New York magazine has gotten hold of both Sir Tom Stoppard's 2003 draft and Chris Weitz's original 2003 screenplay and reports that had "Stoppard's screenplay been filmed, the movie would have been ponderous, a bit dull, and far too long. Weitz's original script was actually great and makes us sad about the movie that could have been."
"Weitz's early draft, though still long — 156 pages and likely three hours of running time — is sharper, funnier, and more streamlined than Stoppard's. It's also more exciting, more coherent, and significantly better than the final product. It vividly and more clearly creates the various world Lyra inhabits: Jordan College, London society, the Gyptians' boats, the ice bears' palace. It includes wonderful scenes left out of the final film: Mrs. Coulter's great London party; the Gyptian spy Jacob's last words, spoken by his daemon; Lyra's meeting with the witch's consul in Trollesund; Lyra's talk with Iorek about loneliness; Lyra's discovery that the nurses at Bolvangar have gone through the intercision process; the ice bears, all so nervous about acting human."
Where Did ‘The Golden Compass’ Go Astray?
And Was Tom Stoppard's Original Script a Masterpiece?
Starting tomorrow, the theater lobbies, message boards, and high-school hallways of America will be filled with angry shouts from His Dark Materials fans pissed off about how incoherent and lame the film of The Golden Compass turned out.
So how did the movie go so wrong? How did a film with such smart people behind it end up looking spectacular but completely failing to capture the magic — or even to deliver effectively the plot — of the novel? We'll never know who made the fateful decisions, but we at Vulture have gotten our hands on two previous drafts of the screenplay, both of which represent important moments in the life of the project at New Line: Tom Stoppard's 2003 draft, and a 2004 Chris Weitz screenplay, an early crack at the material before he filmed his final version last year.
So how do the three versions — Stoppard's, Weitz's first draft, and Weitz's final product — differ? Was Stoppard's a masterpiece? Was Weitz's awful?
Like many fans, we'd always assumed that Stoppard's draft must have been a work of genius, and that his replacement by Weitz surely doomed the project. Much to our surprise, upon reading the screenplays, we're wrong. Had Stoppard's screenplay been filmed, the movie would have been ponderous, a bit dull, and far too long. Weitz's original script was actually great and makes us sad about the movie that could have been.
Stoppard's script clocks in at a whopping 178 pages. It isn't particularly Stoppardian; it's not that witty and feels very invested in replicating Pullman's voice onscreen, not Stoppard's. It's clear that Pullman's explanation to Hanna Rosin at The Atlantic that he felt Stoppard was too interested in "the discussions between old men with beards" is accurate; in addition to almost every major and minor plot point from the book, Stoppard has added a number of scenes of — yes — bearded men talking philosophy. He also throws in some half-baked illustrations of multiple worlds and a few choice moments of foreshadowing of the second book, The Subtle Knife — including an appearance from Will.
Mostly, though, the screenplay is an extensive cataloguing of the book's plot points, and in that respect would have made a better movie than the one that was eventually filmed. Unlike the movie, it remains true to Lyra's impertinent nature and to Asriel's cold-hearted one; it makes vividly clear the charged relationship between a person and her daemon in Pullman's world, something the movie fails utterly to do; and it establishes the stakes of the story. Stoppard had already begun the process of soft-pedalling the books' anti-religious elements, but his script does contain long speeches from Asriel and a Magisterium official about the Fall. And it makes clear that Asriel plans to make war on "The Authority" — God.
Weitz's early draft, though still long — 156 pages and likely three hours of running time — is sharper, funnier, and more streamlined than Stoppard's. It's also more exciting, more coherent, and significantly better than the final product. It vividly and more clearly creates the various world Lyra inhabits: Jordan College, London society, the Gyptians' boats, the ice bears' palace. It includes wonderful scenes left out of the final film: Mrs. Coulter's great London party; the Gyptian spy Jacob's last words, spoken by his daemon; Lyra's meeting with the witch's consul in Trollesund; Lyra's talk with Iorek about loneliness; Lyra's discovery that the nurses at Bolvangar have gone through the intercision process; the ice bears, all so nervous about acting human.
Why was this all cut? Presumably, to keep the film to two hours. But why did The Golden Compass need to be held to two hours? Surely the Lord of the Rings movies have proved that great epics can be epic length and remain successful? New Line had already spent $180 million on this movie; few of the new scenes would be expensive ones, as the big pricey set pieces from the book — the bear fight, the battle scenes — are already there on screen. In the end it was that decision more than any other that doomed The Golden Compass to mediocrity.
Most notably, of course, both early screenplays contain the end of the book, the crucial sequence cut from the movie entirely so that its ending would remain uplifting. Lyra's great betrayal and sacrifice are left out of the film but are there in Stoppard's and Weitz's scripts. Where did they go? “The aim is to put in the elements we need to make this movie a hit, so that we can be much less compromising in how the second and third books are shot," Weitz told the New York Times. Here's hoping that despite The Golden Compass's failure as an adaptation, Weitz's plan works — and that New Line allows him to make The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass the way he wants to.
9 comments - Add yours
#1 Sigh
I would rather have the more complete copy of the script made into film. Eventhough it would have costed more it would have explained a little better and bet better reviews....
# December 11, 2007 02:36 by darenshan544
#2
Oh, what could have been…
# December 11, 2007 07:40 by xchrisvx
#3
I’d love to “obtain” a copy of the script to read what could have been!
# December 11, 2007 17:42 by edd8990
#4
Argh I don’t know which is worse.. to read about what was originally planned and could have been or to watch this terrible adaptation of the book. I don’t think even a director’s cut can make up for the loss..
# December 11, 2007 17:46 by Cows N' Roses
#5 the scripts
edd8990: I agree! A copy of the script would be great! Even BOTH scripts. It would be interesting to see them published, but I am sure that is an impossibility.
Although I think that movie could have been absolutely wonderful considering the cast, I actually enjoyed the film. I realize that translating a movie to the screen ids a difficult project. And definitely one that will please everyone. We all have our favorite parts we’d like to see in the movie, but every part of a book cannot be put on film. I’m just glad it got made, and that it was as visually pleasing as it was.
I just recently discovered the book this summer, before I knew there was to be a film, and thought how wonderful the book was and what a great movie it would make.
I have been a fan of fantasy and science fiction literature since early childhood and I thought “His Dark Materials” was the best I had ever read! I especially enjoyed the fact that the main protagonist was a little girl (being a old lady Gramma). I couldn’t wait to finish it and I went out and bought a second copy to give to my granddaughter.
I guess I feel that rather than bemoaning what “might have been”, I would prefer to see what is and hope that the next two are filmed.
# December 11, 2007 18:57 by vlmecc
#6
I agree with vlmecc; rather than complaining about what might have been, which will do no good now, it’ll be better to look ahead to the other two books/movies and hope the crew can do a better job on them. I did like the movie, of course it’s not as good as the book, but I definitely wouldn’t call it terrible.
# December 11, 2007 20:12 by spotthetiger
#7
Rarely is a movie as good as the book it came from. I can think of only a couple exceptions to the rule. The HDM trilogy are my favorite books of all time, but even my limited experience with filmmaking has made me sensitive to the limitations of the business of the movie industry. You can’t make films for the fans only. In order to make money, you have to make a movie that non-fans will watch too. If a movie won’t make money, it won’t get made. Period. I thought the script that got made was a very clever adaptation and I cried with joy through the whole film. I get tired of so-called “fans” bellyaching. Appreciate Lyra’s world in all it’s incarnations. I think that’s what a true fan does. I also think people are forgetting that some “missing” scenes are sure to appear on the DVD.
# December 12, 2007 02:57 by hcpoet
#8
I have to agree that it would be nice to see the scripts and that we should look at what they did well. Im convinced they will put the last few chapters of the 1st book into the very beginning of the second movie (assuming they make the subtle knife). I really can’t complain how the movie was made (besides the earlier missing scenes which cant be added until the dvd’s come out) and we always have the next two movies to see what comes up next. I can remember in Lord of the rings they mixed the order up between books, and i wouldnt be suprised if the same happened here.
# December 12, 2007 21:28 by dave1771
#9
You know, I can’t possibly understand how Weitz’s script could be funnier than Stoppard’s, or how Stoppard’s could even be boring.
His scripts and stageplays he has done before have all been very funny. (This Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead)...
# March 11, 2008 10:33 by pom pom