M: What was wrong with the film?

[Kyrillion]

Okay you lovely mods, feel free to lock this thread if you think it's superfluous but I think while there has been a lot of general griping there hasn't been a forum for people to express their specific gripes or particular insights into why they didn't think the film worked. If you think it would have been great but for New Line editing, say no more, that opinion has been fully expressed. But I have a couple of things I'd like to say and I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on what they think let the film down. So:

1. The direction was bad in various respects. Weitz seems barely competent in terms to knowing what shots to use where (why no big establishing shots in the bears' palace? Why no close up in moments of high emotion? Why no close ups of detail's like Ragnar's doll or Hester's wink?).

2. daemons are poorly served and since they are the single most important thing in the story this is a big let down. The scene where Lyra and Pantalaimon are nearly separated was quite affecting thanks to the good acting of Dakota (she seems to be at her best shouting) and the good animation of Pan, but the scene was hardly earned. In the book the importance of daemons is steadily and subtly built up through emotional moments and very little exposition. I'd be more forgiving of Weitz's shortcomings in this if daemons weren't such an absolute gift to a filmmaker (picturesque, and a perfect way to have a character say her thoughts and feeling outloud).

3. Ian McKellan's miscasting as Iorek. Like everybody in the world I love McKellan and you only have to look at his Iago to see what a very fine actor he is. But he's not Iorek. It's like casting Maggie Gyllenhall as Lyra. Then again, the Iorek of the film barely resembled the Iorek of the book in any case - his history and personality were completely revised so we ended up with quite a talkative, cuddly bear who had a tendency to lose fights.

4. Okay, this one doesn;t really count but I'd just like to mention it: the film contained an example of the worst acting I have ever seen - just a small moment -when Nicole Kidman bursts into a room as Lyra leaves via the window. TGM has just had a window slammed on its paw and Nicole grabs her own hand in such unconvincing pain she might as well add 'Oh dear! My hand has been hurt! Oh ouch! Ouch! That is because a human feels a daemons pain by the way! Oh dear!' and have done with it.

The theme throughout seems to be of people who have never stopped to ask, 'Now why did (master storyteller) Philip Pullman do things that way? Include this moment? Play that character like that?'. They failed to realise that Pullman didn't throw stuff together randomly and that things are as they are in the book for very good reasons. Of course any adaptor has liscence to change anything he sees fit about a story - but he should display some understanding of what he is doing.

[jessia]

3. Ian McKellan's miscasting as Iorek. Like everybody in the world I love McKellan and you only have to look at his Iago to see what a very fine actor he is. But he's not Iorek. It's like casting Maggie Gyllenhall as Lyra. Then again, the Iorek of the film barely resembled the Iorek of the book in any case - his history and personality were completely revised so we ended up with quite a talkative, cuddly bear who had a tendency to lose fights.

all i heard was gandalf the entire movie... occasionally i heard magneto. i realise this is terrible and mckellan has an extremely lengthy filmography and stage career but it didn't help that his character was animated. i would've loved to hear the originally cast actor nonso anozie who has had so much critical for his shakespearean performances (youngest king lear and plenty of awards for his othello).

***

i don't know about the other mods i think this is a great thread for the discussion of the finished product, especially now that we have a few months worth of distance from the original release or screening.

5. although this was one of the things many sraffies felt they could let go of, i wasn't a fan of the narration and introduction of worlds/daemons/concepts at the very beginning. it reminded me of those terrible recording angels in the bbc radio play and was additionally slightly cheesey in the way it was done. i love eva green's voice but i think something closer to simple star wars introduction (but less star wars obviously) might have irked me less. also, the narration plays no role later in the film and we're introduced to eva green's voice again in a new character who didn't get much screen time. it was awkward. and otherwise, sometimes cheese is okay... but what we lost was an opening as beautiful as this:

Lyra and her dæmon moved through the darkening hall, taking care to keep to one side, out of sight of the kitchen.

[LHK]

Okay you lovely mods, feel free to lock this thread if you think it's superfluous but I think while there has been a lot of general griping there hasn't been a forum for people to express their specific gripes or particular insights into why they didn't think the film worked. If you think it would have been great but for New Line editing, say no more, that opinion has been fully expressed. But I have a couple of things I'd like to say and I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on what they think let the film down. So:

1. The direction was bad in various respects. Weitz seems barely competent in terms to knowing what shots to use where (why no big establishing shots in the bears' palace? Why no close up in moments of high emotion? Why no close ups of detail's like Ragnar's doll or Hester's wink?).

Uh... he did those things actually.

His direction was adequate. He wasn't a revelation, but he avoided the pitfalls that happened with Narnia.... well that was until the final scene. Then it because over the top cheese.

2. dæmons are poorly served and since they are the single most important thing in the story this is a big let down. The scene where Lyra and Pantalaimon are nearly separated was quite affecting thanks to the good acting of Dakota (she seems to be at her best shouting) and the good animation of Pan, but the scene was hardly earned. In the book the importance of dæmons is steadily and subtly built up through emotional moments and very little exposition. I'd be more forgiving of Weitz's shortcomings in this if dæmons weren't such an absolute gift to a filmmaker (picturesque, and a perfect way to have a character say her thoughts and feeling outloud).

Are they? Thought this was Lyra's story. Pan is exactly what Pullman has always said he was. Something for Lyra to talk too.

3. Ian McKellan's miscasting as Iorek. Like everybody in the world I love McKellan and you only have to look at his Iago to see what a very fine actor he is. But he's not Iorek. It's like casting Maggie Gyllenhall as Lyra. Then again, the Iorek of the film barely resembled the Iorek of the book in any case - his history and personality were completely revised so we ended up with quite a talkative, cuddly bear who had a tendency to lose fights.

The problem was the writing far more so then McKellan, who was fine again. I don't understand what people expected. The bear needs to speak.

4. Okay, this one doesn;t really count but I'd just like to mention it: the film contained an example of the worst acting I have ever seen - just a small moment -when Nicole Kidman bursts into a room as Lyra leaves via the window. TGM has just had a window slammed on its paw and Nicole grabs her own hand in such unconvincing pain she might as well add 'Oh dear! My hand has been hurt! Oh ouch! Ouch! That is because a human feels a dæmons pain by the way! Oh dear!' and have done with it.

Not really what I got out of it. She looked more surprised/annoyed then anything. The indignity of it all.

The theme throughout seems to be of people who have never stopped to ask, 'Now why did (master storyteller) Philip Pullman do things that way? Include this moment? Play that character like that?'. They failed to realise that Pullman didn't throw stuff together randomly and that things are as they are in the book for very good reasons. Of course any adaptor has liscence to change anything he sees fit about a story - but he should display some understanding of what he is doing.

This is true and was the flaw of the film. It felt like a really nice outline to a really great story.

[Quantum Reality]

The main thing I disliked was that the film seemed to end quite abruptly. Up until then the major elements of the first book were included, so that I got a good feel for Lyra's world and the northern wastelands she and Iorek had to traverse to reach the boy who had no daemon.

[Blossom]

3. Ian McKellan's miscasting as Iorek. Like everybody in the world I love McKellan and you only have to look at his Iago to see what a very fine actor he is. But he's not Iorek. It's like casting Maggie Gyllenhall as Lyra. Then again, the Iorek of the film barely resembled the Iorek of the book in any case - his history and personality were completely revised so we ended up with quite a talkative, cuddly bear who had a tendency to lose fights.

The problem was the writing far more so then McKellan, who was fine again. I don't understand what people expected. The bear needs to speak.

What was wrong with the writing? The problem deffinately was his voice, he was too old.

I can't agree with point 1. I think Chris did a good job, and the movie was so badly edited that you can't possibly know what Chris had been doing when he was shooting it.

I think the thing that annoyed me more than anything was the stupid bit with Billy Coster where his mum told him he'd be ok. He was supposed to die, to show that you can't be ok without your daemon. It just looked so lame in the movie. But there are many, many small things apart from the editing that added up to make the movie rubbish.

[kincuri]

I hadn't read the books, so my opinions can be treated as someone viewing the film with absolutely no previous experience of HDM.

1. I think the cinematography was great and was officially the job of the director of photography, Henry Braham Whilst it my have been lacking in some scenes, it was made up for with wonderful shots of Lyra's London, the Bear Fight and as they move into the north.

2. Again, I had not read the books, so the concept of Dæmons was new to me. I think the idea was built up enough for me, i.e. it was obvious enough what the significance of the intercision meant. I left the movie in envy of the characters and their Dæmons. I want one!

3. I enjoyed Ian McKellen, he provides a voice of power, but I do agree that the material he was given was less than perfect.

4. I totally agree with this point. Watching the movie for a second time, I almost laughed out loud watching that scene. As much as I love Nicole, her over-acting almost ruined a greatly suspenseful scene.

Like all book adaptions, things have to be condensed, and to maintain a linear story, things sometimes get changed. I've learnt to go into an adaption expecting differences and I enjoy the films much more thoroughly. (I learnt my lesson after the first films of both Harry Potter and LOTR).

[Philharmonic]

Twelve things I hate about the film are:

1) The biggest, and most obvious one, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE END? ok, so it was cut out so that we start off the second film with someone we know instead of someone we don't. Its in the commentary-still a bad idea though.
2) What the hell was Chris Weitz thinking revising the Bolvangar Svalbard order?
3) Like the opening, especially that window the camera moves through , but it could have been cut down to mentioning it was another universe-thats it.
4) Weitz could have let the viewers who didn't read the books (luckily that doesn't include me) figure bits out for themselves. Like the Magisterium-lose the scene on the zeppelin.
5) Some of Lyra's lines in the hall in Jordan at the beginning sound like they're being read straight off a piece of paper. No life in them at all.
6) Like some others think, Iorek Byrnison's past was better in the books.
7) The general idea of 'single combat' is to draw blood from your opponent, if not kill him/her, first. So where is the blood in the bear fight?
8) We could have done with some of the events uncrucial to the story in the book, such as exploring the underground of Jordan, pranking the dead people and all that, and more scraps with townies, brick burners and gyptians, to explore some of Lyra's previous life before she met Mrs. Coulter.
9) The obviousness of Mrs. Coulter being a Gobbler is bad-we could have done without that little scene with Billy, Roger, Ratter and the monkey. Shouldn't have been revealed until Pan goes rooting around in the bin in Mrs. Coulter's office.
10) Kaisa. What happened to him? He's the one who visits the Noordelicht, not Serafina Pekkala.
11) The ice bridge scene. Sheesh! As if changing the order isn't enough, he leaves one part behind-the bridge shouldn't be until just before Asriel rips the sky open.
12) Fra Pavel. He shouldn't be here until the second film! And neither should the three-man council at the Magesterium with Derek Jacobi and Christopher Lee-well that shouldn't be until the third film, I think. And there's twelve men!

Still, bits I do like are-
1) The engines used. Wow to the little blue matrix in the spinny things.
2) Bear animation. Very good.
3) The dæmon disappearences. Pretty little Dust shower-not bad.
4) The alethiometry vision things. Nice-a little too much, but still good.
5) Dæmon form changes. Brilliant!
6) The little attentions to detail on the alethiometer-it's brilliant-I can even tell what the question being asked is meant to be-so it isn't just random symbols getting pointed to. Like say when Lyra's asking where the armour is-the alpha omega-meaning location-the griffin-reffering to ice bears-and therefore Iorek-and the helmet-speaks for itself.
7) The fight scenes-despite lack of blood.

[artemis]

Personally I think the massive budget was the biggest mistake. New Line should have made it with a much smaller budget and therefore been able to take bigger risks. As it was they were forced to compromise Pullman's works. Make no mistake I think that film adaptions do have to differ from their book counterparts but completely changing the feel of the story is just plain stupid.

They say if you cast a film properly it'll direct itself. I know Pullman personally chose Nicole Kidman, but she was boring in this film, I mean come on Mrs Coulter is not boring, she is one of the most dynamic and interesting characters ever written. Tricia Helfer ALL the way, or even Tilda Swinton. Ian McKellen is a genius but isn't Iorek, I also would have liked to hear Nonso Anozie's recordings. Lord Faa was just a joke, he was meant ot be old slim muscley but courteous instead they give us some Gimli look-a-like. Eva Green as Serafina better but her accent annoyed me.

Daniel Craig was well cast but poorly directed in my opinon all petulant "I want it my way," rather than calmly stating "This is what will happen." Like Nicole Kidman there was no passion to his protrayal and that was what Chris Weitz wanted to bring to the role. Also Farder Coram, I thought they were going to cut his character alot and I think I'd have preferred it if they did as his fawning high pitched voice and general demeanour really didn't cut it for me.

Sam Elliot as Lee Scoresby was excellent though and easily the best thing about the film.

I liked the visual effects of the daemons but I think they needed more time to be developed and Mrs Coulter hitting the golden monkey seemed like the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on screen. In fact the golden monkey just seemed a but of a moron with all his grunting and moaning. The writing was terrible and I hated the fact that the magesterium were just some toothless organisation who didn't seem overly powerful. And the opening narration, to me, is just lazy writing. LOTR it worked it provided a grounds for a new story to take place TGC told you the story almost. WHY?!

The production design was to sparkley shiney and the film never looked lived in enough, the horseless carriage and the whole anbaric power totally missed the point of Lyra's world and ht novel green fire in Coulter's apartment, ooh, must be different!

I didn't like the film, as you can probably tell, and I really hope above all else they don't touch The Subtle Knife. Much as I'd love to see Cittagazze on screen I don't want to see an even sparklier version of Naboo.

I'm just hopeful that the film rights will revert back to Pullman in time and this time he'll be more conservative to who he gives them to.

[Philharmonic]

Personally I think the massive budget was the biggest mistake. New Line should have made it with a much smaller budget and therefore been able to take bigger risks.

Erm...considering some films, $180 million wasn't very much. Spidey and Pirates both got around $250 million per film. In fact, TGC only got $30 million more than Transformers, but I don't think anybody called that massive.

Just thought I'd clear that out.

[Kyrillion]

2) What the hell was Chris Weitz thinking revising the Bolvangar Svalbard order?

I can sort of see the thinking there - once the original ending was suddenly gone the remaining story, in order, would run a little oddly - it would seem odd to have the bear fight as the resolution of the film rather than Lyra's victory. But it was clumsily done and if it was ever a good idea to mess around with the work of a storyteller as good as Pullman, it was certainly botched (and leant the story inconsistancy when Lyra was taken to the island Svalbard overland).

8) We could have done with some of the events uncrucial to the story in the book, such as exploring the underground of Jordan, pranking the dead people and all that, and more scraps with townies, brick burners and gyptians, to explore some of Lyra's previous life before she met Mrs. Coulter.

Yes, it was a great shame they didn't allow the world to breathe at all before the relentless march if the plot. With any film set in an invented world you're taking a risk that the audience won't understand the world or believe in it enough to really care about the characters and events. I felt the opening of the film could have done more to establish the rules of this world and make it clear it's not a Harry Potter-verse where magic exists or anything can happen.

)The obviousness of Mrs. Coulter being a Gobbler is bad-we could have done without that little scene with Billy, Roger, Ratter and the monkey. Shouldn't have been revealed until Pan goes rooting around in the bin in Mrs. Coulter's office.

Totally - and this lack of faith in the audience, and wanting to spell everything out from the outset, is consistent with the rest of the film (like explaining what daemons are in the opening voiceover).

11) The ice bridge scene. Sheesh! As if changing the order isn't enough, he leaves one part behind-the bridge shouldn't be until just before Asriel rips the sky open.

It made no sense whatsoever in its new place (I'm guessing, from storyboards and stuff we've seen it was filmed to go in the original place and got dumped here to bulk the action out). What really amazed me and convinced me of Weitz's odd ineptitude was the fact that the whole exciting part of the scene is... not there... Lyra gets halfway across, the bridge starts collapsing, Gandalfbear says 'run' - and cut to Lyra safely on the other side. did they run out of money or time?

4) The alethiometry vision things. Nice-a little too much, but still good.

Hm, I thought once would have been enough. I got annoyed with it, and the recycled footage made it look cheap.

2. dæmons are poorly served and since they are the single most important thing in the story this is a big let down. The scene where Lyra and Pantalaimon are nearly separated was quite affecting thanks to the good acting of Dakota (she seems to be at her best shouting) and the good animation of Pan, but the scene was hardly earned. In the book the importance of dæmons is steadily and subtly built up through emotional moments and very little exposition. I'd be more forgiving of Weitz's shortcomings in this if dæmons weren't such an absolute gift to a filmmaker (picturesque, and a perfect way to have a character say her thoughts and feeling outloud).

Are they? Thought this was Lyra's story. Pan is exactly what Pullman has always said he was. Something for Lyra to talk too.

Not sure I get your meaning, LHK - I am saying exactly the same thing you paraphrase of Pullman: that daemons are a way for characters who would otherwise be on their own to articulate their thoughts and feelings and do a little exposition, because they have a constant companion.

5. although this was one of the things many sraffies felt they could let go of, i wasn't a fan of the narration and introduction of worlds/dæmons/concepts at the very beginning. it reminded me of those terrible recording angels in the bbc radio play and was additionally slightly cheesey in the way it was done. i love eva green's voice but i think something closer to simple star wars introduction (but less star wars obviously) might have irked me less. also, the narration plays no role later in the film and we're introduced to eva green's voice again in a new character who didn't get much screen time. it was awkward.

Yes, I felt the narration was a very lazy device here. I don't mind the voiceover opening of the LoTR films because there's a sense of that story being part of a much wider (the history of a whole world), one which you have to understand to come to LoTR in the right frame of mind.

But a big infodump at the beginning of this story? There's not need for it. and I do hate that tendency adaptors have for explaining what daemons are in the first few seconds, as if an audience would walk out in disgust if there was a concept on screen they didn't immediately understand the reason for. It's one of the things I love best about the book, that daemons are so strong BECAUSE their place in the world and the story is built up subtly and slowly.

Thank God the film didn't do what the radio adaptations did anyway, and give away intercission in the first few moments!

[sfsraffie]

[Yes, it was a great shame they didn't allow the world to breathe at all before the relentless march if the plot.

Aye, and this is why we're still waiting to see those 45 minutes of deleted, presumably character-building scenes. I don't think there's much chance that a Director's Cut would make a great adaptation, or even a great film, but it could very well make a good film.

Much of the movie was greenscreened - for all we know, it would take significant additional special effects to actually such a cut. Maybe that's why there's been no announcement so far. Regardless, we've gotta have it!

[LadySylvia]

As far as I'm concerned, this film was NO DISASTER. Is it perfect? NO! There is no such thing as a perfect film. It doesn't exist. Was it an exact adaptation of the novel? NO! Not unless moviegoers expect to watch a five to ten hour film.

I've read the book. I've seen the movie. Frankly, this movie is a better adaptation of its source novel than HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX. It may have changed some of its plots around in sequence (which didn't bother me) or left out the infamous last scene (which again, I don't care considering that New Line Cinema had no idea whether it would film the other two novels. But it didn't leave out important plot lines with the same degree as THE ORDER OF PHOENIX did. For me, the only real flaw of TGC was the manner in which the London sequence was dealt with. It was too rushed.

[Blossom]

There is no such thing as a perfect film.

You've obviously never seen The Shawshank Redemption then.

[Pagdzin tulku]

The bear had his jaw torn off without a single drop of blood? Wow, that's clever.

And some of the scripting was a little dodgy.

It isn't epic enough.

[Philharmonic]

Yah...methinks Chris Weitz really wanted to aim the film at younger kids.

When you look at Star Wars, that started as a U and worked its way up to a 12. And most of the Marvel films-Spiderman, Hulk, Iron Man, Fantastic 4-they were all aimed at young kids as comics, but are all 12 films.

I think Weitz should really have done the film as in the book, then see where it ends up in the classification.

[Roll_with_it]

I really don't think Number 1 is fair, seeing as we have no real idea of how the film was shot due to all the editing. I recommend you all rewatch the Comic Con footage. Before seeing the film, I found it really underwhelming, but after seeing the film, you can just get a real idea of how good this could have been. I think the direction shows promise though, there were some beautiful shots in there, very well framed. My personal favourite would be when Lyra is running away from Coulter up the cobblestone street.

One thing I noticed when watching the film for the second time, was how badly Lee and Iorek's friendship was conveyed. There were about 2 lines of dialogue between them, you'd be forgiven for thinking the hated each other.

[artemis]

Personally I think the massive budget was the biggest mistake. New Line should have made it with a much smaller budget and therefore been able to take bigger risks.

Erm...considering some films, $180 million wasn't very much. Spidey and Pirates both got around $250 million per film. In fact, TGC only got $30 million more than Transformers, but I don't think anybody called that massive.

Just thought I'd clear that out.

Exactly and Spidey 3 and POTC 2+3 were all not as good as the original films. Compare to Donnie Darko which was made for $4.5 million and the entire LOTR trilogy was made for $280 million perhaps a lower budget would have allowed more artistic freedom and integrity.

Also, New Line isn't a massive studio like Disney or Sony, they couldn't really afford it, on the bright side though due to them only profiting from sales in the US it does look like The SUbtle Knife won't be made.

[Northen_Lights]

The problem deffinately was his voice, he was too old.

Oh, charming. I thought Ian McKellan did a great job as Iorek.

[Australis]

I saw it with a group that included one who hadn't read the book - we all agreed it was too rushed, and she also found it a little confusing. Like many others, I feel that as a film it's OK, as a visual interpretation of a well-written, carefully-constructed story, it leaves a lot to be desired.

The Good (in no particular order): Portrayal of the daemons, aerial views of trip to London, with the Gyptians on their ship, Lee/Hester interaction, and her voice, what little we heard of it, some of the Trollesund scenes, costume design and set decoration, and...well, that's about all I can think of.

The Indifferent: daemon's voices, music soundtrack (I was trying to like it while I was listening to it, to give me an excuse to by the CD, but no...The feel of the music as background to the official website, and in the trailer, that was fine), Bolvangar scenes (except where Lyra faces off against the Tartar soldiers), much of the acting.

The Bad. Obviously, having the film limp to a lame conclusion with a terrible couple of final lines in the balloon, the reversal of key scenes, Asriel's added scene (Can't we discuss this like gentlemen?" as he's dragged off. I don't think PP wrote that line...), the symbols lighting up like a scoreboard, the Tony/Billy fusion to one character, the blue balls and that weird carriage, Lee's balloon, which just wasn't right, the pacing of scenes - the editor did Lawrence of Arabia many years ago, and while I don't suggest this should have been a four-hour film as well, she does know how to cut a scene properly, long or short; in the credits, it seems she may have had to defer to others. Iorek's voice. Much as I like Ian McKellen, would a Svarlbard bear have an RP accent? At least Eva Green attempted a Scandinavian feel to hers. Loss of important scenes, like the cocktail party, Tony's death and Lyra inscribing a coin for him. The intercision blade didn't have to all sparkly; sometimes less is more, and it's hinted that its edge may be similar to one of the Knife's edges. Tony's dried fish; a moving moment in the book that could have made it to the screen. A bear fight with NO blood? Come on. and THAT song at the end.

My worry is, if sequels are made in the style of TGC, they will be even further removed from the books. If they are true to the books, that leaves TGC all on its own. You can't win.

We had to wait a long time between LotR screen versions. I can't see HDM being attempted again on the big screen for a long time, but what about a TV series? Three series, of perhaps 4-5 episodes each, in a medium that can allow more exploration of the personal interaction so important to the stories.

[Australis]

And another thing...

It's a bit pointless making comparisons with LotR, but I can't help myself. Remember one of the "hero" scenes in Fellowship, where they have left Rivendell and there are a few sweeping aerial shots, the music swells, and Gandalf and Co. in medium-shot pass the camera on the crest of a mountain.

In TGC, there's a scene with Lyra and the Gyptians on a snow-covered rise, and they're about to set off over the ice. Did CW make anything of this? They look like they are about to take a stroll down to the beach. Any feeling of this being a dangerous or difficult journey is completely absent.