ALERT ALERT ALERT

[cleolinda]

Full Golden Compass trailer now online. (Hey! There's Christopher Lee!) As for voices you hear in the trailer, Kristin Scott Thomas will voice Stelmaria; Kathy Bates is doing Hester, as I'd already suspected (ETA: Huh. The clip I posted the other day isn't actually in the trailer); and as for the new Iorek voice that I, for one, was not all that happy about: " 'It was a studio decision…You can understand why you would cast Ian McKellen for anything,' Weitz told us. 'But letting go of Nonso was one of the most painful experiences on this movie for me. I need to say about Nonso that he is one of the most promising and soulful young actors I have encountered in England and I’ve worked here for quite a bit now and he’s actually in the next Mike Leigh…But it was, uh, that was kind of a dark day for me. I kinda wanna go out of my way to point out how much I love Nonso’s work. And that’s that.' " It just kills me because Kathy Bates is right for Hester, and I can totally see (hear?) Kristin Scott Thomas doing Stelmaria, but... McKellen is just wrong for Iorek. I love him, but... the voice they had in the earlier trailers was just so perfect.

Comments

[ter369.livejournal.com]

McKellen is just wrong for Iorek. I love him, but... the voice they had in the earlier trailers was just so perfect.


From the "haven't read the books" point of view, I'd like to see the film in case it clues me in to whatever was going on in the book's first pages that I couldn't understand so I gave up reading. (I mean, I am going in spite of plastic, archly-aware-of-herself-acting, telegraphs-every-thought-and-motive Nicole Kidman.)

And every time (at an Order of the Phoenix showing) I see The Golden Compass preview (the long one) I just lose it (not in the good way) when that bear speaks. Is the bear the character in question with voice casting?

I may not be the right audience for this, but I want to try. Maybe the producers had similar test audience reactions, hmm?

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

It's the same bear--Iorek. I actually thought his previous voice was perfect--bears are described as very non-human in the books. I mean, obviously, yes, but in a way that the daemons aren't--the daemos are very much animals that talk like people, and are actually part of people, whereas the bears have a very cold, emotionless quality to them, which is what makes his relationship with Lyra so touching. I mean, he still shows very little emotion, but the fact that he even cares about her at all is amazing for a bear. McKellen's fantastic, but there's just too much nuance and emotion to his voice. Normally you'd think that's a good thing, but... not for one of Pullman's bears.

The thing about the books, also, is that they take place in an alternate-universe Oxford. I don't know if that helps any, but that may have been what you found disorienting.

The Kidman issue is kind of tricky--I know exactly what you're talking about, and I think she'd be a much better actress if she could shed that plastic sort of veneer, but at the same time, she's absolutely perfect for Mrs. Coulter. I think Pullman even said he had her in mind. She could stand to be a little less aware of her own acting, but Mrs. Coulter is very much a glamorous, fakey-fake, two-faced kind of woman.

[ter369.livejournal.com]

The thing about the books, also, is that they take place in an alternate-universe Oxford. I don't know if that helps any, but that may have been what you found disorienting.

Yes, I knew that going in. I'd read a number of detailed reviews, and the entire trilogy was in print when I acquired the box set. I have an idea of who's aligned with what, who dies, and what happens in the final book that probably means no sequels.

I couldn't follow whatever was happening for the alternate-beings-and behavior for that story world in the opening of the book. The last time I made this comment in my LJ, I thought I'd be in for "let me explain", but was instead treated to quite a bit of, "me neither, whatever that was about, I passed" from people who/read/write/sell fantasy prose. So I won't be surprised if the film is significantly different from the book as to streamlining and explaining. Though I've read a lot of fantasy, sometimes it's style of prose that doesn't make sense for certain readers.

The Kidman issue is that she's grating, or dull, and then I miss plot points. I really liked her the first time I saw her (Far and Away), but it's been downhill since then.

I'm wary otherwise, as the effects in this film's preview look cartoony in the preview. The problem for fantasy books of great acclaim that are now making their way to the screen, is that if the core magical premise can't be easily articulated, it may also be hard to market (like Stardust). I suspect that's why that-film-that-bombed-last-week was stripped to some easy to market (to producers, to studios, to the general public) elements, which actually takes the magic out of the story and leaves only highlights of the-hero's-journey-for-tweenies. The preview for The Spiderwick Chronicles looks like an afterschool special, "We had to move to a weird house after the divorce" lesson for our times, which makes me wonder why they didn't choose animation of some kind as a medium, since the art work of the books is as unique as a Sendak story world.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

I didn't really have a problem following the opening, so I was trying to think of something, but... yeah, the alternate universe thing is pretty apparent. Again, just fishing. Now that I think about it, I think I did find it a teensy bit disorienting, but in a really interesting way. I felt more like I wanted to read more and find out what was going on, rather than the opposite, but that was just me. The books can be pretty polarizing--my aunt loathes them, for example, but for her it's a very cut-and-dried religious issue ("blasphemy" was the word she used, I think. And she loves Harry Potter, so she's not one of those book-burning types).

The effects, though, have gotten better trailer by trailer--they seem to be so eager to promote the movie that they're trying to get the material out there before it's done. (And give the issue you mentioned, about getting prospective audiences to understand the core magical premise, I don't blame them.) I remember in the first preview that they literally had some of the effects sketched in, like, "Here's the world we're going to build, but we haven't done it yet." Even Gollum got better from trailer to movie, so I'm still holding out hope here.

[ter369.livejournal.com]

The books can be pretty polarizing--my aunt loathes them, for example, but for her it's a very cut-and-dried religious issue ("blasphemy" was the word she used, I think. And she loves Harry Potter, so she's not one of those book-burning types).

That's part of what intrigues me. And it's not like I don't read Shakespeare, Jacobean playwrights, or go to the opera, where the texts are challenging in different ways. I refuse to be defeated by Mr. Pullman's prose when his ideas seem so compelling!

Still -- on the religious issue -- I do wonder just how familiar people are with the major world religions, after all the comments post-Deathly Hallows along the lines of, "Did Rowling have to make Harry like Jesus, yeesh." Because my familiarity with Matthew/Mark/Luke/John somehow missed the part where Jesus of Nazareth returned to life, married his best friend's sister, and was still around nineteen years later sending his son off to schul.

(I hope I haven't polarized your post by discussing religion ..... but good for your aunt for at least tackling Rowling.)

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Hey, no problem. What's weird is that my aunt and uncle have always been pretty strict/protective with my cousin, but other than that, they're completely cool--I always sit around with my uncle and talk film at holiday lunches. And my aunt loves Harry Potter through and through, is fairly open-minded, etc. I think the actual phrase "We're going to kill God" (or something very like that) is where she just shut off, though. Like, we're going to kill God, do not collect $200, game over. I can't really say whether you'd like the books, but I think you would enjoy the interplay of ideas at least (whether you agreed with them or not). I would argue that Pullman isn't so much anti-religion as he is anti-church; I mean, they're still talking about the Republic of Heaven in the third book.

[christwise.livejournal.com]

I was on Pullman's website and he said that he is indeed anti-church, not anti-religion. He mentioned the scene in Amber Spyglass when the Authority disintegrates and it's described as pieces of paper flying away (or something) which he thinks is a significant description. I'm not explaining this well but in the end, no, he's not an angry athiest.

His website also mentioned that the religious aspect is going to remain in the films. He said he wouldn't have agreed to it if it wasn't. But then again, he goes on for a while about metaphors which may be his code for "the religious stuff is going to be there but only if you're really really REALLY looking for it." So I guess we'll just have to see. And we'll have to wait a while since it doesn't really get going until the later books.

Brokeback Mountain was the gay cowboy movie. The Subtle Knife will be the gay angel movie (I hope).

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

You know, if they sell it correctly, I think an anti-church movie could fly fairly well. Not anti-church in the sense of, you know, anti-actual-church-as-we-know it, anti-Religious-Right, but if you portray it as a quasi-government authority that's (literally, what with the Metatron and the Authority and all) taken the place of the True God, well, that's a very Protestant notion anyway, and "rebellion" tends to play really well with American audiences, as themes go.

[christwise.livejournal.com]

I mean, the trailer was playing up the Magisterum (or however you spell it) as the evil enemy so I'm feeling pretty good about it. They could definitely make it work.

[spectralbovine.livejournal.com]

From the "haven't read the books" point of view, I'd like to see the film in case it clues me in to whatever was going on in the book's first pages that I couldn't understand so I gave up reading.
Ha! Oh man, that first chapter is like the most confusing first chapter of a book ever. Next to Foucault's Pendulum. But, seriously, if you keep reading, it makes sense by the third chapter or so. He finally gives you an exposition dump.

[ter369.livejournal.com]

But, seriously, if you keep reading, it makes sense by the third chapter or so. He finally gives you an exposition dump.

The exposition dump is sometimes appropriate, just like prologues and author's notes! Thanks for the encouragement.