Other Science Fiction Series

Golden Compass Controversy

POSTED BY: bluesuncompanyman
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 04:16
VIEWED: 11365
PAGE 2 of 7

EMPIREX

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:11 AM

I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. And I think that you may have been given a biased take on the movie/books/author.

Pullman himself stated that the books aren't an attack on a particular church or faith - in general, he takes issue with organized religion for the same reason many people do - abuse of power by those in charge.

I want to see the movie and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. Again, they're making it into a *children's* movie - with awesome CGI animals and landscapes. They're trying to make money by selling an adventure story starring an intelligent, resourceful, little girl. They're not trying to sneakily turn our children or adults into atheists.

The books and the movie are separate entities. Books get made into movies all the time and often they barely resemble the book they are based on. That's Hollywood for ya.

Quote:
A Director Confronts Some Dark Material

Daunted by filming 'The Golden Compass,' part one of Philip Pullman's fantasy trilogy, Chris Weitz quit. Good thing he came back.
Chris Weitz likes to say that he is both the first and the third director of "The Golden Compass," New Line's $150 million film adaptation of the first volume in Philip Pullman's best-selling fantasy trilogy "His Dark Materials." From the start, Weitz was an unlikely choice. "The Golden Compass," which was published in 1995, tells the story of 12-year-old Lyra Belacqua, who lives in an alternate world much like our own. But in Lyra's world, each person has a "daemon": a speaking, shape-shifting animal that settles into a permanent form as its human companion matures; it is Pullman's elegant metaphor for the soul. In the first book, Lyra embarks on a far-flung adventure to uncover why English children are disappearing and what a mysterious force called "Dust" may have to do with it. A film version of "The Golden Compass," in other words, would be a visual-effects bonanza. Weitz was best-known for codirecting the comedies "American Pie" and "About a Boy" with his brother, Paul. So far in his career, he told a NEWSWEEK reporter visiting the film's set outside London last November, he had attempted only one visual-effects shot, for the Chris Rock movie "Down to Earth." "And we messed it up. So to put it mildly, the learning curve has been steep."

At one point, Weitz decided it was too steep. In 2004, Peter Jackson, who directed New Line's previous fantasy trilogy, "The Lord of the Rings," to 17 Academy Awards and more than $3 billion at the box office, invited Weitz down to New Zealand for a one-week crash course: Blockbusters 101. Jackson was directing "King Kong" at the time, and Weitz soaked up everything he could. Jackson also offered advice for dealing with New Line since his own relationship with the studio had soured. It was a thrilling week for Weitz. It also scared the daylights out of him. "Peter's operation was so impressive that, well, I realized the distance between me and Peter Jackson," he says. "At that moment, I realized the sheer scope of the endeavor. And I thought, 'You know what? I can't do this'." But Weitz hung in for a while, until he did an interview with BridgetotheStars.net, a Web site for Pullman fans, and allowed that a movie version of the trilogy would inevitably have to soften some of Pullman's broadsides against organized religion. (The villains in the books serve an all-powerful theocracy called "the Magisterium," which some people believe, incorrectly, is a stand-in for the Roman Catholic Church; the trilogy's title is an allusion to Milton's "Paradise Lost.") Instantly, a vocal slice of the fan universe branded him a sellout.

Weitz, who won the chance to write and direct "The Golden Compass" by sending New Line an unsolicited 40-page plea outlining his vision for the movie, was heartbroken. An opportunity of a lifetime had curdled into something else. He began to glimpse a future in which he would be attacked on all sides—by the book's loyalists and its enemies, by a cautious Hollywood studio, by an audience expecting nothing less than anot

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

MERRYK

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:24 AM

As a strong believer myself, and one who approves of organized religion, I have to both agree and disagree with all the fuss surrounding this. I have no problem with someone who doesn't believe in religion—that's their decision, whether I think it's right or wrong, and they can espouse that wherever they want as long as they don't force me to agree with it. So, I don't agree with the ideas in the Golden Compass, but I don't believe in censorship and so don't believe it should be that big of a deal.

The only thing I have a problem with is the way that Pullman stereotypes organized religion. The vast majority of churches I have been to are nothing like the Church in his stories...he definitely paints an extremist point of view. Sure, there are extreme Christians, but there are extreme athiests, Muslims, Buddhists, what have you. There are extreme people. That doesn't mean that they're the norm. Like any wide group, organized religion is mostly full of "normal" nice people, and I wouldn't want children to get the idea that it's only full of extremists.

--
"My way of being polite, or however...well, it's the only way I have of showing you that I like you. Of showing respect." Simon Tam, Jaynestown

AURAPTOR

Saturday, December 8, 2007 4:59 AM

Quote:
lwaves wrote:
Friday, December 07, 2007 14:31
I have heard of Pullman and his works and have a passing knowledge of what they are about although I haven't read His Dark Materials.

I welcome the movie taking this stance, and I hope they don't 'dumb it down'. It's no different to a pro-religion movie being released.

And I welcome the fact that it is aimed at children. If this gets them to question religion and their beliefs then it's good. As long as it doesn't force it onto them. Everyone should have the opportunity to question and make a decision based on that at the right time of their life.

As for a hidden agenda you might be surprised to find out how many movies have one. It may be more than you think.

If i'm unaware of a movie's hidden agenda, then it's doing its job. I want to be entertained, not preached to , in most case.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, December 8, 2007 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
I was curious to know what my fellow browncoats thought of all this. I myself am an engineer and a student of the sciences. I watch the history channel on a regular baisis. I watch discovery too. I believe that evolution is a fact and can be proven with no doubts. I hobnob with plenty of atheist scientists and friends, most of whom love sci-fi and play D&D. I also go to church. I'm not afraid of taking kids to this movie.

Am I wrong?

The issue here is not about what you think about religion, but what you think about opposing ideas. Can you hold convictions that are dear to you and still appreciate ideas that contradict those convictions? If you can’t, there are essentially two ways to go, either you decide that no idea can ever be a conviction or you decide that certain ideas are dangerous. Neither appeals to me. I have certain beliefs that probably would not be shared by the author of this series if what you say is true, but I don’t feel that those beliefs invalidate his views, or make me less interested in those views. Quite the contrary, I’m actually more intrigued by this movie then I was originally, because if what you say is true, it means that this author really put into this story his deeply held convictions and beliefs, and that will always be more interesting then someone pulling a story out of clichés.

Aiming controversy at children to influence culture, I do have a problem with. I don’t think it is ethical to propagandize to people who may not be mature enough to completely distinguish between what they believe to be right and wrong. It’s the propaganda equivalent of Prima Nocta. But I have to question whether that is really the case here, though I’m sure that certain people will view it that way for good or for ill, I’m not ready to say that this is really what is happening.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

IMNOTHERE

Saturday, December 8, 2007 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t think it is ethical to propagandize to people who may not be mature enough to completely distinguish between what they believe to be right and wrong.

Its a good job they don't let under-16s into church services, tell kids bible stories or induct babies into a particular belief system when they are a few weeks old, then.

The books are excellent by the way, and make a satisfying read for adults, too - somewhat more sophisticated than Harry Potter, with a few layers to them. Plus, if you have kids, you'll be well equipped to answer questions and discuss things with them (which is one way they turn from kids into adults, folks).

Yes, they criticise religion. In particular, the attack that brand of Christianity that likes to concentrate on all the fire and brimstone stuff in the Old Testament and Revelations at the expense of the actual gospels. I don't think any of the atrocities committed by Pullman's alternate-universe church are without direct or allegorical precident in real history.

Sadly (you may disagree) I can't see the final book getting turned into a film without major dumbing-down of the religious themes.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, December 8, 2007 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Its a good job they don't let under-16s into church services, tell kids bible stories or induct babies into a particular belief system when they are a few weeks old, then.

And if anyone tried to do any of that using a means that hide it’s true purpose from parents, atheists at least would be throwing fits, wouldn't they? Hell, the ACLU is likely to sue just for putting a nativity scene on public property for fear that small religious token might gain undue influence. I think that's going a bit too far with it, but it's pure lunacy to think that Christianity of all things gets a pass here.

IMNOTHERE

Sunday, December 9, 2007 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And if anyone tried to do any of that using a means that hide it’s true purpose from parents, atheists at least would be throwing fits, wouldn't they?

I think you will find that there is some disagreement between atheists and believers about what the "true purpose" of religion is - so that's a bit of a one-sided argument.

US law may forbid you putting a cross on public land, but I don't think it yet requires Churches to have signs over the door saying:

"Notice - other belief systems are available. Eternal life subject to availability. Some people may experience side-effects of fundamentlism, intolerance or disinclination to question authority. Avoid if pregnant (unless married)."

Otherwise, I must have missed the on-screen warning for "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" (blatent christian allegory), "Its a Wonderful Life" and every other film, TV show or book that shows a role model character mentioning God or Jesus, going to church, going to confession, having a religious marriage ceremony/funeral or otherwise portraying religious belief as an expected norm.

Its also worth considering that Pullman is British - and would have experienced an education with pervasive christian indoctrination. Over here we don't have the same separation of church and state that the US enjoys (and seems to require) - in fact all state schools are required to hold regular acts of "broadly Christian" worship (although you can opt out, and its probably declining as more exemptions get added due to the increased mix of cultures).

The Oxford colleges that Pullman writes about certainly have (Christian) chapels and say grace at formal dinners. The ficticious college in the books (as far as I can work out) seems to lie somewhere between the real colleges of "Jesus" and "All Souls". Go figure!

Yet the perception from our side of the Atlantic is that the USA has a far more powerful Christian lobby... (I've been to the US frequently - but mostly the SF Bay Area which is hardly representative so I can't really comment).

Much of the coverage of the "controversy" over here is about the US reaction.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, December 9, 2007 12:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
I think you will find that there is some disagreement between atheists and believers about what the "true purpose" of religion is - so that's a bit of a one-sided argument.

How is that one-sided?

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
US law may restrict where you can erect a cross, but I don't think it yet requires Churches to have signs over the door saying

Churches are not hiding what they are preaching behind any façade designed to target children, are they?

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Otherwise, I must have missed the on-screen warning for "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" (blatent christian allegory), "Its a Wonderful Life" and every other film, TV show or book that shows a role model character mentioning God or Jesus, going to church, going to confession, having a religious marriage ceremony/funeral or otherwise portraying religious belief as an expected norm.

And Narnia and a Wonderful Life are no more Christian propaganda then, I suspect, the Golden Compass is atheist propaganda.

IMNOTHERE

Sunday, December 9, 2007 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Churches are not hiding what they are preaching behind any façade designed to target children, are they?

Er... Christmas Presents, Easter Eggs, Nativity plays, Sunday school, books of bible stories for children...

Quote:

And Narnia and a Wonderful Life are no more Christian propaganda then, I suspect, the Golden Compass is atheist propaganda.

If you define "propaganda" as something that presents a point of view without giving equal weight to opposing views, then, yes, they all are.

CITIZEN

Sunday, December 9, 2007 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
in fact all state schools are required to hold regular acts of "broadly Christian" worship

Are you sure?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.