The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

The Golden Compass Movie Discussion

168101112

Posts

  • GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    The books are not just anti-theocracy. They are as strong and as open an argument for atheism/secularism as the Narnia books were for Christianity.
    So, "not really all that much"? I mean, yeah, they both put their own values on the pedastal (Christian values versus happiness and knowledge), but neither is exactly an argument.

    Glal on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Glal wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    The books are not just anti-theocracy. They are as strong and as open an argument for atheism/secularism as the Narnia books were for Christianity.
    So, "not really all that much"? I mean, yeah, they both put their own values on the pedastal (Christian values versus happiness and knowledge), but neither is exactly an argument.
    While I would agree that the books are more pedagogery than logical argument, I don't agree with the implication that Lewis and Pullman are not trying to convince people to support their ideologies with their fiction.

    Lewis is incredibly preachy throughout the Narnia books, from the Professor giving the children the standard "faith" argument in LWW to his immature criticism of "secularism" and "modernism" with his caricature of the school in the Silver Chair. Pullman is not all that preachy in the first two books but boy does it come out at the end of the Amber Spyglass. Mary Malone is his version of Lewis' professor—as a spokesperson for the author's views on religion and faith.

    Maybe it's because I wrote my thesis in religious studies about these books, but I don't get people who say Narnia wasn't blatant Christian allegory/evangelism, and I don't get people now who say HDM isn't almost as blatant an allegory and argument for secularism and enlightenment moral values. Both of the authors have said as much in interviews as well.

    Qingu on
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I loved the Narnia books as a child and I reread them a bunch of times, and have again as I've got older. I see now clearly the Christian/Catholic angle but back then it wasn't so obvious (aside from the Sons of Adam/Daughters of Eve thing). Either way I became an atheist about 13, so go figure.

    I am tempted to read this series after the enthusiastic sales job in this thread

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    ...and I don't get people now who say HDM isn't almost as blatant an allegory and argument for secularism and enlightenment moral values. Both of the authors have said as much in interviews as well.
    It's because said people didn't need to read between the lines to find enough material for thesis purposes.





    ;-)
    I kid because I loev.

    Glal on
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    I don't get people who say Narnia wasn't blatant Christian allegory/evangelism
    People actaully believe it's just fantasy with no strings attached? Wow. I've never read HDM so I couldn't say (so far sounds as anti-religious as Preacher), but to ignore the allegory in Narnia is laughably myopic.

    SithDrummer on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    I don't get people who say Narnia wasn't blatant Christian allegory/evangelism
    People actaully believe it's just fantasy with no strings attached? Wow. I've never read HDM so I couldn't say (so far sounds as anti-religious as Preacher), but to ignore the allegory in Narnia is laughably myopic.
    Golden Compass really doesn't have as much of that. It's much more anti-authority than anti-religion.

    Fencingsax on
  • Grey GhostGrey Ghost Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    It is possible, however, to read both series without focusing on the religious or anti-religious aspects, but just because you enjoy the stories. While I paid attention to the subtext the first time I read the Narnia and HDM books, on subsequent readings I try to tune that out and just enjoy the narrative.

    Grey Ghost on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    I don't get people who say Narnia wasn't blatant Christian allegory/evangelism
    People actaully believe it's just fantasy with no strings attached? Wow. I've never read HDM so I couldn't say (so far sounds as anti-religious as Preacher), but to ignore the allegory in Narnia is laughably myopic.
    To be fair, a lot of people who've said this read the books as young children. Maybe the same thing is going on with some HDM readers as well ... but I am a little disturbed by some of the commentary by Christians trying to cast this popular book series as uncritical of their religion.

    Qingu on
  • elijahtaryelijahtary Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    I don't get people who say Narnia wasn't blatant Christian allegory/evangelism
    People actaully believe it's just fantasy with no strings attached? Wow. I've never read HDM so I couldn't say (so far sounds as anti-religious as Preacher), but to ignore the allegory in Narnia is laughably myopic.
    To be fair, a lot of people who've said this read the books as young children. Maybe the same thing is going on with some HDM readers as well ... but I am a little disturbed by some of the commentary by Christians trying to cast this popular book series as uncritical of their religion.

    No matter how small inkling of anti-religion sentiment is in anything, some Christian is going to be offended, and it's going to be 'contrversial.' This is why i laugh a lot.

    elijahtary on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well its not too long since it was reasonably common to ban/censor stuff based on public morality reasons, which in a Christian country would mean Christian morality. We still have vestiges of this back home, where a bunch of people (half a dozen) seem to organise protests or complaints at things they deem immoral (based on their Christianity), luckily they don't seem to get much influence, but I suspect their views would have sounded mainstream 30-50 years back.

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • DelzhandDelzhand Registered User, Transition Team regular
    edited December 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    I don't get people who say Narnia wasn't blatant Christian allegory/evangelism
    People actaully believe it's just fantasy with no strings attached? Wow. I've never read HDM so I couldn't say (so far sounds as anti-religious as Preacher), but to ignore the allegory in Narnia is laughably myopic.
    To be fair, a lot of people who've said this read the books as young children. Maybe the same thing is going on with some HDM readers as well ... but I am a little disturbed by some of the commentary by Christians trying to cast this popular book series as uncritical of their religion.

    Don't misunderstand - I think it's deeply critical of Religion, but just because it's anti-religion doesn't mean it's anti-God/pro-Atheism. I think Religion is in profound need of criticism though. Believing in God doesn't take much else than faith, believing that God will burn your soul for eternity if you don't give believe he sent his son to get put to the sticks by romans (based on a wildly inconsistent and contradictory book written by dozens of non-collaborating authors) takes faith and more than a little suspension of disbelief.

    Delzhand on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lewis is incredibly preachy throughout the Narnia books, from the Professor giving the children the standard "faith" argument in LWW to his immature criticism of "secularism" and "modernism" with his caricature of the school in the Silver Chair.
    The school in TSC is not a criticism of secularism. It's a criticism of Steinerism as much as anything, but it's filled with a lot of his bitterness about his own experience at public school. Lewis did on occasion propound beliefs in his books that were not particular to Christian apologetics. And the professor is almost certainly modeled on a profoundly atheist tutor Lewis had earlier in his life and greatly admired for his strict adherence to logic.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    But Quid, Lyra wants to rebuild the kingdom of heaven!

    How bad could it be! Right?!

    :D

    JamesKeenan on
  • SnorkSnork word Jamaica Plain, MARegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    But Quid, Lyra wants to rebuild the kingdom of heaven!

    How bad could it be! Right?!

    :D

    Republic. Not Kingdom. That's kind of the whole point, I thought.

    Snork on
  • elijahtaryelijahtary Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Snork wrote: »
    But Quid, Lyra wants to rebuild the kingdom of heaven!

    How bad could it be! Right?!

    :D

    Republic. Not Kingdom. That's kind of the whole point, I thought.

    That would go along with the entire theme of anti-totalitarianism.

    elijahtary on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • HazzHazz Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well, that was terrible. I've never known an entire cinema to groan and go 'What the fuck?!' at the end of a film before.

    Hazz on
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Snork wrote: »
    But Quid, Lyra wants to rebuild the kingdom of heaven!

    How bad could it be! Right?!

    :D

    Republic. Not Kingdom. That's kind of the whole point, I thought.

    I'm actually surprised that so many people seem to have come away with the word "Kingdom." This is important!

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Mahnmut wrote: »
    Snork wrote: »
    But Quid, Lyra wants to rebuild the kingdom of heaven!

    How bad could it be! Right?!

    :D

    Republic. Not Kingdom. That's kind of the whole point, I thought.

    I'm actually surprised that so many people seem to have come away with the word "Kingdom." This is important!

    I blame Orlando Bloom.
    elijahtary wrote: »
    There's a simple solution for the religious people complaining about this movie:

    Don't. Watch. It.

    But the children! THINK OF THE GODDAMN CHILDREN!

    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE MOTHERFUCKING CHILDREN?!

    KalTorak on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Having not read the book, the impression I get is it's more anti-theocracy than anti-religion. That some people are apparently pro-theocracy is frankly terrifying.

    The bits of information I've gleaned actually remind me strongly of Final Fantasy Tactics' story.
    The books are not just anti-theocracy. They are as strong and as open an argument for atheism/secularism as the Narnia books were for Christianity.

    I remember reading a quote from some liberal Christian about the movie that he interpreted the books as an argument for God, because Pullman's Dust reminds him of the universality and enlightened aspects of the Christian God. What deluded nonsense*. I think it's interesting that many of the attempts to portray the books as "not actually that anti-religion" come from religious people.

    *Though there are similarities between Dust and Aslan, because they're both fantasy idealizations of each author's ultimate moral basis (Christ, for Lewis, and secular enlightenment, for Pullman).

    As a Jew, I didn't notice any of the "anti-religious" aspects, because my faith isn't totalitarian. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we believe that belief in Judaism isn't required to gain reward for good deeds (that's one of the main differences between the faiths: Judaism doesn't care what faith you follow, and it is a common policy for rabbis to refuse to talk to you about joining Judaism unless you have already renounced your former faith, because trying to make people convert is an extremely punishable offence in the Torah).
    Of course, my mom read Narnia w/o noticing any religious aspects, but that's more because the books assume you have grown up w/ Christianity.

    Here's a good reason to think of the children before letting anyone bring their family to see it: the critics universally agree that the movie held tightly to the book except for neutering it and destroying the ending. Hence, they held strictly to a framework from which they had removed at least half of the columns. Even the most easily pleased children will be disgusted.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    As a Jew, I didn't notice any of the "anti-religious" aspects, because my faith isn't totalitarian.
    If you're talking about the movie, the studio went to great lengths to ensure exactly that. If you're talking about the books, you really should pay more attention. The most devastating part of Pullman's attack on Catholicism is his reduction of the religion to the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    As a Jew, I didn't notice any of the "anti-religious" aspects, because my faith isn't totalitarian.
    If you're talking about the movie, the studio went to great lengths to ensure exactly that. If you're talking about the books, you really should pay more attention. The most devastating part of Pullman's attack on Catholicism is his reduction of the religion to the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch.

    I was young at the time, and I was brought up reform, so I may have missed direct references. There's also the fact that Christian emphasis placement and interpretation is quite different. For example, origonal sin is not present in Judaism, and a return to Eden is affirmed undesirous every Yom Kippur, when we say that we would never stop death if it meant stopping birth too.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • roastghostroastghost Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I didn't like the film. Not because they were less explicit about the religion, I just don't think it hung together. If I'd seen it without reading the books I maybe could have told you what daemons, dust, bears, witches and the alethiometer were, but I wouldn't have been feeling it.
    Eg. The scene where the find the cut child is pretty horrific in the book. Not having a daemon is sort of monstrous and everyone's like "gasp!". In the film it's really not that big a deal. You don't get the sense he's half a person, you get the sense his friend's gone and it's made him a bit peaky.

    roastghost on
  • GoatmonGoatmon Companion of Kess Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Certain details are always going to be better polished in a book than in a movie. Not just because of crappy writing, but because a movie can't effectively describe just how a person is feeling or exactly what they're experiencing. Except in film noir.

    Goatmon on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Give a 7 year old with no previous religious experiences the option of going to church or not, without repercussions either way, and see what he/she chooses.

    Although I am also highly against religious indoctrination from a young age, you could say the same about many 7 year olds going to school.

    L|ama on
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Mahnmut wrote: »
    Snork wrote: »
    But Quid, Lyra wants to rebuild the kingdom of heaven!

    How bad could it be! Right?!

    :D

    Republic. Not Kingdom. That's kind of the whole point, I thought.

    I'm actually surprised that so many people seem to have come away with the word "Kingdom." This is important!

    Wha?! I- I got it wrong? God dammit!

    Fuck you, memory.

    Fuck you. :X

    I think the movie should be all right. Fantastic? I just... I just can't see it happening.

    JamesKeenan on
  • GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    L|ama wrote: »
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Give a 7 year old with no previous religious experiences the option of going to church or not, without repercussions either way, and see what he/she chooses.
    Although I am also highly against religious indoctrination from a young age, you could say the same about many 7 year olds going to school.
    Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. Also, off-topic.

    Glal on
  • HorusHorus Los AngelesRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Edit:went off topic


    Anyway has anyone seen the movie, I have a cousin who I want to take but due to illness she cant handle horror like scenes its to much for her. Thanks, if its action like Harry potter like its ok.

    Horus on
    “You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You're on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...”
    ― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
  • TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    If I boink dudes would my daemon be the same gender as me?

    I think that was implied in the books.

    I'd say, probably not if you boink dudes. Probably if you were transgendered, though, because your soul would reflect your gender and not your physical sex. This would explain why people with same-gendered daemons are so rare; there's a fair percentage of homosexuals in any population, but not so many transgendered people.

    As for the movie, there was so much that I loved: the casting, the way daemons were visually implemented,
    the fight between the bears part when Iorek knocked off Iofur/Ragnar's jaw,
    and did I mention the casting? Nicole Kidman and the girl playing Lyra did particularly good work. I was glad to see Ma Costa go along with the gyptians, as I loved her in the book, and it's always nice to see strong female presences in movies.

    However, the rearranging of events/editing was so, so very sloppy, turning a coherent story into kind of a mess. There wasn't enough time to really "get" why daemons were so important, which sucks, because it removed a lot of the dramatic impact of some scenes.
    Particularly when Billy Costa (who was in Tony Makarios's role) is found; that should be a horrifying, gut-clenching moment, where the townspeople aren't even treating him as human anymore because he hasn't got a soul. Instead, it was more of an "oh, that sucks, but we'll get it back" thing.

    It would also have been nice to have a little less rushing through the plot and more of the interesting, human things going on in the book; this would also have helped explain events without so much "okay, let's tell you the backstory."

    The ending also removed a lot of Lyra's motivation and puts her squarely on Lord Asriel's side, blech. So much of the story depends on Lyra forming her own moral compass rather than just going along with someone in power, and not showing the end makes Lord Asriel the hero instead of just another side of the same coin.

    Trowizilla on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Having never read the book, the movie was really kind of a mess. Totally disjointed.

    deadonthestreet on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Having never read the book, the movie was really kind of a mess. Totally disjointed.

    Seriously. And what is dust supposed to be? I mean, clearly everyone knows about it, but chidlren don't. Is it basically what causes puberty?

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • HF-kunHF-kun __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    L|ama wrote: »
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Give a 7 year old with no previous religious experiences the option of going to church or not, without repercussions either way, and see what he/she chooses.

    Although I am also highly against religious indoctrination from a young age, you could say the same about many 7 year olds going to school.

    Okay, how is this book not indoctrination? This is exactly the same as that anti-Jewish Mickey Mouse Hamas had last summer; promoting intolerance and discrimination of a particular group in young children. But I suppose its own indoctrination if its something you don't believe, isn't it?

    HF-kun on
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Having never read the book, the movie was really kind of a mess. Totally disjointed.

    Seriously. And what is dust supposed to be? I mean, clearly everyone knows about it, but chidlren don't. Is it basically what causes puberty?

    This is a central mystery not fully revealed until late in the trilogy

    Senjutsu on
  • CheerfulBearCheerfulBear Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    HF-kun wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Give a 7 year old with no previous religious experiences the option of going to church or not, without repercussions either way, and see what he/she chooses.

    Although I am also highly against religious indoctrination from a young age, you could say the same about many 7 year olds going to school.

    Okay, how is this book not indoctrination? This is exactly the same as that anti-Jewish Mickey Mouse Hamas had last summer; promoting intolerance and discrimination of a particular group in young children. But I suppose its own indoctrination if its something you don't believe, isn't it?

    Are you fucking kidding me??

    CheerfulBear on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    HF-kun wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Give a 7 year old with no previous religious experiences the option of going to church or not, without repercussions either way, and see what he/she chooses.

    Although I am also highly against religious indoctrination from a young age, you could say the same about many 7 year olds going to school.

    Okay, how is this book not indoctrination? This is exactly the same as that anti-Jewish Mickey Mouse Hamas had last summer; promoting intolerance and discrimination of a particular group in young children. But I suppose its own indoctrination if its something you don't believe, isn't it?

    Because it's criticizing authoritarians, not telling you to become a revolutionary.
    Beyond this, it's criticizing authoritarianism, so I think Christians doth protest too much. It's like Mussolini banning Duck Soup: the Marx Brothers weren't targeting him, but they were still ecstatic when he took it as a personal attack.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • manaleak34manaleak34 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well I saw it...
    Review:
    I certainly enjoyed it. The casting was absolutely perfect for many of the characters particularly Coulter and Lyra. Armored Bears and Lee were as awesome as expected. And overall I thought it was a well done adaptation.
    Unfortunately the bads out weight the good. The pace of the movie was really bad and just basically went from scene to scene in record time without much chance to take in everything. Seriously many of the major scenes from the books lasted only several minutes Also things got really iffy towards the end with the weird scene arrangements, which was probably due to having to cut out the end. And of course taking out the end in general was pretty poor. So what if the ending is sad. THATS THE DAMN POINT, I don't understand why they had to neuter it for the youngins'. So it basically fell flat at the end with many people exclaiming "Thats It!?" as the credits rolled.
    Other minor complaints:
    I understand that the Magisterium are the bad guys but really...evil councils and plotting evil plans. Can you be any more blatant?
    I love Christopher Lee, but don't get my hopes up for a 1 minute part.
    Yeah the whole Billy thing didn't really have the 'umph' the book did.

    Overall the quality reminded me a lot of the first Harry Potter film. It was entertaining but could have been so much more.

    Random Musing:
    Slapping your Daemon? Thats the coolest form of self-abuse I've seen.

    manaleak34 on
    XBL/Steam:ManaCrevice
  • HF-kunHF-kun __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HF-kun wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Give a 7 year old with no previous religious experiences the option of going to church or not, without repercussions either way, and see what he/she chooses.

    Although I am also highly against religious indoctrination from a young age, you could say the same about many 7 year olds going to school.

    Okay, how is this book not indoctrination? This is exactly the same as that anti-Jewish Mickey Mouse Hamas had last summer; promoting intolerance and discrimination of a particular group in young children. But I suppose its own indoctrination if its something you don't believe, isn't it?

    Because it's criticizing authoritarians, not telling you to become a revolutionary.
    Beyond this, it's criticizing authoritarianism, so I think Christians doth protest too much. It's like Mussolini banning Duck Soup: the Marx Brothers weren't targeting him, but they were still ecstatic when he took it as a personal attack.

    So....how is the Sermon on the Mount taught in religious ed worse than that...?

    HF-kun on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    HF-kun wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HF-kun wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    Tobasco wrote: »
    Give a 7 year old with no previous religious experiences the option of going to church or not, without repercussions either way, and see what he/she chooses.

    Although I am also highly against religious indoctrination from a young age, you could say the same about many 7 year olds going to school.

    Okay, how is this book not indoctrination? This is exactly the same as that anti-Jewish Mickey Mouse Hamas had last summer; promoting intolerance and discrimination of a particular group in young children. But I suppose its own indoctrination if its something you don't believe, isn't it?

    Because it's criticizing authoritarians, not telling you to become a revolutionary.
    Beyond this, it's criticizing authoritarianism, so I think Christians doth protest too much. It's like Mussolini banning Duck Soup: the Marx Brothers weren't targeting him, but they were still ecstatic when he took it as a personal attack.

    So....how is the Sermon on the Mount taught in religious ed worse than that...?

    Because it's telling you to join something just because while this one is telling you not to let people oppress you.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Seriously HF?

    Casual Eddy on
  • TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    By the way, can someone point me to more information on the change to the ending? I googled it and got a little bit, but nothing in-depth.

    Trowizilla on
  • HF-kunHF-kun __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Because it's telling you to join something just because while this one is telling you not to let people oppress you.

    Yeah, if only that were actually the case. Pullman isn't encouraging free thought, he freely admits his trilogy is propaganda to encourage atheism. Hell, "telling you not to let people oppress you" could be applied to Liberation theology, the writings of Pius XII, or any other assload of Christian writers.

    HF-kun on
Sign In or Register to comment.