Disney Film "The Golden Compass" Not So Golden

[Incognito]

Jumping on the global PC bandwagon, and its tireless effort to appease all those who might happen to get offended by nothing and everything, the film and television industry has had no compunctions, whatsoever, about censoring the word "God" from programming. Last year, NBC edited out all references to "God" in the animated children's show "Veggie's Tales". According to Rebecca Marks (NBC spokeswoman) the references had been edited out

"... to reach as broad an audience as possible with these positive messages while being careful not to advocate any one religious point of view."

As if Christianity had the exclusive rights to God! In the original format two of the characters, Larry the Cucumber and Bob the Tomato, ended each episode with, "Remember kids, God made you special and he loves you very much." Nothing more, nothing less, but it was obviously deemed potentially offensive to someone, so "God" -- gone.

This year it's Disney's turn. This past October, the Disney Company ordered the word "God" to be removed from some radio ads promoting the animated film "The Ten Commandments". Disney claims the words "chosen by God" were purged
"...because its policies require mention of the studio in its commercials and it decided to replace the "chosen by God" phrase with "from Promenade Pictures" because the original script made it sound as though the actors were chosen by God, not Moses, as was the intended meaning."

If you listen to the ad, it actually could be misconstrued, however, the script could easily have been rewritten in order to make the intention clearer. They obviously chose not to.

Sadly, "God" has become, in many ways, persona non grata, in today's world. From banning prayer in schools to calls for removal of "In God We Trust" from the U.S. currency, we are slowly being forced to eliminate God from our lives by a vocal minority of God-haters. And many are acquiescing to the PC way of dealing with those easily-offended types, by catering to their whims because it's simpler than fighting back. But the more you submit, the more they demand- and the more you lose. It's not a good precedent to set, by any means. And what is so odious and offensive about the word "God", anyway? Even if you do find it so, what harm is there in its use by others who don't? There are many things I find offensive, but I don't demand they be removed or banned. If you can't bear to use the word "God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, then simply omit it!

There seems to be an on-going tug of war between those Atheists who want a world devoid of God, and those who believe a God-less world will be the downfall of humanity. And Atheists seem to be gaining ground in that battle- including in the realm of Hollywood. On December 7th, 2007 a children's film entitled "The Golden Compass", starring Nicole Kidman and other major players, is being released. It's based on the first novel "Northern Lights" in Philip Pullman's trilogy "His Dark Materials". Seemingly innocuous, it's actually Atheism's answer to the Narnia Trilogy. And although all religious (or rather anti-religious references) have been removed, Christian groups are still calling for a boycott. Their main concern (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071031/29901_Christian_Groups_Claim_Religion-Purged_'Golden_Compass'_Movie_Promotes_Pro-Atheism_Books.htm) is that children will be inspired to read the trilogy after viewing the film (in its watered-down version), and that unsuspecting parents will then purchase the books, which have a decidedly anti-Church, anti-religious theme. In fact, God is portrayed as a drooling, senile old man, and is killed off at the end, by the young protagonists. Pullman, an avowed Atheist makes no apologies for his writings, and has openly admitted: "My books are about killing God."
And: "I don't profess any religion; I don't think it's possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words 'spiritual' or 'spirituality."

Here is a reference from "His Dark Materials", that you won't find in the film: "The Authority, god, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father the Almighty – those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves – the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself….The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of all. He told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie."

There are those who believe that the anti-religious references should not have been removed, and I tend to agree. In this way, parents would at least know, upfront, what they are dealing with, rather than being bamboozled into seeing a film which is actually based on books with a rabid anti-God agenda. They should be allowed to make an educated choice, particularly before buying the books for their kids.

I'm not calling for a boycott, however I won't be lining their coffers by viewing the film, nor will I be recommending it to anyone, either. And, just as I would challenge all Atheists to simply ignore any God references that they might find offensive, rather than jumping to sue to have them removed, I am challenging all Christians and others of faith to just not view films like "The Golden Compass", or buy Pullman's books, rather than calling for a boycott. Boycotts rarely achieve their intended goals.

However, I definitely think parents should be made aware and act accordingly. If I had kids, I know I would not allow them to see this film!

[Hagbard Celine]

Networks and film companies are going to do whatever it takes to make their bottom line as big as possible. It's nothing personal, despite the paranoid delusions of some on this board :tinfoil:

[Immanuel]

Just curious but have you seen the film Incognito? Did you write the opening post or was it something you got from someone else? If you got it from someone else would you please source your material? I'd like to know who's point of view that came from.

As for the movie, I heard the same kind of things regarding the Harry Potter series which I have both read completely and seen all the movies to date and The DaVinci Code which I read and saw the movie. Personally, I think things like the OP tend to draw interest to the film rather than have the intended effect of convincing others not to see it.

I expect that I will see the movie maybe even read the book, who knows? One cannot make a judgment on such things if he/she has not read the book or seen the movie.

Oh and by the way, I'm a Christian even after reading HP and The DaVinci Code!

Immie

[Monkeybone]

i know that this is different, but you saw the same with Harry Potter Books as well. Christians read those and suddenly they are practicing witch craft.

yes these books are anti-God. but censoring it won't help. nothing would hurt to read these books. better to be informed about smething then ignorant and try to debate it. my sister has read these books. they aren't exactly kids books. more like high school. it is a good thing if it makes them question their faith. better to have it challenged and they keep with than to just have it because they don't know anything else. and for the books, books are like movies and video games and anything else kids do, if the parent isn't paying attention then it is their lack or parenting.

that was my rant. but to look at the movie, they are pushing it as another Narnia and Lord of the Rings.

[Hagbard Celine]

Just curious but have you seen the film Incognito? Did you write the opening post or was it something you got from someone else? If you got it from someone else would you please source your material? I'd like to know who's point of view that came from.

As for the movie, I heard the same kind of things regarding the Harry Potter series which I have both read completely and seen all the movies to date and The DaVinci Code which I read and saw the movie. Personally, I think things like the OP tend to draw interest to the film rather than have the intended effect of convincing others not to see it.

I expect that I will see the movie maybe even read the book, who knows? One cannot make a judgment on such things if he/she has not read the book or seen the movie.

Oh and by the way, I'm a Christian even after reading HP and The DaVinci Code!

Immie
Two great franchises that Christian fundamentalists have poo-pooed. They just don't want anybody to have any fun. They're the FUN POLICE! :eek:

[Immanuel]

Two great franchises that Christian fundamentalists have poo-pooed. They just don't want anybody to have any fun. They're the FUN POLICE! :eek:

Hey!

Don't lump us all in the same boat. I'm one of the "they're" you are talking about, but I think the RR perspective on these things is just plain wrong, but then that is just plain my opinion.

Immie

[avatar4321]

i know that this is different, but you saw the same with Harry Potter Books as well. Christians read those and suddenly they are practicing witch craft.

yes these books are anti-God. but censoring it won't help. nothing would hurt to read these books. better to be informed about smething then ignorant and try to debate it. my sister has read these books. they aren't exactly kids books. more like high school. it is a good thing if it makes them question their faith. better to have it challenged and they keep with than to just have it because they don't know anything else. and for the books, books are like movies and video games and anything else kids do, if the parent isn't paying attention then it is their lack or parenting.

that was my rant. but to look at the movie, they are pushing it as another Narnia and Lord of the Rings.

i thought the Harry Potter boycotts were plain stupid. CS Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia which also involve magic. i havent seen anyone boycotting those books.

[Hagbard Celine]

i thought the Harry Potter boycotts were plain stupid. CS Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia which also involve magic. i havent seen anyone boycotting those books.

The reason is that CS Lewis wrote "Mere Christianity." The double standard is there though. It's nice to see a conservative who notices it.

[Hobbit]

I don't favor censorship...EVER. Some people like these books. Disney wants to make money. I'm sure some people will like the movies.

MY point in this whole thing is that I'm advising my Christian friends to pass on this series, especially for their Children, and I say this because the book is very hostile to religion. The heroes all rebel against an evil and oppressive church, which, by the way, worships not a God, but an angelic impostor.

I don't deny that some religious organizations have been a force for oppression, but in the series, the only people who were ever religious that are also good are only good because they rebelled against the religion. Religion is painted in one, broad brush stroke as a force of oppression, ignorance, and evil. If you want to go see it, fine, but these themes are not obvious in the ads or plot summaries in most places, and I don't want my friends to go see it under such false impressions.

[happyfeet]

It is only a movie. Do you think there should never be any movie that studies the themes of not being religious? Also, as in true life, religious people do do evil things, are we to pretend otherwise and be PC and sweep it under the carpet? After all, we have no trouble pointing out the mistreatments handed out by non-religious people.

[Hobbit]

It is only a movie. Do you think there should never be any movie that studies the themes of not being religious? Also, as in true life, religious people do do evil things, are we to pretend otherwise and be PC and sweep it under the carpet? After all, we have no trouble pointing out the mistreatments handed out by non-religious people.

Like I said, it paints broad brush strokes, portraying all religious people as evil and even the god they worship as phony, petty, and cruel. It would be like putting out a children's movie everybody who cared for the environment was an evil, sadistic terrorist who put the lives of plants and animals above the lives of people, then claiming it's not offensive to environmentalists because some of them really do act like that and it's not right to shelter children from that fact.

The book is pretty blatantly anti-religion and was written to be the antithesis to the Chronicles of Narnia, probably the best children's series of all time.

[Incognito]

Immie... no, obviously I haven't seen the film as it hasn't been released yet. And Yes I wrote this post, other than the obvious quotes, the opinions are mine. If you want to read the original post with all the links..to the quotes (I seem to have forgotten some here) you can read it on my blog:
http://republicaninthearts.blogspot.com/2007/11/disney-film-golden-compass-not-so.html
You can link to your hearts desire.

As I mention in the post, all anti-religious references have been removed from the film, so the film is probably harmless other than the fact that it could inspire young children to read the books and that's where the trouble starts. I am not, by the way, a Christian fundamentalist, and actually very much enjoyed the Harry Potter series (though I've yet to read the last book). The difference between the 2 is that Pullman, as an avowed atheist, has an agenda.. Rowling didn't.

The point of my post is to warn the parents so that they can at least educate themselves before they choose to take their children to see the film and/or buy the books.

Like Hobbit I am very anti-censorship, so it's not a question of calling for an outright boycott....I just choose to not spend my $10 on that particular movie knowing what I know about Pullman.

[Immanuel]

Immie... no, obviously I haven't seen the film as it hasn't been released yet. And Yes I wrote this post, other than the obvious quotes, the opinions are mine. If you want to read the original post with all the links..to the quotes (I seem to have forgotten some here) you can read it on my blog:
http://republicaninthearts.blogspot.com/2007/11/disney-film-golden-compass-not-so.html
You can link to your hearts desire.

As I mention in the post, all anti-religious references have been removed from the film, so the film is probably harmless other than the fact that it could inspire young children to read the books and that's where the trouble starts. I am not, by the way, a Christian fundamentalist, and actually very much enjoyed the Harry Potter series (though I've yet to read the last book). The difference between the 2 is that Pullman, as an avowed atheist, has an agenda.. Rowling didn't.

The point of my post is to warn the parents so that they can at least educate themselves before they choose to take their children to see the film and/or buy the books.

Like Hobbit I am very anti-censorship, so it's not a question of calling for an outright boycott....I just choose to not spend my $10 on that particular movie knowing what I know about Pullman.

It's cool.

I have seen emails going around (deleted them quickly) calling for a boycott which is why I brought this up. I think that the clamor against Harry Potter and The DaVinci Code helped both in sales tremendously. By the way, as a fictictious story, I really enjoyed The DaVinci Code.

The reason I asked for a link, if you had one, was because I wondered where you got your information. Since, it was pretty certain that you had not seen the movie, I wondered how you formed such opinions.

As for my $10, I ended up buying The DaVinci Code for $5 in paperback after all the hype then I got a copy from my mom for Christmas and I have Netflix so when the movie finally does come out I will see it on DVD. I sure as heck am not going to go to the theatre to see it. :)

Anyway, with the call for a boycott from the Religious Right that has started up, I imagine that The Golden Compass will in fact be golden for its producers, at least if HP and TDC are any prior indications of success.

Immie

[bullypulpit]

It's just another tempest in a teapot fomented by religious right wing-nuts who are convinced that Christianity is "under attack" by godless secular humanists.

The only "attack" is in their fevered, paranoiac minds.

[darin]

All I have to say about the movie:



mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....................nichole kidman.................................mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[happyfeet]

Like I said, it paints broad brush strokes, portraying all religious people as evil and even the god they worship as phony, petty, and cruel. It would be like putting out a children's movie everybody who cared for the environment was an evil, sadistic terrorist who put the lives of plants and animals above the lives of people, then claiming it's not offensive to environmentalists because some of them really do act like that and it's not right to shelter children from that fact.

The book is pretty blatantly anti-religion and was written to be the antithesis to the Chronicles of Narnia, probably the best children's series of all time.

I disagree. I think it is a story with a beginning, middle and end. It is about entertainment. So, now all directors, writers and producers have to be super PC with all their movies? What a boring world. I used to love the Narnia books as a kid. Never saw the religious side of them. Tried to read them recently, and found it too cumbersome. I think Harry Potter leaves them for dead.

[Abbey Marie]

I disagree. I think it is a story with a beginning, middle and end. It is about entertainment. So, now all directors, writers and producers have to be super PC with all their movies? What a boring world. I used to love the Narnia books as a kid. Never saw the religious side of them. Tried to read them recently, and found it too cumbersome. I think Harry Potter leaves them for dead.

I certainly wouldn't try to boycott it, and our daughter read and saw all Harry Potter books and films, but let's see if this easy going approach applies in other areas. Suppose the film was pushing an anti-black or anti-gay message, portraying the groups as the source of evil? Do you think people would be all "live and let live" about it then?

[Hobbit]

I disagree. I think it is a story with a beginning, middle and end. It is about entertainment. So, now all directors, writers and producers have to be super PC with all their movies? What a boring world.

Did you miss the part where I said if there's a market, then make these things? No, I just said I thought they were bad and that anybody religious should think twice before letting their kids see it, because it may very well turn them off of religion.

I also have no problem with people being un-PC, but I also don't expect anybody offended by it to go around singing the movie's praises. As far as values, I don't care if there's an atheist movie made. Heck, I may even go see it if it's good, but this isn't an atheist movie so much as it is a general attack on religion movie (or at least the books are). Like I said, it would be like making a children's fantasy movie where everybody who cared about the environment was a sick, twisted terrorist who valued the lives of plants and animals above humans.


I used to love the Narnia books as a kid. Never saw the religious side of them. Tried to read them recently, and found it too cumbersome. I think Harry Potter leaves them for dead.

I beg to differ. While well written, I think the Harry Potter books differ too little in story from one to the next and espouse the fallacy that children are smarter than adults. I also think the Narnia books are at least as well written and have the virtue of being able to present a realistically down and dirty world without keeping it from being kid friendly. By the time Hogwart's is as dangerous as Narnia, the tone of the book is a little heavy for children and is more suited to pre-teens on up.

I also think the Narnia books are a tad, if only just, less silly than Harry Potter, though I do admire the author's use of actual Latin to create magic spells, and I find the idea of Quidditch, minus the fact that the flying golden BB renders the rest of the game inconsequential, rather brilliant.

[Incognito]

I actually found DaVinci code terribly boring.. but we all have our tastes.

[happyfeet]

Suppose the film was pushing an anti-black or anti-gay message, portraying the groups as the source of evil? Do you think people would be all "live and let live" about it then?

That happens all the time in the movies. But to take it one step further; no Godfather I, II or III (makes Italian Americans look bad), no Kramer Vs Kramer (makes divorced people look bad), no Fisher King or Dead Poet's Society (makes college kids and parents look bad); no Full Metal Jacket or Platoon (makes Top Sergeants look bad); no movies set in Africa (makes Europeans look bad)...

[happyfeet]

Did you miss the part where I said if there's a market, then make these things? No, I just said I thought they were bad and that anybody religious should think twice before letting their kids see it, because it may very well turn them off of religion.

I also have no problem with people being un-PC, but I also don't expect anybody offended by it to go around singing the movie's praises. As far as values, I don't care if there's an atheist movie made. Heck, I may even go see it if it's good, but this isn't an atheist movie so much as it is a general attack on religion movie (or at least the books are). Like I said, it would be like making a children's fantasy movie where everybody who cared about the environment was a sick, twisted terrorist who valued the lives of plants and animals above humans.

I think your comparison is a bit over the top. I can see your point, but I do not think that is the intention of the movie maker in this case. He just wanted to make a good movie. And to a lot of people, religion is a bad thing, and in some cases, it has been proven to be so. Being a non-believer, maybe I don't see it as overtly as you do.


D
I beg to differ. While well written, I think the Harry Potter books differ too little in story from one to the next and espouse the fallacy that children are smarter than adults. I also think the Narnia books are at least as well written and have the virtue of being able to present a realistically down and dirty world without keeping it from being kid friendly. By the time Hogwart's is as dangerous as Narnia, the tone of the book is a little heavy for children and is more suited to pre-teens on up.

I also think the Narnia books are a tad, if only just, less silly than Harry Potter, though I do admire the author's use of actual Latin to create magic spells, and I find the idea of Quidditch, minus the fact that the flying golden BB renders the rest of the game inconsequential, rather brilliant.

I think the Narnia books are very kid friendly, and do in fact expouse the very fallacy that you are talking about. I mean Peter, Lucy, Edmund and Susan become the kings and queens of Narnia before they reach adulthood, and Lucy and Edmund haven't even reached puberty. I do agree, there are moments in Harry Potter that are too dark for younger children.

Interesting re the Narnia books being less silly. I see it the other way around (although 30 years ago I would not have said that - I mean I really, really loved the Narnia books). But when I saw the Narnia movie, I was thrown by talking beavers and Santa Claus showing up.

As for the golden snitch, it only counts if they catch it before the game ends (which happens more often than not). Know your Quidditch!

[Hobbit]

I think your comparison is a bit over the top. I can see your point, but I do not think that is the intention of the movie maker in this case. He just wanted to make a good movie. And to a lot of people, religion is a bad thing, and in some cases, it has been proven to be so. Being a non-believer, maybe I don't see it as overtly as you do.

Actually, that was an intention of the guy who wrote the book, whether the guy who made the movie had that motivation or not, and it's kinda hard NOT to see it when you look at the books. Every religious person in the book is evil and horrible.


I think the Narnia books are very kid friendly, and do in fact expouse the very fallacy that you are talking about. I mean Peter, Lucy, Edmund and Susan become the kings and queens of Narnia before they reach adulthood, and Lucy and Edmund haven't even reached puberty.

In Narnia, though, the children listen to those who are their elders, such as Aslan and the beavers. When told by an adult that they should do something, they treat that adult with respect and either do it or attempt to explain why they don't think they should with, once again, respect. They ask permission and forgiveness. The only act of unpunished disobedience (in the first book) is when the girls keep following Aslan to the stone table, and even that's fuzzy, as the order to go back to camp was implied, rather than stated.

In Harry Potter, on the other hand, the children break nearly every rule presented to them, openly defy their elders and authority figures, and blow off any advice or orders they are given. In the end, the adults are proven wrong and the children are rewarded for their defiance. If there's any good reason to not let your kids read them, that's it.


I do agree, there are moments in Harry Potter that are too dark for younger children.

Interesting re the Narnia books being less silly. I see it the other way around (although 30 years ago I would not have said that - I mean I really, really loved the Narnia books). But when I saw the Narnia movie, I was thrown by talking beavers and Santa Claus showing up.

Yeah, I get the talking animals and Santa Claus thing, but they're not...cartoony. Santa Claus (called 'Father Christmas' in the books, but I guess they thought that would be lost on American audiences, kind of like renaming the Philosopher's Stone the Sorcerer's Stone) behaved like an adult and didn't interrupt the tone. Instead, he presented the children with the tools they would need in the coming battles and offered them very adult advice. I think it was also a good first sign that the Witch was losing power (always winter, but never Christmas, which is a little silly, but not much). The animals, likewise, were much like differently shaped people in behavior.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, is full of cute, silly things in the early books, such as the all-flavor beans, platform 11 3/4, the talking hat, puking up slugs, and several of the names.


As for the golden snitch, it only counts if they catch it before the game ends (which happens more often than not). Know your Quidditch!

My point exactly. It tends to render the rest of the game inconsequential.

[Abbey Marie]

That happens all the time in the movies. But to take it one step further; no Godfather I, II or III (makes Italian Americans look bad), no Kramer Vs Kramer (makes divorced people look bad), no Fisher King or Dead Poet's Society (makes college kids and parents look bad); no Full Metal Jacket or Platoon (makes Top Sergeants look bad); no movies set in Africa (makes Europeans look bad)...

You think there are recent movies that make blacks or gays responsible for all the evil in the world? Can you cite a few for me?

[Hagbard Celine]

All I have to say about the movie:



mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....................nichole kidman.................................mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I agree, she's beautiful. I want to see this thing. It looks like a good Christmas time movie. Lots of snow and stuff. That's what I always liked about going to see the LOTR and Harry Potter movies when they were coming out every year around this time.

[Abbey Marie]

I agree, she's beautiful. I want to see this thing. It looks like a good Christmas time movie. Lots of snow and stuff. That's what I always liked about going to see the LOTR and Harry Potter movies when they were coming out every year around this time.

You mean like the movie Blow? :coffee:

[Hagbard Celine]

You mean like the movie Blow? :coffee:

Haha yes. Except for this one has one fewer public masterbators in it.
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Pee-Wee-Herman-Photograph-C10042164.jpeg

[happyfeet]

You think there are recent movies that make blacks or gays responsible for all the evil in the world? Can you cite a few for me?

Not specifically designed that way, but there are movies that put them in a bad light - colours, boys n the hood for blacks, Killer Clown (about homo pedophile Gacy).

[happyfeet]

Actually, that was an intention of the guy who wrote the book, whether the guy who made the movie had that motivation or not, and it's kinda hard NOT to see it when you look at the books. Every religious person in the book is evil and horrible.

In Narnia, though, the children listen to those who are their elders, such as Aslan and the beavers. When told by an adult that they should do something, they treat that adult with respect and either do it or attempt to explain why they don't think they should with, once again, respect. They ask permission and forgiveness. The only act of unpunished disobedience (in the first book) is when the girls keep following Aslan to the stone table, and even that's fuzzy, as the order to go back to camp was implied, rather than stated.

In Harry Potter, on the other hand, the children break nearly every rule presented to them, openly defy their elders and authority figures, and blow off any advice or orders they are given. In the end, the adults are proven wrong and the children are rewarded for their defiance. If there's any good reason to not let your kids read them, that's it.

Yeah, I get the talking animals and Santa Claus thing, but they're not...cartoony. Santa Claus (called 'Father Christmas' in the books, but I guess they thought that would be lost on American audiences, kind of like renaming the Philosopher's Stone the Sorcerer's Stone) behaved like an adult and didn't interrupt the tone. Instead, he presented the children with the tools they would need in the coming battles and offered them very adult advice. I think it was also a good first sign that the Witch was losing power (always winter, but never Christmas, which is a little silly, but not much). The animals, likewise, were much like differently shaped people in behavior.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, is full of cute, silly things in the early books, such as the all-flavor beans, platform 11 3/4, the talking hat, puking up slugs, and several of the names.

My point exactly. It tends to render the rest of the game inconsequential.

However in Harry Potter they do listen to Dumbledore and Professor MacGonagall, Sirius Black, Mr Weasley etc. You have to realise too, that Rowling made the adults nasty. I mean, who wants to listen to Snape, or Dalores Umbridge or Harry's Aunty and Uncle. These books are written for kids, so it behooves the writer to make it from the children's point of view. I don't have a problem with religion being the bad guy for once.

[porcelaindoll0913]

It's been really interesting for me to watch the debates about the Golden Compass unfold. I read the Dark Materials books when I was 14. The trilogy is very well written, and I found them entertaining. As a praticing Catholic, the references to God being a big faker bothered me- however, I feel that these books are having a similar effect that the DaVinci Code did. It's creating extreme conflict where there really shouldn't be any! I understand that the subject matter is very controversial, but it IS a fantasy story. It's an interesting (however wrong) view from an atheists perspective... I wish that more adults were aware that the books are meant to be read by teenagers. (Hence why the movie is being rated PG-13.) Because I have read these books, I cna say that they are NOT like the HP books. They come out and say that God is not real, and the ideas are expressed clearly. I think these books challenge kids at a time that they are exploring the world and it's ideas. In my mind, that's good! It's a good chance for their parents to step up and say, "Hey, this is the way that this group of people feel about God- this is what the Bible says and what the truth is, and this is why."
Honestly, I believe that parenting is ultimately what the whole issue comes down to. The movie is rated PG-13 for a reason. It is mean for teenagers, not easily influenced young children. If parents take their children to this movie without checking the subject matter, then they are being very irresponsible. Instead of those associated with the film being held responsible for what our children are exposed to, maybe parents should step up and monitor what their kids watch! There has been enough media coverage to make everyone aware of what it is about!
Don't get me wrong, I am all for Christianity, all for advocating Jesus Christ and God to our children. My husband and I will be parents in May- I know we all want to protect our babies from bad ideas in their innocence. However, I know that these books and this movie are not FOR young kids. Just as the scary orcs and goblins in LOTR were not for a five year old, neither are movies with ideas contrary to what we teach our children, until they have the capacity to understand what is being presented to them.
~Gretchen

[Abbey Marie]

Not specifically designed that way, but there are movies that put them in a bad light - colours, boys n the hood for blacks, Killer Clown (about homo pedophile Gacy).

Gacy was a real person, so it would be hard to argue that the movie had an agenda of putting gays in a bad light. But in any event, from what I've heard about the Compass books, the movies you cited are not in the same league.

[Hobbit]

However in Harry Potter they do listen to Dumbledore and Professor MacGonagall, Sirius Black, Mr Weasley etc. You have to realise too, that Rowling made the adults nasty. I mean, who wants to listen to Snape, or Dalores Umbridge or Harry's Aunty and Uncle. These books are written for kids, so it behooves the writer to make it from the children's point of view. I don't have a problem with religion being the bad guy for once.

It's this thinking that stories of this kind breed. Even if they're 'nasty,' Harry's aunt and uncle are authority figures in his life with authority over him. Yes, they're frustrating, but they should be handled with as much respect, not contempt and antagonism.

Similarly, Snape is a learned professor at the school. Creepy or no, he's been around the block a few times and knows what he's talking about. Umbridge was a special case, but even then, rather than simply break the rules that were necessary to break, many of the story's protagonists defied her for defiance's sake, which is wrong.

Then there's the fact that they only seem to listen to the 'good' adults when the adults tell them what they want to hear. The kids never met a rule they liked, and their only concern with them is about getting caught.

As far as religion being the bad guy, it's one thing for "The Crucible" to show a small group of fanatics as antagonists, or a movie with a rough equivalent to the Spanish Inquisition. However, once again, this book series paints the entire idea of religion as a group of dangerous, oppressive fanatics who worship a cosmic impostor, and just as Harry Potter seems to have planted the idea that disobeying adults is good when you think they're wrong, I fear that "The Golden Compass" may plant the idea that religion is inherently oppressive and evil.

[happyfeet]

It's this thinking that stories of this kind breed. Even if they're 'nasty,' Harry's aunt and uncle are authority figures in his life with authority over him. Yes, they're frustrating, but they should be handled with as much respect, not contempt and antagonism.

There are a couple of things that need addressing here. Should books then be formulatic? Your above opinion would lead me to think that is what would have to happen if it was to meet your criterea? Why should they, Snape and Umbridge be treated with respect? So if an authority figure is a terrible, despotic person with no redeeming features, they should still be respected? I have to disagree with you on that one Hobbit. I think respect is earned, not an inherent right.


rather than simply break the rules that were necessary to break, many of the story's protagonists defied her for defiance's sake, which is wrong. Then there's the fact that they only seem to listen to the 'good' adults when the adults tell them what they want to hear. The kids never met a rule they liked, and their only concern with them is about getting caught.

In which cases do they defy her for defiances sake? And when you think about the whole story, Harry is trying to defeat somebody who wants him dead. He is the main antagonist for Voldemorte. Of course he can't do exactly what teachers want, however in some cases he does. What about when Umbridge scribed words into his hand? He took that punishment without any retribution. Again I have to disagree with you. That aside, a book should be what the author wants it to be - that is why they are so entertaining. There shouldn't be any set rules about what should be in it, what kids should do or not do.


However, once again, this book series paints the entire idea of religion as a group of dangerous, oppressive fanatics who worship a cosmic impostor, and just as Harry Potter seems to have planted the idea that disobeying adults is good when you think they're wrong, I fear that "The Golden Compass" may plant the idea that religion is inherently oppressive and evil.


I have no problem with that. People can vote with their feet. Anything else is censorship. I think you underestimate people. Most of us can make up our own minds. There are very few that are easily led away from their own thoughts and ideas.

[Abbey Marie]

...

...I think you underestimate people. Most of us can make up our own minds. There are very few that are easily led away from their own thoughts and ideas.

If it is true that people are not easily influenced, why do you think companies spend millions of dollars on 30 second ads for their products?

[Hobbit]

There are a couple of things that need addressing here. Should books then be formulatic? Your above opinion would lead me to think that is what would have to happen if it was to meet your criterea? Why should they, Snape and Umbridge be treated with respect? So if an authority figure is a terrible, despotic person with no redeeming features, they should still be respected? I have to disagree with you on that one Hobbit. I think respect is earned, not an inherent right.

Respected, not obeyed blindly. Even when the founding fathers decided to violently rebel against England, they had the common decency to first air a list of grievances and request a peaceful resolution. I don't think this would have worked on Umbridge, but proper respect for elders requires that they try it, nonetheless. Also, while true respect must be earned, a certain amount of respect is owed certain positions, even if the people holding them don't really deserve to. Now, I don't think it was wrong for the protagonists to oppose Umbridge or to open up an underground combat school to keep the students from being killed. However, they tend to deal with Umbridge, who is in charge, whether that's a good thing or not, with a lot of straight up defiance and back-talk.


In which cases do they defy her for defiances sake? And when you think about the whole story, Harry is trying to defeat somebody who wants him dead. He is the main antagonist for Voldemorte. Of course he can't do exactly what teachers want, however in some cases he does. What about when Umbridge scribed words into his hand? He took that punishment without any retribution. Again I have to disagree with you. That aside, a book should be what the author wants it to be - that is why they are so entertaining. There shouldn't be any set rules about what should be in it, what kids should do or not do.

Yes, there comes a time when authority figures must be disobeyed, but it is a recurring theme in the book, and due respect is never shown. As far as defying her for the sake of defiance, I seem to remember a couple of twins flying around shooting off fireworks and generally wreaking havoc just because they don't like her. I could probably come up with some other examples of at least unnecessary defiance, but I don't have the books or movies at my fingertips.


I have no problem with that. People can vote with their feet. Anything else is censorship. I think you underestimate people. Most of us can make up our own minds. There are very few that are easily led away from their own thoughts and ideas.

Right, I'm not saying it should be banned, I'm just giving my recommendation that people not go see it.