the golden compass is the anti-narnia- Page 3

[scott68]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 11:24am

I saw it last night, and to be honest, I can't imagine anyone who's actually seen it being offended by the ideology it expresses... or rather doesn't express. They've gone to such great lengths to de-religionize it that you never get any kind of sense for what's wrong with the Magisterium except that they're "the bad guys."

Although it was a rather decent physical adaptation of the events of the book, the only reason I'm glad I paid the money to go see it is because I want to see how they'll possibly deal with filming the other two books, which to me are infinitely more compelling.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 12:32pm

I do hope it does well enough for them to adapt the other two books. If they get the go-ahead to do those, maybe they can take a few more risks.

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 9:21pm

I just got back from seeing this. I went into it unaware of the controversy and not having read any of the books.

I thought it was very well done and very enjoyable. As someone here said, the girl is a revelation. Quite an actress. Not a false note from her. She definitely added levels of interest to the movie through her interpretation of the character.

I don't know what anti religious messages were in the book. Still, being ignorant of that issue I was very quick to spot it in the movie. As soon as we left the theatre I turned to my partner and said, "the Magestariate was the church." He said, "No kidding."

I thought it was quite clear who they were supposed to be. Their costumes looked like priestly garb right down to the twist on the little white band collars with a 'v' split that stuck up out of their red brocade robes. They were pink chubby white men with little boy haircuts that all looked like they came straight out of the "Bishop" department of central casting. Plus their emblem had a little cross on top of it and their Northern headquarters looked exactly like a Russian Orthodox church.

As far as the controversy itself goes, I'm glad someone is warning children about the evils of organized religion.


EDITED TO ADD: My one complaint was that some fo the animals looked like they came right out of a bad video game. The polar bears and some of the other animals were really convincingly done. But some were distractingly bad. My opinion with CGI is if you can at all spot it, don't use it.

Updated On: 12/8/07 at 09:21 PM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/8/07 at 9:30pm

I saw it last night. I thought it was a fine adaptation. A better director could have brought more artistry to the whole affair but this was a troubled project from day one. The cast is across the board great and the story is convoluted but interesting.

That said, I wish they had included the original ending. The current ending wraps up Lyra's journey into a neat little box and leaves it pat. I can see how many people would have been lost though.

At any rate, it was a lot of fun. It certainly wasn't faultless but it was leagues better than Narnia and it was certainly better than most fantasy movies (aside from the ones that set the bar like LOTR and Harry Potter). It was the sort of movie I could watch a bunch of times. Here's hoping they get to make the rest.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 2:38am

My cousin told me to boycott this.

Honestly, I wasn't going to see it anyway.

[Izzie2]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 3:05am

I would like to bring a (hopefully) non-close minded CHRISTIAN view to this thread.

my first reaction is to note that I am always being stereotyped as one of those Cram-religion-down-people's-throats-at-all-costs type of people (you know, the ones with the bicycles who show up at six in the morning) I even mention Christianity and people freak out. This guy seems to me to be the athiest equivalent of those bicycle people.

All in all, I feel bad for him. He has taken such pains to "kill God in the minds of children", but he failed to realize that people will see what they wish to see. Especially children.

For the record, I wish that non-christian people would try to coexist with Christians. (so long as Christians Coexist with non-Christians AND both parties respect the other's religious choices) Too many times, threads like this with the potential to grow into interesting debates end up as pissing contests and shouting matches with one party calling the other a poop-head.

I have seen the movie.

I do not like the fact that a part of my money went toward funding such a radical belief system. However, I do not feel that I wasted my time in seeing this movie. Like I said, I saw what I wanted to see.

I find it funny that, in all actuality, I interpreted religious views into the story. It wasn't until this thread that i learned about the anti-religious views. (I thought that the magisterium was atheist and that they feared dust because it was the tool of God)

See it or don't see it, for whatever reasons. A movie is going to turn a christian athiest about as fast as a toilet labeled athiest will.

On an unreligious note, I like the Chronicles of Narnia much more than I like the Golden Compass. I am massively excited that Disney made the decision to continue the series with Prince Caspian (cuz next is my favorite, VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER!)

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 3:22am

I had not read this thread until just now. Regardless of the religious issue, I personally found it boring. When it ended, I couldn't believe it wasn't even 2 hours long. Parts were great, but I really dislike movies like this where it's just a set up for the next movie. I didn't get this "empty" feeling from any of the LOTR movies.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 4:13am

This film was deadly dull.

I may, however, check out the books. They sound quite interesting.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 4:18am

I have a question for you guys:

I have not read the books. Several reviewers made mention that if you're familiar with the mythology going in you'd be a little lost.
Is this one of those movies where you feel like you're missing something if you have no knowledge of the source material?

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 7:47am

I hadn't read the books and new nothing about them. I had no trouble at all following the movie. I didn't find it to be the least bit complicated.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 8:04am

thnks scallion!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 10:59am

"I do not like the fact that a part of my money went toward funding such a radical belief system."

Not believing in something that doesn't exist hardly constitutes a "radical belief system."

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 12:26pm

"For the record, I wish that non-christian people would try to coexist with Christians."

funny, from where I sit it's always the christians coming to my door and ranting about homosexuality, or trying to shove their belief system down my throat.

I have yet to hear of a gay person knocking on a christians door to make them do anything.

But maybe in lala land with Izzy lives this happens

[Ariella]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 1:11pm

Is this one of those movies where you feel like you're missing something if you have no knowledge of the source material?

No, not really. Without any prior knowledge of the books, the movie is a good adventure story - the plot is engaging, the pace is good, and a number of the effects are quite exciting. I'd say that the books add considerably more depth to the movie - if one knows the details and backstories to what's occurring (in a relatively straightforward manner) onscreen, some aspects of the film become more profound. In terms of ideas and profundity, the movie doesn't have anything special to offer, but it's nonetheless enjoyable.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 4:35pm

"I have yet to hear of a gay person knocking on a christians door to make them do anything.

But maybe in lala land with Izzy lives this happens."

I read a blog comment earlier today that commented "My only problem with atheists is that they lack any personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If they could just come to know God I'd have no problem."

You know, it's that whole invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity and I'd have no problem! thing :P

The film had a modest response in America but it was a big hit overseas!

[roquat]

Posted: 12/9/07 at 8:07pm

It's interesting that critics of the books and the movie end up sounding just like the rigid anti-intellectual members of Pullman's Magisterium. The mere presence in the world of ideas they don't like is seen as catastrophic.

[jam_man]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:17am

I think that was Pullman's point, roquat.

I saw the film today, having read this thread, but not the book. Maybe it was the fact that I was reading about the contraversy this morning before seeing it, but I thought the anti-religous themes were much more obvious and over stated than any Christian themes in LOTR, or even Narnia (again, the films, not books). That said, it didn't seem to be as much about "killing God" as much as free will, which you don't have to be athiest to have. You just have to not be one of those that follow everything the church says SIMPLY because the church says to. If you see the movie or read the book and THEN decide that it's evil, that's something else (I still wouldn't agree with it, but you'd have the right to). But few of the protesters ever do.

I remember seeing a documentery shown on the BBC when they aired Jerry Springer: The Opera, where they interviewed a religous figure who actually HAD seen the show, instead of groundlessly calling it blasphamous. He did think there were some questionable parts of the piece, but he said (if I remember correctly) he liked most of the show. And his thoughts are at the very least valid since he actually took the time to see the show. Good for him!

As for the movie itself, I thought it was good, not great. The overtones seemed to rule the first half-hour or so, but after that they simmered down it got pretty interesting. And the little girl playing Lyra was fantastic!

[roquat]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:48pm

I also don't think the financial success of the "Narnia" movie was quite the Christian victory it was pronounced to be. Are little kids likely to have read a Christian parallel into that movie, or did they simply enjoy it as a fantasy adventure? (or were they dragged by their evangelical-minded parents)? Plus, Tilda Swinton's ultra-cool, punk-rock-style queen was by far the most interesting and alluring character in the thing--if that's evil, who wants to be good?

[nitsua]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:55pm

Tilda Swinton made me want to be an evil queen, 'cause she was fabulous!

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 2:36pm

My one complaint was that some fo the animals looked like they came right out of a bad video game. The polar bears and some of the other animals were really convincingly done. But some were distractingly bad. My opinion with CGI is if you can at all spot it, don't use it.

I know what you mean, but at the same time, I understood the logistics required for the production of this movie. Every person has a soul, therefore every person has a daemon. That means there has to be an animal for literally every single character shown in the movie. CGI is expensive. I'd rather have slightly-fake looking animals if it means they're going to be able to afford to make the entire series.

Actually, I thought the Tartars looked more fake than some of the animals, and they were real people.


I read the books before seeing the movie. There were some petty aspects that I didn't like (it bothered me that they showed other daemons talking, it made it seem as if anyone could hear them instead of just their person), some bigger (cutting the ending short). I personally liked Narnia better. Not because it's Christian and this is an evil atheist movie, but because I felt that it was more user-friendly. It didn't require as much background understanding, while understanding The Golden Compass's parallels were more essential to the plot. I personally wasn't bothered by it, but I know many audiences would be, especially since it was targetted towards children.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 2:36pm

P.S. Elphaba-
Door to Door Atheists Bother Mormons

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 2:54pm

You should give kids more credit. They often have an easier time following things than adults :P

I think daemons CAN talk to anyone, but they choose not to.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 3:12pm

Trust me, I have no problem giving children credit where credit is due, but when I see parents bringing a three and six year old to see this movie, I have to wonder if it meant anything beyond a $10 nap (especially since it was a 9pm movie). The six year old could enjoy the story at face value, but there's so much that could go over their heads that would prevent them from understanding much of what's going on. I felt even some adults wouldn't understand the significance of certain aspects, especially about the daemons. You don't get how "repulsive" it is to see Billy Costas without his daemon or why Lyra faints when someone else touches Pan. The movie portrayed them as no more than pets, not an essential part of their being. That becomes especially important in The Amber Spyglass, so I'm just wondering how they're going to make up for the difference in the other movies after the lackluster explanations here.

Updated On: 12/10/07 at 03:12 PM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 3:25pm

I think the movie just did a poor job of getting the story across in general. I feel bad because apparently the movie Chris Weitz actually made was much better before the studio started chopping it up (there's a long list of editors...). The elements of a great movie are all there. It's a movie that's clearly been tampered with. I look forward to a DVD version.

If they get to make the next ones (which may happen, the film is doing well overseas) Chris Weitz says he'll get to be bolder with it, make the movies longer, etc... I don't know why New Line didn't realize that the reason LOTR succeeded is because they were bold enough to create a movie that was a work of art and not just a commercial holiday flick.

Wish they would've had the balls this time too.