The Golden Compass Movie Discussion

Ninja Snarl P

I didn't say "more anti-Christian movies from Hollywood", I said "more anti-Christian sentiment". I have no clue about the number of explicitly anti-Christian movie, but can you really argue that Hollywood displays an attitude of "yay christianity"? Plus, any movie that is targeted at kids and is specifically anti-any-religion strikes me as a low-blow and is completely unacceptable. A movie that shows how blind loyalty to any organization can be disastrous? Go right ahead. However, a movie from a major studio that targets the beliefs of one defined group of people strikes me as being a clear example of Hollywood's attitude towards that group of people.

Plus, what does the MPAA have to do with anything? They don't make the movies, they just rate them. As much as I might object to some of the movie's themes, thankfully I live in a country where a group like the MPAA couldn't have the movie arbitrarily banned. If they tried, they'd get sued and rightfully lose.

Something else that should bother people and I've stated several times is that this stuff is aimed at kids. Would you trust a kid between the ages of 9-12 to even choose all the food they want to eat? I don't think so. How about giving them a book jammed with anti-religious overtones in an immersive story and then expect them to make healthy, rational decisions concerning religion in the real world? Whatever your personal beliefs are, trying to convince young kids that there's no such thing as God just makes the world worse. Does it strike anybody as beneficial to try to convince kids that there is no such things as life after death or souls or anything like that? Who would really want a world full of kids where they believe morality is totally relative, their actions never really matter, and can do whatever the hell they want without regard to any sort of higher authority? The whole thing strikes me as petty and malicious, serving little purpose other than to convince kids that religion is bad and that life sucks. I've got no problem with anyone who might have those opinions, but trying to slide a message like that in with a reportedly well-written and enticing fantasy kids series seems pretty twisted to me.

MolotovCockatoo

Ninja Snarl P wrote:

Who would really want a world full of kids where they believe morality is totally relative, their actions never really matter, and can do whatever the hell they want without regard to any sort of higher authority?

Sounds like someone didn't read the book, because that's definitely not the message I got.

Adrien

Ninja Snarl P wrote: »

Something else that should bother people and I've stated several times is that this stuff is aimed at kids. Would you trust a kid between the ages of 9-12 to even choose all the food they want to eat? I don't think so. How about giving them a book jammed with anti-religious overtones in an immersive story and then expect them to make healthy, rational decisions concerning religion in the real world? Whatever your personal beliefs are, trying to convince young kids that there's no such thing as God just makes the world worse. Does it strike anybody as beneficial to try to convince kids that there is no such things as life after death or souls or anything like that? Who would really want a world full of kids where they believe morality is totally relative, their actions never really matter, and can do whatever the hell they want without regard to any sort of higher authority? The whole thing strikes me as petty and malicious, serving little purpose other than to convince kids that religion is bad and that life sucks. I've got no problem with anyone who might have those opinions, but trying to slide a message like that in with a reportedly well-written and enticing fantasy kids series seems pretty twisted to me.

I certainly don't want to drag religion (in general) into this, but I'm not sure you understand where you are. I think most people reading this would agree that teaching children that no authority is infallible is a superlatively good thing.

MolotovCockatoo

Well, I see from reading the previous page that you in fact haven't read the books. Apologies for sounding snarky then... but honestly, maybe you should read them yourself before deciding whether or not they have an appropriate moral message to impart - instead of listening to what other people tell you to think about them. Which is somewhat ironic, considering...

Ninja Snarl P

Actually, I already said I didn't read the books. I was offering up a response pertaining to the movies, not the books (although apparently the books are much more heavily anti-religious than the movie). Once you remove religion from the human equation, all morality is subject to human whim and thus is relative. I am pointing out that what may seem like totally justifiable criticism of rigid organizations being abused to us, adults, is something that kids, simply by the fact they are kids, are simply not equipped to handle rationally. Rather than try to present a reasonable case to a reasonable person, the author chose to present an argument that the vast majority of humanity disagrees with to relatively uneducated and inexperienced kids.

I thought I already said this, but I do agree that teaching kids not to automatically, totally trust organizations is a good thing. My criticism is that the focus is purely on nominally Christian organizations, which I see as prejudice. If the author criticizes organizations, totally fine with me. But the movie doesn't just do that, does it? It goes after Christianity, specifically.

Thanatos

Ninja Snarl P wrote: »

I didn't say "more anti-Christian movies from Hollywood", I said "more anti-Christian sentiment". I have no clue about the number of explicitly anti-Christian movie, but can you really argue that Hollywood displays an attitude of "yay christianity"? Plus, any movie that is targeted at kids and is specifically anti-any-religion strikes me as a low-blow and is completely unacceptable. A movie that shows how blind loyalty to any organization can be disastrous? Go right ahead. However, a movie from a major studio that targets the beliefs of one defined group of people strikes me as being a clear example of Hollywood's attitude towards that group of people.

Plus, what does the MPAA have to do with anything? They don't make the movies, they just rate them. As much as I might object to some of the movie's themes, thankfully I live in a country where a group like the MPAA couldn't have the movie arbitrarily banned. If they tried, they'd get sued and rightfully lose.

Something else that should bother people and I've stated several times is that this stuff is aimed at kids. Would you trust a kid between the ages of 9-12 to even choose all the food they want to eat? I don't think so. How about giving them a book jammed with anti-religious overtones in an immersive story and then expect them to make healthy, rational decisions concerning religion in the real world? Whatever your personal beliefs are, trying to convince young kids that there's no such thing as God just makes the world worse. Does it strike anybody as beneficial to try to convince kids that there is no such things as life after death or souls or anything like that? Who would really want a world full of kids where they believe morality is totally relative, their actions never really matter, and can do whatever the hell they want without regard to any sort of higher authority? The whole thing strikes me as petty and malicious, serving little purpose other than to convince kids that religion is bad and that life sucks. I've got no problem with anyone who might have those opinions, but trying to slide a message like that in with a reportedly well-written and enticing fantasy kids series seems pretty twisted to me.

I really have no more problem with that than I do with The Chronicles of Narnia or The Lord of the Rings. I mean, shit, The Passion was largely marketed to church youth groups, which I found kind of appalling, but I don't recall seeing too many of these "Hollywood is too violent/sexual" groups coming out against that movie. Kind of strange, wouldn't you say?

Trowizilla

Ninja Snarl P wrote: »

Actually, I already said I didn't read the books. I was offering up a response pertaining to the movies, not the books (although apparently the books are much more heavily anti-religious than the movie). Once you remove religion from the human equation, all morality is subject to human whim and thus is relative. I am pointing out that what may seem like totally justifiable criticism of rigid organizations being abused to us, adults, is something that kids, simply by the fact they are kids, are simply not equipped to handle rationally. Rather than try to present a reasonable case to a reasonable person, the author chose to present an argument that the vast majority of humanity disagrees with to relatively uneducated and inexperienced kids.

I thought I already said this, but I do agree that teaching kids not to automatically, totally trust organizations is a good thing. My criticism is that the focus is purely on nominally Christian organizations, which I see as prejudice. If the author criticizes organizations, totally fine with me. But the movie doesn't just do that, does it? It goes after Christianity, specifically.

It goes after oppressive religions, which, for the Western world, has mainly been Christianity for a long time. It's strongly implied that the Authority has been working on other worlds and calling itself different things.

Also, kids are quite capable of formulating their own views on religion, particularly kids who are capable of reading His Dark Materials. They're very much Young Adult novels and would probably be too hard for a lot of elementary-schoolers. YA novels, by the way, tend to address "heavy" issues, as they're aimed toward teenagers who can and should think about topics like religion and oppression.

Plus, you've got weird idea about atheism and morality, so I'm not sure what point there is arguing with you. In my experience, people who equate atheism with utter moral relativity are...well...rather closeminded in their defense of their religion.

MolotovCockatoo

Exactly. Are these kids who you deem not equipped to 'choose their own food' rationally equipped to deal with everything the Bible teaches? I presume you're not against withholding religious education from young children. What's the difference? The Bible is full of sex and violence and outright contradictory opinions and morals. Why is this suddenly insidious indoctrination of America's youth and Sunday school isn't? Because it's somehow impossible to derive moral behavior from anything other than divine authority? That's just an unfounded opinion.

Ninja Snarl P

As regards to The Passion, that because it was a movie that was largely not representative of Hollywood filmmakers. Mel Gibson pushed it for obvious personal reasons, the studios thought it would make a bunch of money, and there you go. I really doubt that unless it had had such a major name backing it that it would've gotten made. Additionally, it was marketed to church youth groups because it a part of their religion. It also showed a major event in the history of that religion in an un-cartoonified, non-toned-down brutally realistic fashion. The Romans did do those things to people. Do I think 10-year-olds should see it? No. The violence in the movie was not intended to entertain like the violence in crapfests like Hostel, but to illustrate what somebody supposedly endured to benefit countless people, regardless of his own life.

There are major, fundamental differences between the anti-religious components of The Golden Compass and the writings of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, though. Aside from The Hobbit (which is really just an entertaining book and little else), the Middle Earth writings are intended for older, more mature audiences. I know plenty of adults these days who can't wade through the Middle Earth stuff, much less many kids. The Chronicles of Narnia, of course, have obvious Christian elements and also teach kids the should be self-reliant. However, they don't do it by taking one widely-held belief system and taking digs at it and (after some research) even going as far as to

present God as a perverted old guy, then kill him off.

I'm pretty sure that's a considerable departure from Tolkien's Middle Earth be created by a supreme celestial being that helps and protects the world's inhabitants or C.S. Lewis' presentation of a strong, moral Aslan who protects and assists those who need him. For quick comparison, here's this:

Tolkien's Middle Earth: Always resist evil, size doesn't matter, somebody is always looking out for you, and good always wins out.

Lewis' Narnia: Always resist evil, size doesn't matter, somebody is always looking out for you, and good always wins out (even when they die, they still win).

Pullman's His Dark Materials: Always resist (relative) evil,

the people running the Christian church are bad guys, the Church wants you to think that good is actually bad, God is a crazy old pervert, and in the end you will be forever separated from what you love.

I think at this point I have fairly extensively explained why I find this literature to be very, very different in a very negative fashion in comparison to other fantasy writers. The older authors' writings reinforced positive attributes of Christianity (and religions similar to it), while the newer author uses his writings to guise a personal agenda of atheism presented to inexperienced kids. Critics may applaud stuff like this, but it all seems like dirty business to me.

Navoc

Ninja Snarl P wrote: »

The older authors' writings reinforced positive attributes of Christianity (and religions similar to it), while the newer author uses his writings to guise a personal agenda of atheism presented to inexperienced kids. Critics may applaud stuff like this, but it all seems like dirty business to me.

Using writing to guise a personal agenda of [religion x] is better than using writing to guise a personal agenda of Secularism because..?

Also:

Pullman has, however, found support from other Christians, most notably Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who argues that Pullman's attacks are focused on the constraints and dangers of dogmatism and the use of religion to oppress, not on Christianity itself.[11] Pullman himself has said in interviews and appearances[6][12] that his argument can be extended to all religions. The trilogy shows the downfall of the Kingdom of Heaven, a hierarchy under the control of the Authority and his regent. In its place is the task to build the Republic of Heaven.

And on an unrelated note: maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't think The Authority was every portrayed as perverted, so I don't know why you keep saying that. He was a very fragile old man, but I don't remember him ever being portrayed as a "pervert" (whatever you mean by that).

Ninja Snarl P

And yes, I'm obviously a closed-minded moron for reasoning that atheism ultimately results in moral relativism and a big, giant mess. Without belief in any sort of higher authority, morality becomes totally fluid. These guys over here decide stealing is fine, but those guys down the road don't. Obviously, they'll conflict. Try it on a global scale. People suck at doing the right thing even when they believe it could land them in some place like hell for all eternity. What's the motivation when nobody, anywhere, believes that what they do has any ramifications beyond the end of their own life? How do you define morality if the guy to the right and the lady to the left are supposed to have equally valid personal morals, but they're wildly different from yours?

As far as teaching the Bible to kids, obviously there's tough stuff for them to understand. But can you honestly say that something like the Ten Commandments is a bad thing to teach kids? Treat other people like you want them to treat you? Because that's the stuff they learn in Sunday school. How is it productive to try and convince them that Christianity is a lie and God is just some crazy guy?

As far as for what I think about using pure reason to form an ethical code, I sure as hell don't trust a bunch of random human beings to work it out. People honestly believe that man has never been to the Moon. Vast numbers of people in Middle East are being convinced that the Holocaust was a lie. The whole point of ethics based on religious beliefs is to try and prevent people from changing ethics as they see fit. Plus, using philosophy to determine morality means that virtually any position can be rationally justified.

Oh, and by my use of the word "perverted" here, I mean "immoral". Liar, cheat, bad guy, that sort of thing. Poor choice of words, my apologies.

With that, I think I'll have to call this quits for now. I knew it was a bad idea for me to jump in on this simply because I find morality, religion, and ethics complicated and fascinating. It's late now and my head is totally killing me for reading computer text this late. Thanks for keeping it civil, though, I rather expected to get chewed alive regardless of moderators.

Mahnmut

His Dark Materials is a humanist work. It's about loving thy neighbor and living courageously and working to build a better world. Moral relativism and nihilism are just not in it.

MolotovCockatoo

Ninja Snarl P wrote:

I'm pretty sure that's a considerable departure from Tolkien's Middle Earth be created by a supreme celestial being that helps and protects the world's inhabitants or C.S. Lewis' presentation of a strong, moral Aslan who protects and assists those who need him. For quick comparison, here's this:

Tolkien's Middle Earth: Always resist evil, size doesn't matter, somebody is always looking out for you, and good always wins out.

Lewis' Narnia: Always resist evil, size doesn't matter, somebody is always looking out for you, and good always wins out (even when they die, they still win).

Pullman's His Dark Materials: Always resist (relative) evil, etc etc

Come on, man... you can't say in one breath (post?) that you haven't read the books or seen the film and then try to distill the message they're trying to impart in another. What you wrote is merely what you presume or have been told; you simply cannot make an informed argument that way.

As far as for what I think about using pure reason to form an ethical code, I sure as hell don't trust a bunch of random human beings to work it out.

Guess who wrote the Bible (and coincidentally, every other religious text; in fact, every text and/or discourse anywhere, ever)?

random human beings

zakkiel

Once you remove religion from the human equation, all morality is subject to human whim and thus is relative.

So, I guess my question here is, do you have any reason at all for believing this patently false statement, other than your appalling belief that the only reason anyone could want to do good is fear of hell or expectation of heaven? Go read Plato's Euthyphro dialog or something.


I don't recall seeing this interview posted:

[url=http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/11/14/golden-compass-director-chris-weitz-answers-your-questions-part-i/#more-1268]Chris Weitz[/url] wrote:

It’s true, though, that “The Subtle Knife” and “The Amber Spyglass” tread in territory that is much more controversial than the first book. This is also addressed by a bunch of questions that I will lasso under the heading “what next?” Well, though I saw it as my duty to build the franchise of “His Dark Materials” on as solid a grounding as I could, it would all be in vain if the second and third films did not have the intellectual depth and the iconoclasm of the second and third books. The whole point, to me, of ensuring that “The Golden Compass” is a financial success is so that we have a solid foundation on which to deliver a faithful, more literal adaptation of the second and third books. This is important: whereas “The Golden Compass” had to be introduced to the public carefully, the religious themes in the second and third books can’t be minimized without destroying the spirit of these books. There is simply no way to adapt them without dealing with Lyra’s destined role, her secret name, and the war in the heavens. I will not be involved with any “watering down” of books two and three, since what I have been working towards the whole time in the first film is to be able to deliver on the second and third films. If I sense that this is not possible, there’s no point my continuing to work on them.

It answers a lot of common questions/worries about the adaptation.

Æthelred

I wouldn't bother replying to Ninja Snarl P, guys; he's just another Christian who thinks atheists are moral relativists and he can't comprehend why anyone wouldn't commit murder if they didn't have a god telling them not to.

I saw the film about a week ago now and pretty much the entirety of the anti-religious message is gone. If you hadn't read the books, you simply wouldn't realise the Magisterium is meant to be a theocracy. I trust Chris Weitz for the next two, but the studio have forced his hand on this film.

Cherrn

That quote from Chris Weitz is pretty commendable. I wasn't particularly interested in seeing Golden Compass, but he sounds like he wants to accomplish something that isn't just the generic children's fantasy movies we've been seeing lately - at the very least I'm intrigued. It sounds like it'll be a different experience.

Fencingsax

Ninja Snarl P wrote: »

And yes, I'm obviously a closed-minded moron for reasoning that atheism ultimately results in moral relativism and a big, giant mess.

I'm glad I didn't have to say it.

Thanatos

Æthelred wrote: »

I wouldn't bother replying to Ninja Snarl P, guys; he's just another Christian who thinks atheists are moral relativists and he can't comprehend why anyone wouldn't commit murder if they didn't have a god telling them not to.

I saw the film about a week ago now and pretty much the entirety of the anti-religious message is gone. If you hadn't read the books, you simply wouldn't realise the Magisterium is meant to be a theocracy. I trust Chris Weitz for the next two, but the studio have forced his hand on this film.

Wait, seriously? I hadn't read, nor did I know anything about the books before seeing the movie, and it was pretty fucking obvious to me that the Magisterium was representative of oppressive religion. They kind of beat you over the head with it.

For fuck's sake, the guys from the Magisterium dress like priests.

Scalfin

Ninja Snarl P wrote: »

I didn't say "more anti-Christian movies from Hollywood", I said "more anti-Christian sentiment". I have no clue about the number of explicitly anti-Christian movie, but can you really argue that Hollywood displays an attitude of "yay christianity"? Plus, any movie that is targeted at kids and is specifically anti-any-religion strikes me as a low-blow and is completely unacceptable. A movie that shows how blind loyalty to any organization can be disastrous? Go right ahead. However, a movie from a major studio that targets the beliefs of one defined group of people strikes me as being a clear example of Hollywood's attitude towards that group of people.

Plus, what does the MPAA have to do with anything? They don't make the movies, they just rate them. As much as I might object to some of the movie's themes, thankfully I live in a country where a group like the MPAA couldn't have the movie arbitrarily banned. If they tried, they'd get sued and rightfully lose.

Something else that should bother people and I've stated several times is that this stuff is aimed at kids. Would you trust a kid between the ages of 9-12 to even choose all the food they want to eat? I don't think so. How about giving them a book jammed with anti-religious overtones in an immersive story and then expect them to make healthy, rational decisions concerning religion in the real world? Whatever your personal beliefs are, trying to convince young kids that there's no such thing as God just makes the world worse. Does it strike anybody as beneficial to try to convince kids that there is no such things as life after death or souls or anything like that? Who would really want a world full of kids where they believe morality is totally relative, their actions never really matter, and can do whatever the hell they want without regard to any sort of higher authority? The whole thing strikes me as petty and malicious, serving little purpose other than to convince kids that religion is bad and that life sucks. I've got no problem with anyone who might have those opinions, but trying to slide a message like that in with a reportedly well-written and enticing fantasy kids series seems pretty twisted to me.

Those are all concepts specific to Christianity. Not even Judaism has a concept of hell, and it is the most benign faith ever.
In the same way, only Christianity is organized enough to feel that His Dark Materials is an attack, as the series is against orthodoxy.

The Passion is obviously overly graphic, as movies with much more reason for showing violence have been panned for it. It could have done what Sin City did for the torture scen, and used clever angling. Besides this, it's an obviously racist movie, where all the villains fit the Jewish appearance stereotype but Jesus looks like an ubermench.

Æthelred

Thinatos wrote: »

Æthelred wrote: »

I wouldn't bother replying to Ninja Snarl P, guys; he's just another Christian who thinks atheists are moral relativists and he can't comprehend why anyone wouldn't commit murder if they didn't have a god telling them not to.

I saw the film about a week ago now and pretty much the entirety of the anti-religious message is gone. If you hadn't read the books, you simply wouldn't realise the Magisterium is meant to be a theocracy. I trust Chris Weitz for the next two, but the studio have forced his hand on this film.

Wait, seriously? I hadn't read, nor did I know anything about the books before seeing the movie, and it was pretty fucking obvious to me that the Magisterium was representative of oppressive religion. They kind of beat you over the head with it.

For fuck's sake, the guys from the Magisterium dress like priests.

I can't find a very good photo, but you think this is how priests dress?

Scalfin

Wow, priests dress sexy:P

MolotovCockatoo

A dour black coat and a white collar? Seems pretty priest-like... and it's been awhile since I read the books, but isn't Ms. Coulter

not supposed to be overtly part of the Magisterium? Is that not a minor plot twist towards the beginning?

Scalfin

MolotovCockatoo wrote: »

A dour black coat and a white collar? Seems pretty priest-like... and it's been awhile since I read the books, but isn't Ms. Coulter

not supposed to be overtly part of the Magisterium? Is that not a minor plot twist towards the beginning?

So do business people.

MolotovCockatoo

>.>

<.<

yea, well, uh... so do priests.

Yea. So... so there.


:oops:

Mahnmut

The thing about the books is that they are extremely, explicitly moral. It's like the opposite of teaching children moral relativism.

MolotovCockatoo wrote: »

A dour black coat and a white collar? Seems pretty priest-like... and it's been awhile since I read the books, but isn't Ms. Coulter

not supposed to be overtly part of the Magisterium? Is that not a minor plot twist towards the beginning?

Not really. Lyra doesn't realize that Mrs. Coulter is with the Oblation Board, but the reader's first glimpse of her is when she and her monkey are kidnapping a retarded kid and his usually-a-sparrow daemon.

Anyhow. I won't see this movie for at least 10 days.

Thanatos

If you see it from the front, he's wearing, like, an apron, with all this trim shit on it. He looks like a priest in the shots where they show him face-on from the waist up.

Æthelred

It still doesn't really say 'priest' to me.

This is leaving aside the fact that most of the Magisterium's members clearly take their dress cues from 20th century fascism - jackboots, peaked caps.

Scalfin

He looks like a beefeater.

Thanatos

Æthelred wrote: »

It still doesn't really say 'priest' to me.

This is leaving aside the fact that most of the Magisterium's members clearly take their dress cues from 20th century fascism - jackboots, peaked caps.

That is actually exactly the uniform I was talking about, and to me, it screams "priest."

METAzraeL

It's looks like a combination of priest and formal military attire to me.

So these books aren't more generic fantasy drivel for the masses (read: not Harry Potter)? I guess I just saw the squeaky-clean preview for the movie and took the books as a mainstream offering. I'll check em out.

Apparently my daemon is a ladybird. Woo!

Kealoha

I work at a movie theater. We've got a sweet giant cardboard Golden Compass display. Some lady comes up to me and asks to speak to a manager.

She told my manager that, as a Christian, she didn't appreciate the fact that our theater was promoting a movie that holds christianity/religion in a less than spectacular light. She also said that we should warn people that they are going to see a movie with that sort of content.

People like this amaze and disgust me. Luckily my manager just said, "We aren't going to deny our customers a film, and we aren't going to attempt to censor anything." etc, etc. I also found out that this lady applied for an assistant manager position back in October, and mentioned stuff like this in the interview. Saying that she'd like the content monitored, etc.

(If this kind of thing isn't wanted in this topic, sorry. I didn't read much. This just happened tonight, so it was on my mind.)

Lastly, I'm looking forward to this movie, and I'm also interested in the books. We'll see how it turns out.

Adrien

Thinatos wrote: »

Æthelred wrote: »

I wouldn't bother replying to Ninja Snarl P, guys; he's just another Christian who thinks atheists are moral relativists and he can't comprehend why anyone wouldn't commit murder if they didn't have a god telling them not to.

I saw the film about a week ago now and pretty much the entirety of the anti-religious message is gone. If you hadn't read the books, you simply wouldn't realise the Magisterium is meant to be a theocracy. I trust Chris Weitz for the next two, but the studio have forced his hand on this film.

Wait, seriously? I hadn't read, nor did I know anything about the books before seeing the movie, and it was pretty fucking obvious to me that the Magisterium was representative of oppressive religion. They kind of beat you over the head with it.

For fuck's sake, the guys from the Magisterium dress like priests.

Well, they are.

Grey Ghost

I'm psyched for it. But I actually liked the first guy they got to voice Iorek, the one you can hear in the first trailer, then they went and got Ian McKellen. Which is cool and all, but somehow he just sounds too old. A badass old dude of course, but not deep and bear-like enough.

But Sam Elliott and Ian McShane will make this badass enough for anybody.

Jragghen

Cherrn wrote: »

That quote from Chris Weitz is pretty commendable. I wasn't particularly interested in seeing Golden Compass, but he sounds like he wants to accomplish something that isn't just the generic children's fantasy movies we've been seeing lately - at the very least I'm intrigued. It sounds like it'll be a different experience.

I had the novels when I was in High School, but I lost the book. As I've found more about them, I'm probably going to go out and get them again, and I was already thinking of going and seeing the movie, but that quote made me even more interested.

Scalfin

greyghost33 wrote: »

I'm psyched for it. But I actually liked the first guy they got to voice Iorek, the one you can hear in the first trailer, then they went and got Ian McKellen. Which is cool and all, but somehow he just sounds too old. A badass old dude of course, but not deep and bear-like enough.

But Sam Elliott and Ian McShane will make this badass enough for anybody.

Imagine if they'd gotten the Governator. Or Mel Brooks.

whitey9

I defy you to read the books and NOT picture Sam Elliot in that role. Eva Green should be wonderful, and Nicole Kidman has that icy bitch thing going pretty well.

The only problem I forsee is avoidance of the religious tones (I saw news reports that the director was going to steer clear because of potential outrage) and secondly, idiot religious nuts claiming that this movie will drive everybody to atheism. The first time someone throws organized religion under the microscope, and they turn crybaby pee-pants on us.

I'm not asking for the movie to be better than the book, I'm just asking for it to be a good movie in it's own right.

Jragghen

First five minutes of the movie have been released

Grey Ghost

Wish they could have gotten a higher-quality video. That's just above some dude sitting in the theater with a camcorder.

Fencingsax

I'm at the first minute. Cannot wait.

Navoc

greyghost33 wrote: »

Wish they could have gotten a higher-quality video. That's just above some dude sitting in the theater with a camcorder.

You can see the clip below, or view it in HD over at Yahoo.