The golden compass

[mechana2015]

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/11/would_the_golden_compass_be.html

I just thought this was an interesting contrast between what the film company wants the movie to be and what pullman thinks it should be, and the first difinitive statement on the differences between the books and the movie.

[Nate]

Interesting article. I liked this quote:

"After a rocky start, the studios now seem to view the Christian market as it would a difficult girlfriend: elusive and hard to please; ultimately, you keep your distance but still take pains not to irritate her."

But I think the most telling quote is at the end.

The Golden Compass should not offend, or be controversial at all, Weitz swears. It will certainly not, heaven forbid, offer any critique of religion. “The movie’s first job is to beguile the audience for a couple of hours,” he says, and that much it can promise to do.

So it seems to me the whole argument over the movie is simply guilt by association.

[uc pseudonym]

None of us have seen the movie. How do we know the atheist undertones are even still prevalent in it?

First, I want to make it clear that I don't support judging the movie prematurely. However, based on the preview I saw, I think that I can safely assume some elements of this are present. The "that is heresy / that is the truth" line I quoted earlier is fairly explicitly anti-religious (and consistent with the philosophy I feel was in Pullman's books). One would imagine these elements will be played down, but I sincerely doubt they will be gone.

Whether that is a major cause for concern is another matter entirely. I won't see it because I generally don't watch movies, not for religious reasons.

[bakura_fan]

I believe that no matter how dumbed down the movie will be, if they get enough ticket sales and decide to make the other books into movies, those movies will still have the same end result as the books. the death of "god". The reason I started this thread was just to get the message out mainly about the books. I do not fear anything about this movie. I'm sure it was done tastefully. I only worry about potential future movies and the children who will like the movie and then want the books.

[Technomancer]

Sorry to keep mentioning those polar bears, but man, they're just too awesome.

They are aren't they? Personally, I will be seeing the movie when it comes out for the simple fact that the book told a rattling good story. That's it for me really. Yes, this one like many others is told from a particular viewpoint, and it may be good to go in being aware of this. However, the mere fact that the story isn't told from a pro-Christian or even a neutral viewpoint is no reason not to see the film. Good fiction ought to be more than a mirror that reflects only our own beliefs about the world. Instead, it should try to make us see the world through the eyes of others, even if those others are not ones we'll agree with.

Like Jurassic Park they may have dumbed down the atheism to the point where it's just "LOOK POLAR BEARS WEARING PLATE MAIL."

I don't know, the original author was plenty dumb already. Don't get me started on his meaningless jibber-jabber on chaos theory...

[Etoh*the*Greato]

*scratches head* Granted I've not read the book since probably fifth grade, but I don't remember much atheism in Jurassic Park, excluding evolution theory.

Also, Technomancer: Regarding seeing the movie on the merits of its story and reflections of our worldview? Agreed. Not sure I'll see the movie, but totally agreed.

[Alexander]

To Nate: Excluding the fact that I'm not immediately impressed by movies that have polar bears bears in armor, I have to agree with you. XD

But that brings up another issue for myself. I never watch, or consider, the film version of a story to be better then the book. And ironically, one of the reasons I don't do this has to do with the fact that the film version usually waters down one or two themes from the original story.

Regardless, it's still a strong and good point. But I'll still remain careful of this whole situation, and for myself, continue to ignore them for my ancient philosophy. XD

[termyt]

There is some truth to not judging a movie before you see it, but don't get carried away.

The intent of the book’s author can and should affect whether or not you would want to see any movie. Knowing the author's intent is a valid reason to dismiss any book or movie.

Or, should we say, that if the wolf's costume is good enough, we should accept him as a sheep even though we know him to be a wolf?

I would not say a movie is bad (as in poor quality) unless I have it on good authority that it is bad. The quality of the movie, however, is not the focus of the discussion.

Similarly, I would not lay down blanket assumption of a movie’s content, either. However, the evidence is mounting, and even though I have not read the books myself, I consider some of the folks here to be trustworthy enough to take their word, that this movie is based in an attempt to discredit Christianity. This movie itself does little in that regard, perhaps, but the books together have this as an obvious aim. I don't think I am “judging the book by its cover” here to say that this is a movie most Christians will not want to support - or at the very least, they will not want to support their young children digging deeper into the author's works.

[Sakura15]

This really makes me sad, because from the trailer it looks like a really cool movie. I still might see the movie but I definitely won't be reading the books, thanks for the heads up guys. I had heard that it was about "Killing God" but I wondered if it was maybe just people blowing things out of proportion again..if only

Let me put it this way. They marked down a movie about Jesus's life because young Jesus wandered away from His parents to go to the temple, if you all remember. They said it could inspire rebellion in children.

YEAH. Wrap your head around THAT one.

That is utterly ridiculous..Did they NOT read the bible?

[uc pseudonym]

That is utterly ridiculous..Did they NOT read the bible?

More Christians than you would think draw guidance for their daily life from non-biblical sources (and I don't mean Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox). In this case, I think they operate by an ultra-conservative set of ethics without realizing there is discontinuity in their beliefs.

I don't know, the original author was plenty dumb already. Don't get me started on his meaningless jibber-jabber on chaos theory...

While I don't know enough about chaos theory to participate on such a topic too intelligently, you have me curious. What kind of things was he saying? I don't really have an opinion about Pullman outside of his books and a few interviews.

[Nate]

The intent of the book’s author can and should affect whether or not you would want to see any movie. Knowing the author's intent is a valid reason to dismiss any book or movie.

I disagree]I, Robot.[/i] The book is a collection of short stories by Asimov revolving around robots and morality. There was no action whatsoever in it, it was all about character development and robotics.

What was the movie like? It starred the Fresh Prince running around fighting killer robots. This would be the part where I point out that Asimov absolutely hated the idea of having robots as bad guys in his stories.

The movie resembles the books in name only, and by use of the Three Laws of Robotics. Anyone judging the movie by the book would be making a huge error as the two are almost completely different.

Is this movie, The Golden Compass that different from the book it's based on? Probably not. We haven't seen the movie yet to verify it though.

In the end, what am I saying? Well, first. I'm NOT saying it's a bad idea to have some reservations about a movie based on the book. The books are obviously written from a very atheistic point of view, and Christians are right to be cautious about them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we NEED to be suspicious. But ultimately in the end, while the book is a good starting point for judging a movie's value, it's not the only standard, and the movie needs to be judged on its own merits, away from the book.

In the Narnia books, Aslan says to Peter (I think) that there is a great King over the sea that rules all, and that he is that king's son. In the movie this line is changed to "a great power watches over all of us." This completely removes a lot of the Christian themes Lewis had set up in his book. Again, the makers of the movie have changed the original intent of the author.

at the very least, they will not want to support their young children digging deeper into the author's works.

Now that I completely agree with.

While I don't know enough about chaos theory to participate on such a topic too intelligently, you have me curious. What kind of things was he saying? I don't really have an opinion about Pullman outside of his books and a few interviews.

I think Technomancer was talking about Crichton, not Pullman in that statement. I don't know that much about chaos theory either, and it's been years since I've read Jurassic Park, so I'll let him respond to the question itself.

[Technomancer]

Yeah, I should've said that it was Crighton, and not Pullman. Sorry for the confusion.

While I don't know enough about chaos theory to participate on such a topic too intelligently, you have me curious. What kind of things was he saying? I don't really have an opinion about Pullman outside of his books and a few interviews.

It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.

[Sakura15]

In the end, what am I saying? Well, first. I'm NOT saying it's a bad idea to have some reservations about a movie based on the book. The books are obviously written from a very atheistic point of view, and Christians are right to be cautious about them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we NEED to be suspicious. But ultimately in the end, while the book is a good starting point for judging a movie's value, it's not the only standard, and the movie needs to be judged on its own merits, away from the book.

*nods* I agree, they normally do change a lot in movies, this is why I still plan on seeing it..just so I can judge it for what it is, not by the books.

[Kkun]

Yeah, I should've said that it was Crighton, and not Pullman. Sorry for the confusion.




It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.

I'd not really thought of that way since I just kind of read the book for the plot (pseudoscience in fiction has never bothered me all that much...). If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, Crichton used the phrase "chaos theory" as a way to express the idea that there are many different paths that events can take? It's been several years since I've read Jurassic Park, but I never stopped to think about Ian Malcolm's version of "chaos theory" in that light. Crichton just wanted to make Ian Malcolm punk rock. As far as the plot goes, though, I guess he succeeded.

Anyway, back to discussing the Golden Compasss.

[termyt]

In principle, I see your point and I'm in relative agreement, Nate. The other side of this coin is, though, we are not simply talking about watching or not watching a movie as though it had no effect on anything else. Nothing is done in a vacuum these days.

A huge box-office success for this movie will certainly result in book sales. Books that we seem to agree that are targeted at children and we’d rather not have children read without parental interaction to properly place the elements in the story with actual truth. This is the number one reason that I, as an author, would not fret about big changes being made to my book for the movie. Seeing a successful movie will encourage folks to read my books and then get the story I was trying to tell in the first place.

With the stated goal of the author being to downplay Christianity, I think it is not unreasonable to decide not to watch the movie whether any of those elements remain or not simply because one does not feel like filling the coffers of one who has declared himself your enemy.

[the_wolfs_howl]

The main reason I'm not going to be watching the movie is because I didn't think it really looked like that great of a movie to begin with. I'm extremely wary of every book-to-movie adaptation, because they're usually unbelievably horrible, and this one just made everything look way too colorful, cartoony, and blatantly CG for my tastes. I don't think people necessarily need to not watch the movie, seeing how much anti-Christian stuff was (reportedly) taken out. I'll be interested to hear what people have to say when they see it.

And the His Dark Materials trilogy is now on my very short list of Never Let Anyone Read These Books If At All Possible.

[uc pseudonym]

I do hope that those who see the film will give us their thoughts here. This discussion has made me rather curious.

I think Technomancer was talking about Crichton, not Pullman in that statement. I don't know that much about chaos theory either, and it's been years since I've read Jurassic Park, so I'll let him respond to the question itself.

Ah, I see the ambiguity there.

It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.

That does sound dodgy, even to my ears. I actually haven't ever read the original Jurassic Park, so that explains why I didn't make the connection

[Kuro-Mizu]

About pluggedinonline.

They are only their to inform. They tell ALL the story elements that might POSSIBLY be offensive and then leave the final decision up to you. I think they are a great resource. Obviously I read other reviews but I always check pluggedin first to make sure their isn't to much sexual or violent content.

As for the book and movie.

I'm reading the book and going to the movie. I have about 5 friends who are devout christians and I trust. They all COMPLETELY missed the anti christian themes. Even in the last book. Like me they read fantasy as just that... a fantasy. Its not real. So even if the author wrote it with the intention of bashing christianity they didn't see it that way because they knew it wasn't real.

Overall I think the movie looks sweet... I actually can't wait to see it!

[Arnobius]

Yeah, I should've said that it was Crighton, and not Pullman. Sorry for the confusion.




It's been quite a while since I've read the book. Essentially, his argument was that the park was a complex system of interacting parts and that these parts would interact in unpredictable ways, thus leading to a potentially catastrophic failure. The trouble with this idea is that it really doesn't have anything to do with chaos theory at all, nor does it even rule out the existence of some kind of equilibrium as the author implied. The only thing that chaos theory actually lent to the book was some fashionable buzzwords, and the appearance of a character who could be perceived by the readers as some sort of scientific non-conformist.

Well, as I recall, the use of chaos theory was supposed to be using math to predict non linear actions.

Of course I thought it very farfetched that the book would use it to predict things in a specific fashion... it made out chaos theory to be almost fortune telling.

Of course Lost World was worse... where the reasoning they used there meant the things happening in "Jurassic Park" simply could not have happened as they did.

Getting back to Golden Compass, my thoughts are, whether or not there are polar bears in armor, the key thing is what is the message of the book and how much of it filtered into the movie. If someone made a movie out of The Turner Diaries, would it be reasonable to ask the people to ignore the racist origins and content of the book even if the movies downplayed them? I think that when an intolerance is being displayed with these books, Christian concern is not unreasonable when it comes to asking what sort of influence the message will have.

With The Da Vinci Code, the sentiment of the supporters was to represent the opposition as overreaction to a movie, when in fact the opposition was to the anti-Christian claim of Dan Brown that the beliefs of Christianity and of Christ were a lie created by the Catholic Church to suppress paganism and gnosticism, and the subsequent rise in the interest of many that Christianity was "suppressing" the truth and looking into Gnosticism as an "alternate version of Christianity" and failing to recognize that Gnosticism was not "pure Christianity" but rather paganism added to Christianity.

I don't think Christians are unreasonable to be concerned of the effects of the added publicity the movie may bring to the books.

[Nate]

I have about 5 friends who are devout christians and I trust. They all COMPLETELY missed the anti christian themes. Even in the last book.

You'll forgive me if I think they're lying or idiots, as the last book makes it very clear that it's anti-Christian.

“The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty—those were all names he gave himself.â€

[Danderson]

Heard something a few days ago about The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (the movie) might be released around the same time as The Golden Compass.....Not sure if it's true, but if it is I'd say Bring on the Amunition...

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Not true. Prince Caspian comes out May 16, 2008 in the US, God knows when it comes out in Australia.

[[GMOD]Vedicardi]

From an "ex-christian" standpoint, the books were very entertaining, far better than any other trilogy I've read so far in my opinion. (Then again, I haven't read too many...)

As for everyone else, I actually suggest you watch the movie or read the books, and make comparisons between the book and real life. In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.

But then again, that's only my opinion. I hope I didn't offend anyone or anything.

[Alexander]

Vedicardi]From an "ex-christian" standpoint, the books were very entertaining, far better than any other trilogy I've read so far in my opinion. (Then again, I haven't read too many...)

As for everyone else, I actually suggest you watch the movie or read the books, and make comparisons between the book and real life. In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.

But then again, that's only my opinion. I hope I didn't offend anyone or anything.

None taken from me, exactly. Although I'm still going to take my own opinion and choose to skip the series.

Also, begging your pardon, and I hope I don't offend you or create a debate against the rules here, but I wish to ask, why are you here to spread a belief against our faith? While I'm very open to non-religious members coming, it just seems a little un-wise to spread that kind of message here.

Anyways, back on topic.

[[GMOD]Vedicardi]

Sorry. XD

I was told that although I am not a Christian, I can still... participate in the forums. I'm here more for the people, not what the people believe in.

You do have a point. I don't want to start a fight or anything, and I can see how this would.

I'll try to remember not to do anything like this again.

[Mave]

Vedicardi] In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.

Heh. You've at least, strengthen the report that the books are indeedly written from a [I-don't believe-in-God] standpoint.

OK, I'm going to shut up until someone who actually watches the movie, writes here.

[termyt]

Vedicardi]Sorry. XD

I was told that although I am not a Christian, I can still... participate in the forums. I'm here more for the people, not what the people believe in.

You do have a point. I don't want to start a fight or anything, and I can see how this would.

I'll try to remember not to do anything like this again.

Openly bashing Christianity or the various mainstream denominations is against the forum rules. Not because we can't take the criticism – I think this thread proves we do OK in that regard – but because we come here to engage in pro-Christian discussion.

At least you were civil, though. Thank you for that.

That said, I don’t think your comments were too out of line, assuming you believe them to be true, but if you are seeking real discussion on the nature of Christianity today, you should probably be more specific. As it stands, you’ve made a blanket statement that amounts to an accusation that we are all liars bent on distorting the truth in order to control the witless masses or some such.

Often, we get such a label because sometimes people are not treated well by those who call themselves Christians. But it literally takes nothing at all to call yourself a Christian. It takes a great deal more to actually live like one and none of us are perfect at doing so.

I would encourage you to look at Christianity as a whole and the good we accomplish as well as our short-comings before making a judgment as to whether we are fools or liars.

[Monkey J. Luffy]

Aren't the polar bears called daemons too (with the A and the E combined) ? I find that a tad strange.

Originally I just thought my church was making a big deal because of all th monsters in it and stuff, but after all I've read i definitly back up my church on this one.

[uc pseudonym]

For the record, I think [GMOD]Vedicardi's comments were acceptable. Obviously we don't allow bickering, but general statements of belief are hardly condemned, provided they are not made simply to generate controversy.

Vedicardi]In my opinion, the book essentially states word for word what Christianity truly is.

I'm not completely sure what you mean. The parallel church is clearly not like the one in our world, but rather Pullman's formulation of what he believes religion becomes when in power. Everything else is relatively theoretical and can't really be "word for word," unless I'm missing your meaning.

Aren't the polar bears called daemons too (with the A and the E combined) ? I find that a tad strange.

Not so. Dæmons are "spirit halves" of people in one of the two parallel worlds, animal-like creatures (small things, not polar bears) that are intrinsically tied to their existence. I'm not completely certain about the etiology of that word (and certainly not about Pullman's intentions), but it often refers to generic spirits so there may be nothing untoward about it.

[minakichan]

I get why Pullman is so anti-Christian, but why so pro-sex?

"They [Adam and Eve] become aware of sexuality, of the power the body has to attract attention from someone else. This is not only natural, but a wonderful thing! To be celebrated! Why the Christian Church has spent 2,000 years condemning this glorious moment, well, that’s a mystery."

M'pretty sure there's no "Thou shalt not have sex" in the Bible. *headdesk* Or most of us wouldn't be around, yes? God created sex and he made it a beautiful and pleasurable thing (not that I've experienced it personally or anything); it's only problematic when it's... done in certain ways, and if, say, he thinks that doing it with chickens is "natural and wonderful" then it really isn't even worth talking about this guy anymore.

But from reading some of the articles, he sureeee is obsessed with sex, suggesting that wisdom and knowledge and such come from when a person begins to become sexually curious and goes through puberty. Not...quite... what I've seen in my middle school experience, but thaaaat's OK.