The Golden Compass Discussion
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:26 pm
I'm surprised there's no thread on this, yet. I just got back from seeing the film. While I loved it overall, it definitely suffered from studio interference. It's always easier for me to make a pro/con list, so I'll do that here (note that spoilers abound, and half of this will only make sense to those who've read the book):
Pros:
* The performances were all uniformly excellent. I think the performance I was most impressed with was Nicole Kidman's. Being a fan of hers, I knew she'd do well as Mrs. Coulter, but I didn't realize how well until I saw it for myself. She plays the character very subtly so that book readers know exactly what she's thinking while the non-readers will be able to tell that there's some layer to her they don't know, yet. Dakota Blue Richards also did very well as Lyra, especially given that this is her first film. Her performance is nice and natural, less hammy than Rupert Grint and Emma Watson were in the first Harry Potter film and more akin to the Pevensies from Narnia.
* The effects were top notch. Even when the CG wasn't photorealistic, it still looked great. Iorek Byrnison in particular looked amazing, even when he was physically interacting with Lyra. The bluescreen work was mostly seamless. You can tell that this is an expensive film (supposedly $250 million).
* The production design and cinematography were very impressive. Lots of book fans have been complaining that the film is too glossy and bright compared to the book. While I admit that I was taken aback at first how everything seemed to glisten and glow, it made for some gorgeous visuals. My favorite scene visually is the one with Mrs. Coulter and Lyra riding on the airship. Both the ship and the city surrounding it have amazing detail.
* Replacing Tony Markerios (or whatever his last name was) with Billy Costa made perfect sense to me. It helps to make things more familiar with the audience and drive the point closer to home than if they had used a character we've never met (or would have to introduce in the beginning along with everyone else).
* Switching the Bolvangar and Svalbard sequences also makes sense. The driving point of this particular story (outside of "rescuing" Lord Asriel) is to rescue Roger and the other kids at Bolvangar. If they kept it like the book, the film would go on for over half an hour after the big fight between the Gyptians/witches and the Tartars, making the (non-fan) audience feel that the movie is overstaying its welcome.
* Speaking of Bolvangar and Svalbard, both of these action setpieces were really well done, especially the latter. The fight between Iorek and Ragnar was more daring than I was expecting, even if there was hardly any blood. The Bolvangar battle was able to feel different from the battles seen in Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Narnia. My only complaint was how close the camera was to the action, rendering many things in a blurry mess. This shouldn't be as much of a problem when viewed at home, though.
Cons:
* The middle act (from Lyra's escape from Mrs. Coulter's house to about the time Billy dies) is insanely choppy and rushed. Each scene in this area only seems to last about 50 seconds, and there's often no logical progression from one scene to another. It's been widely reported that New Line was getting cold feet at the last second and made director Chris Weitz remove lots of scenes and add in new ones. While this didn't seem to affect the first act at all (and didn't do much to the last act outside of the last three chapters), the middle portion really seems to have been edited down the most. Chris Weitz has told MTV that there will more than likely be an extended cut on DVD, with most of the footage coming from this middle act. Hopefully that cut will solve this problem.
* The dialogue was far too exposition-heavy. Many scenes felt too heavy-handed and unnatural just to clarify things for the audience. The two most glaring examples for me are the scene with Mrs. Coulter and Lyra at the Jordan dinner table and the scene where we first meet Iorek Byrnison. In the former, Mrs. Coulter tells Lyra how Ragnar longs to be human and have a daemon of his own. This bit just seemed to scream, "PLOT SET UP! REMEMBER THIS INFORMATION FOR LATER, CHILDREN!" The scene where we meet Iorek also feels awkward. Iorek goes off on a long tangent about how he ended up losing his armor and the relationship between bears and armor. While he does this in the book, too, it was done more naturally there (from what I remember). Perhaps a few more questions from Lyra to coax him to tell more would've made the scene feel less expository.
* Removing the party sequence and having Lyra discover Mrs. Coulter's real profession through bedroom snooping felt contrived. It's all too convenient that Pan finds a complete, unripped stack of papers in the trash that happen to list the children who've been taken. It's also a stretch to have Lyra and Pan make the connection between the initials of the General Oblation Board and the Gobblers within three seconds. Also, with the party sequence gone, how is Lyra going to remember who Lord Boreal is in The Subtle Knife?
* I don't like how Billy's death was handled, or rather, the lack of handling. One second we see Ma Costa cradling Billy (who's still alive), then after the camp is invaded, we cut back and see her sobbing over his dead body. To make matters more confusing, Lyra later states towards the end that she wants to help Billy and the other intercision children find their daemons. Huh? They're dead, Lyra, and if Billy is actually still alive (and was only passed out in that quick shot I mentioned), then that's pretty pathetic. I also am disappointed that the dead fish being used as a makeshift daemon wasn't really touched on outside of a quick shot of Billy holding it. Emphasizing that point more (and having Lyra go ballistic when the fish is discarded) would've added more emotion.
And now for the big thing that's gotten the book readers crying foul: the shifting of the last three chapters (which have already been filmed and shown in the trailers) to the beginning of The Sutble Knife. I have mixed feelings on this, unlike most fans who are outraged.
On one hand, I understand New Line's decision. If they had kept the ending, it could potentially turn off many audience members, and then they'd go and discourage friends from seeing it. I admit that when I read the book, the ending frustrated me. I felt like Lyra went through all that crap for nothing. When I read the other two books, though, the first book's ending made much more sense, and now I accept it. This would be risky for New Line, though, because not everyone in the audience will know/understand there there are two films to go, with Roger's death being the driving point for half of The Amber Spyglass' storyline.
On the other hand, the shifting of the these said chapters has created a problem. The Golden Compass, as it is, now ends rather abruptly. When the screen faded to black, half the audience all said out loud on top of each other, "That's it?" From a story structure point of view, the film builds and builds and then suddenly ends while leaving things hanging. While the book ending is a cliffhanger, too, it at least tied up the plot threads about Lord Asriel, Mrs. Coulter, Roger, and parallel worlds. By attaching all this to the beginning of The Subtle Knife, they're going to kill a character 20 minutes into it, a character the audience would assume play a more active role in the second story based on how this film ended. On top of that, once we cut from Lyra entering the opening to Will and his mother, the audience will grow restless. Throughout all of Will's scenes, the audience will be thinking, "Where's Lyra?" Whereas if you begin the second film with Will, the audience will accept that immediately and forget about Lyra, only to be surprised to see her again a little later.
So, overall, I really enjoyed the film despite its shortcomings, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it even more in its extended form.
Pros:
* The performances were all uniformly excellent. I think the performance I was most impressed with was Nicole Kidman's. Being a fan of hers, I knew she'd do well as Mrs. Coulter, but I didn't realize how well until I saw it for myself. She plays the character very subtly so that book readers know exactly what she's thinking while the non-readers will be able to tell that there's some layer to her they don't know, yet. Dakota Blue Richards also did very well as Lyra, especially given that this is her first film. Her performance is nice and natural, less hammy than Rupert Grint and Emma Watson were in the first Harry Potter film and more akin to the Pevensies from Narnia.
* The effects were top notch. Even when the CG wasn't photorealistic, it still looked great. Iorek Byrnison in particular looked amazing, even when he was physically interacting with Lyra. The bluescreen work was mostly seamless. You can tell that this is an expensive film (supposedly $250 million).
* The production design and cinematography were very impressive. Lots of book fans have been complaining that the film is too glossy and bright compared to the book. While I admit that I was taken aback at first how everything seemed to glisten and glow, it made for some gorgeous visuals. My favorite scene visually is the one with Mrs. Coulter and Lyra riding on the airship. Both the ship and the city surrounding it have amazing detail.
* Replacing Tony Markerios (or whatever his last name was) with Billy Costa made perfect sense to me. It helps to make things more familiar with the audience and drive the point closer to home than if they had used a character we've never met (or would have to introduce in the beginning along with everyone else).
* Switching the Bolvangar and Svalbard sequences also makes sense. The driving point of this particular story (outside of "rescuing" Lord Asriel) is to rescue Roger and the other kids at Bolvangar. If they kept it like the book, the film would go on for over half an hour after the big fight between the Gyptians/witches and the Tartars, making the (non-fan) audience feel that the movie is overstaying its welcome.
* Speaking of Bolvangar and Svalbard, both of these action setpieces were really well done, especially the latter. The fight between Iorek and Ragnar was more daring than I was expecting, even if there was hardly any blood. The Bolvangar battle was able to feel different from the battles seen in Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Narnia. My only complaint was how close the camera was to the action, rendering many things in a blurry mess. This shouldn't be as much of a problem when viewed at home, though.
Cons:
* The middle act (from Lyra's escape from Mrs. Coulter's house to about the time Billy dies) is insanely choppy and rushed. Each scene in this area only seems to last about 50 seconds, and there's often no logical progression from one scene to another. It's been widely reported that New Line was getting cold feet at the last second and made director Chris Weitz remove lots of scenes and add in new ones. While this didn't seem to affect the first act at all (and didn't do much to the last act outside of the last three chapters), the middle portion really seems to have been edited down the most. Chris Weitz has told MTV that there will more than likely be an extended cut on DVD, with most of the footage coming from this middle act. Hopefully that cut will solve this problem.
* The dialogue was far too exposition-heavy. Many scenes felt too heavy-handed and unnatural just to clarify things for the audience. The two most glaring examples for me are the scene with Mrs. Coulter and Lyra at the Jordan dinner table and the scene where we first meet Iorek Byrnison. In the former, Mrs. Coulter tells Lyra how Ragnar longs to be human and have a daemon of his own. This bit just seemed to scream, "PLOT SET UP! REMEMBER THIS INFORMATION FOR LATER, CHILDREN!" The scene where we meet Iorek also feels awkward. Iorek goes off on a long tangent about how he ended up losing his armor and the relationship between bears and armor. While he does this in the book, too, it was done more naturally there (from what I remember). Perhaps a few more questions from Lyra to coax him to tell more would've made the scene feel less expository.
* Removing the party sequence and having Lyra discover Mrs. Coulter's real profession through bedroom snooping felt contrived. It's all too convenient that Pan finds a complete, unripped stack of papers in the trash that happen to list the children who've been taken. It's also a stretch to have Lyra and Pan make the connection between the initials of the General Oblation Board and the Gobblers within three seconds. Also, with the party sequence gone, how is Lyra going to remember who Lord Boreal is in The Subtle Knife?
* I don't like how Billy's death was handled, or rather, the lack of handling. One second we see Ma Costa cradling Billy (who's still alive), then after the camp is invaded, we cut back and see her sobbing over his dead body. To make matters more confusing, Lyra later states towards the end that she wants to help Billy and the other intercision children find their daemons. Huh? They're dead, Lyra, and if Billy is actually still alive (and was only passed out in that quick shot I mentioned), then that's pretty pathetic. I also am disappointed that the dead fish being used as a makeshift daemon wasn't really touched on outside of a quick shot of Billy holding it. Emphasizing that point more (and having Lyra go ballistic when the fish is discarded) would've added more emotion.
And now for the big thing that's gotten the book readers crying foul: the shifting of the last three chapters (which have already been filmed and shown in the trailers) to the beginning of The Sutble Knife. I have mixed feelings on this, unlike most fans who are outraged.
On one hand, I understand New Line's decision. If they had kept the ending, it could potentially turn off many audience members, and then they'd go and discourage friends from seeing it. I admit that when I read the book, the ending frustrated me. I felt like Lyra went through all that crap for nothing. When I read the other two books, though, the first book's ending made much more sense, and now I accept it. This would be risky for New Line, though, because not everyone in the audience will know/understand there there are two films to go, with Roger's death being the driving point for half of The Amber Spyglass' storyline.
On the other hand, the shifting of the these said chapters has created a problem. The Golden Compass, as it is, now ends rather abruptly. When the screen faded to black, half the audience all said out loud on top of each other, "That's it?" From a story structure point of view, the film builds and builds and then suddenly ends while leaving things hanging. While the book ending is a cliffhanger, too, it at least tied up the plot threads about Lord Asriel, Mrs. Coulter, Roger, and parallel worlds. By attaching all this to the beginning of The Subtle Knife, they're going to kill a character 20 minutes into it, a character the audience would assume play a more active role in the second story based on how this film ended. On top of that, once we cut from Lyra entering the opening to Will and his mother, the audience will grow restless. Throughout all of Will's scenes, the audience will be thinking, "Where's Lyra?" Whereas if you begin the second film with Will, the audience will accept that immediately and forget about Lyra, only to be surprised to see her again a little later.
So, overall, I really enjoyed the film despite its shortcomings, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it even more in its extended form.
