I do think it’s a shame the movie version of Golden Compass stops before the scene that completely ripped me apart as a reader, making it impossible for me not to read the rest of the series. But then, as others have mentioned before me, the movie is for a different audience, and I doubt ending the movie on that note would have brought the masses back for a sequel.

I loved the books, I enjoyed the film, though felt it was lacking something, because I was watching as an adult, not a 12 year old.

My 12 year old son? Absolutely adored the film, because it was aimed at his age group. Judging it from that benchmark vastly improves the film.

We should remember that when judging.

Then again, there’s source material that probably should never be made into a movie. Case in point: Beowulf.

There are horrible movie adaptations, it’s the truth. But what actually makes a good adaptation? Gather all the best actors, the best crew, the best director and whoever… but the end result may not be good. Though I think the most important factor is that the script stays as true to the novel as possible.

And I think that some books really shouldn’t be turned into film. They’re just too complex and shouldn’t be ruined like that. (right now I’m thinking of One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez)

Then again… there are some excellent adaptations. My favourite movie of all time is “The Constant Gardener”. The book was written by John Le Carré and the movie was directed by Fernando Meirelles. I can think of at least 5 other great examples.

Right now they’re shooting the film adaptation of “The Lovely Bones” - a book by Alice Sebold, which I adored. I have big expectations about it, though I’ll have to wait another year to see the final result.

While Ray is, of course, right to state that novels are all about the *story*, I also agree with Kathleen about Philip Pullman’s voice. His voice was completely different from anything I’d ever read. In the beginning I didn’t like it, but the story kept me reading. Soon I began to notice small things- his skill with characterization (showing without telling), the unabashed imperfection of his characters. By the time I finished the first book I was so entranced that I barely even protested at the calamitous ending, and I am very much a happily-ever-after person. I would even say that by the end, the story had taken second place to his voice and his obvious skill.

I do plan to go see the movie,. I will do my best not to expect it to be exactly like the book, but I do think that book adaptation movies are doomed to be a pale imitation of the book-reading experience. I’m afraid, Ray, that I can’t help but compare them. But instead of finding the movie lacking, maybe I will choose to take the vivid imagery from the movie and apply it in my imagination the next time I read the books. The best of both worlds.

C’mon. They’re different mediums, use different tools, have different possibilities. True, films rarely capture the nuance of books. Maybe because, as a medium, film just can’t do that as well. That’s why the films are adaptations, not replicas.

More than that, you need to consider who produces a book versus a film. A book is, essentially the product of one human being, the author, with, perhaps, influence by another, an editor.

A film is the product of a collaboration between a director, writer, art director, actors, cameraman, editor, sound editor, music score person, and many more. More than that, because so many millions must be invested to produce a film, “political” and market considerations that were probably not a factor in producing the book can weigh heavily on a film, precisely because of the humongous amounts of money involved.

Case in point, “The Golden Compass” which, I understand, has had some thematic underpinnings removed or diminished to invisibility.

I, too, saw it this weekend. I haven’t read the books, but am ordering them this week. I enjoyed the story of this girl and her daemon in a wonderfully imagined and executed world a great deal. It was a pleasure to watch, and an excellent production–acting, CGI, all of that stuff was super.

For me, it was a fine movie, an entertaining story about people, and I ended up wanting more. And buying the books.

Please, don’t expect a movie to be the book. In fact, don’t compare them. It’s not fair. Just look at the movie and, if you must critique it, do so on what’s there, not what’s not.

I’ve done screenwriting and am fully aware of the limitations of the form–and its strengths. I’ve written novels, and am fully aware of fiction’s strengths–and weaknesses.

So be fair. Don’t prejudge. Don’t postjudge. Just go for STORY. While many novels enrich us with strong themes and unique approaches to the world, don’t forget what those novels start out to be and are initially bought for–the STORY.

IMO.

Ray

I’ve read that there were major script issues with TTW, but that they finally settled on something. Hopefully it works and does the story justice.

There was a trailer for Inkheart, and though I was excited that Paul Bettany will be playing Dustfinger, the rest seemed meh.

TTW is going to take some masterful filmwork to pull off. Fingers crossed!

Therese, they’re making a movie out of Time Traveler’s Wife? Now that frightens me, haha. I kept thinking while I read the book how they would make it into a movie for some reason, but the idea that they’re actually going to try it worries me.

The book-to-movie translation I both can’t wait for and fear over is Time Traveler’s Wife, but word has it that the release date has been pushed again. Now it’ll be 2009 before it hits theatres.