As you probably already know if you've paid even a modicum of attention to the mainstream media recently, Phillip Pullman's book The Golden Compass totally killed God. But did you know it also did something even more difficult? Did you know it broke Warren Spector's heart? It's true!
The respected developer talked about the book (one of his favorites) and the ensuing movie on his personal blog, saying "I really wanted to make the game, long before the film came out, but that's another story..." Instead of whatever Warren Spector would have done with the franchise, we're left with a 44% average offering. ... Hmm. Maybe The Golden Compass broke our hearts.
Reader Comments (25)
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 11:35AM (Unverified) said
Could it have been the fact that the movie wasn't very good, and the game was thrown together in about 5 minutes or so ;) And not to mention that the book, wasn't as good as Warren Remembers. :\
Naw, couldn't be, musta been El Nino or something like that.
Naw, couldn't be, musta been El Nino or something like that.
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 11:54AM (Unverified) said
It's always good to bring back a random refernce from the 90's ;)
I remember a time when you couldn't watch MadTV or SNL without getting a random El Nino Joke in every episode... those were simpler times, before La Nina came in and Ruined all of the fun :'(
Reply
I remember a time when you couldn't watch MadTV or SNL without getting a random El Nino Joke in every episode... those were simpler times, before La Nina came in and Ruined all of the fun :'(
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 12:02PM SheppyReturns said
You know, I got a free movie ticket to see this film and as such, after hearing the controversy, had low expectations. Afterwards, I have to say it's one of the most fully realized fantasy worlds seen in films in a long time. I was pleasantly suprised and amazed at all the little details they threw into this film.
Have not played the game, though. Have zero desire to. But I enjoyed the film, at least. Which is a good thing since it started with bad portents. After all, last movie I got a free ticket to see with a DVD purchase was Catwoman...
Have not played the game, though. Have zero desire to. But I enjoyed the film, at least. Which is a good thing since it started with bad portents. After all, last movie I got a free ticket to see with a DVD purchase was Catwoman...
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 12:07PM (Unverified) said
Ouch, Catwoman, i would have asked for a refund :-P
But seriously, i don't find little details to be something that makes a movie good, it's required these days, otherwise people complain :-P Happy Feet had little details, but it didn't make me like it.
I guess i have no inner child :\
Reply
But seriously, i don't find little details to be something that makes a movie good, it's required these days, otherwise people complain :-P Happy Feet had little details, but it didn't make me like it.
I guess i have no inner child :\
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 12:11PM SheppyReturns said
It's not so much expected because people rarely notice when it does not appear. Like the road sign in LOTR sceneraio or boom microphone dropping in Elf. But beyond that, so many films BREAK Mise En Scene nowadays, so it's refreshing when a film doesn't.
Essentially in the movie, NOTHING is out of place. From the city designs to the encampments, nothing seemed just thrown in.
Reply
Essentially in the movie, NOTHING is out of place. From the city designs to the encampments, nothing seemed just thrown in.
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 12:23PM (Unverified) said
Friends in the film industry refer to the film as "The Golden Turd". So, Warren, go ahead make a big, hot, steamy golden one...
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 12:27PM (Unverified) said
The Golden Compass would have been a decent movie if it hadn't seemed like a 90 minute montage.
Producer: How are we going to explain Lyra's relationship with her mother?
Director: We're gonna do a montage.
Producer: Okay, what about the scene with the armored bear?
Director: Montage.
Producer: Alright, and when...
Director: Montage, motherfucker! Montage!
Producer: How are we going to explain Lyra's relationship with her mother?
Director: We're gonna do a montage.
Producer: Okay, what about the scene with the armored bear?
Director: Montage.
Producer: Alright, and when...
Director: Montage, motherfucker! Montage!
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 1:25PM (Unverified) said
"I'm not sure who got to makers and told them it had to be so short"
You mean nearly 2 1/2 hours long? There's nothing more obnoxious than hearing a novel-to-film adaptation criticized by somebody who read the book. It glossed over some of the details? Maybe that's because they're trying to fit 20 hours worth of material in one film!
As somebody who did not read the books, I was quite impressed by most of the movie. Sure, you could tell that certain points were stuffed in just to please the nitpickers, but I thought they did worlds better at create a coherent and interesting film than many other adaptations I've seen (such as every Harry Potter except #3), and I think part of that is due to the fact that they were willing to cut and reorganize when needed. Just because something works in a novel doesn't mean it works equally well on film.
Reply
You mean nearly 2 1/2 hours long? There's nothing more obnoxious than hearing a novel-to-film adaptation criticized by somebody who read the book. It glossed over some of the details? Maybe that's because they're trying to fit 20 hours worth of material in one film!
As somebody who did not read the books, I was quite impressed by most of the movie. Sure, you could tell that certain points were stuffed in just to please the nitpickers, but I thought they did worlds better at create a coherent and interesting film than many other adaptations I've seen (such as every Harry Potter except #3), and I think part of that is due to the fact that they were willing to cut and reorganize when needed. Just because something works in a novel doesn't mean it works equally well on film.
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 1:35PM (Unverified) said
"There's nothing more obnoxious than hearing a novel-to-film adaptation criticized by somebody who read the book."
Actually there's nothing more obnoxious than people that don't read the book, and then go on to say that the adaptation was just fine. It's called perspective, get some.
Also, I saw the movie first and I thought it felt rushed. Then I read the books and I thought it felt really rushed. You may have liked and that's fine. Then again, there's no accounting for taste. How was Saw 3?
Reply
Actually there's nothing more obnoxious than people that don't read the book, and then go on to say that the adaptation was just fine. It's called perspective, get some.
Also, I saw the movie first and I thought it felt rushed. Then I read the books and I thought it felt really rushed. You may have liked and that's fine. Then again, there's no accounting for taste. How was Saw 3?
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 3:08PM (Unverified) said
"Actually there's nothing more obnoxious than people that don't read the book, and then go on to say that the adaptation was just fine."
I didn't say it was a good adaptation. I said it was a decent film. I don't care how closely it followed the book, I care whether or not the movie kept me interested for the duration, and in this case it did.
"It's called perspective, get some."
Apparently you're mistaking my criticism of Dan's post for criticism of your own. I thought your "montage" post was hilarious, however I thought Dan's post suggesting that somehow the 2 1/2 hour movie was too short was absurd.
Point is, you can't compare a book to a film and judge them solely on the amount of content: the book will win every time. You have to judge it on it's own merits, as a film (something your "montage" joke actually did).
"How was Saw 3?"
Wouldn't know, I'd never watch it. Not sure what your point was there.
Reply
I didn't say it was a good adaptation. I said it was a decent film. I don't care how closely it followed the book, I care whether or not the movie kept me interested for the duration, and in this case it did.
"It's called perspective, get some."
Apparently you're mistaking my criticism of Dan's post for criticism of your own. I thought your "montage" post was hilarious, however I thought Dan's post suggesting that somehow the 2 1/2 hour movie was too short was absurd.
Point is, you can't compare a book to a film and judge them solely on the amount of content: the book will win every time. You have to judge it on it's own merits, as a film (something your "montage" joke actually did).
"How was Saw 3?"
Wouldn't know, I'd never watch it. Not sure what your point was there.
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 3:59PM (Unverified) said
JBourrie,
Sorry dude. I totally misunderstood your post and your point. My bad.
Reply
Sorry dude. I totally misunderstood your post and your point. My bad.
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 12:30PM (Unverified) said
Yeah, I hear that if the book/movie don't convince you that there's no god, the game most certainly will
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 12:38PM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said
Perhaps Joystiq should have posted one of those little links in the God-killing comment, for those of us who aren't in on the joke(?).
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 1:13PM (Unverified) said
No joke... read the Controversies section here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_dark_materials )
(Spoilers, obviously)
Reply
(Spoilers, obviously)
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 1:12PM chispito said
Ironically, he's spoiling the third book/movie, not the first. And trust me, if they screwed up the first installment so badly, they can't possibly get the third one right unless they are completely unfaithful to the source material. And I hope they are.
Reply
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 7:22PM ttcfcl said
The book was awesome. I haven't seen the movie, but I'm pretty wary of it.
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 1:34PM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said
Oh... NOW I get it. I had heard something about some controversy, but I wasn't IN on the details. Oh, well. I don't much care for talking bears and twelve year olds, so it wasn't up my alley anyway...
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 1:58PM (Unverified) said
How hard would it be to get the rights to the story? I remember there being more than one lord of the rings game out round the time those movies were big. It would be easy enough to rename it northern lights.
Posted: Jan 7th 2008 2:21PM nimro said
"...Phillip Pullman's book The Golden Compass..."
Can anyone tell me why it's not referred to in N. America by it's real name "The Northern Lights"? Considering it has nothing to do with a compass.
Can anyone tell me why it's not referred to in N. America by it's real name "The Northern Lights"? Considering it has nothing to do with a compass.
Posted: Jan 8th 2008 9:26AM (Unverified) said
It was obvious from the first trailers that they'd totally ballsed up the book... something I thought was impossible with the cast they'd put together.
The original trilogy of books is awesome, so i'd urge anyone who was disappointed by the films to check out the originals if they haven't already.
That said, i'm not sure even warren spector could have made them into a good game.. they just don't fit the right structure to work as a game.
The original trilogy of books is awesome, so i'd urge anyone who was disappointed by the films to check out the originals if they haven't already.
That said, i'm not sure even warren spector could have made them into a good game.. they just don't fit the right structure to work as a game.
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM






