Quote of the moment: (On Messenger last week)
Rob: http://www.alinkijustmadeup.com
Rob: Can you go there?
Will: Where? The link?
D'oh! Rob is the monkey, as he reminded me today!
Returning to the point: Philip Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy. Northern Lights, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass. Except that if you visit that link, you'll find it's the U.S. publisher's page, and Northern Lights is called "The Golden Compass". Why?! Is that somehow better? I think not. Maybe Americans don't know what the northern lights are. The fact that they are an inherent part of the theme of the book is obviously irrelevant, as is the instrument in question not being a compass at all, but an alethiometer. For anyone who's read LOTR, that's like calling a Palantir a bauble. But then again, maybe they do in the U.S. editions!
The inadaquacies of Americans are further exposed in the crass damaging of the plot, accuracy, and entire ethos of the film. The director of the project, as currently installed by the studio, caused an outcry by saying this:
"New Line is a company that makes films for economic returns. They have expressed worry about the possibility of His Dark Materials' perceived anti-religiosity making it an unviable project financially. My job is to get the film made in such a way that the spirit of the piece is carried through to the screen, and to do that I must contend not only with the difficulties of the material but with the fears of the studio. Needless to say, all my best efforts will be directed towards keeping His Dark Materials as liberating and iconoclastic an experience as I can. But there may be some modification of terms. You will probably not hear of the 'Church'."
Does he know the meaning of the word iconoclastic? Specifically "a person who attacks images used in religious worship" according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, or more broadly, someone who attacks the religious establishment. How does removing the element of the story which opposes the antiquated establishment of the Church keep it iconoclastic? Yes, the 'Church' is used as a metaphor for every institution that suppresses individual thought. So it might be possible to maintain that ethos by replacing the 'baddies' in the film, and about half of the books' characters, I'm sure. With what, exactly? Mr Chris Weitz, the aforementioned director, suggested a Communist authority. Ironic, certainly. The Communists were great persecutors of Christianity, just like Philip Pullman! There are some vague similarities, but I really don't think so.
The studio bosses basically want to make a mediocre spin-off that will hopefully make a reasonable return. They're so scared of the Bible-Belt lobby that they're planning to remove the 'Church' from a trilogy that just gets more iconoclastic from book to book! It essentially is about iconoclasty! What happened to "Any publicity is good publicity"? Making a trilogy of films that remain mostly accurate, and certainly true to the spirit of the book, is something that New Line have a history of doing. Why not maintain that reputation? Monty Python's Life of Brian was film that was a spoof of the Easter story, the fundamental basis of Christianty. There were huge evangelical protests that just served to highlight the accuracy of the film's mockery of the reactionary Christian establishment. This is nowhere near that iconoclastic! (I love that word now!)
For Rob, and as a summary for anyone who read all of that: New Line have just gone from [Comic Store Guy Voice] best... studio... ever... [/Comic Store Guy Voice] to the exact opposite. They are planning to turn the modern Lord of the Rings equivalent into something that Flanders would take Rod and Tod to.
P.S. Thanks to Jimmy for having the conversation with me that inspired that. Alternatively you can damn Jimmy for making me rant for ages, because you thought it was boring. Me too.
