way, I liked HDM a lot, but for me the trilogy just doesn't have the mythological grandeur and mystery of Middle Earth. I have no urge to find out more about Pullman's universe the way I did about Tolkien's when I first discovered it...I feel Pullman's already told me everything I need to know.

[davem]

Hmm... I will take your wager, Thenamir, because of Japan etc, and because the school holidays have only just started in a lot of European countries. .

The question is will it make enough to pay for the sequel & a slap-up feast for New Line's Board of Directors (with pork pies, cream cakes & lashings of ginger beer)?

Seriously, I suspect it won't make enough to make it worth taking the risk on making The Subtle Knife - not as, rightly or wrongly, TGC is percieved by the public as a flop. I think that if New Line have a spare $250,000,000 to throw about they'll throw it in PJ's direction. If its a choice between handing it over to Chris Weitz to make TSN or to Jackson to throw at The Hobbit they'll go for the latter, even if it only gets used to make Smaug a little bit more dragony, Lake Town a little more Lake Towny & the Lonely Mountain a little bit more Lonely Mountainy.

Of course, it may be that the Hobbit duology makes so much money that New Line have no idea what to do with it, & so may decide to make TSN - though I suspect that given a choice they'd still use it to buy Jackson a solid gold trailer with a diamond encrusted toilet first...

[Sauron the White]

There have been so many articles published in the mainstream press the last three days about the Jackson kiss and make-up with New LIne that I cannot remember the source of the news ...... but ......... one interview with one of the principals was asked if the first two dismal weeks of box office returns on COMPASS helped facilitate the resolution and they said something to the effect that it certainly did not hurt Jacksons cause.

[Thenamir]

For those who are interested in my "wager" (sorry, no real money involved, we don't endorse gambling on the Downs!) after 18 days in release, the WORLDWIDE take for TGC is a mere $140,958,574. The box office for Christmas-release movies (such as TGC) always plummets after Christmas. I stand by my original assertion -- TGC will be a money loser for New Line. (And I raise my figurative wager to $100. :D)

By way of comparison/contrast, in similar timeframes in the USA alone Narnia made $153M, and FOTR $200M.

[davem]

Problem is we don't know how much NL actually spent on the movie - I've seen anything between $180 & $250 million, plus a good $50-60 million on promotion. Hence (& given NL's 'creative' approach to accounting) it will be difficult to know whether they go into profit or not. Still, & accepting what you say, you're ignoring TV & DVD sales. I still don't think they'll lose money on the project once the final numbers are in - but neither do I expect to see Lyra & co return to the big screen.

[Lalwendë]

It's not worldwide takings as it only opened in Australia and New Zealand today. And in the UK there's a surge in film attendance between Christmas and New Year - and only two kid friendly big films out to compete for the parents' money so it's still got legs over here. It won't lose money (especially given that it's nowhere near DVD release yet) but the question is will it make enough profit for them to do some more films?

Personally, I think the story is far too complex for average film audiences who are used to simpler fare, the old black/white type themes. So I doubt studios will be taking a punt on sequels unless they can dumb down the other two novels to a more simplistic level. Audiences aren't really capable of dealing with metaphysics, Milton and Blake these days :( and certainly the final book is far too complex to be filmable under today's standards, unless they aim for the arthouse audience and don't even attempt to make it simple.

[Thenamir]

Personally, I think the story is far too complex for average film audiences who are used to simpler fare, the old black/white type themes. So I doubt studios will be taking a punt on sequels unless they can dumb down the other two novels to a more simplistic level. Audiences aren't really capable of dealing with metaphysics, Milton and Blake these days and certainly the final book is far too complex to be filmable under today's standards, unless they aim for the arthouse audience and don't even attempt to make it simple.Careful there, Lalwendë, there be thin ice in them thar parts. That kind of talk sounds suspiciously like one of...the Literati!! :eek:

Come on, 'fess up -- you're a secret teacher of English Literature somewhere, right? Someone who considers A Farewell To Arms a bit of light reading for a rainy afternoon? Who thinks War and Peace wasn't long enough? We've got your number now! Heat the tar! Pluck the chickens! :rolleyes:

EDIT: Australia? New Zealand? There are more people in TEXAS.

[davem]

I think they've gone so far out of their way to avoid it being 'offensive' to anyone that it basically isn't about anything at all. What they should have done was either forget the whole idea of filming the books at all, or just gone the whole hog & risked offending some of the potential audience. My suspicion is that they bought the rights without knowing anything about the book, or what it contained - it was a 'childrens' book' by a guy from Oxford (like those Tolkien/Lewis guys... ) - & it was only once they'd got the thing & started to look at it that they decided 'D***! there's no way we can put this out as it is!'

Of course, once you start 'removing' or altering a story 'to avoid offending the audience' its easy to go too far & end up with a movie that is simply so bland & inoffensive that all you have at the end is two + hours of special effects connected by a simplistic storyline that nobody wants to see.

Of course, they haven't announced that there won't be a sequel, so we can't rule one out (or even a mini-series) - but my suspicion is that the reason for that is commercial - it would badly affect the TV & DVD rights if it was made plain that there won't be anymore. Who wants to watch the first part of a story that won't be completed?

Mind you, look at Firefly - that flopped on TV, but was so popular on DVD that they got the finacing to make a movie. Of course, the Serenity movie only cost a tiny fraction of what The Subtle Knife/Amber Spyglass would...

[Lalaith]

I saw it today and I thought it was good but not great. The acting was well above average for a fantasy film, and lots of the visualisation was very fine.
What let it down was that they rushed through the story at bewildering speed, but also, that the score just wasn't a patch on LotR. It was cheesy bog-standard "fantasy epic" stuff. It's when you don't have it that you realise what a difference a really stirring score can make.

[Sauron the White]

The whole COMPASS thing is dead as far as future film sequels go. What killed the franchise? Poor box office return on investment and the announced Jackson/Middle-earth deal. The nails are in the coffin and the body is now in the ground. Accept it.

And I find it interesting that some here castigate Jackson for his failue to repeat the LOTR box office numbers with KING KONG but are clinging to these COMPASS grosses as something better. They are not. In the end, COMPASS will not even take in what KONG did despite a budget in the same stratosphere. btw- KONG made a profit. Will COMPASS? I doubt it.

[Thenamir]

FYI, while Kong failed to do the same kind of numbers as any of the LOTR movies, it cost $207M to make and the worldwide gross (not including DVD or other sales) was $550M -- a 250% return on investment, and #43 on the all-time worldwide box-office -- better than The Empire Strikes Back, not as good as Ratatouille. I'd say that was pretty doggone good.

[davem]

Yes, but Kong is still dreadful. I wonder how well it would have done if Jackson hadn't made LotR & they couldn't sell it as 'The new movie from the multi-Oscar winning director of the LotR trilogy!' I saw it once, but nothing could induce me to sit through it again.....

[Thenamir]

As an interesting aside to Lal's comments about the tastes of the moviegoing public, I have perused the list at www.boxofficemojo.com (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm), and found that of the THIRTY top grossing movies in the USA, only three (Titanic, Passion of the Christ, and Forrest Gump) could be called realistic -- in that none involved elements of the fantastic (leaving aside the fact that Forrest Gump didn't really exist...). The rest are either Sci-Fi (Star Wars, Jurassic Park), Fantasy (LOTR, Harry Potter), or Animated (Shrek, Finding Nemo).

Maybe we really are as dumb as Lal thinks we are. :rolleyes:

[Sauron the White]

Does fantasy or science fiction equal stupidity? Thats quite a jump.

[Thenamir]

Perhaps, according to some...average film audiences ... used to simpler fare, the old black/white type themes...aren't really capable of dealing with metaphysics...<coughLalwendespluttercough>:Merisu:

[Sauron the White]

It now looks like the overseas box office will NOT save COMPASS from disaster. Here is the latest from an industry year end review.

Sister studio New Line wasn't as fortunate with ``The Golden Compass.'' The film, made for an estimated $180 million, opened with sales of $25.7 million over the Dec. 7 weekend, according to Box Office Mojo. Overseas sales helped lift its total to $142.9 million after three weeks.

Rule of thumb says a film needs to take in at least twice what its budget was to break even because of what the theaters take as their cut of the action. With its big first few weeks behind it, GC has not even taken in an amount equal to its production budget.

[Lalaith]

Actually, the foreign figures are only up to December 16th, when the film had only been out a week in most countries. So I still say, hold your horses....

[Sauron the White]

Lalaith.. yes I see that. Only three days of revenues in Great Britain for example. I also see that it will not even open in Japan until next March and that should be another 50 mil or so in the coffers. So the film will get its budget back but will it get the twice over budget necessary to break even? I guess time will tell. But I still cannot see New Line laying out another $100+ million for a sequel with the 2 more Middle-earth movies on their plate and big budgets for those.

[davem]

Yes, but its sad. And it puts a question mark over the future of fantasy films. Yes, the LotR series will continue, & so will the Narnia movies, but fantasy movies generally?

Of course, the problem was that NL bottled out ('got scared'). They may have set out wanting to avoid offending Christians, but they ended up going too far & trying to avoid bothering anyone - & they succeeded: in the end no-one was bothered by the movie. Trouble was not enough people were bothered about the movie.

Anyway, I don't see a sequel to TGC being made. What I do see is a slew of sub LotR movies which just repeat the standard formula of 'band of unlikely heroes must unite to defeat the DARK LORD? blah blah blah'.

What I'm most interested in seeing is the response to Pullman's sequel to HDM, 'The Book of Dust' which is supposed to be out in a couple of years. I've already heard of HDM being removed from some school libraries - can we expect a boycott of the next book?


EDIT

Actually, it brings up a bigger question - should the ideas & concepts that fantasy explores, whether in book or movie form, be restricted? Isn't fantasy, at heart, about asking the question 'What if?' If a fantasy novel or movie can't present a secondary world in which 'God' is not only evil, but actually a fake, then what can it do - what limits do we set on fantasy worlds - because whatever limits we set on fantasy worlds we are actually setting on the human imagination - we're saying 'You are not allowed to imagine 'X'.' - effectively Pullman's point.

It could be argued that those who object to Pullman's work on 'moral' grounds (not pointing at anyone in particular) are actually objecting to fantasy in general, & to the human imagination in particular. After all, in what way is imagining a secondary world in which 'God' is a fake from whom humanity must liberate itself & find its own way forward different from imagining a world in which the sun is green, or in which animals can speak with humans?

(For the record, I still found HDM (the book - haven't seen the movie yet) increasingly dull as it went on (nearly said 'progressed'!!) & found PP's repetitive haranguing just annoying by the end, so I'm not putting this argument forward as praise of PP.

[Lalwendë]

I've already heard of HDM being removed from some school libraries - can we expect a boycott of the next book?
.

Not in the UK. In fact the head of the church recommends that all schoolchildren read it!

Which brings me back to my point about it not being simple black/white fare. Pullman worked with some very ambiguous material from Blake and Milton, and raised some difficult questions, plus he threw a lot of theoretical physics into the mix. This is not standard blockbuster fantasy fare. It wears intellectual challenge on its sleeve, which is possibly why the Archbishop of Canterbury recommends it so highly - in contrast to the often dreary dull "Christian storybooks" (I read more than my share in childhood) His Dark Materials raises deep and important questions. It's more likely to have someone running to read their bible again than just about any other fantasy you can think of - including Lewis, who I didn't even twig onto as having any 'message' until I was told (that's what Neil Gaiman thought, too).

Incidentally, yes, I do think film audiences the world over are incapable of complex messages in films. Otherwise it would be Ingmar Bergman and Lars Von Trier films which topped the charts. And I'm broadly the same as anyone in that respect. ;)

[Lalaith]

Golden Compass was a very unintellectual film adaptation of a very intellectual book. There was very little in the way of extended dialogue, for example, just look at rushed exposition compared to the leisurely and quite challenging intro to FotR. If anyone got any Blake, Milton or biblical stuff out of the Golden Compass I´d be very surprised...and I agree, btw that it did send me rushing back to all three to remind myself of references when I first read the trilogy.
I also agree, I think the film-makers bottled out. Not just about the religion business but about all the intellectual concepts....the nature of a daemon, the bear culture, all that stuff.
I felt Jackson bottled out too, to a certain extent (mostly in the Two Towers) but he did show understanding of the nature of heroic epic, for which I am sure Tolkien would have been grateful.

[Bêthberry]

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I've already heard of HDM being removed from some school libraries - can we expect a boycott of the next book?
.

Not in the UK. In fact the head of the church recommends that all schoolchildren read it!


I assume you are referring to the head of the Anglican Communion. It is the official state church/religion, but I do believe you have a few other sects over there which he cannot in all fairness speak for.

Sadly, Pullman has just recently been pulled from high school libraries in one local catholic school board here--despite the recommendation from the library committee that it not be banned!


There was very little in the way of extended dialogue, for example, just look at rushed exposition compared to the leisurely and quite challenging intro to FotR.

You know, I was wondering about the balance of Pullman's three books and how there's so much explanation of the entire concept in the first book and whether that could profitably be extended to the latter two movies.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this is a case where it would have been preferrable for the film makers not to observe the independence of the three books, but to be more leisurely at explaining it all and integrate the three. After all, PJ moved Boromir's death and that hasn't drawn nearly the outcries that some of his other 'creative rewritings' have. The GC writers could have introduced Will and his universe a bit, even Mary and hers in explication of dust and alternate universes, spent some time depicting just what this heresy of Asrael's was all about--make us feel just how revolutionary and upsetting this idea would be for Lyra's world. And why the native northern cultures were so dead set against these intruders but accepted the Intercessionists. Does it need some other narrator's eyes than Lyra's?

I did like the way dust was represented both when a character was killed and when Lyra used the Compass. Of course, visually the movie is finely done, very finely done. To one who has seen Oxford even briefly, the alternate version of its towers and buildings was most intriguing.

I wished there was more to Lyra's childhood with the Gyptians as there is quite enough proof there about the existence of 'Others' even within Lyra's world, although I suppose that single early scene with the children battling establishes her character. And I so much enjoyed the book's descriptions of the Gyptian ship as she sailed down the Thames and hid out. There's a love of a grand river there that was completely eclipsed by the movie. And Mrs. Coulter's party is such a grand way to express the nasty business of this world and that was missed too.

Of course, right now I have no idea just where the first movie should have ended, if all this was to be incorporated. Still, it is possible that the complexity of the ideas could have been given more justice if they had been spread out more between three movies and not crammed into one. However, I must add that those here who've seen the movie but not read the book thoroughly enjoyed the movie and its pacing.

But it doesn't begin with a sweet and beguiling Shire so there isn't that to draw the audience in.

[Thenamir]

Rule of thumb says a film needs to take in at least twice what its budget was to break even because of what the theaters take as their cut of the action.Actually. I learned something a few years ago that somewhat surprised me. Theatres, at least here in the USA, do not get to keep any of the ticket sales price -- the total box office goes to the makers of the film, which explains why the box office numbers are so important. The theatre makes its money almost entirely on concessions sales -- which explains why a bucket of popcorn and a soda (which costs the theatre about 25 cents) is sold to the moviegoer for $10. :eek:

[William Cloud Hicklin]

However, the over and above the production budget, you also have the marketing and distribution budget- which can, sometimes, be as great or greater, especially if they run TV spots in heavy rotation.

[Mister Underhill]

Actually. I learned something a few years ago that somewhat surprised me. Theatres, at least here in the USA, do not get to keep any of the ticket sales price -- the total box office goes to the makers of the film, which explains why the box office numbers are so important. Sorry, Thena, but this isn't exactly accurate. Most releases have a distributor/exhibitor split that shifts over the life of the release. The studios take the lion's share of the profits for the first few weeks, then their percentage steadily drops off over the next several weeks until theaters are actually making more. So it's only the films that run successfully for many weeks where theaters see big money, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a film where the theater is getting 0% even for the first week, let alone the life of the release.

[Lalwendë]

I assume you are referring to the head of the Anglican Communion. It is the official state church/religion, but I do believe you have a few other sects over there which he cannot in all fairness speak for.

Sadly, Pullman has just recently been pulled from high school libraries in one local catholic school board here--despite the recommendation from the library committee that it not be banned!

All schools which receive public funding over here, including 'religious' schools (we have quite a lot of Anglican, Catholic plus one or two Muslim and Jewish schools) would not be permitted to 'ban' books. Things like that are controlled by the DCSF. School Governors could object in theory but in practice, the Department would kick them into touch pronto.

I wish I could add more to your comments on the how the book was translated to film, but I still haven't been able to snatch the time to see it, so it will have to wait :( I'm quite desperate to see how Oxford comes across after actually being there to see it filmed - it was intriguing seeing all the lights and cameras up on the college rooftops - though I know what Jordan College gardens will look like as they left the door to a private Fellows' garden open at Exeter and I took my chance to sneak in :D

The most important bit to get right for me was Lyra as she's such a wonderful character (her and Hermione Granger are two of the best female characters created lately). I saw the first five minutes of the film in a sneaky internet 'leak' and I was very impressed just with that bit...

[davem]

Another perspective:
http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/story/418711.html

No doubt the film’s unspectacular performance was satisfying to the critics who claimed that Pullman’s books for teen readers were pushing an atheist agenda.

But don’t break out the Communion wine just yet.

“The Golden Compass” opened poorly in large part because Pullman’s books aren’t that widely read in this country. Unlike a comic book movie based on universally recognized characters, the Materials series was an unknown quantity for most American moviegoers.

But how a film fares in the U.S. is only part of the picture. “The Golden Compass” has done quite well in other countries where the novels are popular.

In fact, at theaters abroad the film did three times the business it did in America, racking up $90 million in two weeks.

“The action-fantasy should remain a respectable, rather than blockbuster, player among families through the holiday season,” according to Variety’s prediction.

By the time “The Golden Compass” ends its run in theaters and starts cleaning up on DVD (which is where most movies really make a profit nowadays), the folks at New Line may very well have the financial incentive to plow ahead with the second film.

I mention all this because it hammers home a fact: Hollywood isn’t interested in movies that are of interest only to Americans.

Before green-lighting any production, studio execs analyze the likely success of a film in foreign markets. The bigger the proposed budget, the more important it is that the finished movie appeal to audiences in Asia, Europe, South America … everywhere people watch movies.

This has a profound impact on the sort of films that get made.

So, maybe the DVD sales - the worldwide DVD sales - could swing it & there could be a (maybe less lavish) sequel....

It all leads to the big question - why did TGC flop in the US & fly in the rest of the world?

And, of course, the ROW is a lot bigger than the US, & its entirely possible for a movie to do zero business in America & still make massive profits. Or in other words, what we might see is a Subrtle Knife movie that gets a massive world-wide release, but only a limited release in the US....

Of course its only very very slightly possible we'll see a SK movie, but not likely. New Line haven't announced the sequel yet, but surely they'd want it in cinemas in 2009 - avoiding the 2010/2011 releases of TH & its sequel - so they hardly have time unless they start virtually straight away (they were filming in Oxford last year when we were there for Oxonmoot in September, so principal photography would have to be done this year). Still, maybe its not all doom & gloom for NL on the TGC front....

[Lalwendë]

Of course its only very very slightly possible we'll see a SK movie, but not likely. New Line haven't announced the sequel yet, but surely they'd want it in cinemas in 2009 - avoiding the 2010/2011 releases of TH & its sequel - so they hardly have time unless they start virtually straight away (they were filming in Oxford last year when we were there for Oxonmoot in September, so principal photography would have to be done this year). Still, maybe its not all doom & gloom for NL on the TGC front....

I doubt the Hobbit will be out for the dates they state, so it can probably fit in there. I think the scripts have been done already and The Hobbit is still just a twinkle in Jackson's eye. If he can do The Hobbit in under three years when he's also doing The Lucky Bones and Tintin I'll eat me hat.

The figures are now also saying that The Golden Compass has outperformed Narnia in the UK, even on the opening figures.

[Mister Underhill]

From what I hear, Compass will be a modest success, but it's unlikely that New Line will risk $200-300M on a sequel. For one thing, even if the overseas performance is huge -- and it's doing well, up to $187M as of this past weekend -- New Line sold the foreign distribution, so it won't see a big share of the foreign pie.

New Line typically does movies that are around $40M and under. They don't have the resources of a big studio to soak up the losses of a true loser. LotR was a big gamble for them, and it paid off. They'll probably get out of Compass with a modest profit, but I don't see them risking that kind of money again, especially with a seeming surefire Hobbit one-two punch in the pipeline.

Time will tell. Neither franchise will go forward until the strike's over. They have a script for SK, but I highly doubt they'd put it into production without the ability to do rewrites even if Compass was a blockbuster.

[davem]

From what I hear, Compass will be a modest success, but it's unlikely that New Line will risk $200-300M on a sequel. For one thing, even if the overseas performance is huge -- and it's doing well, up to $187M as of this past weekend -- New Line sold the foreign distribution, so it won't see a big share of the foreign pie.

Yes, but....

It may come down to whether they have anything else beside TH & sequel which is worth doing - I suspect they'll hold on to the rights for SK & AS. Its still possible that TH won't be very good - though it won't lose money however bad it is because it will sell on the strength of LotR, but if it is poor & the sequel is no better, or worse, they could lose out on the whole package. If that happens something like SK, even if it only brings in a modest profit, might be considered worth doing.

Again, I'm not expecting to see any GC sequels to be honest, but a lot of people seem to be assuming that TH & the follow up will be absolutely fantastic movies, make NL a fortune, & are even speculating on more M-e movies beyond them. Its entirely possible these movies will bomb & NL be left feeling grateful they have the other two Pullman options....

[Sauron the White]

I suspect that if the next two Middle-earth movies do less than a combined $US 1.5 billion at the box office, that any future fantasy film would face a very steep uphill climb at New Line. With the exception of the last 3 Star Wars films, the 2 ME films are about as sure thing as you can get in the film business.

Regarding COMPASS sequels, it is worth noting that with the exception of the LOTR films, many sequels see their box office numbers falling as the franchise is milked to the last drop for profits. So if they do the Compass sequels, I would not expect the budget to be quite as generous..... which of course probably makes for a far less spectacular and less marketable movie. Its a downward spiral that feeds on its own lack of success.

[davem]

I'm curious to see TGC, but not desperate - I enjoyed the book but the sequels spoiled it for me. I'm not interested at all in seeing the sequels, so I can speak objectively. NL are about making movies & if they have a property that will bring in even a modest profit - & here we have to focus on the DVD sales even more than the theatrical releases - they won't necessarily just throw it away. Even a limited theatrical release & quick DVD release could prove a worthwhile venture - particularly if they shoot the two sequels back to back.

[Bêthberry]

It may come down to whether they have anything else beside TH & sequel which is worth doing - I suspect they'll hold on to the rights for SK & AS.

Not NewLine, but Peter Jackson has optioned at least the first book in this new historical fantasy series which won for the author the Campbell award for best new writer at Worldcon 2007: Temeraire (http://www.temeraire.org/index.cgi?pagetype=excerpt&book=hismajestysdragon&excerptfile=books/hismajestysdragon/excerpt.txt), so it's not like there are no other good fantasy works out there.

[davem]

Variety http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978262.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 reckons TGC will at least make back its production costs (& possibly also its promo budget - depending on which account you believe of how much they spent) so it looks like everything it makes from DVD/TV sales will be clear profit.

The final 2007 frame also saw "The Golden Compass" remain a stellar performer outside the U.S. with $34 million at 7,600 for a stunning $187 million foreign cume. The final international gross for "Compass," handled by a variety of foreign distribs, should eventually hit $250 million -- a stark contrast to the pic's domestic perf, which is currently at about $60 million.

The article continues with the following comment on fantasy movie Stardust:

The "Compass" performance underlines the international traction for fantasy fare: Paramount's summer-fall title "Stardust" salvaged a disappointing domestic run with $96 million overseas. Disney's "Enchanted" took in $20 million during the weekend and has already gone past $111 million overseas midway through its run, passing the Stateside cume.

:eek: Don't you Yanks like fantasy or something ;)

[Lalwendë]

Yes, but....

It may come down to whether they have anything else beside TH & sequel which is worth doing - I suspect they'll hold on to the rights for SK & AS. Its still possible that TH won't be very good - though it won't lose money however bad it is because it will sell on the strength of LotR, but if it is poor & the sequel is no better, or worse, they could lose out on the whole package. If that happens something like SK, even if it only brings in a modest profit, might be considered worth doing.

Again, I'm not expecting to see any GC sequels to be honest, but a lot of people seem to be assuming that TH & the follow up will be absolutely fantastic movies, make NL a fortune, & are even speculating on more M-e movies beyond them. Its entirely possible these movies will bomb & NL be left feeling grateful they have the other two Pullman options....

The bubble has burst a bit on more Tolkien films. Maybe not to us as fans, but it certainly has to wider film audiences who have never looked at a Tolkien book. Droves went to see Rings and had to find out 'how it ends' but they might not be bothered with a couple more bum-numbing epics about the same old stuff - as they'd see it. Certainly not unless they up the ante and are even more soaked in orc-blood.

The Hobbit itself will do well, but if they do this 'bridge' film I predict it will be a disappointment to the Hollywood accountants - a vast proportion of the audience will go to save themselves the bother of reading the books, so why will they be bothered about something 'made up'? Ordinary Joe isn't in love with Hobbits and Elves like we are ;)


Regarding COMPASS sequels, it is worth noting that with the exception of the LOTR films, many sequels see their box office numbers falling as the franchise is milked to the last drop for profits. So if they do the Compass sequels, I would not expect the budget to be quite as generous..... which of course probably makes for a far less spectacular and less marketable movie. Its a downward spiral that feeds on its own lack of success.

LotR isn't an exception. The sequels to Spider-Man, Pirates, Bourne, Austin Powers, American Pie, Shrek etc etc.... cleaned up and did better. The secret is in making a sequel that's even more hype, and that's BIGGER and LOUDER. Which is exactly what RotK was. I watched FotR in a screen with just a dozen other people but by the time RotK came along I had to sit in a rubbish seat next to a woman who snored her way through it - punctuated by her husband going "Shhhh, wake up!" ;)

Sequels, if they come along quickly enough, mop up even more numbers as they get in a huge chunk of audience who just want to see what happens and have been varied along with the hype. But if they're left that little bit too long in the making, they can be a disappointment if they fail to live up to 110% of the hype - see Phantom Menace ;)

[Alonna]

LotR isn't an exception. The sequels to Spider-Man, Pirates, Bourne, Austin Powers, American Pie, Shrek etc etc.... cleaned up and did better. The secret is in making a sequel that's even more hype, and that's BIGGER and LOUDER. Which is exactly what RotK was. I watched FotR in a screen with just a dozen other people but by the time RotK came along I had to sit in a rubbish seat next to a woman who snored her way through it - punctuated by her husband going "Shhhh, wake up!"

The sequel films that you mention that did better than the first films have one big advantage over HDM. They were well received by audiences. The Golden Compass has gotten terrible reviews from critics. When the first film in a series turns out well, the sequel will tend to draw larger crowds. A good example of this is the Pirates franchise. People went out to the see the second one because the first one had been so good. When the second Pirates film was not nearly as good as the first, there was a major drop off in the box office take for the third film, twenty-five percent less. A sequel's box office take can often be correlated with how well audiences liked the one before it. Given that The Golden Compass received such bad reviews, many of the viewers may choose not to return, leading to a significantly lower box office take.

[Lalwendë]

The sequel films that you mention that did better than the first films have one big advantage over HDM. They were well received by audiences. The Golden Compass has gotten terrible reviews from critics. When the first film in a series turns out well, the sequel will tend to draw larger crowds. A good example of this is the Pirates franchise. People went out to the see the second one because the first one had been so good. When the second Pirates film was not nearly as good as the first, there was a major drop off in the box office take for the third film, twenty-five percent less. A sequel's box office take can often be correlated with how well audiences liked the one before it. Given that The Golden Compass received such bad reviews, many of the viewers may choose not to return, leading to a significantly lower box office take.

As I remember Pirates had appalling reviews. When I went to see it people were saying "What are you going to see that heap of rubbish for?" Well, a dose of Johnny Depp dressed like Adam Ant and some big ships was enough for me but... And then same people and reviewers had to eat their words.

And GC has not had terrible reviews. They've not all been 'Wow, this is better than Ingmar Bergman" but they've not been bad at all - most I've seen have been no less than 3 stars and most 4 stars? :confused:

[Sauron the White]

There is nothing equal to a sure bet in the film industry. But there are some properties which are considered safer bets than others. Lucas did three STAR WARS film and then waited an entire generation to do the next... and people speculated that the magic may not strike again. They were wrong and the SW franchise produced three more mega hits. I would be willing to wager that the next two ME films repeat that pattern. In fact, the chances are even better because
1- more people saw LOTR than the last set of SW films
2- it is a more recent experience than the first three SW films were to the next three in the franchise
3- the LOTR films were generally held in much higher regard by the media and industry and the buzz will be positive on these
4- the film industry is looking for a savior bigtime and nothing looks like as good for that role as a Peter Jackson HOBBIT right now.

from Lalwende

The bubble has burst a bit on more Tolkien films. Maybe not to us as fans, but it certainly has to wider film audiences who have never looked at a Tolkien book.

Outside of the anti-film audience that tends to permeate this site, I have absolutely no idea what you would base a statement like that on. Each LOTR film built bigger than the previous one in both box office and industry recognition. There is nothing you can point to to offer actual evidence for this.

[Lalwendë]

Oh it's correct alright. I haunt other sections of t'internet and droves of people who went to see LotR aren't all that bothered about The Hobbit, if in fact they're bothered at all. Many of these weren't all that bothered about LotR but went to see it anyway - that's marketing for you. People are soon bored. Not us, but them...the other ones...;)

Star Wars is interesting because if you wanted to follow the story of what happened, going to see the films was the only way to find that out! Of course this doesn't happen with films based on blockbuster books.

[Lalaith]

Did NL really sell all foreign rights to GC?
If so, I bet they're kicking themselves. Its already up to nearly $200m abroad, (ie well in excess of production budget) and that's without Japan.

I still think that a FotR-type length (3 hours plus I think) would have improved the film a lot - the editing felt really excessive. With the amount of over-long films I've sat through (King Kong and Casino Royale both spring to mind - a James Bond flick should never go over 2 hours, its just wrong) here's one that really could have done with a more "epic" feel.

[Sauron the White]

from Lalwende

Star Wars is interesting because if you wanted to follow the story of what happened, going to see the films was the only way to find that out! Of course this doesn't happen with films based on blockbuster books.

The last three movies, which were actually the first three movies in the series, told a story that every single SW fan already knew how it ended. Anakin becomes Darth Vader. Any fan worth his light saber knew that as well as he/she knew their own name -- heck, for some of them they knew that development even better. Nobody had to pay a dime to find that out.

The real question about sequels to GC is this: with two more massive budget Middle-earth movies on their plate over the next few years, does the studio want to compete with itself both in time, energy, and resources for another fantasy which did not track very well in the number one film market in the world?

If GC could be made for under $50 million US, the answer might be yes. But with the same budget it had the first time, I would expect the answer to be no. And a lesser budget is not going to solve the problems that Lalaith mentioned, too short running time and not epic enough. Those things cost even more money then they spent the first time.

[Thinlómien]

While wondering why GC has done so much worse than the LotR movies when it comes to ticket sales, people on this thread seem to ignore two facts. First off, according to some researches, The Lord of the Rings is the second most read book in the world (the most read one being, of course, The Bible). Even though His Dark Materials are widely appreciated and liked as well, how could they ever comepte with LotR? LotR has more fans in general and much more devout fans (like somebody already said). Then, secondly, when it comes to the "general public" that are not fans of either of the books, one must remember that FotR was first of these fantasy blockbusters that have become so popular lately. Now, the general enthusiasm for these fantasy blockbusters is fading (there's been so many of them already) so it is very difficult for any fantasy blockbuster film to reach as big audiences and make as much money as the LotR movies did.

I saw the GC movie a few days ago. It was better than I expected it to be, but still not that good. The actors were mostly very good and it was visually excellent (except for the clumsy-looking bears with too long legs). The storytelling was ok, except that everything was far simpler than in the books and well, they did some things just wrong. Besides, I had a lot of fun while listening to the actors trying to pronounce Serafina Pekkala and her daemon's names (and some of the supposed-to-be Scandinavian names sounded all too funny as well). :D


Difficult. the main problem with Jackson as far as LotR goes was that he lost it too many times & just went too far. The Aragorn/Eowyn/Gimli episode in TT springs to mind - a perfect scene - till Gimli falls off the horse: one step too far. Same with the flaming Denethor 3 mile run. The main problem was that no-one seemed to be present to tell Jackson when enough was enough.
Dwarves were suppose to be rather poor equestrians were they not? How is having one fall off a horse evidence of going too far when an event such as that was probably likely to happen if attempted?While I wouldn't like to restart this argument, I must say that I agree with davem here. I see your (STW's) point about Dwarves being poor equestrians but why make Gimli ride in the first place, if most of the people are walking. Why on earth would Gimli ride willingly if he could walk as well? That's why the whole falling off the horse episode was so stupid.

[Sauron the White]

from Thinlomien

but why make Gimli ride in the first place, if most of the people are walking. Why on earth would Gimli ride willingly if he could walk as well?

Perhaps as a warrior, he was attempting to learn a new skill which could he employ in his repertoire? Remember in the first film we saw Boromir giving lessons in sword play to Merry and Pippin, so learning new techniques found a place on the menu. Again, this all sounds like so much nitpicking to find something wrong with the films when the vast majority of ticket buyers simply sat there, enjoyed the film and did not puzzle about such arcane questions. Out of the 185 million people who purchased tickets to TTT, how many actually sat there and had reservations about the incongruity about putting a Dwarf on a horse in the first place?

[Bêthberry]

Out of the 185 million people who purchased tickets to TTT, how many actually sat there and had reservations about the incongruity about putting a Dwarf on a horse in the first place?

I can't speak for the 185 million but I can say that the five who sat in the row in front of me certainly appeared to have bought their tickets simply so they could laugh at/ridicule the entire concept of heroic fantasy and noble course of action.

Same thing happened when I went to see RotK in matinee--beastly bunch of teenage girls kept up a whispering campaign. Most rude and disconcerting. It's too bad that most cinemas nowadays don't have ushers around to keep the silence.

It has really made me wonder if part of the attraction of PJ's movies has been, for a certain subsection of the movie-going public, the opportunity to wallow in derision, scorn and cynicism.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The last three movies, which were actually the first three movies in the series, told a story that every single SW fan already knew how it ended. Anakin becomes Darth Vader. Any fan worth his light saber knew that as well as he/she knew their own name

Sure, but what every 501st Legion Star Warrior was dying to know was *how* Anakin bacame Vader. How did a Sith Lord become Emperor? How were Luke and Leia fathered, and how did she become a princess? How did the Republic fall? What was Obi-wan and Anakin's relationship, and what went wrong? For all these answers, they wanted the prequels (although, face it, the meat of the matter was really all in Ep 3).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

StW: the problem is not in establishing that Dwarves aren't equestrians (which book-Gimli simply tells us, in his dour Dwarven way), but in making a cheap pratfall of it for the sake of laffs- PJ self-indulgence which somebody ought to have reined in.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - I do agree that far too often Gimli was used as the butt of a joke or for 6th grade level humor. We agree on that and I would hope that THE HOBBIT - which is filled with dwarves and their history - would refrain from that.

Bethberry - I think we talked about this very issue before and you previously related that sad experience. While I am not a big death penalty advocate, I could be convinced to use it on the spot for cretins who display rude and boorish behavior in public theaters. I sympathize with you there. However, my experience with the three LOTR films was almost the direct and complete opposite of yours. I saw the three films over a total of 30 times, and for opening days the atmosphere was almost reverential. Many people seemed to be waiting a lifetime for the films and acted as ifthey were in a church. Some of the best behaved crowds I have ever seen in my nearly six decades on the planet. As the weeks rolled on, the crowd was no better or no worse than any other film I have seen.

[Sir Kohran]

Compass will certainly make a profit; that's no longer a question. The debate now focuses on whether there will be sequels. I doubt this as, if I remember rightly, the second book is incredibly dull. Very little of interest really happens. Loads of characters and concepts are introduced but the story itself doesn't go very far. There's no epic battles or anything likely to hold the audience's interest. There will have to be some serious adapting to the story if they plan on making anything that will follow on from the Compass films and appeal to people.

As to why it didn't make money in America - I wouldn't put it all down to the religious boycott (though that hardly would have helped). Rather I'd say it was down to a general lack of interest, for whatever reasons.

The Hobbit is almost certain to make a profit. It's pretty much gauranteed, in the same way that Phantom Menace and Dead Man's Chest were both guaranteed to make money - their previous films were very popular with almost everyone. And they did - both made over nine hundred billion dollars. But at the same time they weren't very well received by critics and quite a lot of viewers and their sequels' profits reflect this - Attack of the Clones made almost three hundred million dollars less and At Worlds End, whilst a lot less of an extreme drop, made about one hundred million dollars less. So maybe there is a correlation of sorts between quality and profit.

[Lalaith]

THE HOBBIT - which is filled with dwarves and their history

Oh lord, I hadn't thought of that. PJ's interpretation of the dwarven community....three hours of belching, boasting and dumb-*** humour....*weeps*

the second book is incredibly dull

I thought it was the best of the trilogy. They've also kept the finale of Northern Lights for film two. (If it's made...)

[davem]

From the latest Variety:

"The Golden Compass" remains a paradoxical performer whose B.O. underlines the widespread appeal of fantasy fare outside the U.S. With fifth-frame foreign grosses coming in at $29 million, it did more than 10 times the pic's domestic take of $2.7 million over the frame. (U.S. cume is $65.5 million.)

Combined worldwide take for "Compass," handled internationally by a variety of distribs, is now at $298.5 million, with the foreign take contributing a stunning 78% of that figure. New Line sold off foreign rights to help finance the pic, which carries a reported $180 million pricetag.

Which puts it way into profit before the DVD release. Apparently NL are going to announce whether or not they are going ahead with a sequel later this month.

Oh, & its also up for the Oscar for Visual Effects....

Looks like a sequel isn't out of the question.

[Sauron the White]

New Line sold off foreign rights to help finance the pic, which carries a reported $180 million pricetag.

Am a bit confused at the arcane nature of film financing, distribution and revenues. If New Line did indeed sell off foreign rights a while ago and used that money to help pay the production bills, could someone please explain how a pretty good overseas box office helps them in the light of very poor US revenues which they still own?

Perhaps it would make them optimistic about a future film - at least overseas - but then that would be tempered with the woeful news about the US box office prospects as well.

[Mister Underhill]

Am a bit confused at the arcane nature of film financing, distribution and revenues. If New Line did indeed sell off foreign rights a while ago and used that money to help pay the production bills, could someone please explain how a pretty good overseas box office helps them in the light of very poor US revenues which they still own? Yeah, I mentioned this upthread, too. Since they sold the foreign distribution, their take of the foreign windfall will be limited.

Film financing, distribution, and revenues are never cut-and-dried. It's not like they sold the foreign distribution for a flat fee and are not seeing any foreign money, for instance. But their profits will be capped and they almost certainly got the losing end of that gamble.

And you can't look at raw numbers, as some have, and simply declare profit. "The film cost $180M and they've taken in almost $300M" just doesn't take into consideration all the complexities. Besides the sale of foreign distribution, there are marketing costs that run into the tens of millions, the box office is shared with theater chains (as mentioned above), and then there are "hidden" costs like gross profit participation -- I expect Nicole Kidman, at least, has gross points.

I still expect that New Line's profits, if any, will be fairly modest. Will that money, plus the attractive foreign prospects for a sequel, be enough to make them take that kind of risk again? Time will tell. New Line's resources are not unlimited, and they're about to sink $300-$400M into Hobbit movies.

If it were, say, Disney, I'd guess they'd probably risk a sequel, because they have the means to exploit the license six ways from Sunday -- theme park rides, animated tie-in series, etc. New Line, historically, hasn't been in the "tentpole" picture business outside of LotR. They usually have a slate that's heavy with low-risk $30-40M pictures like the Rush Hour franchise, Wedding Crashers, horror movies and the like.

I'd say the safe money is still on no sequel, but time will tell.

[Lalaith]

underlines the widespread appeal of fantasy fare outside the U.S.

...implying that the US has gone off fantasy as a whole?
Now that's got to be bad news for the Hobbit....alternatively, NL could be a bit cannier about foreign rights....

[davem]

Anyone know if they sold the Worldwide DVD rights? In theory they could make 4 or 5 (or more) times the theatrical profits via DVD sales. One assumes they haven't sold the foreign distribution rights to any sequels either.

Have to say that given the popularity of TGC worldwide, & the profit its made so far, that if NL can't find some way to produce, & make money on, sequels they must be run by people with the same IQ as those who watch their movies :p

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Have to say that given the popularity of TGC worldwide, & the profit its made so far, that if NL can't find some way to produce, & make money on, sequels they must be run by people with the same IQ as those who watch their movies

They let you in did they not? :D

[davem]

from davem



They let you in did they not? :D

I was misinformed.

[Sauron the White]

Ah yes, thought you were going to the opera that night or perhaps a Merchant-Ivory film?

[davem]

Ah yes, thought you were going to the opera that night or perhaps a Merchant-Ivory film?


I thought I was going to see something of the same intellectual & philosophical depth as the books.

(btw, I was referencing Casablanca with the 'misinformed' comment - Bogie will always be the definitive Frodo in my eyes http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg1ggAywqkU)

[Sauron the White]

from davem

I thought I was going to see something of the same intellectual & philosophical depth as the books.

Well my intellectual friend, it seems that you have been badly misinformed about lots more than just this one film. Some other time, when we both have much more time, allow me to explain how a book is one thing while a film - any film - is quite another. If you expected one medium to give you some of the unique qualities found in the other medium, then you have been misinformed about the nature and limits of the medium. But we can discuss all that.

That 1944 LOTR film was tremendous. Thank you for the link on that one. It was really great and I enjoyed every second of it. Today I paid $8 to see SWEENEY TODD and really needed a good laugh.

I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

[Gwathagor]

Not 'friendship'?

[Sauron the White]

Gwathagor ... thanks for the correction on the CASABLANCA quote. Duly noted and corrected.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

If you expected one medium to give you some of the unique qualities found in the other medium, then you have been misinformed about the nature and limits of the medium.

Then you have an unconscionably low opinion of the capacity of the cinematic medium.

[Lalaith]

Now THAT is a movie (1944 LotR). Peter Lorre as Gollum - so obvious when you think about it....

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

Then you have an unconscionably low opinion of the capacity of the cinematic medium

I do not know exactly what that means. I have a very high opinion of what can be achieved if film. The key word being CAN. I do however believe more or less in Sturgeons Law - 90% of everything is crap.

How is that to be characterized as unconsionably low?

[Bêthberry]

I'm confused by the wording of this thread and the Books thread. Pullman Rips on LotR, others. This thread seems to be devoted to mere film popularity rather than a comparison of the two authors, although it's title suggests that comparison. So, taking a nod from this thread title, I'm posting here, but perhaps Esty might decide this belongs on the Books thread.

Having seen GC, I'm currently rereading HDM.

Northern Lights I still find very intriguing. My fascination lies with Pullman's creation of a world so like ours but existing under a different historical consequence. That for me is what makes the story compelling, not so much the ideology.

I remain just as appalled by Coulter and Asriel on this reading as I was on the first tread. Pullman's depiction of parents is intriguing--at once so very contemporary and yet also so reminiscent of early historical attitudes towards children as familial property. Both perspectives show parents oblivious of emotional responsibility to the child they brought into the world as they pursue their own ambitions and professional pursuits. Coulter and Asriel are both horrible, horrid and dispicable in their abuse of children, whether it's Coulter's kidnapping and experiments or Asriel's murder of Roger. (I have real problems accepting Asriel as a hero after what he does to Roger--how can I glorify a man who would bring down The Authority when he stoops to child murder to pursue his own ambitions? Is killing an innocent child (from a lower class) acceptable as a preamble to going after the big kahuna?)

How to contrast this depiction of parenting with parents in Tolkien's Middle-earth? The only two who come close in their arrogance, pride and conceit are Luthien's father Thingol and Turin's mother Morwen Eledhwen. Their willfulness is in large part responsible for the trials their children undergo but even they are not active child murderers.

Lyra's childhood at Jordan College is presented with Tom Sawyerish idyllic freedoms and a wistful delight in the rough and tumble play and wars of various childhood factions. Then in SK we get a different version of childhood as something akin to a Lord of the Flies viscious mob--children run amok when adults aren't there to supervise them.

Is this the difference between Pullman's view of human nature--something Darwinian--and Tolkien's--something less bestial? Is it evidence of Pullman's playing with alternate universes? Or is it simply an example of the inconsistency of his moral outlook?

[Lalaith]

Really interesting comparisons there, Bethberry, and ones to ponder. I hadn't thought about the parenting thing in Pullman but you are right, it is odd. Then there's Will having to look after his own mother, too.

I will allow myself a brief quibble, though.
The only two who come close in their arrogance, pride and conceit are Luthien's father Thingol and Turin's mother Morwen Eledhwen.
Asriel/Thingol I will accept, but my own interpretation of the characters makes it hard for me to see parallels between Morwen and Coulter. Coulter was sinister and entirely self-seeking, and her eventual mothering instinct is as much of a surprise to her as it is to the reader. Morwen loved her children very much, but these were terrible times and she was purposefully trying to bring them up to be tough and hard, just so they would have some chance of survival. She made mistakes and she had become very bitter, but I don't think she was remotely conceited.

[davem]

And yet I still wonder why TGC has fared so badly at the US box office & done so well everywhere else - face it, if TGC had performed as well in the US as it did across the rest of the world New Line would have a massive hit on their hands & there would be no question of whether or not a sequel would happen. So it could be argued that its US audiences (or lack of them) that has put the franchise at risk (or killed it).

I'm intrigued - is it because there are no American stars (or American accents) in the movie? Is it because, unlike LotR & Narnia, there isn't a large book fan-base ready & waiting? Or is it the 'message' - did the boycott actually work & stop people going to see the movie? Or, & of course one has to ask this, was the movie just bad, or confused?

[Sauron the White]

davem ... as a Yank, perhaps I can offer something in the way of explaination. First of all, Kidman is more or less considered as an American actress despite the reality of the stiuation. So its not the lack of US stars. Pullmans books are simply not any really big deal here. Period.

The Christian right has attempted boycotts of films and other things before with varied degrees of success. I do not think they get any credit for this one.

And I know from previous posts that there is interest in a sequel but I really think that New Line is moving beyond any Pullman films because of the massive investment in the upcoming Middle-earth films both in money as well as energy. New Line has never been a top studio and I really think they cannot juggle more than two very heavy bowling balls at the same time. And they have that with the 2 ME films. And those are more or less sure things.

[davem]

I take your point, but that doesn't explain why the movies have been so popular across the rest of the world - in many places Pullman's work is no better known than in the US - & why there was so little interest in them in America. Many successful movies have been made of books that no-one has heard of.

If they had been as popular in the US as they have been across the rest of the world NL would certainly have gone ahead with sequels alongside the Hobbit movies. Either US audiences decided they weren't interested in yet another fantasy series - which puts a huge question mark over the forthcoming Hobbit films, or there was something about the movies - maybe what audiences heard about Pullman's philosophical position.

Its interesting (to say the least) that in every country but the US TGC has been fantastically successful. Thing is, TGC is not a 'flop' outside the US - just the opposite.

[Lalwendë]

Bethberry - might be worthwhile looking up some of Pullman's recent comments on education as they shed a lot of light on his views of children and childhood. He's very much against all this business of setting targets and denying the chance to exercise the imagination and just 'be children'. I think a lot of this comes into his portrayals of children. In addition I detect a lot of comment on certain attitudes towards children, certainly in British society, which has been judged the worst place to grow up in Europe :( If you look at Asriel and Mrs Coulter they are very much like the wealthy 'career' parent who does not necessarily have a child's needs and wants at heart - though taken to extremes. They also have echoes of the upper class parents of days gone by who would pack off the kids to boarding school for most of the year.

More than this though, it's the characters of Asriel and Coulter. He is rather like the ultimate Byronic figure, though one with rather more flaws than normal. He is rich, dark, powerful and rebellious. He is Milton's Satan! She is a character Pullman has said he loves to write about as "there is nothing she wouldn't do" and there have been parallels drawn with Margaret Thatcher - her 'metallic' smell (the iron lady), her entourage of adoring men from the Magisterium, her odd unmotherly attitude towards her own child...though of course Mrs Coulter gets some kind of redemption at the end and 'learns'; you cannot say the same of Mrs T at all ;)

There is also something in these two figures who create a child in the throes of (illegal, certainly in their world as she is married) passion when contrasted with Lyra and Will, who fall in love quite innocently and in their innocence, end up doing good for the world and saving it.

I certainly don't think you are supposed to like them. ;)

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Either US audiences decided they weren't interested in yet another fantasy series - which puts a huge question mark over the forthcoming Hobbit films, or there was something about the movies - maybe what audiences heard about Pullman's philosophical position.

You are either attempting to make this more complicated than what it really is or you are working the wheel rather hard to grind a particular axe ... its really simple... the upcoming HOBBIT movie has not even the shadow of a question mark about it. No matter how much you or others may like to see a Jackson Middle-earth movie fail, its as much as a sure bet as any single property to come across the movie screen other than the Star Wars prequels. And I would be willing to bet a decent amount on that if anyone wants to put their money where their prejudices lie.

There was no positive buzz here at all about the GC film. Nobody really knew anything about it in advance... the reviews were mediocre .... the word of mouth was very blah .... and the advertising certainly did not reach out and grab anybody. I really do not think anybody gives a rats behind about Pullman, his philosophical position, the right wing reaction to it, or anything else that rings of an excuse or rationalization.

I also think it came upon the heels of that STARDUST movie which did very mediocre box office as well and people looked at it as just more of the same. Please understand something: nobody here confuses LOTR with the rest of this stuff. The LOTR films were in a special category all of their own. They are not to be packaged, confused, affiliated, or even contaminated by anything else that others may call fantasy. If ten different fantasy movies came and died between now and the debut of the Jackson HOBBIT, it would not impact the box office of that film one single US dollar. Again, I would bet on that.

[davem]

f

There was no positive buzz here at all about the GC film. Nobody really knew anything about it in advance... the reviews were mediocre .... the word of mouth was very blah .... and the advertising certainly did not reach out and grab anybody. I really do not think anybody gives a rats behind about Pullman, his philosophical position, the right wing reaction to it, or anything else that rings of an excuse or rationalization.

I also think it came upon the heels of that STARDUST movie which did very mediocre box office as well and people looked at it as just more of the same..

Which about sums up the position in the rest of the world too - where it did fantastic business.

Don't you think its interesting that a film can be so successful everywhere but one country, where it flops miserably - & isn't it valid to ask why? Plus, why did Stardust flop too - that did well outside the US?

[Lalwendë]

I've just read a piece about Elizabeth: The Golden Age on the BBC site. It also did very badly indeed in the US. Apparently there has been a shift in the American film market towards 'light entertainment' and 'family' films away from drama, fantasy and historical fare - the main audience of young men wanting noise and violence however, still remains prime.

I think that's very telling about why films such as LotR and Star Wars do very well in America as opposed to fantasy like Stardust and The Golden Compass - the former are stories about boys/men and are stuffed to the gills with Noise and SFX and belching dwarves and whatnot. The typical audience of youths can just about stomach a few minutes of Frodo being 'gay' or Arwen drifting around wistfully in a frock so long as we quickly get back to Aragorn whacking heads off Orcs. You can at least get on with txting ur m8s when Sam and Frodo are having a snog-up ;)

But seriously...I do think it is the subject matter and how it is presented. The Golden Compass remember, features a girl as its main character, which would turn boys right off from watching the film; hey, she doesn't even make the concession of being dressed in a mini-skirt and bra top! Stardust is too far into the realms of Faerie to be a boys' film, and things like Elizabeth are just far too wordy anyway.

That does not bode well for The Hobbit. They will be forced to go down the belching dwarves and hack 'n' slash action if they want to hook in the youths who make these things profitable and The Hobbit is far too gentle a story to take that. One of the things Jackson realised he had to achieve with Rings was to make it so that the enormous community of book fans would not rip it to shreds - he knew that if that happened, it would fail and become a curiosity like the Bakshi film. So, the quest for the Hobbit being both good and profitable, in the words of Cate Blanchett, stands on a knife edge...:eek:

Of course, that horrible thing Branding comes into it. Studios are now into Brand Names and making cruddy sequels and threequels and the mess that was made of Pirates springs to mind, coupled with how the X-Men and Spider-Man series have been flogged to death now, and how the originally funny American Pie series was flogged so hard there weren't even its dusty bones left. So in the search for easy money the studios go for 'more of the same'...but they don't bank on the potential audience getting bored and wanting something new, not having more Brand Names thrown at them. And that boredom could cover the whole genre not just more films in an ongoing series.

For me, I don't understand why there is so much glee that fantasy films have been doing badly! Shooting oneself in foot springs to mind...:rolleyes:

[davem]

What I can't see is how you can have the charm (or tweeness) of the beginning of TH, the 'humourous' encounter with the Trolls & the chasing around after the spiders & combine that with the hack & slash action of LotR. Somebody is going to be disappointed. Tolkien couldn't bring LotR into line with the mood & style of LotR so I doubt Jackson et al can.

Another problem will be in expectations - fans of the LotR movies want Aragorn & Legolas doing their 'tricks', wheras, if the movies are at all faithful to the book, what they'll get is a sweet little Bilbo & a troop of comical Dwarves.

I simply can't see a typical movie goer (17 year old male apparently) sitting through two plus hours of that before they get to see a Dragon & a big battle. So, what we'll probably see is a battle in the mountain cave a la the Mines of Moria sequence, a Mirkwood encounter with multiple 'Shelobs' & some vicious combat with the Trolls - all of which will take the Hobbit movie far from its origins. And let's face it, when Jackson & co take off on their own & leave Tolkien behind they tend to mess up big time - which, let's face it, doesn't bode well for the sequel.

[Sauron the White]

I realize that people are expressing thier honest opinion about a future HOBBIT film and certainly have a right to it. After reading many of these posts over the last couple of weeks I do get a feeling that many here want a Jackson HOBBIT film and its follow-up to fail and fail badly. Several seem to be setting the table with a variety of expectations praying that the films bomb. Perhaps some see it as revenge for the super successful LOTR films that they themselves cannot come to appreciate. Some here seem to see Jackson as some type of public sinner or heretic and want him to pay for his transgressions.

Several posts even mention how business will not be very good due to various changes in the market but then seem to want it both ways saying that the film will only be a success if it dumbs down everything, panders to an audience of 16 year old American yahoos with 80 IQ's, and turns the HOBBIT into another chapter of the FRIDAY 13TH series.

People criticize Jacksons use of Gimli in LOTR - too much slapstick and too many crude bodily jokes. Fair enough. But now in davems post we get this

Another problem will be in expectations - fans of the LotR movies want Aragorn & Legolas doing their 'tricks', wheras, if the movies are at all faithful to the book, what they'll get is a sweet little Bilbo & a troop of comical Dwarves.

First of all, what "tricks" did Aragorn do? I realize that some objected to Legolas surfshield routine and the Mumak kill (I personally loved the latter and was indifferent to the former) but I do not know what either has to do with HOBBIT since neither character is in the book. But at the heart of this comment is the idea that in LOTR Gimli was unfairly used for humorous purposes while in HOBBIT mean old Jackson will make the movie so serious that all those funny Dwarves will not be able to do their usual vaudeville routines.

Please make up your mind.

I suspect - not expect, not predict, and certainy do not know for a fact - that Jackson will attempt to make parts of the HOBBIT a bit more serious in tone to make it consistent with LOTR as a franchise series. I also suspect we will see some Dwarven humor along the way. Humor is by far the hardest thing to do in films since everyone has such a different taste for it. Heavy dramatic moments pretty much work or they do not. Emotional love scenes either pull at the heart strings and make you cry or they do not. But humor is so varied and so different depending on the person, that it poses far different problems for a filmmaker. My grown children tell me that TALADEGA NIGHTS is a very funny movie. I find it terrible and there is barely a chuckle in the entire film. I found BORAT to be completely hysterical while others look at each other with mystified looks upon their frowning faces not getting it at all. Who is to say what humor works and what does not? But rest assured, there will probably be Dwarven humor in HOBBIT.

I too hope for some of the HOBBITS sweetness and lighter moments to be a part of the film. I dearly hope so. And I do not think I will be let down in that hope. Just as their were many sweet moments in the LOTR films, that element will be there.

[Mister Underhill]

I gotta pipe in here just to keep things honest. Let's not exaggerate the international success of Compass. They'll probably end up with about $300M if it performs very well in Japan once it finally opens there. The league they're playing in, a bonafide international smash is like $500M plus. On the other hand, ~$70M domestic is disappointing, but hardly a complete flop.

Stardust didn't break the bank overseas either -- just under $100M. Elizabeth: The Golden Age is Oscar bait, not the kind of movie meant to do big business here or overseas. Within the past decade, LotR, Harry Potter, and Narnia have all done, as Variety would say, boffo box office domestically, and mid-range fantasy fare like Eragon and Bridge to Terabithia and the like have performed respectably.

I'd even lump in the bank-breaking Pirates franchise as another fantasy franchise that's done well. It has all the elements -- swords and sorcery, weird monsters, and so on.

I just don't see any real evidence for a sea-change in American appetite for fantasy, nor a contrasting ravenous appetite for "sophisticated" fantasy overseas.

[davem]

I realize that people are expressing thier honest opinion about a future HOBBIT film and certainly have a right to it. After reading many of these posts over the last couple of weeks I do get a feeling that many here want a Jackson HOBBIT film and its follow-up to fail and fail badly.

Nope. As I said, & I think King Kong confirms this, whenever Jackson & co leave Tolkien's story line & characterisations behind & do their own thing they mess up. So, if they attempt to re-write TH in the style of LotR - something Tolkien himself tried & failed to do - they will inevitably get it wrong. And the thought of them taking a few scattered references from Appendix B & knocking up a movie doesn't bear thinking about. This would be the worst kind of fan-fic - can you really imagine Jackson, his missus & her best mate writing something that is supposed to equal Tolkien's carefully crafted masterpieces? You only have to listen to their mostly inane comments on the commentary tracks, where they offer their 'insights' into Tolkien's work to realise that they don't know what they're talking about - & their reasons for changing the storyline, & how they think their own changes 'improve' on the book: "We needed to split up Frodo & Sam to increase the dramatic tension" etc are enough to confirm that when they do get absolute control over a M-e storyline its going to be truly dreadful.RAynor Unwin once referred to Tolkien as a 'ferocious intellect', & he rightly deserves the title genius. The idea that this trio could create something equivalent to his work is the worst kind of bad joke, & nothing but an insult. The Hobbit movie may be saved - if there's enough of Tolkien's original work on screen. Nothing could possibly save the sequel.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

So, if they attempt to re-write TH in the style of LotR - something Tolkien himself tried & failed to do - they will inevitably get it wrong.

JRRT attempted this rewrite in 1960 when he was 68 years old. From what I have read about these years for JRRT as a writer, they were not very productive compared to his earlier decades of the Nineteen Twenties, Thirties and Forties. Tolkien seemed to lose the ability to finish anything of substance and instead busied himself with constant tending to notes, rewriting of the same, and laboring over minor issues with previous writings.

You are assuming that since JRRT himself could not reform the HOBBIT into something more consistent with LOTR then nobody could. Given his age and deterioration of work habits, I think the case could well be made that those two factors were as much of a problem as the basic inability of anyone to complete that task.

In the past, I have riduculed some here for worshipping at the altar of JRRT treating him and his works as if they were Holy Writ. And, predictably, I am ridiculed in turn with stiff and strong denials of such a characterization. But at the heart of this is the inablity of some here to acknowledge that JRRT was a human being whose work - as great as it is - is not perfect. Someday, someone, somehow could come along and improve upon it.

The fact is this, there were things in the film that did improve upon the story of Middle-earth and presented it better. I realize that a statement like that causes heads to shake in firm denial and the bonfires are at ready to administer justice to the heretic. But others besides this humble writer have posted on many sites over the past six years explaining points in the film that they believed were improved upon over the book.

Everyone has their own opinion and those who think the book, or a part or two of it, were made better have just as much right as anyone else to that viewpoint.

It is possible that somebody could come along and do to THE HOBBIT what JRRT himself could not finish at age 68. And the people to do it could well be screenwriters for THE HOBBIT despite this

The idea that this trio could create something equivalent to his work is the worst kind of bad joke, & nothing but an insult.

No insult. Just facing the fact that Tolkien was a human whose work, like all humans, was not perfect and could be improved upon, if only for a little.

I find it interesting that some here grasp at straws to boost the take of a film like COMPASS - which still has not earned a profit - while attempting to tar KING KONG. KONG actually took in $550 million dollars US on a budget of $207 million. It earned a profit long before and DVD sales or considering other ancillary marketing deals which were considerable.

I stand ready for the fires of justice. ;)

[davem]

These 'writers' actually came up with the line 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future,' which is very possibly the most inane statement in any movie I can think of, & then placed it in the mouth of one of the High Elves - a Noldor who had seen the light of the Trees & had lived millenia in Middle-earth. I can only suggest a reading of Shippey's comments on Tolkien's use of archaism. The line is dumb, & makes Galadriel sound like a fifth rate pop psychologist rather than High Queen of the Elves in Middle-earth. I doubt JRR Tolkien would have produced a line like that if he'd ended up completely senile.

And the idea that this trio of hacks could achieve something that Tolkien himself could not is plainly ridiculous.

[Sauron the White]

Regardless of the worth or unworthiness of a single line in the film, the fact is still that JRRT was a human whose work is not perfect. It can be improved upon. Your entire case is based on the misbelief that if JRRT could not do it, then nobody could. That is wrong from the start. Anyones work can be improved upon for they are not gods and their work is not divine.

You have a right to your opinion and so do others who know something about such things. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences bestowed the Award for Best Adapted Screenplay to the group that you hold in disdain. So your opinion is not without debate.

[davem]

Regardless of the worth or unworthiness of a single line in the film, the fact is still that JRRT was a human whose work is not perfect. It can be improved upon. Your entire case is based on the misbelief that if JRRT could not do it, then nobody could. That is wrong from the start. Anyones work can be improved upon for they are not gods and their work is not divine.

Its not about the line - its about the character. You cannot have a character who has, up to that point, used a highly archaic speech pattern (taken in the main straight from Tolkien) suddenly change & start using a modern speech pattern - and why? Because one of them will seem fake. Either Galadriel (in the movie) has been 'putting on' the archaic speech up to that point & suddenly begins to speak 'colloquially' - which calls into question her character (what game has she been playing up to then?), or her natural speech is archaic & she is patronising Frodo by attempting to speak on his level. The point that the 'writers' have missed is that one's speech patterns & turns of phrase reflect the way one thinks, one's whole life experience. Anyone who comes out with a line like that is not wise & insightful - they are simply thick. Elrond's words "Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." would have worked. One can only suppose the 'writers' couldn't work out what they meant.

Plus, to have her go from 'roaring seagreen hellhag' (in Brian Rosebury's wonderful phrase) to spouting sub Oprah psycho-babble makes the whole scene a joke, & destroys her character completely.

I wouldn't argue that no-one could improve on Tolkien's work, hust that a trio of barely literate hacks could.

You have a right to your opinion and so do others who know something about such things. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences bestowed the Award for Best Adapted Screenplay to the group that you hold in disdain. So your opinion is not without debate.

And how many of those time servers have actually read LotR?

[Sauron the White]

davem ... I mentioned the honor ofthe Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for ROTK and you then asked

And how many of those time servers have actually read LotR?

Perhaps it has been a long day, BUT .... the AA was not given for the book LOTR. It was given for the adaption of the book to the screen as a screenplay. You seem to be laboring a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the award and what it is for. I, and I am sure that you also, would have absolutely no idea how many Academy members have read LOTR. It could be many, it could be few, it could be all, it could be none. Such a question serves no purpose since it can not be answered with any authority.

I do not remember anyone in the theater screaming at the awful nature of having Galadriel deliver that line. I do not remember any critic in the print media or broadcast media pointing out problems with that line as you seem to feel there are. Seems to me you are picking at a very tiny piece of lint that nobody else notices or even cares about. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

But when it comes to ripping on the films, what else is new?

[davem]

Perhaps it has been a long day, BUT .... the AA was not given for the book LOTR. It was given for the adaption of the book to the screen as a screenplay. You seem to be laboring a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the award and what it is for. I, and I am sure that you also, would have absolutely no idea how many Academy members have read LOTR. It could be many, it could be few, it could be all, it could be none. Such a question serves no purpose since it can not be answered with any authority.

If they hadn't read the book how could they award Best Adapted Screenplay. Surely they'd need an idea of what had been adapted?

I do not remember anyone in the theater screaming at the awful nature of having Galadriel deliver that line.

There were a lot of thickies in the cinema when I saw it too - what's your point?

I do not remember any critic in the print media or broadcast media pointing out problems with that line as you seem to feel there are. Seems to me you are picking at a very tiny piece of lint that nobody else notices or even cares about. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

You're still missing my entire point about the way a character speaks reflecting that character's nature.

[Sauron the White]

I think it is you sir who completely and totally misses the point. There are a bunch of you who read the same stuff over and over again and commit it to memory like devotees reading the Word of the Master. You read some obscure article written by somebody who is read by a small handful of True Believers and you think "Oh boy he has 'em by the short hairs now". You jump up and down in glee because now you are armed with mighty weapons to defeat the hordes of ignorance who have besotted your precious tome. Only problem is that nearly nobody cares about the arcane points made by these obscure persons. Nearly nobody.

I would be willing to bet a considerable sum that if you surveyed 100 random people on the street who saw LOTR and asked them what was wrong with Galadriel delivering that line, hardly anyone, if anyone, would come up with the objection that you posted.

The movies were made and they were rousing successes. They were nearly universally praised by professional critics. The public showered them with their money. The film industry showered them with their highest awards. Get used to it. But if you want to put all that on the scale next to some obscure comments by Shippey, knock yourself out.

[Lalaith]

I like the films, but I really didn't like the psycho-babble lines that davem is talking about. And I didn't think they deserved the Adapted Screenplay Oscar, it was the one award that I would have preferred them not to get. Particularly as they did little to convince those (and I know several, close to me) who are convinced that Tolkien is pompous,naff, and faintly ridiculous, that actually he wasn't.

Sauron, I'm guessing you're writing from the US? I think that UK audiences found the dialogue silliler than American audiences did, certainly a lot of UK film critics took the mick out of some of the lines.
Anyway, I asked Mr L to try to spot the genuine Tolkien lines in the script (he's never read any but I told him to look out for anything he thought sounded like it hadn't been written by a Hollywood scriptwriter) and he was pretty accurate.

[davem]

You read some obscure article written by somebody who is read by a small handful of True Believers and you think "Oh boy he has 'em by the short hairs now". Are you referring to Rosebury or Shippey? Rosebury wrote 'Tolkien in Perspective', a book which many consider second only to Shippey's work in its analysis of Tolkien.

I would be willing to bet a considerable sum that if you surveyed 100 random people on the street who saw LOTR and asked them what was wrong with Galadriel delivering that line, hardly anyone, if anyone, would come up with the objection that you posted.

That's the modern education system for you.

The movies were made and they were rousing successes. They were nearly universally praised by professional critics. The public showered them with their money. The film industry showered them with their highest awards. Get used to it. But if you want to put all that on the scale next to some obscure comments by Shippey, knock yourself out.

In the words of Thomas Fuller: “The mob has many heads, but no brains”

[Sauron the White]

from Lalaith

I like the films, but I really didn't like the psycho-babble lines that davem is talking about. And I didn't think they deserved the Adapted Screenplay Oscar, it was the one award that I would have preferred them not to get. Particularly as they did little to convince those (and I know several, close to me) who are convinced that Tolkien is pompous,naff, and faintly ridiculous, that actually he wasn't.

Yes but was that part of their job and duties? Were they really suppose to convince the world that JRRT was not a pompous, faintly ridiculous man? Those movies did more to shine a proper spotlight on JRRT than all the scholarly articles, fan journals and literary circles did in the previous 45 years. They certainly increased book sales five fold during that time period.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... I am not the first, and its not my first time either, to observe that you pontificate from an extremely high position of self importance and would-be superiority. Your contempt for the world comes through loud and clear.

[davem]

davem ... I am not the first, and its not my first time either, to observe that you pontificate from an extremely high position of self importance and would-be superiority. Your contempt for the world comes through loud and clear.

I only note that you have completely failed to address my point about language reflecting character, & have chosen rather to present yourself as champion of the common people.

I can't help but fondly recall that Simpsons episode - "Now Bambi, who started that forest fire that killed your mother? Evolution?! My my my"

Your 'argument' seems to be that if no-one has picked up on a fact then that fact is somehow irrelevant. In a debate one is required to disprove, not simply dismiss, one's opponent's points.

[Lalaith]

I take your point about the films bringing people to Tolkien.
But...it's absolutely fine for people to think JRRT is pompous if they are making judgements based on things he actually wrote. But it seems a bit unfair if they making judgements based on things written by Walsh, Boyens and Jackson.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... and just when did Shippey publish this amazing breakthrough which has the effect of destroying the films and all the evil that they stand for?

[Sauron the White]

Lalaith... could you give me an example or two of what you are charging Jackson and company with? I am unclear on this and do not know how to respond to your point. Thanks.

[Lalaith]

Let's not exaggerate the international success of Compass

Actually, I'm quite surprised how well Compass has done, internationally, given that I personally thought it a weaker film than Stardust. It's the 13th best-grossing film of 2007, worldwide, according to boxofficemojo. (Stardust was 67th and has made less than half of what Compass has done, worldwide, even though its been out for two months longer)

[Lalaith]

Sauron....ok. Let's see now.
I mean that the screenwriters made up a lot of quite cheesy/silly lines, which were not in the original books, were very unTolkienesque, but have subsequently become associated with Tolkien in people's minds. The "smallest person" thing that davem mentioned, was a good example...Sam and Frodo's rather soppy interchanges:
Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.
Lots of Theoden's lines, too. What can men do against such reckless hate, no man should have to bury his child....these were not the words of a man of Rohan, but of a modern chappie full of "emotional intelligence". They annoyed me.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Oh, dear. The same-old same-old.

The basic fact is, Sauron, that the script dumbed down Tolkien. You can complain about elitism all you want- but the fact remains that people who can't tell the difference are, well, dumb. I don't care what dumb people think. I don't care what people who have never read the books think. I don't care what opinions people may hold about the movies if they're too dumb (or lazy) to understand the books. It matters to ME, and to Davem and to many, many other people who can tell the difference between fine Bordeaux and Thunderbird.

We simply don't care if PJ pleased the mob. He didn't please us. This is not a plebiscite: we don't have to yield to the plebs just because they outnumber us.

Jackson and Walsh and Boyens have already proven they don't understand Tolkien and are thoroughly incompetent at adapting him (which is NOT the same thing as writing a script that pleases the mob/the Hollywood twits). So why should those of us who appreciate Tolkien's subtleties not regard this Hobbit project, especially the fan-fic 'sequel,' with dread- even if we are a minority?

[Sauron the White]

WCW ... Do you and davem take special pills to breathe the rarified air up in the climes of the Gods? Or, are you set apart at birth with special abilities that the rest of us can only dream about?

Lalaith .... I am even more confused since at first you were saying that people had judged JRRT to be stuffy and pompous based on the writings of Jackson and company. But then others say that Jackson and company dumbed down the words and spirit of JRRT so that a sixth grade barely educated gas station mechanic from the backwater hills of a West Virginia holler can understand it. Seems a bit of a serious contradiction. If its dumbed down so severely, it would stand to reason that things like pompousness are out of the question.

[Gwathagor]

There are no pills. It's evolution, and some people get left out.

[Gwathagor]

these were not the words of a man of Rohan, but of a modern chappie full of "emotional intelligence". They annoyed me.

I concur. Very modern, very tortured, very unsure of himself.

[Sauron the White]

Very modern.... etc etc etc.....
Gee, I thought these films were beind made for people at the start of the 21st century. Perhaps the lines should have been delivered in the ancient imaginary languages of the actual people of Middle-earth? You want authenticity - thats authenticity.

If you want you can go into a 100 story tall building and tour it and complain about the toilets on the 45th floor being too loud when they flush. It does not matter that every lease in the building is scooped up or business is great or they won the professional awards of architects and designers. You want to complain about toilets.

Its the big picture that counts folks. And movies are pretty big pictures.

[Gwathagor]

In your building metaphor, the script should probably be the steel framework of the structure, rather than the toilets.

[Sauron the White]

No it should not.
Some here are talking about a line or two out of 11 hours of screen time. Thats focusing on a tiny detail and ignoring the big picture.

I find it absolutely amazing that if one had never seen these three films but only read posts here, they would think that the three LOTR films all died in their first weekend at the box office and were hated by nearly everyone.

Sometimes I cannot help but think of that old story about the too proud mother who went to watch her son Johnny march in the town parade. As he went by in the middle of sixty other marchers, he was the one out of step. Mama did not miss a single beat..... "looks like everyone is messing up but my Johnny" she insisted.

I guess the rest of the civilized world totally missed the boat on these films and only a very small cadre of wanna-be intellectuals know the real score. And they have each other to be reassured of their status as True Believers and Gaurdians of the Truth.

Evolution has nothing to do with snobbery.

[Bêthberry]

It does not matter that every lease in the building is scooped up or business is great or they won the professional awards of architects and designers. You want to complain about toilets.



Laugh as much as we want about potty humour, all the real estate profits in Manhattan profit not if the latrines back up.

Dysentry and diarrhea are prime killers of children and aren't far behind in their rampage on adults.

Like it or not, how we deal with excrement is a defining characteristic of us as human beings. And sometimes a mere shower is not enough to cleanse the matter of its sickly properties.

Sorry, but your analogy got me far off topic . . . I'll go check on thread posts I've been missing for almost the past week now. . .

[Gwathagor]

Evolution has nothing to do with snobbery.

Are you SURE? :p

[davem]

No it should not.
Some here are talking about a line or two out of 11 hours of screen time. Thats focusing on a tiny detail and ignoring the big picture.

Its not about 'a line or two out of 11 hours of screen time.' To repeat myself:

Its not about the line - its about the character. You cannot have a character who has, up to that point, used a highly archaic speech pattern (taken in the main straight from Tolkien) suddenly change & start using a modern speech pattern - and why? Because one of them will seem fake. Either Galadriel (in the movie) has been 'putting on' the archaic speech up to that point & suddenly begins to speak 'colloquially' - which calls into question her character (what game has she been playing up to then?), or her natural speech is archaic & she is patronising Frodo by attempting to speak on his level. The point that the 'writers' have missed is that one's speech patterns & turns of phrase reflect the way one thinks, one's whole life experience. Anyone who comes out with a line like that is not wise & insightful - they are simply thick. Elrond's words "Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." would have worked. One can only suppose the 'writers' couldn't work out what they meant.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Some here are talking about a line or two out of 11 hours of screen time. Thats focusing on a tiny detail and ignoring the big picture.

Oh, no. No no no no no.

These lines are *examples* taken from many, many many possible to illustrate a larger point: PBW completely failed to understand the characters, the way they think, theie cultural milieu, failed to understand that Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age is *not* the beginning of the 21st century- and, to boot, were utterly tone-deaf to the language Tolkien prized above all. This goes on for hour after excruciating hour- flat dialogue, characters 'improved' because PBW never understood them to begin with, PJ's utter cluelessness, his total failure to percieve what makes Tolkien Tolkien. He could just as well have filmed Terry Brooks.

[Quempel]

Oh, no. No no no no no.

PBW completely failed to understand the characters, the way they think, theie cultural milieu, failed to understand that Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age is *not* the beginning of the 21st century- and, to boot, were utterly tone-deaf to the language Tolkien prized above all. This goes on for hour after excruciating hour- flat dialogue, characters 'improved' because PBW never understood them to begin with, PJ's utter cluelessness, his total failure to percieve what makes Tolkien Tolkien. He could just as well have filmed Terry Brooks.

Well they are Aussies and still under the British Crown and all....:cool::p

[Lalaith]

Blimey. You lot.

I really liked the films. I liked the way they looked, I loved the music.

However, I had some serious reservations. I thought a lot of the dialogue was a bit naff and cheesy. What I am talking about, Sauron, is the kind of dialogue which *sounds* deep and meaningful and portentous but actually isn't, but is rather silly, which is what a lot of people who don't know/like Tolkien assume Tolkien is like. Is that clearer? And I didn't like what happened to a lot of the characterisation. (Gimli, Merry, Theoden, Eowyn)

Clearly I am not nearly polarised enough to take a proper part in the discussion.

[Sauron the White]

Lalaith .. I am clear on your point. I respect that you and others you may speak with feel that way. You have a right to see things the way you see them. I cannot argue with that if a line does not ring true to you. I myself, have no such problem that is so disturbing to me that it prevents me from enjoying the films.

I have said it before and will say it again now .. and probably will say it more times in the future - Some people who have read and studied LOTR for decades and view it as near Holy Writ had a severe handicap when it came to enjoying the films.

If you know the books well enough so that you can sit in a theater and divide the lines written by JRRT and the lines written by the screenwriters, then there are far bigger issues than what is on the screen. The mind of that person is set in a mode of negativity and not receptivity. That person can never enjoy the films on their own merits.

If you know the books well enough so that you can sit in a theater and watch every scene unfold and want to cry out "it did NOT happen that way. No no no no no". They you will never enjoy the films on their own merits.

If you know the books well enough so that when Denethor bursts into flames and dives off the precipice, you calculate that he ran 3.2 miles to do it, then you can never enjoy the films on their own merits.

If you have memorized the speech patterns and word usages of book characters to the point where they use a phrase in the film that you think is not in character even though nearly everyone else in the theater does not bat an eye, then you can never enjoy the films.


I run 2,000 miles every year and have done so for the past 32 years. I do so wearing very good running shoes, light clothing, and time my runs for the best possible environmental and traffic conditions that the day can present to me. If I ran in combat boots or sandals, a heavy coat, with a full stomach, and on a busy street during a snowstorm at rush hour I would be laboring under a severe handicap.

When you watch a film - any film - you have to do so with an open mind and be receptive to what you see on screen. Otherwise it does not work very well. Too many other things outside of the film can get in the way. For many here, there is a very big thing in the way - a 1,200 page tome that is constantly held up as a mirror to the films. And if that is not enough, they have all the wannabe Tolkien intellectuals who write the articles and help mold the semi-official Purist opinion.

There is a fundamental issue here that has been stated thousands of times but does not seem to sink in. I guess its that handicap that prevents some from accepting the basic idea that a book is one thing and a film is another. Each has its own properties, qualities, assets, liabilities, strengths and weaknesses. Each is governed by the reality of what is is.... and what it is not.

Until you are willing to accept that... and I mean really accept that and not just say you do but then vomit up all the same old garbage... then these endless debates will continue shedding far more heat than light.

It is more than interesting that pretty much the entire world embraced these films. The public embraced them with massive amounts of revenue. The professional film critics embraced them with very positive reviews. The film industry itself embraced them by showering them with their highest awards and accolades. That is a rare combination that does not happen that often.

But some cannot accept the films. Just like somebody in a wheelchair cannot run those 2,000 miles each year with me. Politically correct term or not - its a sad handicap.

[davem]

StW You'remissing the point here. As Lalaith said, its about the quality of the dialogue - not that it isn't in the book. The writer's dialogue is overwhelmingly poor. Its simply bad English in most cases, its twee & often embarrassing. That most of the audience don't get that is a refelction on the poor state of modern education. If it had been an original work, not based on any book those lines would still elicit a groan from an educated audience. That problem is exacerbated by the fact that some of Tolkien's original dialogue is used, which is of far higher quality.

Galadriel's slipping into colloquial English straight after Tolkien's original is another problem - it makes the 'Small person' line stick out like a very badly infected sore thumb. If she'd used colloquial English all along it would be less jarring. And the writers simply didn't get that.

The real point is that whenever the writers left Tolkien's original storyline & invented new stuff, or gave characters new dialogue, those changes were in every instance changes for the worse. Now, with The Hobbit adaptation they have Tolkien's original work to keep them afloat. With the sequel they don't. They'll be working on their own & given their current record they will mess up very badly. That they have the nerve to attmept it speaks more to their over-inflated egos than anything else.

[Sauron the White]

davem... I appreciate your patience and response. You started this by referring to Shippey and his comments about the line from Galadriel. Where did he state this and when did he state this? I would very much like to read it to gain a bttter understanding of his point.

The real point is that whenever the writers left Tolkien's original storyline & invented new stuff, or gave characters new dialogue, those changes were in every instance changes for the worse

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, I have read mny posts both here and on other sites which give many instances where the films improved upon some aspect of the books. You and I have been involved in such discussions so you must be aware of this.

You state this as if your opinion is some sort of undeniable fact chiseled into stone by the Almighty Himself. Others would and do disagree.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I guess its that handicap that prevents some from accepting the basic idea that a book is one thing and a film is another.

Poppycock.

I've acknolwedged it many times. However, it's getting very tiresome to see this chestnut trotted out like a get-out-of-jail-free card for PJ: that translation to a different medium constitutes carte blanche for any and everything.

If you're going to keep making this argument, StW, try to make it relevant. Please explain why the different medium requires the substitution of cheesy dialogue for Tolkienie's erudite grandeur, or perhaps why slightly antique verbal style isn't allowed in cinema (all those Shakespeare films notwithstanding). Or why the process of adaptation requires that the elderly but proud Theoden be transformed into a half-senile wimp, or the shrewd and subtle Denethor into a dribbling lunatic. Come on, tell us: what is different about film qua film that mandates this sort of meddling?

I would suggest that there is nothing at all. The reasons PBW did it have nothing to do with the medium, and everything to to with (a) treating the audience like simpletons, and/or (b) not understanding their source to begin with.

[davem]

davem... I appreciate your patience and response. You started this by referring to Shippey and his comments about the line from Galadriel. Where did he state this and when did he state this? I would very much like to read it to gain a bttter understanding of his point.






I pointed to Shippey's comments on Tolkien's use of archaic speech. It was in 'Tolkien: Author of the Century'. It was published before the movies, so doesn't refer to them at all. I was merely pointing up a very interesting discussion on the right use of archaic speech. Rosebury also makes interesting comments on the subject - but he does make reference to the movies (though not specifically to Galadriel's words.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... obviously this issue means something to you. I do not see it as any problem in any way which would hurt the average film viewer or prevent them from enjoying the films. Its much ado about nothing.. or next to nothing. In your original post you stated

Either Galadriel (in the movie) has been 'putting on' the archaic speech up to that point & suddenly begins to speak 'colloquially' - which calls into question her character (what game has she been playing up to then?), or her natural speech is archaic & she is patronising Frodo by attempting to speak on his level.

You use the word "patronising" which in and of itself is used by you because it has a definite negative meaning. It could just as easily be said that Galadriel is attempting to more clearly communicate to Frodo through use of a simple and direct statement. Is that not what every speaker attempts to do with those to whom they are speaking?

[Bêthberry]

I think it's wise to remember that some posters here hail from the land that still gives more than lip service to "The Queen's English," a land that is still riddled with class distinctions and rigid hierarchy, and a land that has a complex history of dialect and verbal eloquence layered upon those cultural and social assumptions.

Think in terms of Her Current Majesty, who not many years ago actually used a Latin term in her Christmas address to her subjects and that term was (apparently) well received. I can't recall that she has ever used Cockney slang in a public speech, though, or Mersyside lingo, or broad Yorkshire--at least in her speeches that are carried pondside, where I suppose Cockney, Mersy and Yorkshire wouldn't be understood.

What the state of The Queen's English is in Kiwiland I don't know but it's probably true that PJ and his writers share an assumption about art prevalent amongst post modernists and advertisers: that to make a mark one must transgress (slightly in the case of adverts), that is, slightly confound and distress taste in order to offend. Only when the audience is offended are they provoked enough, apparently, to have a satisfactory aesthetic experience.

It's an aesthetic theory roughly akin to--and this will undoubtedly offend PC standards--seriously developmentally delayed people who engage in repeated head banging in order to feel something. It is an art of violence and as such far and away different from Tolkien's aesthetic.

Under such conditions, nuances of language style, tone, subtlty are lost.

Lyra speaks with a definite kind of class language at times in Pullman-a form of language which Asriel and Coulter never utter. It's a Brit thing.

[davem]

You use the word "patronising" which in and of itself is used by you because it has a definite negative meaning. It could just as easily be said that Galadriel is attempting to more clearly communicate to Frodo through use of a simple and direct statement. Is that not what every speaker attempts to do with those to whom they are speaking?

Nope - it would be patronising because Frodo is not only highly educated, but is also an Elf-friend. The question is would someone whose natural mode of speech is:

'And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!'

suddenly slip into 'Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.'?

[Sauron the White]

Baloney. You chose the word purposely and deliberately as you do everything that you write. You are an intelligent, well read person and you know that words have power. To use a term such as "patronising" is a pejorative term that has immediate negative connotations. And I strongly suspect that you know that. The number of people who saw the film and care about your nitpicking is probably the same number you could have dance on the head of a pin. And just about as meaningful. I would bet that the vast, vast majority of film viewers see nothing wrong with the usage in the least. And until you brought it up here I had never heard of this point. And I have been haunting Middle-earth board for many years now. I really do not see anything here to make a big deal about. But then again, making mountains out of molehills is a big part of this place.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Oh, dear, Sauron, are you really so tone-deaf towards the nuances of language? I'm afraid you might be one of those whom the good Professor trmed 'misologists.'

Do you not appreciate that "No living man am I" and "I am no man" are *not* the same thing?

[Sauron the White]

You nitpickers must be correct because now that I recall, I distinctly remember scores, nay hundreds, collectively tens of thousands of people rushing from the theater holding their bloody ears crying "oh foul use of the Kings English". Or was it "the Kings English has been fouly used"? Something like that more or less.

I also distinctly remember nearly every other professional film critic who ignored almost every scene in the 3 hour film to harp paragraph after paragraph about this mortal sin of language usage.

And who can forget the night of the Academy Awards when the Writers Guild themselves picketed the proceedings complaining loudly to anyone that would hear about the butchering of proper English.

Yeah, I remember all that.

I guess it took you two chaps six years to remember it also.

[Sauron the White]

One thing I find most interesting is that the line which so offended a small number of you is from the film FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. That year, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences - Academy Writers Branch though so highly of the film that they nominated for a writing award. These were not actors, musicians, make-up technicians, best boys, gaffers or anyone else doing the nominating. This was done by the Writers Branch of the Academy. These are professional writers who make their living from use of language. They thought highly enough of FOTR - complete with Galadriel and her scandalous line - to nominate it for their highest professional honor.

It did not win that year but two years later the same writing crew was so honored with the award. But here in this thread we have some self important amateurs puffing out their chests and waving their dictionaries around with righteous indignation at the tragedy of it all.

Were it not for the absurdity of it all, this would be rather pathetic. :rolleyes:

I have no doubt that - in your mind at least- this very minor thing means something to you. I have no doubt you are sincere in your criticisms. But as the great writer Oscar Wilde said “The worst vice of the fanatic is sincerity.” And your loathing of the films has approached fanatical proportions at times.

[Lalwendë]

Sorry but I entirely fail to comprehend how anyone could improve on anything a writer has written in an original work. Maybe if the writer was horsedung of the highest order, someone like Kathy Lette maybe, but certainly not if the writer was someone with a great mind, including anyone discussed in this thread, Tolkien, Lewis or Pullman. There may be flaws to this or that reader but nevertheless, what is the purpose of seeking to improve their flaws? How presumptious!

Suggesting that Tolkien could be improved on by Jackson or anyone else is rather like saying The Mona Lisa could be improved if only Banksy could maybe paint some eyeliner and lippie on her. It might be funny, it might make a point, it might be ironic or postmodern but fact remains, it's never ever going to be anything more than a version, a fan-fic at best.

Take Jane Austen. Her work has been adapted, modernised, rewritten, sequelled, fan-ficced and so forth to death. Some of it is very good, Clueless for example. But nobody ever suggests that her original work could be improved on if only someone else (probably the execrable Kathy Lette ;)) would go through it correcting her class bias or making Mr Darcy more sexay etc.

Dare I venture that this is because such things are viewed as Art and hence untouchable, while to many, Tolkien is still just Pop Culture Trash?

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende ... this is really quite simple. Either JRRTolkien was a human being like the rest of us or he was a God. If he was a human being, then he was not perfect and his work was not perfect. It would be the worst sort of pride and hubris to think that one cannot be improved upon.

I do not believe Tolkien was a god, God or GOD. And thus, I do not believe his work was perfect allowing not an iota of room for improvement.

In point of fact, there are plenty of people who have written posts over the past six years who make thier case that - for them - Jackson did improve some things in the film over the way it was presented in the book. That has been stated here in a variety of threads. It has been stated repeatedly and often on at least five other Tolkien related message boards as well over the last six years.

You may feel that this is impossible for you. But clearly others do not feel that way.

And it worth noting that the area of improvement is not in the books of JRR Tolkien. Peter Jackson and his writing team did not attempt to rewrite the books of JRRT. The process of adapting a book to film was well known to Professor Tolkien. He sold the rights with the knowledge that changes would be made. Nobody makes a change because they believe that the change will make the product worse. They make changes believing they are improving the product. JRRT was a very smart man and he fully was aware of how the process worked. And he sold those rights of his own free will knowing that he had no further part in the adaption process. The areas of improvement were in the medium of film, not in the books.

[davem]

Perhaps we could move away from this 'lots of people liked it' argument & you could offer a proper defence/refutation?

I don't know of any serious Tolkien student who even takes the movies seriously, let alone considers them to have improved on Tolkien's work. Shippey has said some positive things about them, but has also offered much thoughtful criticism & has never claimed them to be superior.

No-one in their right mind would say that it is impossible to improve on Tolkien's work - he himself acknowledged its imperfections. You're introducing a complete red herring here. The point being made is that the scriptwriters did not improve on Tolkien, & have demonstrated no evidence that they have that capability. Your position seems in fact to be that while neither JRRT or Peter Jackson is God, Jackson is far closer to divine status, & less deserving of any criticism. The Lord of the Rings movies are adaptations of Tolkien's work & as such they stand or fall by how well they present Tolkien's work, not by how much money they made, how many awards they won, or how many people like them. Are they a worthy tribute to Tolkien?

[Lalwendë]

Lalwende ... this is really quite simple. Either JRRTolkien was a human being like the rest of us or he was a God. If he was a human being, then he was not perfect and his work was not perfect. It would be the worst sort of pride and hubris to think that one cannot be improved upon.

I do not believe Tolkien was a god, God or GOD. And thus, I do not believe his work was perfect allowing not an iota of room for improvement.

.

What exactly is this hypothetical perfection that you seek though? Who is judging it? Why do you want it?

Art is not perfect. Fact.

Taking Tolkien apart to find the bricks and rebuild them into some perfect tower would for some involve the removal of Tom for example. To me, that would destroy it. Tom alas, is not suited to the modern taste. Tastes which are governed by all kinds of things which are not necessarily artistic choices.

Politics for example. I note that Jackson was rumoured also to be remaking the British classic Dambusters and there was plenty of discussion about whether he would rename Guy Gibson's dog; the conclusion was he undoubtedly would. And even Susan's treatment in Narnia may be something I hate but I would never be so presumptious as to think if her end were forever Bowdlerised out of future editions then it would be OK. Because it wouldn't be OK at all. It would be wrong.

But such things are entirely and utterly subjective.

Your improvements to Tolkien are not mine. Mine are not yours. Who is going to decide which is 'correct'? I'm sure you appreciate the kind of subjectivity and tail chasing this can only result in.

The easy answer to which improvements are 'best' or 'appropriate' is that ultimately, none are.

They are not 'improvements', it would be sheer arrogance to claim your own version was better. They are instead 'versions' or 'interpretations'.

[Sauron the White]

Perhaps we could move away from this 'lots of people liked it' argument & you could offer a proper defence/refutation?

The success of all three films is a fact that is very relevant to this discussion. The purpose of a big budget film is to bring even more money for the studio that makes it. Beyond that, other considerations are secondary. The fact that the public loved it and made all 3 films very successful is important. The fact that ROTK is still the second highest grossing film of all time is important. The fact that the film succeeded by other standard measurements of success such as professional critics reviews and film industry awards is important. Those are the standards the world uses to judge if a film was successful or not.

And what is it that I am suppose to refute? Your contention about the Galadriel line? I have told you repeatedly that it is only a very small number of people who seem to share your ire about this concern. And that is some six years after the film was released with that line in it.

I don't know of any serious Tolkien student who even takes the movies seriously, let alone considers them to have improved on Tolkien's work. Shippey has said some positive things about them, but has also offered much thoughtful criticism & has never claimed them to be superior.

So what? While these films were made with the help of several serious Tolkien students, they were not made for that audience exclusively. The greater audience was the general public. And we already know the success the three films enjoyed with the public.

And I am not claiming the films to be superior to the book. I have said many times in many posts that the books and the films are very different things. One cannot fairly compare the qualities of a cinder block and an orange. Yes, I have said that the movies did improve in some ways upon the way things were presented in the book. Many other people have said the same thing here and in other places. That does not make them superior to the books. It simply means that the filmmakers did their job and came up with some innovations which improved the story as told in the medium of film.

No-one in their right mind would say that it is impossible to improve on Tolkien's work - he himself acknowledged its imperfections. You're introducing a complete red herring here.

Oh really? And you or any others here never said anything about the real crime of Jackson was in the mistaken belief that he could actually improve on the books? You never said anything like that? Mr. Hicklin never said anything like that? Others here never said anything like that?

I could do a few hours of research and come up with it but lets save the trouble and just go the the post from minutes ago directly before yours. From Lalwende, whom I believe you know.

Suggesting that Tolkien could be improved on by Jackson or anyone else is rather like saying The Mona Lisa could be improved if only Banksy could maybe paint some eyeliner and lippie on her

I believe that Lalwende is indeed in her right mind. She comes across as a very intelligent person. But there you have it in the post right before yours --- someone saying that Its absurd to think Jackson or anyone else could improve upon Tolkien.

Your position seems in fact to be that while neither JRRT or Peter Jackson is God, Jackson is far closer to divine status, & less deserving of any criticism.

Where and how did I state that Jackson was close to divine status or a god? Your position seems to be continually restating what you think my position is, or what you think it should be to better argue against.

The Lord of the Rings movies are adaptations of Tolkien's work & as such they stand or fall by how well they present Tolkien's work, not by how much money they made, how many awards they won, or how many people like them. Are they a worthy tribute to Tolkien?

And you get this objective standard to judge a films success from where exactly? I have been attending films for four and a half decades. I have read countless books on the subject. I have even taught high school classes in film appreciation for what thats worth. I have never heard anyone use the standard of faithfulness to the book as the key element of a films success. Perhaps to you- but not to the world.

You have asked for refutation. I humbly attempted to oblige you sir.

[Quempel]

After reading this thread once again, I have to ask a serious question here, because the thread brought it to mind and for some reason I think I have been told this before.

Were not Tolkien's LoTR books highly criticized by his own peers...i.e. English Professors?

[Lalaith]

I'm not a Tolkien fundamentalist, and as far as I'm concerned, there are certain things that work brilliantly in the films.
For example, Eowyn and Aragorn exchanging looks, with a fluttering banner of the white horse on the green field falling to the ground, combined with Shore's haunting Rohan theme.
That moment tells you a very great deal about Eowyn's concerns about the fate of the house of Eorl, about why she developed her "soldier's crush" on Aragorn, etc.
All *without* corny dialogue.

Then, there's scenes using Tolkien's language - Gandalf on the bridge, "Flame of Udun", for example, so memorably.

And moments that were not in the book at all but also worked, for me - Eowyn's lament over Theodred, for example. And, hell, yes, Arwen at the ford. It looked fabulous.


But I don't like film-makers assuming I'm stupid. I got that feeling a lot in the LotR trilogy....LOOK THIS IS HOW X IS FEELING RIGHT NOW all-spelt-out-in-your-face-dialogue. And, to get this thread back on topic, ahem. I also got it a lot in Compass. There, I felt the film-makers weren't even trying to talk to me, just show me a whole bunch of stuff, really fast so I wouldn't get bored. What with me being so stupid and having such a short attention span and all.

I didn't get that feeling in Stardust, in that movie it felt like the film-makers were treating you like an adult, and taking you into a private joke. But maybe I would have felt differently if I'd read the original Gaiman novel. I don't know.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yaaa-wwww-nnnnn.

Yes, we've heard the rant before.

Is Tolkien a deity? No. Is his work perfect? No Could it, hypothetically, be improved upon? Possibly.

But could this brilliant writer's work be improved upon by writers as mundane, insensitive, cliche-ridden and tone-deaf as Jackson, Walsh and Boyens? Not by a hundred leagues.



But the capper is this:
I have no doubt that - in your mind at least- this very minor thing [the Galadriel line Davem cited] means something to you.

How dare you presume to comment on Tolkien if you actually think that Language is a 'very minor thing'? For Tolkien Language was the beginning and core of *everything.* But to you it's 'trivial.' Tell me, why the hell do you read Tolkien? Pearls before swine. Stick to David Eddings

And you know what? I don't give sweet buggerall if a bunch of Hollywood writers took PBW's script for Shinola rather than what it was. Hollywood writers- yeah, there's some real arbiters of artistry. I'm not in the least surprised that denizens of the Hollywood tripe-factory are utterly oblivious to Language. Their little gold statue is to my mind about as meaningful as a painting award from the Black Velvet Artists' Guild.

[Gwathagor]

pwnd! :)

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

How dare you presume to comment on Tolkien if you actually think that Language is a 'very minor thing'?

You really get yourself worked up in quite a lather over nothing. But your righteous indignation only proves one thing. You have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be under the delusion that we are arguing about the writings of Tolkien. The books. No way Jose. The discussion was about a line in a movie written by a screenwriter.

In case you have forgotten or never knew in the first place... a book is one thing and a film is quite another. Or maybe on some elemental level you knew it but just cannot accept the truth of it because it causes so many inner and intellectual conflicts.

And get ready to call the thought police. Because I dare. I dare over and over and over again. And when you tire of it. I will dare some more.

Sorry for the hyperbole but I am just trying to get into the spirit you showed here of going way over the top and being ridiculous.

For Tolkien Language was the beginning and core of *everything.

Actually, language is one way to communicate meaning. And thats about it. Just because the author who wrote my favorite book believes something does not mean I suddenly convert to his value system. I will leave that to the True Believers, toadies and sycophants.

Tell me, why the hell do you read Tolkien? Pearls before swine. Stick to David Eddings

And you went to college for how many years to be able to express yourself like that? Now I completely understand all those sardonic lawyer jokes. Swine indeed! :eek:

Their little gold statue is to my mind about as meaningful as a painting award from the Black Velvet Artists' Guild.

Again, your own statements show your lack of knowledge. It matters not if you do not have any respect for the Oscars. The film making world certainly does. And that is what this thread is all about movies.

You wanna play nice - we can play nice. You wanna be a jerk - we can do it that way too. I prefer nice. How about you?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Actually, language is one way to communicate meaning. And thats about it.

Hopeless. Simply hopeless. I suppose therefore we should render Shakespeare into modern idiom, because nobody talks like that any more, and the only function of language is purely utilitarian?

Language was an essential part of Tolkien's artistic technique. *You* don't have to subscribe, but anybody who presumes to undertake an adaptation of Tolkien had bloody well better understand what he's doing.


Yes, I know, I know, I know, movies are not books. I get it. But you act as if that that truism provides a convenient excuse for any act of vandalism in the name of 'adaptation.' Well, I ain't buying. An adaptation can legitimately be judged on how competently it translates its subject into a new medium. PJ's is a poor translation- which is unsurprising, given an interpreter without fluency in the original.

p.s. Lack of knowledge? Oh, no- this particular True Believer, toady and sycophant knows all too well how Oscar voting works, including the screenplay awards. You are aware, aren't you, that *every* person with a single writer credit gets a vote? Including those responsible for Porky's 3 and Ernest Goes to Camp. Survey your local Blockbuster for a grasp of the standards applied.

[Sauron the White]

Weird thing about this is if I posted an angry over the top raving post asking you "what the hell" and calling you a "swine" I am sure I would get a very angry email telling me I am no longer welcome here. Instead, you, get a fan raising a flaming video game control in tribute. Go figure.

You don't like my defintiion of purpose of language. Check out the start of the entry on Wikipedia

A language is a system of visual, auditory, or tactile symbols of communication and the rules used to manipulate them. Language can also refer to the use of such systems as a general phenomenon. Though commonly used as a means of communication among people, human language is only one instance of this phenomenon.

Sounds like a ten dollar way to say the same thing I did - language is a way to convey meaning.

But instead you wrap it in the shroud of JRR Tolkien and invoke his love of language. So what?

And now you parrot davem (lots of that going around too) in saying

An adaptation can legitimately judged on how competently it translates its subject into a new medium.

Oh really. Please cite the authoritative and objective source which states that you judge the success of a movie by its slavish faithfulness to the book that it originates from? Do you guys just make up your rules as you go along?

You want competence in translation. Sit on this for a bit. JRRT may have sold 50 million books in fifty years. Then Jackson does his films and suddenly over 500 million tickets are sold to see them. And he did that in only three years and that is not counting DVD sales which were considerable. Peter Jackson translated the books of JRRT to an entire new audience who did not previously know LORD OF THE RINGS from LORD OF THE DANCE. Scratch that. More people probably knew LORD OF THE DANCE.

To most people who recognize LORD OF THE RINGS, they are a series of very successful movies. And that is by a ratio of 10 to 1 in terms of sales.

You added this after my reply so i will reply to the addition.

You are aware, aren't you, that *every* person with a single writer credit gets a vote? Including those responsible for Porky's 3 and Ernest Goes to Camp

Imagine the total injustice of a sytem which allows professionals within the business to actually nominate the best in their own profession. WOW!!! I can see why you are outraged. Professional screenwriters judging the work of other professional screenwriters. What a concept.

Of course, every screen writer has to begin somewhere, even with entry level silly comedies. Of course, such writing can never be compared to the Shakespeare like lines

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong? hop along! fal lal the willow!

Who could ever improve on that?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Any reply at this point would be wasted pixels. You simply don't get it. I strongly suspect you can't.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - a good nights sleep must have helped you a bit. At least this morning you did not call me a swine. Pixels are not like mushrooms or fish of which there is only a limited supply. I do not think the pixel community will go into mourning if a few more are sacrificed upon the altar of debate.

What is it that I "do not get" or somehow am incapable of getting?

It has been my experience in the past that when people resort to the "you just don't get it" reason what they usually mean is that "you do not share my particular way of seeing this issue because of a different mindset". Or - "I have exhausted all my arguements and you still don't see it my way".

But please, elaborate.

[Essex]

anyway back to the Thread.

The Golden Compass has not translated as well across to the screen as Lord of the Rings because the source material is an inferior piece of writing and plot compared with Lord of the Rings

It's still a good tale, but is no where near as good as LOTR (to me anyway) and yes I have read Pullman's trilogy

[Bêthberry]

anyway back to the Thread.

The Golden Compass has not translated as well across to the screen as Lord of the Rings because the source material is an inferior piece of writing and plot compared with Lord of the Rings

It's still a good tale, but is no where near as good as LOTR (to me anyway) and yes I have read Pullman's trilogy


Interesting idea, Essex, that the difficulties of the movie derive from faults in the original material. It sort of puts screen writers and directors in an inferior position, but I'm sure there are script writers (or hopeful script writers) here who would take issue with that idea.

However, it is your claim of Pullman's inferiority that I want to think about. Of course all of us here on a Tolkien board would naturally favour Tolkien, but I wouldn't want it said that such preference would blind us or make us incapable of reaching an informed, perceptive and intelligent response to any other author, especially one who appears so clearly to be in a rival camp.

Pullman's His Dark Materials is not pure fantasy/fairie as is Tolkien's work. While Pullman clearly points to Blake and Milton as his inspiration, there is another English writer whose work clearly is a forerunner in the mode of fantasy. That is Jonathan Swift. His Gulliver's Travels is equally difficult to place within a genre. It isn't pure allegory. It isn't pure fantasy. It isn't pure philosophical fable. It isn't pure travel story. (Travel stories were of some interest back when Swift wrote.) It's an amalgm of all of those.

The readerly history of GT shows this--often expurgated to omit the Yahoos for children and to focus on the Lilliputians and secondly the Brobdingnagians. The third book is often regarded as the least appealing. Interestingly, it is the third book which is the most overtly philosophical. (I do get a kick out of the idea of philosopher's thought balloons though.) Movies of GT follow this line, often limiting themselves to the first one or two books only.

There is something to be said for literary works which don't adhere to pure aesthetic demands for uniformity, consistency, overarching coherence. I think Pullman's triloogy follows Swift in this regard. Thus, quite possibly it isn't as you say inferior writing which mars Pullman's work and makes it fail to translate to the screen, but that it is a different kind of work. And to force it into the fantasy/adventure/blockbuster movie genre is to demonstrate misunderstanding of its original nature.

Of course, the same can be said of PJ's work on LotR, that he forced Tolkien into the movie blockbuster mode and in doing so damaged the original work.

Cheers!

[Mister Underhill]

Of course, one can draw a distinction between being inferior per se and inferior in terms of suitability for screen adaptation.

Despite all the hullabaloo over HDM on the Downs over the years, I've never read Pullman, so I can't form an opinion, but at least one A-list screenwriter, Terry Rossio, half of the writing team behind the Pirates franchise, Shrek, and others, publicly opined that Golden Compass "...wouldn't get made, or if it did get made it would have to be greatly changed, or if it did get made and wasn't changed it wouldn't succeed."

Thread here (http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/moviesarc08/index.cgi?read=104924).

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mr. Underhill,

Thanks for that link and also the identification of the poster, which I would never have known. I skimmed through Terry Rossio's later comments and wish he would have been more specific. His basic explanation in a later post was this: I hated the first book ...... and beyond hating the book, the story seemed to me to be non-filmic as well.

Rossio never really says why he hates the story....if it's Pullman's underlying viewpoint or something totally different, nor does he say exactly why it's "non-filmic". Also, his comment on "non-filmic" is not too different from comments we've all read on LotR by JRRT and many others. While the opinion of someone with this much experience certainly has to be taken seriously, I do not concur that the story is "non-filmic".

I was deeply disappointed in the movie GC. Some of the visuals were appealing but I never made an emotional connection with the characters. The film seemed like a series of choppy vignettes set in a world that was only half explained. I am probably more of a Pullman "fan" than most on this site. I snatched onto an autographed copy of the American first printings very early on and definitely enjoyed the story (even the later volumes that many feel fall down in quality and have too much "propaganda").

I would be stunned and surprised if New Line filmed the later books, given the profits from GC, but will not give up all hope of decent movie adaptations of HDM. In the 70s, after a series of lousy cartoons, I thought I would never see a rendition of Lord of the Rings anywhere as good as PJ's. Everyone was groaning and complaining that Middle-earth could never be represented in a film. Despite definite flaws, PJ's films were better than what I ever expected, especially in capturing the look of Middle-earth. And while opinion is far from unanimous (putting it mildly! :D), many long-time "bookies" I know feel that way. So maybe someday Pullman will be filmed in a way that captures some of the real spirit of the story.

The real question is whether or not these books will continue to be read. Will HDM be good enough to stand the test of time and appeal to future readers? If they don't, then you can wave goodbye to further films. If they do, then I would guess someone will try again to film them, perhaps with better luck, despite the assertion that they may be "non-filmic".

*************

BTW, maybe this is far afield, but what makes a story....any story..."non-filmic"? In what ways is LotR more "filmic" than HDM? Or then again maybe it isn't....

[Sauron the White]

Kristin Thompson, writing yesterday in her Fodo Franchise blog, uses sections of very recent interviews with the top financial officers at New Line and parent company Time Warner. Among the thing discussed was GOLDEN COMPASS. Here is the key excerpt

Coincidentally or not, on February 5, the day before the conference call, Ron Grover, Los Angeles bureau manager for BusinessWeek, editorialized in favor of Warner Bros. absorbing New Line. He pointed out that despite the successes of the Rings trilogy, Rush Hour 3, and Hairspray, the studio has grossed only $68 million domestically on the $180 million-budgeted Golden Compass. Grove points out that despite the $315 million overseas gross, “New Line sold off the foreign rights to others, which means there is a big time write-off coming for Time Warner.”

So it does seem that GC did make some money overseas but precious little of it made it to the coffers of the company who both made the film and has decision powers over any sequel. Plus the very low US figures seem to have soured the company on such future ventures.

[Groin Redbeard]

So do you think that that will stop New Line Cinima from finishing His Dark Materials trilogy?

[Sauron the White]

I suspect it will spell the end of that.

[Lalwendë]

I suspect it will spell the end of that.

Maybe not. It's just won a Bafta. :p

[Sauron the White]

what category did it win in?

[Sir Kohran]

Maybe not. It's just won a Bafta. :p

A Bafta is just an award. It hardly equates to financial gains, which is what the companies are after. It will not increase the movie's gross by a single cent.

[Sir Kohran]

A Bafta is just an award. It hardly equates to financial gains, which is what the companies are after. It will not increase the movie's gross by a single cent.


As usual, not a single reply :rolleyes:

[Sauron the White]

Sir K - an award can help the box office of a film, Academy Awards have been known to do that especially if the film was an underperformer on its first release. I agree with you that the Bafta will mean nothing to this film.

[Lalwendë]

Sir K - an award can help the box office of a film, Academy Awards have been known to do that especially if the film was an underperformer on its first release. I agree with you that the Bafta will mean nothing to this film.

Alright, if British film awards are no more than scrap metal, how about an Oscar? 'Cause it won one. ;)

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende... if I caused you to believe that the BAFTA's were scrap metal, that was not my intent. They are wonderful awards. I was simply agreeing with the statement made by another poster - Sir Kohran - that it would not add to the films box office receipts. Did it have that effect or not?

Regarding its Oscar win last night. I would add that a single win in a technical category will also have the same effect as the Bafta win. At this point, the only way it could have a box office impact would be for New Line to re-release it for more theatrical showings. Such a movie is not unheard of after the Oscars but is usually limited to a film which has won the Best Film honor and not one technical award.

But congrats to COMPASS for its Oscar. Thats one more than I have. ;)

[Mister Underhill]

An interesting development in the Compass saga was reported in the trades yesterday -- it seems that New Line sold not only foreign distribution for Compass, but also options on any sequels. In other words, Warners may not be able to reap significant foreign profits from sequels because of deals already in place, considerably complicating their decision on whether or not to continue the franchise.

Full article here (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117982458.html?categoryid=2526&cs=1). Stay tuned...

[davem]

I'm still left wondering why TGC flopped in the US - was it because US audiences decided it was a bad film (ie badly made, dull, confusing, etc), or because it was a 'good' film (ie well-made, interesting, exciting, etc) but with a 'bad' message - in other words, did the 'athiestic' element kill it in America? Or was it the marketing - one line of reasoning I've heard recently is that it was marketed by New Line as another LotR - big battles & cool beheadings 'n' stuff - & when audiences actually got a 12 year old girl her talking polar bear they went home disappointed & told their friends not to bother..

Whatever - one assumes that if Warner decides to go ahead with sequels the sensibilities of US audiences will play a smaller part in their calculations than they did for New line - it will probably be the same story for the sequels as for the original - poor performance in the US & big box office everywhere else.

[Sauron the White]

As a resident of the USA, it seemed to me that the film was sold around the idea of a little girl and a polar bear. Those two elements were very up front and center in every trailer and ad that I saw. If there had been more advertising pushing big epic battles the film may have done better. The negative publicity surrounding the anti-religious message (not saying there was one but that perception existed) did not help. However, I do not think it was conclusive. It really was not advertised as the second coming of LOTR in the trailers and ads that I saw.

Hollywood studios made several fortunes offthe formula of "a boy and his dog" stories up to and including E.T.. But maybe times have changed and the publics - or at least the American public - taste has changed. . Perhaps the American public simply did not want to see "a girl and her polar bear" no matter how it was dressed up or what lipstick was placed upon its face.

[Bêthberry]

Interesting point about the nature of the heroine.

There's lots of evidence garnered by elementary school teachers in North America--and I don't know how it would break down vis-a-vis Canada versus US--that elementary school girls will read books with heroes of both genders but that elementary school boys will not read books with girl heroes. This is not an absolute, hardfast characteristic, but it is quite substantial, extensively documented, especially among educators who are concerned about the reading gap between girls and boys. Is this trait limited to North America or can it also be found in European education?

So, if little North American boys don't like or want to read books about little girls, perhaps that trait carries over to male choices about movies as well, and also into adulthood? It didn't seem to apply to The Wizard of Oz, but we are no longer in Kansas now.

[davem]

. Perhaps the American public simply did not want to see "a girl and her polar bear" no matter how it was dressed up or what lipstick was placed upon its face.

But isn't it interesting that the public in just about every other country did? Shall we have to resort to Oscar Wilde for an explanation of this? Why did the rest of the world go mad for something the American public didn't?

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Why did the rest of the world go mad for something the American public didn't?

First, how to you define the term "go mad for"? Boxofficemojo reports that the worldwide take on GC is $345 mil of which $70 million is from the USA and the rest ($275) being other markets. Thats about 20/80 split.

The LOTR films had the following non USA reciepts
ROTK $742 MIL
TTT $584 mil
FOTR $556 mil

GC is at $245 mil foreign receipts. That is still not half of what the lowest earning LOTR film took in outside the USA. And then consider that USA receipts ranged from 33 to 36 % of the gross.

So your description of the rest of the world going mad for GC is a bit of over selling the idea.

Shall we have to resort to Oscar Wilde for an explanation of this?

I would never reject anyone using the great man as a source of inspiration. However, I also think that someone from the opposite viewpoint could use the standard and well worn "a fool and his money are soon parted". :p

[davem]

FOTR $556 mil

GC is at $245 mil foreign receipts. That is still not half of what the lowest earning LOTR film took in outside the USA. And then consider that USA receipts ranged from 33 to 36 % of the gross.

So your description of the rest of the world going mad for GC is a bit of over selling the idea.

No it isn't - you can't compare any movie to the LotR films (apart maybe from Titanic). I'm speaking generally - TGC was not a flop anywhere else in the world as far as I'm aware. In fact, it was a huge success (I think it was the third most popular film in the UK last year, after HP 5 & Bourne 3).

I would never reject anyone using the great man as a source of inspiration. However, I also think that someone from the opposite viewpoint could use the standard and well worn "a fool and his money are soon parted". :p

Yes - but you're the one who keeps bringing up 'little Jonny' being out of step with the rest of the band.... Maybe the rest of the world got it wrong & the US is the little boy shouting out that 'the Emperor's got nowt on :eek: ' but... these are matters of personal taste so I don't think that applies. Outside the US TGC was a popular movie - people wanted to see it. In the US they didn't. Clearly the RotW got something out of the movie that US audiences either didn't get or didn't want.

[Sauron the White]

Truthfully, I don't think anyone got it right... or wrong for that matter. Like you said, its simply a matter of taste. The film underperformed in the States probably by a good 50%. If you figure that the Stateside revenues should have been about 35% of the total, you would have to double the actual revenues to get something around that figure.

I realize that you don't like them, but I do think that if they had stacked the film with more action - more epic battles ala LOTR, the film would have performed better here. And the word of mouth was not very good.

Why do some nations embrace certain things while other nations do not? Thats a serious questions for sociologists and social anthropologists. Why do the French - with their reputation for sophistication and the better things in life - go gaga for Jerry Lewis? Thats one of the great cultural mysteries.

Bethberry has a valid point about the boys not wanting to see the film. I have a six year old grandson who simply adores everything LOTR. One of his favorite things is to watch it when he spends the night and we have seen those movies more times than I can even count. He thought the first Narnia movie was good but nothing like LOTR. He liked SPIDERWICK also. I showed him the trailer for COMPASS and offered to take him but he did not want to see it. When we see the toys in the store he has never wanted them.

[Mister Underhill]

Whatever - one assumes that if Warner decides to go ahead with sequels the sensibilities of US audiences will play a smaller part in their calculations than they did for New line - it will probably be the same story for the sequels as for the original - poor performance in the US & big box office everywhere else.Presumably the opposite is true. Since the point of the article is that Warner would be precluded from reaping much in the way of foreign B.O. because of the sequel distribution deals New Line already made, I'd venture to say that if they did decide to forge ahead with sequels, they'd try to make them more appealing to U.S. audiences, since that would be where the money is for them. How they'd do that, I don't know.

As for the reasons for the film not doing well -- I think Bb might be on to something with the gender gap. Interesting side note -- wasn't it the head of production at Warners who was widely reported last fall as proclaiming that WB was going to stop making pictures with female leads? That wouldn't bode well for sequels either.

Anyway, I think there might've been a bit of a demographic gap, too -- "girl and her bear" maybe didn't really appeal to older audiences, especially those coveted 18-25 year old males, but the trailers didn't say "family movie" either.

I don't put any stock in the whole atheism factor. Religious protests usually serve to give a picture free publicity, and if anything only increase its box office prospects -- see Harry Potter. From where I stand, the protests seemed pretty half-hearted over here anyway.

[Lalwendë]

I've finally seen The Golden Compass (now we have to wait for DVDs to come out, as going to the cinema is an unattainable luxury with Ye Kraken about). I really do not understand the negative opinions to be honest. My only fault with it was that it was too short, it ought to have been an hour longer and lingered over some of the scenes more.

However I think I know why it failed to crack the US market - it doesn't fit into any of the 'markets'. It isn't a kiddies' film, all saccharin and primary colours. It isn't an all-action sword and gore fest. It isn't a serious 'issues' drama. I'm pretty certain it did much, much better over here as the books are held in such high regard and so it was able to find a way around the stereotypical demands of audiences.

It did however have a very 'English' feel to it, and I still think that the protagonist being a girl didn't help everyone appreciate it. Ho-hum, that's their loss.

And it's a shame the US audience didn't go to see it as it was a beautiful film, the characters were well done and unlike Jackson's work, the changes to the storyline were totally coherent and actually worked. The special effects and art were especially wonderful, and Nicole Kidman was deliciously evil.

I was also amused by Pullman's completely non-precious attitude towards it (as shown on the extras disc); he admitted it was nice to finally see some mega-bucks as a result of his work. ;)

Though if you want to know what the best fantasy film is, even better than Lord of the Rings, just watch Stardust. It knocks everything into a cocked hat and if a Tolkien fan wants to see what faerie looks and feels like then they know where to look and it's not at the films of Tolkien's work! I had the distinct feeling he'd had loved it himself. :cool:

[Morthoron]

To be honest, as an American I did shy away from the movie based on the reviews, opting for the DVD release. *shrugs*

But then again, I never read Pullman's His Dark Materials, nor have I read any Harry Potter books. *shrugs again*

However, my seven...errr...eight year old daughter (egad, her birthday is this month!) has expressed an interest in the books and the movie. Do you think it's worthwhile for a precocious eight year old? We read together and enjoyed both The Narnia Chronicles and The Hobbit (She enjoyed LotR on film, but the books are a little over her head). Just wondering what the reading level of Pullman's books are ('young adult' is a rather vague category).

[Lalwendë]

I think it's a marvellous read for girls, as Lyra is a very atypical female lead character - I just love Lyra and Hermione Granger as modern day heroines. It's also very readable for a good reader, though a lot of the references to Milton, Blake etc would not be noticed - that's not an issue though as the story itself is what's important at that age, and the plot is good. The main criticisms are that Pullman loses control of what he was trying to say as the books go on, but that's an issue for the adults; the kids just want a good story and characters, and it doesn't fall down on those.

It is quite scary though - if it frightened me in places, I think it would definitely scare a child!

[Morthoron]

I think it's a marvellous read for girls, as Lyra is a very atypical female lead character - I just love Lyra and Hermione Granger as modern day heroines. It's also very readable for a good reader, though a lot of the references to Milton, Blake etc would not be noticed - that's not an issue though as the story itself is what's important at that age, and the plot is good. The main criticisms are that Pullman loses control of what he was trying to say as the books go on, but that's an issue for the adults; the kids just want a good story and characters, and it doesn't fall down on those.

It is quite scary though - if it frightened me in places, I think it would definitely scare a child!

Thanks, Ms. Boggart, I think we'll give it a try. My daughter's at that odd 'tween' age where 'House at Pooh Corners' bored her silly, yet she's shown no interest in H. Potter. And speaking of odd, she didn't bat an eye at the monsters in LotR, but just seeing the Guy Fawkes mask in V for Vendetta sent her scurrying from the room (I can't watch it if she's in the house).

[Thinlómien]

It is quite scary though - if it frightened me in places, I think it would definitely scare a child!Yes, it is. Not scary because there are monsters, though, but because it has some rather depressing/scary/disgusting events (or actually just one, but it's bad enough) and also, in some book of the series (can't remember which one), Pullman kills his characters quite carelessly. These two are my only objections against reading the book to a young child. Maybe "objection" is too strong a word, though, as I would have had no problem reading the book as an 8-year-old. I would have been a little scared (not too much, though) and sad, but wouldn't have gotten nightmares or "bad thoughts". I think it would have been just good for me. But I never was too sensitive a child... but my sister reading it as 8-year-old might have been troubled and my cousin would not have wanted to finish it, it would have been so bad for her in that age. So I think it depends entirely on the personality of the child in question. :)

[Mister Underhill]

However I think I know why it failed to crack the US market - it doesn't fit into any of the 'markets'. It isn't a kiddies' film, all saccharin and primary colours. It isn't an all-action sword and gore fest. It isn't a serious 'issues' drama. I'm pretty certain it did much, much better over here as the books are held in such high regard and so it was able to find a way around the stereotypical demands of audiences.I read an interesting analysis of the gap between the U.S. and foreign B.O. on Compass. One thing they mentioned is that the movie was successfully marketed as a family film overseas, but not in the U.S.: Excuses that fantasy pics often do better in foreign, or that the film's perceived anti-God message was a more powerful negative in the U.S., have a certain truth, but can't fully explain the unprecedented gulf.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the foreign indies such as Entertainment in the U.K., Metropolitan in France, Tripictures in Spain, 01 in Italy and Gaga in Japan, not to mention Warner in Germany, simply did a better job of understanding and positioning "Golden Compass" as a family film, and heading off the potential problems in advance, than New Line's domestic team did.

[...] In foreign markets, distribs managed to bring in the family audience -- Armentano says she laser-targeted 8- to 13-year-olds in schools early on -- whom New Line failed to attract Stateside with a much broader campaign. In the U.S., the pic's biggest demographic was young adult males, who came looking for the next "Lord of the Rings," left disappointed and told all their friends not to bother.
The full article is here (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117982066.html?categoryid=1246&cs=1&query=golden+compass+marketing+family). I still haven't seen the film, though it's on my to-rent list.

[Sauron the White]

My grandson is going on seven and absolutely adores the LOTR films. He has seen them dozens of times and will not even fast forward to the "good parts" but sits and watches every scene on the extended editions. This weekend, I asked him if he wanted to go see IRON MAN or do a LOTR marathon and he opted for LOTR.

So two weeks ago I bought the DVD of COMPASS and thought he might enjoy it. He watched 25 minutes and gave up on it. I tried to bring it out again this weekend and give it another go but he wanted nothing to do with it.

[Bêthberry]

What saves Compass from being absolutely dark and terrifying as regards adult treatment of children--or at least the readiness of Lyre's parents to sacrifice other children (to say nothing of adults) to their theories and experiments--is the incredible way that Pullman empowers Lyre. It is her resilience, independence, stubbornness, courage, that is a beacon to children about claiming authority over their own lives. Will too I think, particularly in his ability to care for his mother. Pullman's children are significant for their own agency, something a bit rare in most literature. After all, children once were supposed to "be seen and not heard."

Very much like Aule's creation are given a life of their own when Iluvatar grants them a voice; they are not left to be commanded by Aule's will but flinch from the axe and beg for mercy.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Both Narnia films have had a veddy, veddy British feel- but made huge US money.

(BTW, I think that depicting the Telmarines with a Spanish Conquistador feel was brilliant).

[Gwathagor]

Absolutely! It made me wonder if the original Telmar-guys were pirates of Spanish or Portuguese descent.

[Lalaith]

That's really interesting about the different marketing tactics. It was definitely marketed at children, here in Europe...lots of emphasis on the big polar bear and so on.
As for suitable ages for Pullman...I think seven/eight is a bit young, particularly for independent reading.
Not because it's too scary, but because Pullman is quite dense and literary in style - it's much heavier going than the Hobbit. I'd put it on a par with Lord of the Rings, at least.

[Lush]

I don't know of any serious Tolkien student who even takes the movies seriously

I knew a Duke lecturer who took them very seriously. Yes, she specialized in Tolkien.

As for "Compass" - didn't like it. They took a brilliant opportunity to introduce a really cool female hero and wasted it with horrible editing (especially toward the end). I tend to overlook a lot of flaws in movies like that, but it didn't strike me as a movie with soul, a vibrant core.

Though it was hilarious how in one scene they steered clear of outright insulting the Catholic Church by insulting the Orthodox Church instead (the icons used in one scene were obviously Orthodox). Great PR move! Then again, I've always meant to ask Pullman as to why he had that weird scene in HDM with the (surprise!) vodka-slugging, smelly, terrible, irredeemable Slavs.

[davem]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/12/the-top-ten-gro.html

More evidence that fantasy movies don't play well in the US - Prince Caspian underperformed in America but was in the global top ten. Based on its 'domestic' performance Disney have pulled out of their option of co-producing Voyage of the Dawn Treader. VoDT may get picked up based on its global box office (but maybe not with the same budget).

Can't think of any recent fantasy movies which have shaken up the US B.O. - actually not since The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe. And if a sequel to such a major performer can underperform so badly that Disney jump ship mid franchise it might mean that Warner's will start looking a bit more closely at TH.

Maybe fantasy movies have had their day & the studios will start looking around for the next big thing - & I can't help feeling that these new productions would have excited Tolkien far more than a Hobbit movie http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/1066-ndash-and-all-that-ndash-reaches-the-big-screen-1206529.html

[Mister Underhill]

I'm still not buying this theory that it's the US in particular that has somehow become fantasy averse. Caspian was #13 in the yearly domestic box office; its decline in domestic B.O. compared to LtWatW (criminy, that's a clunky acronym) was roughly equivalent to the decline in international B.O. I haven't seen poor domestic box office cited in the stories I read so much as poor overall box office. Caspian didn't even match Compass internationally.

There are still fantasy projects being developed. I can think of two big script sales within the past six months or so -- Galahad and Round Table -- and there are projects like Clash of the Titans and a Dragonheart sequel that are moving down the tracks. They're still trying to reboot Conan, and I've seen a pilot script for a cable series version of George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. I think what's feeling the squeeze are these megabudget tentpole fantasy films.

This is an old Hollywood routine. Any time a genre picture goes mainstream and breaks the bank, all the other studios try to get in on the act. After Star Wars, everybody wanted their own big budget sci-fi franchise. Then when stuff like Dune tanked rather spectacularly, the studios got cold feet. Unforgiven briefly revived the western. The one-two punch of Braveheart and Gladiator made the big-budget historical epic viable for a good while. The comic-book superhero trend that's been dominating the decade has been showing some wear and tear, but The Dark Knight alone will probably keep it going for a while longer yet.

When LotR and Harry Potter blew up the box office, the studios optioned every fantasy series in sight. Now that some of those are turning out to be bum investments, they're backing off, especially in this economy. The moment Harry Potter stops making money, WB will pull the plug, though that doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon and they're almost done, aren't they?

On the other hand, I do agree that The Hobbit, especially in the planned two-part form, may feel some squeeze. I'd say that the fact that Jackson and Spielberg couldn't secure a green light for Tintin is a bellwether for how risk-averse the studios are right now. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

[Gwathagor]

Wow! 3 1066 movies! That's great! I'm disappointed that they beat me to it, but William Nicholson is terrific.

[davem]

There are still fantasy projects being developed. I can think of two big script sales within the past six months or so -- Galahad and Round Table -- and there are projects like Clash of the Titans and a Dragonheart sequel that are moving down the tracks. They're still trying to reboot Conan, and I've seen a pilot script for a cable series version of George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. I think what's feeling the squeeze are these megabudget tentpole fantasy films.

And Terry Brooks 'Elfstones of Shannara', too..... Howsumever...it will be interesting to see how many of them hit the screen. Looking at performance, though, it does look like, ATM, fantasy plays better outside the US.


The moment Harry Potter stops making money, WB will pull the plug, though that doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon and they're almost done, aren't they?

3 more movies - Half-blood Prince due out next summer (pushed back from last November, btw) & a two part adaptation of the final book, Deathly Hallows. And that's the intereesting thing as regards TH - DH is scheduled for release in Dec 2010 & summer 2011. Now, if Warners decide that its better to release DH part 2 at Christmas 2011, then TH will be put back most probably till Christmas 2012 - 'cos they ain't gonna put their two biggest movies up against each other.

On the other hand, I do agree that The Hobbit, especially in the planned two-part form, may feel some squeeze. I'd say that the fact that Jackson and Spielberg couldn't secure a green light for Tintin is a bellwether for how risk-averse the studios are right now. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

Shooting two movies back to back (TH & sequel) can be cost effective - but only if you know both movies will be hits. But will TH be the hit everybody's assuming? No Aragorn/Arwen love story, no Legolas... No- a Hobbit, an old Wizard & a dozen Dwarves. Yes, there's Rivendell, but we've seen it already, a battle under the Misty Mountains, but we've seen it already.. TH may easily disappoint the movie fans. Caspian has shown that going for a more 'adult' take on a children's story doesn't necessarily work out (though I have to say, while I enjoyed PC, it was difficult to take the idea of children being involved in killing to such a degree - & apparently not even being slightly fazed by it. Mind you, that's in the books, so I'm not blaming the film-makers entirely)

[Lalwendë]

The comic-book superhero trend that's been dominating the decade has been showing some wear and tear, but The Dark Knight alone will probably keep it going for a while longer yet.


And The Watchmen too. :cool:

Maybe studios will turn to 'feel good' cheese-fests like Mamma Mia as the recession bites? And more and more apocalyptic misery as 2012 approaches and film makers try to milk all that rubbish.

Shooting two movies back to back (TH & sequel) can be cost effective - but only if you know both movies will be hits. But will TH be the hit everybody's assuming? No Aragorn/Arwen love story, no Legolas... No- a Hobbit, an old Wizard & a dozen Dwarves.

Who's to say they won't shoehorn them in? It means more of these: $$$$.

[davem]

Who's to say they won't shoehorn them in? It means more of these: $$$$.

They probably will - I've long suspected that most of the movie fans who have been demanding a TH movie know little & care less about Tolkien's book: they want another movie with all their favourite characters in it. I further suspect that that's exactly what Warners will expect to find on their hands come 2011/12.

[davem]

Just come across this http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/can-fantasy-epics-survive-the-credit-crunch-chronicles-1213848.html

Definitely interesting that Harry Potter (the most successful franchise in history) could find itself in trouble.

No predictions, but if we hear soon that the Hobbit sequel is to be put on hold, & that instead we're to get a single movie with an entirely new story for a LotR prequel, focussing on Aragorn (& Legolas probably) hunting Gollum & the White Council's assault on Dol Guldur I for one wouldn't be too surprised....

[Eönwë]

Wow! 3 1066 movies! That's great! I'm disappointed that they beat me to it
I have to agree with you here.

This is quite interesting, I wonder what genre is up next?

[Mister Underhill]

And Terry Brooks 'Elfstones of Shannara', tooSee, to me Brooks is the perfect example of a second-rate series that got developed in the wake of LotR but that will never ever be produced as a series of tentpole films. Some sort of cut-rate miniseries on Sci-Fi Channel, maybe...

Some of that other stuff could happen though. For instance, Dragonheart is almost certain to happen, somewhere in the $30M range. There's an audience that can support fantasy at that price tag.

And The Watchmen too.Yeah, it will be very interesting to see how Watchmen fares. It's fascinating, though. We're starting to get into more and more of these postmodern takes on superheroes. I think the health of the trad superhero movie will be better revealed by the new Wolverine movie and whether or not they're able to get a new Spider-man film into production. From what I can tell there's no plans yet for a follow-up to Superman Returns.