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
Posts
Worried ass christians that are worried about gay people because christianity taught them from a young age that gays are evil
sorry, phillip pullman's trilogy for kids, though subversive, doesn't stand up against thousands of years of us or them from christianity.
You must be pretty naive to think that religious hypocrites are the only ones who discriminate against homosexuals. Even to think that they are the majority. A few years ago I was walking home from a party with some buddies. One friend suffers from pretty bad leg pains from time to time, so my other friend was helping him walk. We were accosted by a group of people and were almost beat up because they assumed my friends were gay. We're these devote Bible thumpers with crucifixes? No. They were fraternity boys who probably never touched a Bible in their lives. Homosexuals have been unfairly treated by man people. And on behalf of all Christians, I apologize. I'm sure that means very little, but I work damn hard to ensure that I live up to the principles of equality, love, and respect for all people that God has commanded me to do. To continually use Christianity as a scape goat as a source for injustice is pathetic. Discrimination is in human nature, stop guilt tripping one group. That's not going to solve anything.
I'm not blaming it solely on christianity. But give me a break. The reason bills that would make discrimination against homosexuals illegal in the workplace are shot down is not because of frat boys, it's because the moral majority gets their opinion from a book.
And from which book exactly did Stalin get his influence to kill homosexuals. What about Pol Pot? And what about the fact that Norway has a denomination of Christianity as an official state religion, yet is known for its tolerance towards homosexuality?
EDIT: I should clarify Norway is fairly secular, but still has a very strong religious presence.
I disagree with the way a Daemon/human relationship is portrayed. I can't speak as someone who read the book, but it was abundantly clear that having one severed from you is pretty fucking brutal. I mean, the kid was a total mess when Lira (Lyra?) found him. I mean, the kid seemed to be hardly aware of where he was and he looked half-dead. And, I have to say, the scene where they nearly severed Lyra's was rather intense. I forget the ferret's name.
Also, you can't go wrong with Ian McKellen as Uric (Or is it Ulric? I suck at names, if you haven't guessed.)
He was easily my favorite character in this film. I laughed out loud, and rightfully so, when he knocked that bastard's jaw clean off.
Thinking of the children, I come off with the idea that they shouldn't be fucking their mothers.
The ending
iorek byrnison! show some respect for a king!
edit: also, reviews are in... wow. 43%. i'm surprised. would the movie have been better if a lot of the "controversial" scenes hadn't been cut out at the last minute?
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
Kind of odd, considering the ending of The Golden Compass. It's been a while since I've read it, but from what I remember,
Oh shit, so that's where the name came from.
As long as I can remember, the main tank of one of the top horde guilds on my server (Hyjal) back in my WoW days was a Tauren warrior named Iorek.
Their is nothing wrong with the movie. Yeah, they had to trim shit back, but that's how book-to-movie adaptations work. Outside of being six hours long, I struggle to see how they could have fit more of the book into that movie. They didn't drastically change any character or event. It was fine. The ending was suitable. Did you really think they were going to end their possible multi-million dollar franchise on a total downer?
I saw as much anti-religion in this as I saw pro-religion in Narnia, which was not all that much. But I could be wrong because I mostly slept through that sack of shit movie.
8/10 - Totally watchable.
What the hell? Where did you get that idea? Your ass?
Firstly, I"ll say it may be true, though I doubt it. He's a humanist, secularist. He's expressed anti-dogmatic and anti-theocratic ideas, but dogmatism and theocracy is pretty fucking stupid to begin with, so this just makes him intelligent.
Secondly, I'll say... And?
Firstly, the book portrayed the evils of the cutting as far more brutal. The kids were shells, and if I remember correctly, died shortly after being severed anyhow. Also, it wasn't the Costa child, I don't think. It was just some random kid, Tony something.. The idea to throw the Costa boy in their just to be able to reunite him with his mother seemed like petty, emotional crowd pandering. But whatever.
Pan was her daemon's name. And I feel they'll explain more in the following movies. But yes, vague references to a war, and the bear showing up out of nowhere were bad. I mean, the dog charges, and Iorek just... appears, as if he were always there.
Also, I was actually bothered by the unreality of having a scholar of Oxford use "was" when he should have used "were." But that's small.
Spoiler for the ultimate ending of the series.
I thought the potter movies were fucking horrible, so tell me if this is going to be equally horrible
It was awesome.
They've gotten better each movie, as the writers have gotten better at converting the movie for screen sensibilities rather than just pulling out pages for time.
That's how I felt. It was "Allright, time for a riviting climax!" <credits> "WTF?"
The ending aside, The film felt a little disjointed and overly cut. There are a lot of things that aren't explained and you feel like there was a stack of stuff that hit the editing room floor. I guess I'll just have to read the books!
Again, a movie can never portray something as well as a book can. That doesn't mean the movie didn't do it justice in that particular respect. It may not have been as severe in the film as the book made it out to be, but that doesn't mean the movie didn't portray it as a very horrible thing to happen.
In either case, it's gotten me curious enough t that I'll probably check out the book series soon enough.
So I probably could never look at it like someone who hadn't read the books, though I'll try, and yeah, I can see it as a little confusing. The bear fight, for instance, as Slate pointed out, didn't really mean anything. There's no reason for the fight to matter to the movie, to humans, at all. In fact, really, it was more or less a grudge match.
In the book I was almost positive that the king was corrupt, and an actual threat to humanity. They were becoming hostile, or something... I don't remember exactly. But there was a reason to root for Iorek other than, "Oh, the bear's gonna get his honour back!"
And I don't know that the movie suffered a great deal from cutting off the last three chapters, but I would have much preferred them. I, having read the books, of course happen to believe it'd make them better.
First movie spoiler ending
Trilogy End Spoiler
So. Fucking. BAD.
I had to explain EVERYTHING to a friend that hadn't read the book - and it felt like it was exposition after exposition used just to explain concepts to people. Worst of all - there was a complete lack of character development. I mean, fuck knowing who Seraffina Pekkala really is, or who scoresby is.
Seriously, this is how it really went down in the movie.
HI IM LYRA.
I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU CAN REALLY USE THIS THING, WHO WAS A FORMER LOVER?
THAT GUY
OH YEAH, LETS BE FRIENDS
OKAY
Repeat that shit ad nauseum. They even changed the ending of the first book because I assume they didn't want to leave it at a depressing moment, but it would have made for a much better fucking ending.
But seriously, one moment they're sailing, the next she's on some dock talking to scoresby. They took scenes that were originally 50-100 pages in the goddamn book and turned them into two minute, soulless versions of the original.
And as far as the third book goes...
I'll be really pissed off if they fuck up the rest of these movies. Do it right or don't do it at all. Seriously - even the bear fight - how would ANY of that make sense beyond two people fighting for a throne if someone didn't read the book. I had to explain all of that shit as well.
Yeah, but... eeeeh. I don't know. You're right, but I still feel they could have made it more disturbing. As it stood, I couldn't see how people who hadn't read the book would have any idea how disturbing a scene that should have been. We really only had Lyra's and Pan's reactions to go by, and the kid's begging for his Ratters, but... Maybe they wanted to stay within PG-13 bounds, but I think they could have done more. For instance, I seem to remember the kid holding a frozen fish, not a scrap of cloth. That'd be a start.
Also, the books were good. I advise you ignore the implication that they're just children's books. They good books.
I've felt that they've only gotten worse. I could barely sit through the fourth one, as it put me in a sour mood almost immediately by skipping a good 3-4 chapters after the opening scene. I understand that they don't have time for everything, but I was very much looking forward to seeing a particular part from teh book only to find it was left out entirely.
And, I should add, we were spoiled in the first two movies by Richard Harris who's replacement is a total hack job.
Clarification on the bear fight and trilogy ending:
Bear Fight:
Also - the reason why Iorek wins the fight in the first place is because of Iofur's desire to become human. Iofur wanted to become more involved in human affairs. However, this made him very susceptible to lies - like a human.
In one specific scene this is explained - that the bears have an ability to decipher truth and see things that humans cannot. Lyra takes a sharp stick, and Iorek shows her how true this is by having her try and stab him. When she fakes, he never moves an inch. As soon as she moves in with killing intent, he slaps the stick away. He has the ability to decipher lies and inherent truth in a person's behavior.
This is why Iofur was so easy to trick. He is first tricked into beliving that Iorek has a daemon (which is impossible) and is later fooled when Iorek feigns his injury during the fight. In the book it is explicitly noted that this is how Iorek wins the fight - he takes advantage of Iofur's human behavior. It's also how the humans get Iorek's armor away from him in the first place - he was offered spirits, something bears normally don't drink, and as a result, he was deceived and lost his armor.
Trilogy Ending:
The "Authority," or the first angel, is one who claimed to have created everything. it is later found out by Xan., a female angel, that he lied. As a result she is cast out of Heaven.
Metatron, or the current ruler of Heaven, is the sixth descendant of Adam and is known as Enoch. He is put into power by the Authority and at that point becomes the ruler of heaven. The authority becomes more of a symbolic leader and is kept in a protective case - In fact, it is clear that Metatron respects and still loves the Authority in the novels, especially when he attempts to save him by sending him away from the battlefield.
Metatron is the physical ruler of Heaven. He wishes to deposit an inquisition in every world because he feels that the churches are becoming too relaxed with their policies. As a result, Metatron desires a greater hand in human affairs.
So yeah - books are a shit ton better than this movie...do yourself a service and pay the 7.50 for the first book and get your dollars worth. Also - while they sell the books as children novels - they don't actually feel like that while you're reading it. Some of the scenes are actually brutally violent and is more adult than say...harry potter. If they didn't tell me that Lyra was young, I would have taken her for a teenager to some extent - but the movie hammered in the whole THIS IS FOR KIDDIES.
Firstly, let me apologize for my bad memory. Secondly, I did remember this scene. It was actually one my of my favorite scenes from the book, despite it's overall irrelevance to the plot. I wanted to see this scene so bad!
Truly, that's childish and immature to hold a grudge against something more of a matter of taste, of all the scenes cut, they cut the scene one random ass kid in Midwestern Florida wanted to see. But perhaps I'm sort of justified on the grounds that the movie was a fairly bad stumble as far as movies go, so... whatever.
The thing is - that scene would have explained something AND add character development. It literally went from scoresby randomly approaching Lyra to recommending that she talk to a bear. It then instantly goes to Iorek and instead of the huge discussion he and Lyra has in the book, she's like
I mean, shit, they didn't even include the awesome scene where he
I mean, seriously, where the fuck is ANY of her motivation to love these people or care so much? You don't get any of it - they just explain dust or talk about why they are in the situation they are in instead of *SHOCK* interacting with each other.
Can you tell I'm bitter?
I keep hearing this. Source please? I'd Google, but finding nothing is inconclusive, whereas you providing a source would be definitive. I'd like to think you saw this in print somewhere, rather than just parroting what you've heard with a healthy dose of what you think you heard.
I'm not calling you a liar. I've just heard this same comment from a large number of people who were grossly ignorant on other issues and have history of just presenting supposed "common knowledge" as indisputable fact.
And I too was bothered greatly by everyone's great fuckign trust of everyone.
Lyra: "I'm a random little fucking girl and you've got no reason to trust me or find me credible or intelligent at all. Your armor's there."
Iorek: "Thanks, brb."
Sure, the bears did sense truth well. Where was that even mentioned, though?
Coulter: "I'm your mother."
Lyra: "OK"
Seriously... Maybe she just sensed it, but... Coulter could have at least given her a reason to believe. A picture... something. And, since you're here, I'll ask. I"m bothered by my memory again. I thought it wasn't revealed to Lyra that Coulter was her mother til later? And I certainly remember thinking Coulter hadn't shown any good or redeeming qualities until that scene in the cave. I'm thinking I'm probably just batshit crazy, but... I must ask.
ASLAN vs. IOREK
Fight!
Man, once finals are over, I'm going to photoshop an old-timey boxing match poster...
You're pretty much spot on...
In the first book it is only revealed that Lord Asriel is Lyra's father - and it is revealed by Ma Costa or Faa when they reveal that Costa raised Lyra when she was a baby. I can't remember who does it, but I know for a fact that it isn't revealed that coulter is Lyra's mother in the first book. I want to say late 2nd or early third book. We know for sure by the time she gets to the cave.
Also - yes, Coulter is essentially a villain until the cave scene - we really get a sense that she cares for Lyra at that point and in many ways, Lyra has inherited the remarkable talent of lying from her mother. Before that, Coulter is VERY manipulative of others. We don't really get a sense for her outward love for Lyra and only get tid bits like when she spares her daughter from the intercission.
I think we know who'd win.
When lyra is seized at the Gobblers lair, one of the men physically grab her daemon. You have NO idea how bad that is according to the books. It's like rape ten fold.
Also - Coulter is more psychologically complex. Furthermore, they have her strike the golden monkey...which is dumb, considering it's like punching herself in the face and a daemon is supposed to be a reflection of the self...aka the soul.
Although, they really hammed that one up with the whole, I'm evil so my daemon looks evil...which was dumb. For the most part - people didn't look to another person's daemon for true feelings, it was more or less a side note by the author that said daemons are often representative of a person's inner self.
For instance, Coulter's daemon is the golden monkey because I guess in folklore they are known as trickster figures. She, herself, is a trickster and liar, one of the best.