'God' cut from His Dark Materials movie

[humble minion]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4077987.stm

This topic runs terrible risks of falling foul of the no-religion rules, but still, I think it's on-topic.

Honestly Hollywood, would it kill you to make a movie passably faithful to the book it's supposedly based on some time? It's not like Asriel's war against the Authority is just some sideplot you can Bombadil-ise out of existence. It's the foundation of the trilogy.

People like the book. The book is a bestseller. It's been out for years. Why bother self-censoring now?

 

[CrusaderX]

People like the book. The book is a bestseller. It's been out for years. Why bother self-censoring now?

Because to the makers of the film, the almighty dollar is the ultimate Authority. Ironic, no?

 

[Eosin the Red]

Well now, that sems just plain silly after reading the premise of the books. It is frightening how over-sensitive our culture has become especially as winter break approaches..



:::Eosin strolls away having avoided what he knows will be a sprial into hell before a small lock appears on the thread.:::::

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

This is ridiculous. This is basically the central conflict in the book.

It's like making The Lord of the Rings without Sauron. :\

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

This is ridiculous. This is basically the central conflict in the book.

It's like making The Lord of the Rings without Sauron. :\

I dunno...more like Lord of the Rings without the Ring. Either way...it gets a serious huh?!

 

[EricNoah]

I agree that doing something like this in an attempt to "appease" the masses is ill-considered. Some exec must think it's going to offend someone. But execs underestimate us most of the time -- so much of hollywood is dumbed down dumber than it needs to be.

 

[devilish]

I can't believe this -- without breaking the religious/political constraint, all I can
say is that this is a bad sign of the times.

 

[Pielorinho]

Yeah, I agree. Don't make the movie if the content is too controversial; I'd be happy with that. But it saddens me to think that they're taking this approach. I can't see how, with such a poor decision up front, they'll be making good decisions throughout the rest of the process.

And I hate that many people will be introduced to one of my all-time favorite fantasy works through such a bowdlerized version.

Daniel

 

[Mr. Kaze]

Don't make the movie if the content is too controversial; I'd be happy with that. But it saddens me to think that they're taking this approach.

Except that movies aren't too controversial. Dogma did well enough and looks like it easily lands in the same field from a boycotting perspective. Prophecy spawned how many sequels? It's just that New Line is feeling fat and happy from LotR and -- sociopolitical climate in the US being what it is -- is feeling too risk-averse for the long-term good of their company. See also: Banal Tripe-ity that they're churing out after a surprisingly good original.

As far as comparisons go, I think the more accurate comparison would be refashioning Interview with the Vampire to Interview with the Pretty Boy who has a Fascination with Necks. (I remember people coming down as divided on that, most religious folks saying "EVIL!" and most women saying "I don't care, it's got Cruise, Pitt and Banderas all in spiffy outfits -- I gotta go oogle!")

Or it could be like Doom where it's some disease that mucks everybody up instead of demons from hell. (To be fair, though, we have already seen the version with the demons and it wasn't very good either.)

::K

 

[WayneLigon]

Hmm. I have the trilogy but I have not read past the first book. It seems from the article that Pullman supports whatever has been done; it might be that the article is trying to froth up early 'controversy' over the popular series.