The Golden Compass

Forum

If you like all that Harry Potter/LOTR talking polar bear hocum then youll love this.

Me.....well I was just wondering what the point was?? But I get the feeling we're going to get a few more installments.......if it makes enough money. After all you cant beat a film that alludes to having a soul especially if it can jump on the cash bandwagon.

Now my ocelot daemon is telling me Im a cynic.

>>By defacer   (Thursday, 10 Jan 2008 20:37)



shit
had no idea what was going on
talking polar bears
gypsies or something
talking animals that were apparently souls
a compass that didn't really entirely have a point
eva-green the most unacted & utterly redundant witch there ever was
paid no doubt a fortune for her two second appearance
daniel craig's sudden inexplicable "escape"
& the most lame battle i have ever seen.... some ruskes dressed as the spanish inquisition who i had really no idea who they were fighting for
i left the cinema feeling slightly cheated
the best thing in this was daniel craig, but he's barely in it
so wasn't even worth the 4.70 for the ticket

yes, alas, two more dreadful films to go... Harry Potter & Lord of the Rings have great plots, great acting (Lord of the Rings...) and don't make you sit there for the duration of the film going "ian mckellon doesn't suit being an angry polar bear & why is this bear talking anyway?"

>>By Tchock   (Saturday, 12 Jan 2008 19:12)



Oh man, you need to read the books, they're modern classics. I was so pissed off when I heard the film's shit.

>>By Flagg   (Monday, 14 Jan 2008 11:28)



I saw it last weekend... well, I was a bit dissapointed...and besides I didn't quite get the idea of this film...
I agree, the best thing in this film is Daniel Craig and also Eva Green!

>>By Miss Krux   (Thursday, 17 Jan 2008 12:04)



Seemed much ado about nothing....much preferred "Stardust" which we watched Christmas evening. Quite charming, had a plot, good actors and a lovely sense of magic.

>>By rustytraveler   (Tuesday, 29 Jan 2008 12:09)



Considering how massive, well-known and important the books are, I'm surprised at the number of people who have seen the film and not read - or sometimes even heard of - the books. Even one of my creative writing lecturers was one of these people. She's read all the Harry Potter books of course. There's no justice.

>>By Flagg   (Friday, 1 Feb 2008 16:46)



The thing is for me is that I have read or tried to read these fantasy type books, and I just dont buy into a world created by 'clever' Oxbridge academic types who have little experience of life outside their fusty cloisters. I should at least like LOTR as the shires are (allegedly) based on an area I regularly go walking, but I dont see elves and goblins, well not unless Ive been mushroom picking, and even then theyre more interesting ones.

I mean if these characters and situations are so 'other worldly' then why do they have so many human traits and characteristics/or based on folklore and myths and legends? I can understand the cult status, but just like the other cult (religion) I dont buy it.

>>By defacer   (Saturday, 2 Feb 2008 10:58)



The books are magic and the movie is not. The books have this wonderful anti-religion theme that was omitted in the film. Read the trilogy and make your own movie with your mind's eye. Phillip Pullman 1. The Golden Compass (der Goldene Kompass)

>>By klimtone   (Sunday, 3 Feb 2008 07:35)



Hollywood did it again: "We take your potential and we shit all over it!". They should make this an ad slogan.

>>By mistermaddog   (Friday, 26 Sep 2008 22:44)



Defacer, the point of fantasy fiction is to explore story and character ideas that can't be explored in the context of the real world. The fantasy world is just another version of ours, so things like people and the way people act, what drives them and the problems they have, those things will usually stay the same. It's just, it's all been moved to a different setting, a different arena. That's what's so great about fiction, you can have any arena you want.

>>By Flagg   (Saturday, 27 Sep 2008 01:37)



Hey it's only my opinion!! As said before, I understand why they are so popular. I think your first sentence answers your own question, it's another version of our world. But with a great debt to folklore, mythology, anthropolgy, olde English, The Bible,etc.

I dont know any themes that are discussed in his books that cant be/have been explored in the context of the real world because they're all human issues. Maybe you can elighten me? Maybe it's me but i think Jim Henson does other worldliness better. In fact that's it, maybe Tolkien needed more drugs in him and a huge annoying big yellow bird?!! Or maybe my favourite Beaker?

>>By defacer   (Thursday, 2 Oct 2008 18:40)



Or David Bowie walking on upside-down stairs. That helps.

Yeah, the same themes have been explored in real world fiction, but not everyone wants to read about the real world all the time. Themes are great. But there's only so much you can do in terms of physical locations and aesthetics, if you're sticking to the real world. The fact is we CAN imagine these fantastical places, so why shouldn't we? The more unique, the better. And yes, any decent fantasy author will acknowledge the influence of folklore and mythology.

Like I said, it's not about exploring new themes. It's about putting the same themes in a new setting.

>>By Flagg   (Friday, 3 Oct 2008 02:49)



The discussion board is currently closed.