TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The Golden Compass
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Golden Compass - Page 8  

post #211 of 234
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
How interesting you should say that about the film versions of LOTR. I thought for the most part that he undertook a mammoth, gargantuan task with respect and genuine success. There were a couple of things that I was quite considerably peeved about, especially as I was so utterly devoted to the books, but mostly I think he did a magnificent job, and one that would have made Tolkein very proud.

It was shown with the first Harry Potter film, that if you try to make nothing but a carbon copy of the book, and remain faithful to the letter, it doesn't work - and instead you are left with a clinical, boring and soulless product. Which the first HP film was. People need to understand that these are entirely different genres, and what works perfectly in a book just might not translate well to screen. And that you can make the necessary adjustments without killing the books, their characters, their themes or their spirit.

That is where I think The Golden Compass might be falling down in the film version. By trying to stay so literal and true to the book, its possible that it's just not worked as a film. I would love to have seen these books in Jackson's hands - he has shown that he is a master at getting the balance right.
I haven't seen any of the Harry Potter films (haven't read the books either).

As a whole I liked the LOTR movies but I wasn't happy with the way some of the characters were portrayed, especially Gimli. Quite a few of the important parts of the story were left out and replaced with things that weren't in the actual books. I understand that the movies are based on the books and not an exact representation, that directors need to have some creative license to help keep their intended audience in the seats but I just feel they could have been better. I don't know, maybe I'm too much of a purist when it comes to the story.
post #212 of 234
I agree with you though - there were things that got my goat, too. I REALLY didn't like the way Denethor was portrayed, or Faramir in The Two Towers - he was much more compassionate and noble in the books - and some of the cheesy humour in The Two Towers annoyed me too. Helm's Deep was the battle of all battles, and I thought a bit of ham here and there wouldn't hurt, but there was too much of it. Yes, a few things did annoy me - because I couldn't understand why they needed to be changed - it didn't seem to make much difference to the way the story was running. I also didn't like how Aragorn `almost' disappeared in the third film either - that never happened in the books and I thought that was a bit too much creative license. But apart from those things, I was really pretty happy!

I thought Saruman was awesomely represented - right down to that amazing voice, too.
post #213 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
Sorry to be bumping an old post from the thread. I don't usually post on IMO, but just wanted to say that the word Satan is in Hebrew, not in Arabic. There's a very similar word in Arabic, meaning the same, but the original is definitely Hebrew and shows up in the Bible in Hebrew, long before the Koran was written. It's a word in modern Hebrew as well, and we have more words from the same root, like "Sitna" which literally means hatred and dislike.

When you say the bible refers to Satan as "the devil" that's your English translation of the Bible. I read the original in Hebrew, and it definitely says "Satan" in Hebrew, which means "The Devil" in common English and thus was translated as such.

So, no, the Christians didn't invent Satan, and neither did the Arabs It was us the Jews! Then again, Christianity and Islam are pretty much derived from Judaism, as they all regard the Old Testament as one of their Holy Books too. So, if you like, Satan was invented by the monotheistic religions and is what we would refer to here as a Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept.

Whew, what a speech, and I made it in before the thread was closed too!

lol blame the arab guy standing over my shoulder in the office at time who said its a arab word Saṭänä

please note he typed that, i have no idea how to type those symbol on the PC
post #214 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
As a whole I liked the LOTR movies but I wasn't happy with the way some of the characters were portrayed, especially Gimli. Quite a few of the important parts of the story were left out and replaced with things that weren't in the actual books.
yep that sounds about like what i said about the LOTR movies also, I really, ticked at the way they did Gimli.
long with the whole horse kissing thing.

lol ok going back to my the zombie survival guide.
post #215 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
lol blame the arab guy standing over my shoulder in the office at time who said its a arab word Saṭänä
Perfect example of us believing what someone else tells us. Bruce "assumed" this fellow knew what he was saying to be true because he was an arab guy.

I think before "we" pass judgement on the book or movie, we ought to read/see it for ourselves and not just assume the opinions and perceptions of others is how we would perceive and interpret the book/movie. I can't speak for others but I can tell you that even after 30 years of marriage my husband and I can each hear a whole different thing from listening to the very same conversation so if we can interpret what we hear that differently, I can only assume I may well interpret other things much differently than someone else.
post #216 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
We all make value judgements every day on this Forum, it is what we do here.
Well, we make "judgements", not sure if they are "value" judgements.
post #217 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Well, we make "judgements", not sure if they are "value" judgements.
You are, absolutely, right Yosemite. I stand corrected.
post #218 of 234
BTW Satan was once an Angel in Heaven but he wanted to be too much like God and have equal power....God gave him his punishment
post #219 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
BTW Satan was once an Angel in Heaven but he wanted to be too much like God and have equal power....God gave him his punishment
That's one theory.
post #220 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
lol blame the arab guy standing over my shoulder in the office at time who said its a arab word Saṭänä

please note he typed that, i have no idea how to type those symbol on the PC
Sure, it's an Arab word. It's also a word in English. Doesn't mean either the English or the Arabs invented it

The word "Satan" appears 11 times in the old testament (I just looked it up btw, I wouldn't know this off the top of my head). First few times it appears it's actually has a slightly different meaning than "the devil", but by the time you get to the book of Job, you get that famous Satan character running bets with God.

The word Satan is also mentioned in the Koran, but that came much later. According to the Wikipedia in Hebrew, the Arabic word for Satan is usually Ibliss (sorry, don't have the right fonts here), but it's also mentioned as Al Sheetan or A'Sheetan, which would be the equivalent of Satan. I can see how your friend might use a different pronunciation, as there are so many different dialects of Arabic (different languages almost). What kind of Arabic does he speak (as in, where is he originally from)? I can usually follow some Palestinian Arabic and also to a lesser extent, Tunisian and some Egyptian Arabic. Not very good at it though! I can read and write Arabic, and understand only a little.
post #221 of 234
Ok so in regards to the whole Satan thing, i'm now not completely wrong. Thanks for clearing it up

How about some interesting facts? (which could be factual OR fictional)

Almost absent in the Old Testament, the Devil is mentionned 188 times in the New Testament :
62 as a “demonâ€
36 as “Satanâ€
33 as the “Devilâ€
37 as a “Beastâ€
13 as a “Dragonâ€
7 as “Belzeebuthâ€
Summary of the role played by Satan in the Scriptures

Satan is an angel (Job 1-2). God made him before the world began (Job 38:4-7). Satan was very powerful (Revelation 12:3: "ten horns") and very wise (Revelation 12:3: "seven heads"). But he became the first sinner (1 John 3:8). Apparently at one point in the past (or possibly future) he led a rebellion in heaven against God (Revelation 12:7). In Satan’s fall, he drew a vast number of angels with him (Revelation 12:4, 9). Some of the fallen angels are loose and some are bound in a place called the Abyss (Luke 8:31). The loose ones we call "demons". Of the bound ones, there are two kinds, permanently bound (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6) and temporarily bound (Revelation 9:1-11). Satan and his demons now wage war against God’s kingdom (Revelation 12:17). Some people think that Satan lives in hell, but hell is where Satan and the wicked will be sent at the last judgment. Satan now dwells on earth (Job 1:7). At the Second Coming of Christ, he will be bound for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3). After the thousand years, he will be set free for a short time and will go out to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:7-9). The devil’s final end will be in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10), which was prepared by God for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41).



Interesting...
post #222 of 234
I realize I haven't read this thread, but I'd just like to make a comment about the books and the movie.

I saw the movie this weekend and wasn't thrilled. Mindless CGI graphics, the script sounded like it was sent through the robot at the studio, and the story wasn't all there. It's barely passable.


However, I don't understand the controversy at all. If this film is offensive to you many things must happen all at once. Let me walk you though it.

1. You have to believe that people have animals that follow them. Oh, and in some cases these animals can change into other animals. One girl had a Polar Bear. Oh, and the Polar Bear can talk.

2. You have to think that Nichole Kidman is a crazy witch. (Okay, maybe that's not that hard.)

3. All children are some how able to handle a massive amount of stress and be okay with it.

It's just a movie. And not a very good one.
post #223 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
You have to think that Nichole Kidman is a crazy witch. (Okay, maybe that's not that hard.)

What's wrong with that? Unless she's an evil one.
post #224 of 234
Quote:
You have to believe that people have animals that follow them. Oh, and in some cases these animals can change into other animals.
But that is one of the points of contention. The animals are the souls of the people, and it is explained in the beginning narration that in other worlds these souls are not outside the human, but within. By the third book the reader discovers that the reason that these animals fix in one form is a result of original sin, or a loss of innocence.

Nicole Kidman's character explains that they want to cut the daemons from the children to protect them from this sin... but I believe that Pullman wants to explain, in some way, that maturation is not necessarily a journey into sin. He wrote in an article that he was disgusted that the human characters in CS Lewis' chronicles were barred from Narnia once they reached this age, specifically mentioning Susan's burgeoning interest in boys and make-up. Only the innocent children could make the journey.
post #225 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sohni View Post
Nicole Kidman's character explains that they want to cut the daemons from the children to protect them from this sin... but I believe that Pullman wants to explain, in some way, that maturation is not necessarily a journey into sin. He wrote in an article that he was disgusted that the human characters in CS Lewis' chronicles were barred from Narnia once they reached this age, specifically mentioning Susan's burgeoning interest in boys and make-up. Only the innocent children could make the journey.

I thought that was sad. They grew up in Narnia, so they could have stayed as innocent. Coming back through the wardrobe as children was a saddening moment for me because it was like everything was erased.
post #226 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sohni View Post
But that is one of the points of contention. The animals are the souls of the people, and it is explained in the beginning narration that in other worlds these souls are not outside the human, but within. By the third book the reader discovers that the reason that these animals fix in one form is a result of original sin, or a loss of innocence.

Nicole Kidman's character explains that they want to cut the daemons from the children to protect them from this sin... but I believe that Pullman wants to explain, in some way, that maturation is not necessarily a journey into sin. He wrote in an article that he was disgusted that the human characters in CS Lewis' chronicles were barred from Narnia once they reached this age, specifically mentioning Susan's burgeoning interest in boys and make-up. Only the innocent children could make the journey.
It's a CGI talking Polar Bear. It's not a soul.

I think people are just taking this way over the edge. It's a cartoon like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, only far less entertaining.
post #227 of 234
The polar bear wasn't a soul in any case. He is a character in the movie/book. The daemons were the souls.. the small animals that accompanied the humans everywhere.

Of course it's CGI and print.
post #228 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
It's a CGI talking Polar Bear. It's not a soul.

I think people are just taking this way over the edge. It's a cartoon like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, only far less entertaining.

In the way of entertainment, when i watch a movie, i like to forget the fact that it isn't real, and then i can sink into it and enjoy it. Obviousely like in the back of my head when watching Harry Potter, certain special effects and aspects aren't real, but if i sit there for 2.5 hours and go 'this isn't real this is silly' why bother watching if i can't enjoy it?

It's the same with movies like Pride & Prejudice, when there is a good plot and the movie sucks you in, then why not enjoy it and stay out of reality for a few hours?
post #229 of 234
I saw this at the weekend and it was so so. I was a bit disappointed because the book is much better (not to mention the fact that the film left out the end of the book - presumably because they didn't want to leave it on a cliff hanger in case a 2nd film isn't made) but it was a pleasant enough couple of hours. And definitely no killing of God! The film (and the book) is not anti God, it's anti church.

If anyone wants to go to see this film but is put off by the publicity and talk of it being anti God, well I think you should see it for yourself and make your own mind up. If you're just not really interested, then don't go. I don't approve of murder but that wouldn't stop me going to see a production of Macbeth.
post #230 of 234
WHAT??? They changed the END??? But...but... I can't think of how they could possibly end it any other way. Sigh. I was so looking forward to this fim but now I'm getting a bit anxious....
post #231 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
WHAT??? They changed the END??? But...but... I can't think of how they could possibly end it any other way.
They just missed out the final few chapters. Not sure how to do spoilers on here so I'll just say that they missed out all the Lord Asriel stuff at the end And changed the order of other events.
post #232 of 234
Oooooohhhhhh dear. Well, it's not released here until Boxing Day, so I'd better not let you tell me any more - but I am appreciative of the heads up. I think I would have been quite peeved had I found that out on the day.
post #233 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbantigers View Post
I saw this at the weekend and it was so so. I was a bit disappointed because the book is much better (not to mention the fact that the film left out the end of the book - presumably because they didn't want to leave it on a cliff hanger in case a 2nd film isn't made) but it was a pleasant enough couple of hours. And definitely no killing of God! The film (and the book) is not anti God, it's anti church.

If anyone wants to go to see this film but is put off by the publicity and talk of it being anti God, well I think you should see it for yourself and make your own mind up. If you're just not really interested, then don't go. I don't approve of murder but that wouldn't stop me going to see a production of Macbeth.
Exactly!

Now, this isn't the best kids movie out there, so if you are STILL concerned about it. Wait until DVD, oh and try not to fall asleep while watching it. Now, to avoid all the "family" films out there this year that aren't very good.

Ratatouille (2007) just came out on DVD. Rent that. It's a solid family film, and has no controversy surrounding it.
post #234 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbantigers View Post
I I don't approve of murder but that wouldn't stop me going to see a production of Macbeth.
What a wonderful correlation. Much Ado About Nothing also comes to mind.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The Golden Compass