Sounds like big changes are planned to the plot in order to get these books filmed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4077987.stm
Do you think it will be possible to make these changes without wrecking the story?
If they just change the titles used for the main “adversaries”, they can still get the message through.
What I’m amazed at is the pretense that HDM isn’t anti-religious! Maybe not anti-spiritual (which can mean anything these days), but definitely anti-religious!
http://www.bridgetothestars.net/index.php?d=movie
Brian
there is PP interview on that site too.
As a Catholic, I don’t this offensive. I find it downright stupid. It’s not like you can use some laser to remove it like varicose veins! This guy must be beter tha Shakespeare if he can get people to read past this!
Read the book. It’ll make sense then. I don’t want to spoil it for you.
I read the article, and it’ll be really interesting to see how the director removes God and the Church while keeping the general series of events intact, if that’s even possible. Personally, I loved this series because of the epic nature of the different universes involved and the weird pseudoscience involved. If they can at least maintain that, then they’ll have my $8.50.
My big fear is that they’ll dumb down the plot to make it “a children’s movie”. The storyline is most certainly not kid-friendly (even though the main charcters are children). The producers would be doing a great mis-service if they market this movie to children.
They market the books as Children’s lit, so it’d stand to reason that they’d market the movies to children too, don’t you think?
I hate the books, but if the changes are big enough (like making the protagonist a sympathetic character, for example) I might rent it some day. Ditto for that Series of Unfortunate Events movie, too.
Marketing be damned. It’s one thing to market these books as children’s lit, and quite another to create a “rated G” children’s movie out of a series that has some really disturbing (but pivotal) moments in it.
In their efforts to make a “rated G” movie, the producers may zap all the interesting plot developments out. That’s my biggest fear.
Quoting the interview I linked to earlier
Brian
Groovy.
I was so looking forward to this movie adaptation, but now I’m not sure I’ll bother seeing it. How in the world will they pull off a decent adaptation while dumbing it down? And all for Bush’s America? Bah. Another reason to be pissed off about the election.
- Rebekkah
I really would encourage you to read the books. There has been a lot of misunderstanding in the mainstream press about the purpose of the books. You might find some of the premises a bit off-putting at first, but stick through.
- Rebekkah
Aw, damn. Now I won’t get to stand outside a movie theatre in a baying mob, holding up a placard saying “Phillip Pullman, Burn In Hell!”.
Answer to question in OP: No.
Just to mention that there is already an adaptation for stage, although the length precludes an easy translation from stage to film (note the play is in two parts).
I can see why they would make the changes. I mean, consider how some people have been up in arms about Harry Potter being anti-Christian, for God’s sake - just imagine what the reaction would be to HDM, especially the Amber Spyglass, and especially considering it’s going to be marketed as a children’s movie. IMHO the book trilogy’s managed to stay just under the radar for a massive controversy (there’s certainly been some controversy), and the film would certainly change that.
I just wonder how they’ll manage the whole ‘cutting out the God’ thing.
Just keep referring to “God” as “The Authority”, give the Church another title, suggest that perhaps “Dust” is the Spiritual Reality behind everything and let all else stand.
Heck, I’ve read a knowledgeable C’tian essay on HDM which posits that if one views “The Authority” as a renegade Archangel (maybe Lucifer?) who corrupts the Church & is the target of another rebellion among angels that he has fooled into thinking he’s God, then it could be reconciled with C’tian faith. Yeah- that’s a great leap, but still a possible one. (IIRC, it was on the “First Things” website.)
I’m afraid I have little time for reading more fiction books, and frankly, bland endorsements don’t exactly encourage me.
In any event, no one seems to be particularly interested in giving me spoilers, which I assure you I don’t mind. If there is any logical fashion they can interest me, I might take a look. However, if he has just some damned silly premise and a well-written book behind it, I probably don’t care.
Bland endorsement retracted.
I suppose this is one way to adapt the book to a particular audience, but I would then argue, what’s the point? For me, the story is spoiled by removing the very necessary critique of established religion to the negation of the far more relevant spirituality we crave. This, I think, is Pullman’s core theme in the books, and I thinik the movie will suffer by “dumbing it down” for an audience that shouldn’t even be the focus of the movie. By keeping it true to its original intent, the movie maker might actually start a necessary dialogue, imho.
- Rebekkah
Pullman already wrecked the story, how can a movie house do worse?
No, it doesn’t make sense. The first book was good, the second was okay, and the third (where the Evil Church[sup]TM[/sup] plot plays out) was unreadable.