The Golden Compass

[Iain]

Start off easy -anyone seen it?

Anyone not going to see it?

[Mabs2]

Anyone never heard of it?
*raises hand*

[Nick1911]

I really want to see it.

[Manedwolf]

Books are decent. I heard the movie is a CG-fest, though.

Getting tired of those.

[roo_ster]

It got panned, review-wise, on its merits as a film.  Also, it is doing very poorly at the box office.  I expect it to sink under the waves right quick, so if you wanna see it on the big screen, get in gear.

Also, the marketing was FUBARed.  A movie aimed at boys and you choose more screen time in the commercials for Nicole Kidman than the armored polar bears?

[Manedwolf]

I just wish more directors would be hired that let you feel like the world is real, not a greenscreen CG showcase.

Like of the Harry Potter films, if you've seen them, the one by "Home Alone" director Chris Columbus was noisy and shallow. The third one, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, felt much more real, it had a lot more locations that were real, really old, and felt real. Sagging, mosscovered bridges, old courtyards, not glossy CG.

A director can make or break a movie, make it feel like a real world with real people...or a corporate exercise in marketing.

[Iain]

Anyone never heard of it?
*raises hand*

Think this is part of the problem. I was aware of it, then realised that it was the film adaptation of a book I know as Northern Lights (not read it). It only really became a big media thing that I was aware of just before it was released - comparing the pre-release frenzy to Harry Potter, LOTR and Narnia, it has been low key.

As for doing badly, not all the critical reviews I've read have been negative, far from it. In fact some things I've read only took one  issue with it - and that is that religious aspect has been downplayed.

The reason I ask is that I've just become aware of the level of 'grassroots' (supposedly, on other issues these things are often referred to as 'astroturf') campaigning against it - several Facebook groups for instance ("Stop the atheist film")

[Manedwolf]

Anytime someone wants to censor something, it does make me want to read, hear or see it more.

I'm happy that the local B&N has a table right in the front with a sign that says "Banned Books: Read One Today" with an illo of the 1st Amendment on it.

[SteveS]

The protest seems to have been pretty mild.  Some lazy movie reviews have said the Catholic Church has come out against the movie, but it was really the Catholic League (which is not officially a part of the Catholic Church).  The Catholic News Service (I don't know if they are part of the Church) had positive things to say about the movie and encouraged people to see it.

Personally, I don't see how a movie can change someone's belief system, so I am not worried.  OTOH, do I want my money to indirectly go to Pullman?  I probably won't bother with the movie and just wait for I am Legend. 

[Perd Hapley]

Anyone never heard of it? 

Think this is part of the problem. I was aware of it, then realised that it was the film adaptation of a book I know as Northern Lights (not read it).

The Golden Compass is the book's U.S. title. 

Anytime someone wants to censor something, it does make me want to read, hear or see it more.  I'm happy that the local B&N has a table right in the front with a sign that says "Banned Books: Read One Today" with an illo of the 1st Amendment on it. 

   I thought you knew the difference between boycotting, banning and censorship.  No? 

[MechAg94]

I remember getting an email that was circulating about the atheism in the movie a few months ago before any movie adds were even aired.

Other than that, I heard Michael Medved talking about it.  Supposedly the author of the books was a big atheist and deliberately set out to write books opposed the Christian undertones of C.S. Lewis and other authors.  Medved said those atheist ideas were apparent in the movie would supposedly be more pronounced in planned sequels. 

For me, I might watch it on video just to see if I notice any atheist stuff.  The previews look neat.

[wooderson]

The books are in many ways a re-telling of Paradise Lost, with the Romantic interpretation of Satan being a sympathetic character, God a dictator, etc. (not that Satan is ever mentioned in the books).

The first novel makes little distinction between 'God' and 'the Church,' but the latter pair frame things much more in terms of being anti-Church than anti-God. The villains are those who've misused the (elderly, dying) God for their own purposes.

[Matthew Carberry]

Exactly, and Pullman did a ham-handed job of conflating his "Authority" with anything resembling the real church.

I liked the books as stories but Pullman is a joke as an allegorist or atheistic evangelist.  Heck, he keeps using Judeo-Christian tropes in a positive way throughout the books.  It's the level of religious argument you'd get from some emo high schooler.

The armored-freakin-polar bears on the other hand.

[Manedwolf]

Did Coke do a marketing tie-in yet?

[wooderson]

I liked the books as stories but Pullman is a joke as an allegorist or atheistic evangelist.

Thing is, that 'atheistic evangelist' tag is something created by those who are upset by him. Pullman wrote a series in response to Christian evangelizing and in response to CS Lewis - but that's not quite the same thing as the motives assigned to him.

His evangelism, if anything, is good old secular humanism and resistance to illegitimate authority.

[Iain]

Other than that, I heard Michael Medved talking about it.  Supposedly the author of the books was a big atheist and deliberately set out to write books opposed the Christian undertones of C.S. Lewis and other authors.  Medved said those atheist ideas were apparent in the movie would supposedly be more pronounced in planned sequels. 

For me, I might watch it on video just to see if I notice any atheist stuff.  The previews look neat.

That's the thing though. For quite a few years now my local extended family has done a big Christmas get together which has included a trip to the cinema to see a film. Probably won't happen again for a while because there are quite a few really little kids about now, and generally the films have been things like LOTR and Narnia and so unsuitable for really little ones. I was talking to my mother the other day and teasingly asked her if Compass was the film this year - I was surprised by the strength of her reaction. As she is a church-goer I was teasing her, but she really reacted so I had to know why. Turns out she knows nothing about the films, nothing about Pullman, only thing she knows is that they are 'anti-religious.'

So whilst I agree with fistful that any calls to boycott are not censorship, I do think that those like Medved (if your description is accurate) are engaging in a kind of hearsay reaction stirring, and I think it's pretty unpleasant.

[Matthew Carberry]

I liked the books as stories but Pullman is a joke as an allegorist or atheistic evangelist.

Thing is, that 'atheistic evangelist' tag is something created by those who are upset by him. Pullman wrote a series in response to Christian evangelizing and in response to CS Lewis - but that's not quite the same thing as the motives assigned to him.

His evangelism, if anything, is good old secular humanism and resistance to illegitimate authority.

Pullman is making an argument in the form of telling a story, much as Lewis did.  When you make an argument you are, by definition, attempting to sway people to your view, in as much as you are challenging their own.

Whether you do it "in response" or not, one definition of "evangelism" is an attempt to sway people to your point of view through militant or crusading zeal.  Pullman is very much militant in his presentation.

If "in response" means you aren't evangelizing, than most Christian work isn't "evangelism" either, they're just presenting a response to the active pull of "good old secular humanism" (or paganism or whatever the opposing belief system at the time happened to be).

That said, it's a hash of an argument, but I enjoyed the story.

[Matthew Carberry]

So whilst I agree with fistful that any calls to boycott are not censorship, I do think that those like Medved (if your description is accurate) are engaging in a kind of hearsay reaction stirring, and I think it's pretty unpleasant.

Demagogues like Medved have been using hearsay to stir people up about all sorts of things they don't like.  If people are too stupid or lazy to do a bit of research on the topic themselves, they deserve all our scorn, no matter their religious or areligious motives.

[Brad Johnson]

Sigh... the hysteria gets tiring sometimes.

Several folks in my office have become self-appointed "information" dissiminators of the religious-hysteria kind.  They subscribe to every church and religious group newsletter known to modern man. We are constantly deluged with all kinds of notifications for some new satanic invasion via music/movie/tv/book/game.  From Pokemon to Popeye, Hannah Montana to heavy metal, and Dig Doug to Donkey Kong, we are going to spontaneously burst into flame at any given moment.

Jeez, you should have been around for the Rings / Narnia fiasco.  Someone (actually several someones) were circulating several "notices" about how watching Rings would reverse the earth's rotation, send you to hell, and cause cause little children in the farthest reaches of lower Africa to develop huge festering sores.  Why?  Well, lemme tell ya!  There's witches and warlocks and magic and creatures and it's just really really bad and we don't like it because someone sent us an email saying not to so why are you questioning us about it okay!?

Narnia?  It was fine.  After all, it was base on "biblical principles".  Then someone (could have been me, but I ain't saying) pointed out that there were witches and warlocks and magic and creatures in it, too, that good triumphed over evil, that "you should always do the right thing for the right reason", and that the final solution (Good winning the battle) relied on personal sacrifice.  Next time I'll just set fire to the building.  It will be easier to deal with.

Brad

[Matthew Carberry]

I want to make a rule for those morons. 

If you cannot cogently explain the principles of Christian doctrine in one paragraph, say in the form of a "Creed", you are not allowed to freak out over anything "anti-Christian".

Those folks apparently not familiar with the fact that Lewis and Tolkein were old drinking buddies who shared a common world view? 

G-d help me but I want to be designated the wielder of the Holy Bat of "Get a freakin' clue".

[Manedwolf]

If someone ever flies off the handle that something is horribly offensive to their religion and starts the red-faced bit and circulating warnings, just show them a photo of Islamic Rage Boy, and ask them if that's what they want to become.

Probably will make them think. Rational people ignore that which they find offensive if it's not in their face. Others who are not rational seek out things to be offended by.

And if a book or movie is enough to cause someone to doubt their religion, they weren't very much into it anyway. They should realize that.

[Perd Hapley]

But Carebear, Tolkien was an Evil Papist!!  Besides, it's just a lie that C.S. Lewis and Martin Luther got together with their (respective) colleagues to chug demon-rum and discuss theology.  Good Christians would never do that. 

[Perd Hapley]

And if a book or movie is enough to cause someone to doubt their religion, they weren't very much into it anyway. They should realize that.   

Religious nit-wits go overboard about these kinds of movies, just like conservative/libertarian nit-wits go overboard about Michael Moore films, etc. 

ManedWolf, you and I both know that such propaganda sways the opinions of dumb people.  And dumb people vote.  Beyond that, they also make choices about their religious lives.  And those things matter. 

[Iain]

You know there are more than 500 groups on facebook that refer to the Golden Compass.

Doing an impression of an endocrinologist* I have reviewed the abstracts (or titles in this case) of the first 30.
Against - 23
For - 5
Neutral - 1
Russian - 1

* not worth explaining

[richyoung]

Anytime someone wants to censor something, it does make me want to read, hear or see it more.

I'm happy that the local B&N has a table right in the front with a sign that says "Banned Books: Read One Today" with an illo of the 1st Amendment on it.

If the governemnt says "don't go see it", its censorship.  If private citizens, either singly, or collectivley say, "don;t go see it", its then an exercise in that "1st Amendment" that B&N is soroud of, NOT "censorship".