The Golden Compass

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by werewuf

...seems the team of Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig are the kiss of death with reviewers (The Invasion tanked big time). The Golden Compass probably won't do any better at the box office either, but that does remain to be seen.....

Translation: I totally know what I'm talking about. But then again, maybe not.

It seems to me it won't do as well as a Stan Laurel and Veronica Lake vehicle set in mid-town Detroit during the potato famine because it takes place on a Tuesday.

So you are honestly saying a movie with CGI polar bears and children as the main characters in settings involving snow will do better than "The Invasion" during Christmas?

Your examples and comparisons are lackluster, to say the least.

[doctorsteve]

[QUOTE=Steverhcp02;386187]would you steal medicine if you couldnt afford the exuberant fee to save your dieing mother?

Exuberant - doesn't that mean excited, over the top?

I think you're looking for "exorbitant". Way beyond the norm.

[Right of Might]

Originally Posted by aristotles

Do the Narnia books advocate overthrow of civil governments? Do they try to twist the meaning of established themes of good and evil? Are the Narnia books different from other morality tales?

Are the books of Narnia attacking a specific group in society or are they a positive morality tale? No.

Ah but see I think the point he was trying to make is that if you argue that the fact that Pullman's books being available to kids in public schools would violate the separation of church and state, the Christian undertones in the Narnia books would have to be subject to the same scrutiny...Which I thought was a good point.

I don't think anyone here is afraid to debate religion, it's just that most of us feel that this forum isn't the right place to do it. Another big point is that so what if something comes along and shakes the pillars of Heaven (Yes that was a Big Trouble in Little China reference, which by the way can't come to Blu soon enough) and make you go hmmm. Should it change your religion, no. Could it? Maybe but doubtful. If your strong in your faith No one should be able to shake you away form it. About it swaying young children...don't even get me F-ing started. Parents need more accountability about who and what is raising their kids. If you argue that these books should be pulled because of their content and their so called ability to sway young minds, then you should pull every media based reference material that doesn't follow base Christian guidelines. Goodbye, WoW, R rated movies, Hell most movies, most if not all video games, 90% of t.v. and music. Do you see where this is going? It's the responsibility of parents to raise their kids not fictional media. I don't think anyone that reads the books or sees the movies will start a new religion to destroy God.

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by aristotles

Open mindedness is has nothing to do with having an open mind at all but rather it is a code word for having a countercultural viewpoint that clashes with the religious or secular establishment.

Let's call a spade a spade. Nobody is truly open minded. Everyone has a bias.

BTW. I don't get why some of you are so afraid to discuss religion like you might "catch" something. I'd like to coin a new term religiophobe. Some of you are religiophobes or Deity-phobes.

Ok.... since I said I'm going to watch the movie with an open mind. You think I'm using it as a code word for having a countercultural viewpoint that clashes with the religious or secular establishment. I hate to say this but what a bunch of BS. You’re right no one is truly bias, everyone as an opinion. In my opinion since I haven’t read the books or watch the movies how can Bias toward them. I’ll watch the movie and then I’ll pass judgment.

As far as some of us are so afraid to discuss religion, I don’t think we are afraid to discuss it, I think it more the fact that this isn’t the place to discuss it.

[werewuf]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

Translation: I totally know what I'm talking about. But then again, maybe not.

It seems to me it won't do as well as a Stan Laurel and Veronica Lake vehicle set in mid-town Detroit during the potato famine because it takes place on a Tuesday.

So you are honestly saying a movie with CGI polar bears and children as the main characters in settings involving snow will do better than "The Invasion" during Christmas?

Your examples and comparisons are lackluster, to say the least.

So you are here just to be a pain in the behind, or do you actually have something relevant to say?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by darinp2

Just want to be clear. Do you feel the Narnia books and movies are unsuitable for children or school curriculum also?

--Darin

If they were used in a public school, I GUARANTEE that the ACLU would file suit.

And yes, they don't belong in a public school. If you are going to have separation of church and state (which isn't in the Constitution, by the way) then you have to equally prevent positive AND NEGATIVE depictions of religion. Otherwise, the public school system would be taking sides, and violating what the Anti-Christian Liberties Union CLAIMS to stand for.

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by radagast

If they were used in a public school, I GUARANTEE that the ACLU would file suit.

And yes, they don't belong in a public school. If you are going to have separation of church and state (which isn't in the Constitution, by the way) then you have to equally prevent positive AND NEGATIVE depictions of religion. Otherwise, the public school system would be taking sides, and violating what the Anti-Christian Liberties Union CLAIMS to stand for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat..._United_States

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In that letter Jefferson wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

[Steelmaker]

I saw the trailor where the amored polar bears were fighting and I was sold! Personally I don't care about plots, motivations, religious undertones, ant-religious undertones, compasses, dust, or anything else! I just want to see some massive CG polar bear destruction!!!

Seriously guys come on! At the end of the day why can't we just let a movie be a movie? It's just entertainment!! A way to eliminate boredome for about 2+ hours of your life. There is no sense in turning this into some kind of debate.

To the original poster, thank you for your impressions! I'm seeing the film this Sunday.

[Wondermaker]

Here, here, Steely! (Are you a distant cousin, btw? )

I'm surprised at the amount of heavy discussion The Golden Compass has been generating. I read the trilogy nearly all the way through a few years ago... never finished Amber Spyglass, but I'd like to give them another go. I really liked the fantastic themes of parallel worlds, travel through said worlds, and dæmons are, frankly, an awesome concept. An individual's soul manifested in a physical, tangible form... I endorse!

[nomad2010]

what happened to this thread? anyways it was a good movie. and the movie could be taken in an anti-religious way or a movie supporting religion. but i think it's up to the viewer to decide that. and does it really matter? if it can be seen both ways then really it's neither is it? it's just fantasy. plain and simple. still one of my favorite movies though too.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by MasterXeus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat..._United_States

Thank you for validating my point. The phrase is not in the consitution, but rather from a letter by Thomas Jefferson.

The Constitution ONLY says that CONGRESS shall make no law either supporting or prohibiting religion. That's IT. The ACLU and other groups have broadened that to mean that no governmental entity of any kind can make a statement or policy that can be interpreted as a positive view of Christian faith. That's absurd. And of course, the ACLU is not even handed in it's application of their mis-interpretation. If they were, they would also fight TM being taught in schools and practiced in government buildings, the teaching of Islam in schools, etc.

Originally Posted by nomad2010

what happened to this thread? anyways it was a good movie. and the movie could be taken in an anti-religious way or a movie supporting religion. but i think it's up to the viewer to decide that. and does it really matter? if it can be seen both ways then really it's neither is it? it's just fantasy. plain and simple. still one of my favorite movies though too.

Obviously you still miss my point. While the viewer MAY WANT to interpret it in any way, it is invalid if it contradicts the stated intention of the author. Someone could read Mein Kampf and come up with their own interpretation of what Hitler was saying. If it contradicts what Hitler believed, it would be kinda silly, wouldn't it?

I'm sure that as a movie, it is of high quality. That, in and of itself, doesn't justify its existence. Art isn't sacred or holy or divine. The message does matter. If you agree with it fine. That's your right. But if you are going to bring up a movie, for which one thread was already closed, you shouldn't be surprised to get the reactions this thread has produced.

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Seriously guys come on! At the end of the day why can't we just let a movie be a movie? It's just entertainment!! To the original poster, thank you for your impressions! I'm seeing the film this Sunday.

Tell that to all the Black Americans who resent the movie "Birth of A Nation".
It's just a movie. It's just entertainment.

[clyon]

Mods please close this thread

& for those of us that have not read the book(s) please don't post spoilers or at lease say 'spoiler'

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by clyon

Mods please close this thread

I agree.

[Wondermaker]

Is it really that bad? O_o

[Right of Might]

Radagast...What the Hell?!? I don't actually recall you answering my question asking if YOU have actually read these books. If not I really don't see what authority you expect your opinions to have. You are going a little out there and all the soapboxing it's really needed or wanted. Why couldn't you simply stop with your first post? That was more than enough for everyone to get that you weren't on board with this movie. Nomad told us what he thought and some of us conversed about the film and some went on a crusade. You are obviously in the minority here why continue with a direction that has nothing to do with the intent of the op? If this thread does get nuked, thanks for sharing Nomad. I feel a lot better about this movie staying close to the book now.

[Right of Might]

Originally Posted by Wondermaker

Is it really that bad? O_o

As per the usually in cases like this...a few can screw it up for the majority. I vote to keep it open but it's ultimately your call.

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by Wondermaker

Is it really that bad? O_o

I'll tell you after I go see it.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Right of Might

Radagast...What the Hell?!? I don't actually recall you answering my question asking if YOU have actually read these books. If not I really don't see what authority you expect your opinions to have. You are going a little out there and all the soapboxing it's really needed or wanted. Why couldn't you simply stop with your first post? That was more than enough for everyone to get that you weren't on board with this movie. Nomad told us what he thought and some of us conversed about the film and some went on a crusade. You are obviously in the minority here why continue with a direction that has nothing to do with the intent of the op? If this thread does get nuked, thanks for sharing Nomad. I feel a lot better about this movie staying close to the book now.

Yes, I have read the first two books. I did not like the direction they were taking. When the third book came out, I read a review of it and decided to throw the first two books away. I HAVE ALSO READ PULLMAN'S OWN WORDS on what he believes and why he wrote the trilogy. So that is quite "authoritative" right there. I am continuing because I keep reading illogical statements here, and I have the right to challenge them. No one has refuted any of my logic yet. They can't. I have been waiting for someone to invoke the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, but perhaps Godwin's Law is being consciously avoided. Movies aren't just movies. Philosophy can be absorbed by someone being entertained by a well made film. Why else have there been so many anti-war fillms done in the past few years? Not just for entertainment. They want to persuade people. Well other movies can do the same thing.

As far as being in the minority:

1) What does that have to do with anything? and...
2) I recall several others also voicing a negative opinion about this movie and the books.

[Right of Might]

Originally Posted by radagast

Yes, I have read the first two books. I did not like the direction they were taking. When the third book came out, I read a review of it and decided to throw the first two books away. I HAVE ALSO READ PULLMAN'S OWN WORDS on what he believes and why he wrote the trilogy. So that is quite "authoritative" right there. I am continuing because I keep reading illogical statements here, and I have the right to challenge them. No one has refuted any of my logic yet. They can't. I have been waiting for someone to invoke the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, but perhaps Godwin's Law is being consciously avoided. Movies aren't just movies. Philosophy can be absorbed by someone being entertained by a well made film. Why else have there been so many anti-war fillms done in the past few years? Not just for entertainment. They want to persuade people. Well other movies can do the same thing.

As far as being in the minority:

1) What does that have to do with anything? and...
2) I recall several others also voicing a negative opinion about this movie and the books.

Well what can I say to that? I also read some reviews and interviews and it wasn't as cut and dry as you seem to make it. I never found anything where Pullman says "Yes I made the Christian God the Devil and the Christian Devil God...and then I killed him". It's never cut and dry like that. Most writers want the reader to come away with their own experience after reading their story and won't exactly spell out their intent for everyone. Also people that don't go along with church based doctrine 100% won't really be that threatened by this. A lot of people think that things that question or challenge their faith actually strengthen their faith and aren't swayed. They appreciate another perspective.

Also last I checked this was all set in a parallel universe so I hardly see the bearing it has on the real world. People make films to tell the stories or point of views they want to tell. Not everyone agrees with those points of view, and frankly no one has to. As far as being in the minority, in this thread at least it seems like you and Aristotles are the only ones carrying the torch. We don't have to agree with you and you clearly you don't have to agree with me. We know how you feel, move on. As far as your unchallenged logic goes, I believe that's a matter of opinion now isn't it .

[The Laughing Man]

I think we're all dancing around the real issue here, and that is: Just how good DOES Ms. Green look in this film.

I, for one, do not want to go see a film that portrays Eva Green in bad light. I think it's important that her talent and beauty and who she is comes through in a good way. I am quite worried that people may go see this movie and walk out with poor opinion of her and unable to see her for the 'totally smokin' hot babe she is.'

So, maybe I'll just watch Kingdom of Heaven on Blu-ray.