The Golden Compass

[gamerboy6000]

The Golden Compass movie is a rip-off compared to the book.
i also don't see why the catholic church is making such a big deal out of it.

[The Extinguisher]

I fail to see the reason that everything must be compared to it's source material, and that the qaulity of a movie is based on it's accuracy. It just ruins good movies.

That being said, have you read His Dark Materials. It's anti-religion in it's most concentrated form.

[gamerboy6000]

I mean, I,m Catholic and I don't see any breaching of the commandments (other then don't kill and don't steal, but what can you expect.)

[EllysW]

I don't think that certain Catholic groups are protesting the movie because it shows Commandments being violated. Heck, most movies do that, and to a far greater degree. What they don't like is that TGC's version of the Church itself (which is not the Church in our world, of course) is controlling, deceitful, and evil.

Actually, this raises an interesting point about what people do and don't find objectionable, but that's probably a religious discussion so I won't go on about it.

[Tirian]

It's touchy, because back in the Dark Ages one could argue that the Catholic church was a hegemony that persecuted scientific discovery and felt that the masses were too stupid to think for themselves. I think that Pullman's thesis is that this is how our world would have wound up were it not for things like the Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment. Personally, I don't think that the Catholics of today should have to apologize for their philosophical forebearers, but perhaps some do feel that it's like their great-grandfather has been insulted and you must rise to his honor even if you didn't know him.

I'm equally amused that there are atheist groups protesting that the movie took the teeth out of Pullman's rant. It is a good sign for a movie if no special interest group feels that their argument is adequately presented -- it would distract from the well-rendered SFX, Nicole Kidman, and the OMG armored bear fight.

[Icewalker]

Well, from what I've heard from a friend, (although I haven't seen it) it is the worst book adapted into movie he has seen.

It could well be an alright movie. But it sounds like it doesn't fit together as well as the book.

The big problem/complaints in book gone movies is that generally the movie cannot represent the story as well as the book, almost always because of a time issue. This results in the movie version cutting out pieces that are less important (or, because of Hollywood, less showy) which may leave out major plot points, forcing them to fit them in other places so it still makes sense. This refitting of the movie can end up leaving it feeling really off.


I read the trilogy when I heard they were making a movie. The books are excellent.

The general religious issue is that the main villain in the books is the church, and it isn't a generic church: they are mentioned in doing things that point pretty clearly to Christianity.

Then (major plot spoiler) ...they kill god. Could be a bit of a religious issue. :smalleek:

[thevorpalbunny]

enspoiled response; not sure if this is clear in the movie; but:

In the books, the Dust is the real god. The killed being is, essentially, Satan, who has fooled the world into thinking that he is God.
How is that in any way antireligious? Also, His Dark Materials is probably the most pro-spirituality children's work I've ever read. It is strongly against organized religion, but not in any way pro-atheism.

[TheLogman]

Meh I didn't like the Books for two reasons, and the movies look like a poor adaptations.

Reasons:

1. I only actually read the 2nd and 3rd for the sake of completion, I actually found them both boring and poorly written. The first was okay, but still not great literature. Better than say Goosebumps, but worse than Young Wizards, Harry Potter, the Guardians, any Terry Prachet book, Douglas Adams, you get the idea.

2. It is a clearly a gnostic work that bashes the Catholic Church repetitively. See below for that stuff.

List is as follows:
1. The Church is a bad guy, as in an antagonist
2. They kill God
3. The Church is a really bad guy, to the point of stealing souls, regular castration (Which admittedly happened a few times in the past, but not to the magnitude depicted in the book)
4. The existence of heaven is denied (Just a fortress where the supposedly fake god lives with his army) The afterlife is much like the one depicted by the Jewish religion (A boring pit of boredom)
5. The work screams gnostic: The souls are outside the body (Obvious right there), the people from our world (With souls in their bodies) are depicted as unclean, and the non-spiritual is regarded as tainted.

[Guildorn Tanaleth]

2. It is a clearly agnostic work that bashes the Catholic Church repetitively. See below for that stuff.

List is as follows:
1. The Church is a bad guy, as in an antagonist
2. They kill God
3. The Church is a really bad guy, to the point of stealing souls, regular castration (Which admittedly happened a few times in the past, but not to the magnitude depicted in the book)
4. The existence of heaven is denied (Just a fortress where the supposedly fake god lives with his army) The afterlife is much like the one depicted by the Jewish religion (A boring pit of boredom)
5. The work screams agnostic: The souls are outside the body (Obvious right there), the people from our world (With souls in their bodies) are depicted as unclean, and the non-spiritual is regarded as tainted.


Er... I think you might mean Gnostic, not agnostic. Agnosticism is acknowledgement that the existence of God is either unknown or unknowable.

More on topic, while I've never read any of the books, several news articles that I've come across have stated that Pullman's entire intention was to create an atheist equivalent of The Chronicles of Narnia and that the movie is supposedly designed to get kids to ask for the books for Christmas.

[TheLogman]

Oh jeez ya, I just failed my Memory check. Thanks for that. Sorry for anyone I offended with that bit.

Also, how can anyone legitimately say that it's a Chronicles of Narnia type series? The Chronicles of Narnia did the following:

-Emphasized a certain belief (Check)
-Had kids from a normal world adventuring a fantastic world (Opposite in His Dark Materials)
-Were a series, but were readable alone without missing anything at all (Not so in the Dark Materials)
-A big series (See above)
-Had vague obstacles and objectives involving lots of walking (The Objectives in the Dark Materials are fairly obvious)
-Had several main characters (Only 2, 3 if you count Pan)

Maybe I'm missing something.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Real world religious discussion are an Inappropriate Topic for these boards - no matter how related or intertwined with a legitimate topic. Thread locked.