COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[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! ), 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....