Pullman wins 'great book' title
From the BBC.
Thursday, 21 June 2007
Philip Pullman's Northern Lights has been named the best children's book of the past 70 years. A public vote selected the book from a list of past winners of the Carnegie Medal for Children's Literature. "This accolade is an enormous pleasure to receive," said the British author. "It is without any question the most important honour I have ever received."
The fantasy adventure is being turned into a film starring Nicole Kidman, under its US title The Golden Compass. A panel of judges whittled down the 70 winners of the Carnegie Medal to deliver a shortlist of 10 books. Among them was Mary Norton's The Borrowers, Robert Westall's The Machine Gunners and Junk by Melvin Burgess. But Pullman's book, which received the medal in 1995, pulled in more than 40% of votes in the global poll. "I am humbled and honoured that Northern Lights has been chosen from among so many wonderful books," said the author.
The His Dark Materials trilogy revolves around the story of a young girl, Lyra, who travels to the far north to save her best friend. Along the way, she encounters shape-shifting creatures, witches and a variety of other-worldly characters in parallel universes. "These books have redefined children's literature and changed the way we think and talk about children's books," said Carnegie judge Jonathan Douglas. "They are classics."
[I always knew that these were great books. As I’ve said before – probably three of the best books I’ve ever read. If you haven’t picked them up yet I advise you to do so. I'm looking forward to the movie(s) with some trepidation - though I heartily approve of Nicole Kidman as Mrs Coulter. I actually imagined her in the role long before it was announced.]
11 comments:
Yay. Well done, Philip!
And I'm slightly intrepid about the films as well. But I always am when someone makes a movie of a book I love. It'll never do justice to my imaginings, but it ought to be worth seeing anyway.
I *was* rather concerned with the movie versions of LotR - but thankfully Peter Jackson did a great job.
I do hope that whoever is directing the Dark Materials movies does a creditable job [crosses fingers]. They've certainly go a good cast and the SFX look good (what I've seen). I just hope the rumours of downplaying the religious elements are unfounded!
Books I've loved that have made great films:
1. LotR
2. ........
Nope, that's it! And it took a few attempts to get a decent LotR!
There have been a few that haven't been disasters, and a few books that I am ambivilant about that have made OK films but generally if you love the book the film will never live up to it.
Still, it's great that it won. 40% is pretty damn good:-)
I shall reserve judgement on the film until it happens. Although I agree, NK could do a good job of Mrs Coulter. Maybe.
JM said: generally if you love the book the film will never live up to it.
Very true. Nothing quite lives up to your own imagination...
I'm looking forward to the movie - though I'll have my heart in my mouth for a while until I make up my mind about it.
I figured that movie had to be based on a book but I didn't recognize the title. Now I know.
I've not read his books but am definitely interested after you guys talking them up.
Seems like the movie has a pretty good cast. I'm a Daniel Craig fan.
Confusingly the first film is called 'The Golden Compass' which is the books US name.
I do hope that it's the only thing they change! [grin].
Oh, I never understodd why book titles change depending on where they're published - what's *that* about?
Yeah... I don't get that either. I think it's something to do with the US market worrying that their kids won't understand the words or premise of the title, which seems ludicrous to me. Surely introducing new words to children, especially in the forms of books that they'll read and enjoy, is a terrific way to increase their vocabulary? I know that was the reason given for JK Rowling's 'H.P & The Philosopher's Stone' was changed to 'The Sorceror's Stone' for the US market. Crazy.
And yes, in total agreement on the LOTR movies. I was very concerned about those when they first came out, but Peter Jackson obviously loved the book deeply himself and did such a marvellous job with them. I think Tolkien would have been proud. There was only one thing which Jackson changed that really annoyed me, but it wasn't enough to spoil the brilliant job he did overall. I just hope there is a similar result with His Dark Materials films (of which I assume there'll be more than one).
skywolf said: There was only one thing which Jackson changed that really annoyed me, but it wasn't enough to spoil the brilliant job he did overall.
What was that?
skywolf said: I just hope there is a similar result with His Dark Materials films (of which I assume there'll be more than one).
I'm presuming that there's going to be three. That would certainly make sense. Imagine trying to get the whole trilogy into a single (reasonable length) film!
Update from IMdb - The Subtle Knife will be released in 2009, so they are making it as a trilogy.
"skywolf said: There was only one thing which Jackson changed that really annoyed me, but it wasn't enough to spoil the brilliant job he did overall.
What was that?"
Tom Bombadil & old man willow & the barrow wights - Not even a mention of some pretty important issues imo:-)
The whole bigging up of the romantic stuff. Tolkien was particularly bad at it, and it barely features in the books - in fact his female characterisations were all pretty rubbish. it seems a shame that it was assumed the modern world would not accept a film wthout a central love story.
Gollum. I know everyone thought he was brilliant & well done to Andy whatshisface and the CG guys, but it's not how I imagined him!
The shire looked like tellytubbyland
No razing of the shire - the whole point was that nowhere was untouched/unchanged. That was basically what the books were all about!
well, you did ask:-) And that was from a film that i thought DID make the transfer well. Now you see why I am rarely impressed with adaptions of books I love.
Yeah... most of those things bugged me slightly as well. I was sad they left out Bombadil etc, as he was such a great character, but I understand they did that for reasons of space, and it didn't really detract from the overall story. I thought Gollum was great... almost as I imagined him. And the Shire was overly sweet, but it was meant to be really, as an extreme contrast to the more evil parts of Middle Earth. Yes, they should really have left the razing of the Shire in... but again, I think it was omitted for space reasons. Such a loooonngg book, after all.
But no... the one thing that really, seriously annoyed me was Sam abandoning Frodo right before Shelob's lair. That never happened in the book! It seemed totally unnecessary to change that bit, with the whole Gollum driving him away scene... ugh. It was completely against Sam's character. I love Sam. He's my favourite character in the book, mainly because of his unwavering loyalty and love for Frodo. He would never have abandoned him, for any reason. And that just rankled with me. It was a change to Sam's character that simply didn't ring true, and it cast a weak light (albeit temporarily) on his loyalty, which was one of the main themes of the book.
Argh. I'm all annoyed about it again now. ;)
Post a Comment