[Peter]

Apple - Trailers - The Golden Compass - Final Trailer

Based on this book. Amazing book.

Anyone seen it? I'm seeing it later today. Apparently they've totally bastardized it. :/

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Peter 

Based on this book. Amazing book.

Anyone seen it? I'm seeing it later today. Apparently they've totally bastardized it. :/

Are you surprised?

People complained about the da vinci code because it adhered to closely to the book. You just cannot incorporate the subtleties of a novel into a movie. Especially when a director may want to change some elements to make it more view acceptable (by his interpretation)

[Railroader]

From what I have heard, some atheists are using this as a tool. snopes agrees: Urban Legends Reference Pages: The Golden Compass

[PlacidTubs]

The books are very anti-organized religion, and the film does cut some of that back.

The main problem with the film in comparison to the books is simply that it's pretty dull. the pacing is all over the shop and they missed out a vital bit at the end. Shame really.

[design219]

I just read the book and am half way through the second in the series. I was curious about the uproar from some conservative groups about the movie. Once again, criticism is working as a publicity tool.

Looking forward to seeing the movie, however. The previews look pretty cool.

[PlacidTubs]

The books promote atheism in the same way that the Narnia books promote Christianity. I love most of the Narnia books and I'm not a Christian - I didn't find them an attempt to "undermine" my beliefs, just as I don't think the 'His Dark Materials' trilogy tries to undermine Christians beliefs. So everyone should get over it and enjoy them for what they are - really great stories for children.

But I still thought the film pretty much sucked.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

From what I have heard, some atheists are using this as a tool. snopes agrees: Urban Legends Reference Pages: The Golden Compass

You mean in the same way that some Christians use the Chronicles of Narnia as a tool?

[MacosNerd]

I read that the author of the book is an avowed atheist who supposedly used the book as a vehicle to raise up atheism and push down organized religion.

Since I've not read the book (and do not plan to do so) I really cannot say if those reports are true or not. Just word on the street type of stuff.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You mean in the same way that some Christians use the Chronicles of Narnia as a tool?

And your point is what???

[design219]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

And your point is what???

What's good for the goose...

[RAILhead]

The Narnia books do nothing to undermine atheism, yet Pullman's books blatantly attempt to undermine Christianity -- not just belief in God or a god, but Christianity specifically.

[Dakar the Fourth]

At the risk of getting flamed by both sides, I'd consider the latter the lesser of two evils.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by design219 

What's good for the goose...

Yeah but if you read this thread you'll see that no one is condeming the book or the author for his stance. RR was just noting this, that's all.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

The Narnia books do nothing to undermine atheism, yet Pullman's books blatantly attempt to undermine Christianity -- not just belief in God or a god, but Christianity specifically.

I would argue that the promotion of any organized religion directly undermines atheism.

[RAILhead]

Pullman's digs at Christianity can, in no way, be compared to the tone of Lewis' Narnia books. Any attempt to say that what Narnia is to Atheism equals what Dark Material is to Christianity is completely ludicrous.

People don't read Narnia and rush to their local Christian church to get saved. Lewis' motivation for writing the books had nothing to do with conversion or anything like that -- anyone that knows the history of the books knows that.

Conversely, Pullman purposefully attacks Christianity -- not Islam, Hinduism, Mormanism, B'hai, or any other religion. He has stated for years that he hates Lewis and his faith, and that was the sole purpose of writing this trilogy: to cause people to question Christianity.

Should he be allowed to do that? Sure, I don't want to censor him. BUT, let's call a spade a spade and quit making excuses: he hates Christianity, Christians, and he wants to destroy the Faith he hates so much.

My question, though, is why doesn't he go after Islam? Why doesn't he attack other faiths?

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

The Narnia books do nothing to undermine atheism, yet Pullman's books blatantly attempt to undermine Christianity -- not just belief in God or a god, but Christianity specifically.

I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion. I bought, and read, the books specifically because I wanted to know what all the upset is about. The only thing that is being attacked is a quasi-religious structure that is rigid and unbending. If you equate God=Love then the book is actually in defence of God.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

My question, though, is why doesn't he go after Islam? Why doesn't he attack other faiths?

He's probably writing about something he has direct experience with, which probably isn't the case with Islam or other faiths.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion. I bought, and read, the books specifically because I wanted to know what all the upset is about. The only thing that is being attacked is a quasi-religious structure that is rigid and unbending. If you equate God=Love then the book is actually in defence of God.

You read all 3 and didn't get it? Even Pullman describes how he went about doing so, and has for all these years?

For fear of spoiling things, we find out that "God" -- who is called The Almighty, Anodai, and God in the book, and who directly represents who we (some of us) call God -- is really just the first angel, and the one who created Dust. This angel was power hungry, greedy, and Heaven was nothing more than his playground in the sky. The characters pretty much kill "god" -- the "God" so many committed their lives to. They were able to do so because "He" really wasn't who "He" claimed to be, etc., etc., etc.

Anyway, it's funny how so many of you are "defending" Pullman when he, himself, openly talks about his books' purpose being to undermine Christianity.

[Mastrap]

I think that you're mistaking a comment on organized religion (and Catholicism in particular) with an attack on Christianity. If Pullman is attacking anything then it is the manifestation that man has given to God, not God itself. The fact that the first angel is nothing but an impostor with human foibles and failings is more than just a hint.

[Jawbone54]

It's all a moot point to me. I heard the movie is too pitiful to watch anyways.

A challenge: name one movie which was either as good or better than the book it was based on.

I'll be waiting.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Fight Club.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

The Narnia books do nothing to undermine atheism, yet Pullman's books blatantly attempt to undermine Christianity -- not just belief in God or a god, but Christianity specifically.

It's called conviction.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Fight Club.

Eeeeeehhhh...

You're stretching it, even though the movie was great.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Eeeeeehhhh...

You're stretching it, even though the movie was great.

I dunno, what did you miss in the movie that was in the book?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Pullman's digs at Christianity can, in no way, be compared to the tone of Lewis' Narnia books. Any attempt to say that what Narnia is to Atheism equals what Dark Material is to Christianity is completely ludicrous.

People don't read Narnia and rush to their local Christian church to get saved. Lewis' motivation for writing the books had nothing to do with conversion or anything like that -- anyone that knows the history of the books knows that.

Are you kidding me? The Cliff's Notes version of the series could read, "ASLAN IS JESUS. YOU SHOULD TRUST YOUR LIFE TO HIM." I mean, the first book practically copied and pasted the damn crucifixion. And that's fine by me, because that is the view Lewis believed in.

But honestly, after reading Pullman's description of how "This is a story about killing God," I was surprised by how little the His Dark Materials books actually attacked God. The books are remarkably civil to theism. I'll put it in spoiler tags for anybody who doesn't want to know:

 

In the books, it's made clear several times that what people are attacking is not God. None of the characters are sure whether any real God exists — they never deny the possibility — but the beings they're attacking are pretenders to the throne. The actual theme of the books is not "killing God," but about free will and how you shouldn't surrender your own moral compass to somebody else. There are many Christians who would agree with this idea, I think, that one should not blindly trust in a manmade organization.

Anyway, I saw the movie. It comes so close to being good, but they cut it way too much. I don't mean they cut too much from the book — the movie feels like they cut about an hour from it. There's one scene where Lyra is about to go someplace, and then the very next scene she's complaining about how long she's been there and how awful it's been. It gave me whiplash, like, "Wait, what the ****? You just got there!" We're not really given time to connect with the story or characters. And they raped the ending in a way that will not only piss off fans of the book, but will look stupid if they ever get to make the next movie. All so they can have a big LOTR-style battle and a "happy ending."

It's a shame, because I've been looking forward to this movie for quite some time. EW described early cuts as being like Pan's Labyrinth, which was awesome. But that wasn't the movie I saw.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It's all a moot point to me. I heard the movie is too pitiful to watch anyways.

A challenge: name one movie which was either as good or better than the book it was based on.

I'll be waiting.

I thought that the movie Everything is Illuminated was (slightly) better than the (still incredibly good) book.

Not a movie, but I think the TV Series Dexter is vastly better than the books.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It's all a moot point to me. I heard the movie is too pitiful to watch anyways.

A challenge: name one movie which was either as good or better than the book it was based on.

I'll be waiting.

The Princess Bride. What do I win?

[Jawbone54]

I've never seen Everything is Illuminated, or read the book. I guess I have a project for the weekend.

Dakar, I only read Fight Club after I saw the movie. I didn't even know about the novel until after I'd seen the movie about three times. The book never made me say, "Now that's how the movie should've done it," but there's just this feeling I get from reading it that feels a bit thinner in the movie. Like I said, the movie is amazing (one of the best from the 90's), but I still give the novel a bit of an edge, but that's probably more of a personal position on this one.

The distinction between the two is a LOT less evident than say, Lonesome Dove, The Stand, or any John Grisham novel. And yes, I'm aware the first two were TV miniseries.

This just made me think of another great book-to-move: The Count of Monte Cristo. Still not as good as the classic, over course, but a great movie.

The Shining comes to mind as well.

Dangit...

[peeb]

The first two books were pretty good, the third sucked. It read like he'd knocked it out to a deadline and just run out of ideas.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The Princess Bride. What do I win?

Oh my dear god...you're right.




Someone came up with a good answer? INCONTHEIVABLE!!!

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Dakar, I only read Fight Club after I saw the movie. I didn't even know about the novel until after I'd seen the movie about three times. The book never made me say, "Now that's how the movie should've done it," but there's just this feeling I get from reading it that feels a bit thinner in the movie. Like I said, the movie is amazing (one of the best from the 90's), but I still give the novel a bit of an edge, but that's probably more of a personal position on this one.

I read it after the movie as well. But let's face it. You didn't expect the quality of answer I gave you.

[peeb]

The Silmarilion?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I read it after the movie as well. But let's face it. You didn't expect the quality of answer I gave you.

You're right. Not even close.
Don't gloat too long.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Well, I'm done gloating. What's next on my checklist for today?

Edit: I wrote that before checking for white text.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Are you surprised?

People complained about the da vinci code because it adhered to closely to the book. You just cannot incorporate the subtleties of a novel into a movie. Especially when a director may want to change some elements to make it more view acceptable (by his interpretation)

"Too closely to the book". There is more than one kind of "to", just FYI...

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

"Too closely to the book". There is more than one kind of "to", just FYI...

If you're planning on correcting all of MacosNerd's grammatical and spelling errors, you're a braver man than I.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

If you're planning on correcting all of MacosNerd's grammatical and spelling errors, you're a braver man than I.

Well, the fact that he had both versions of to/too in the same sentence made it seem apparent to me that he doesn't understand that there is a difference and that these two versions are used for different purposes, so I was trying to be constructive... Hopefully he won't explode all over my ass.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hopefully he won't explode all over my ass.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[olePigeon]

Religion was invented as a tool to control people and resources. While there's an underlying need for humans to want to believe there's something after you die, that belief is completely exploited by organized religions. I think this movie and the books it's based on send a very good message. It's not attacking God or the belief in a god, it's attacking those who would exploit that belief. Perhaps most importantly, it attacks the idea that you have to have religion to know the difference between right and wrong.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The Silmarilion?

Huh ? I read the book, but I have never heard of the movie.

-t

[BlueSky]

There will be no ass-exploding in this thread.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BlueSky 

There will be no ass-exploding in this thread.

I see nothing in the Offical MacNN Posting Guidelines™ that pertains to explosions involving asses, so MacOSNerd would be well within his rights to explode on my ass.

Just sayin'

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Anyway, it's funny how so many of you are "defending" Pullman when he, himself, openly talks about his books' purpose being to undermine Christianity.

Thank you for recommending his books to me. Anything that pisses you off so much must have hit pretty close to the mark.

Christianity (and religion in general) deserves a critical reevaluation. Novels for young people are an excellent method to do so.

Incidentally, the best books to recommend are in the New Testament itself. I just reread Acts over the weekend. What a fantasy novel. Besides switching back and forth from first-person to third-person perspective (indicating a redaction of multiple authors), Paul gives three completely inconsistent accounts of his encounter with Jesus. And the Jewish leaders all over Asia Minor, Greece, and the Holy Land are presented as bloodthirsty oppressors.

At least there are no talking snakes or donkeys.

[RAILhead]

Good for you, but your comment had nothing whatsoever to do with mine. AGAIN (let's take this slowly)...

1. Pullman writes his series as the antithesis to Lewis' works.

2. Pullman states, and always has stated, that his desire is to undermine Christianity with the writing of these books.

3. Most of you people say that's not what the books mean, how they come across, or that you don't see that in them.

4. Pullman reiterates over and over that that was his sole intent in writing them.

5. People repeat Step 3, totally ignoring Steps 1, 2, and 4.


Again, my point is that he's fixated on Christianity, as many of you are, and committed to it's reduction. Saying that's not the books' intent is WRONG simply because the AUTHOR OF SAID BOOKS says that's his intent with them.

As a Christian, I couldn't care less what he writes. People have been bashing my Faith for centuries, and will continue to do so -- and my Faith will remain standing, like it always has. What bugs me is how all you Christ-Haters start the circle jerks when the Christianity-Bashing begins...

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It's all a moot point to me. I heard the movie is too pitiful to watch anyways.

A challenge: name one movie which was either as good or better than the book it was based on.

I'll be waiting.

Treasure of the Sierra Madre 1927 obscure novel
The Shining Stephen King's novella is reinvented brilliantly
Casablanca an unproduced play called "Everybody Comes to Rick's."
Vertigo is from a French potboiler called Sueurs froides: d'entre les morts (Cold Sweat: From Among the Dead)
Blade Runner surpasses Dick's "Android" story
Bergman's The Virgin Spring boldy and extraordinarily reworks the medieval tale on which it's based
The Bridge on the River Kwai surpasses, I imagine, Le Pont de la Rivière Kwaï

one could go on and on

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Good for you, but your comment had nothing whatsoever to do with mine. AGAIN (let's take this slowly)...

1. Pullman writes his series as the antithesis to Lewis' works.

2. Pullman states, and always has stated, that his desire is to undermine Christianity with the writing of these books.

3. Most of you people say that's not what the books mean, how they come across, or that you don't see that in them.

4. Pullman reiterates over and over that that was his sole intent in writing them.

5. People repeat Step 3, totally ignoring Steps 1, 2, and 4.


Again, my point is that he's fixated on Christianity, as many of you are, and committed to it's reduction. Saying that's not the books' intent is WRONG simply because the AUTHOR OF SAID BOOKS says that's his intent with them.

As a Christian, I couldn't care less what he writes. People have been bashing my Faith for centuries, and will continue to do so -- and my Faith will remain standing, like it always has. What bugs me is how all you Christ-Haters start the circle jerks when the Christianity-Bashing begins...

Very well and clearly stated.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Very well and clearly stated.

Very well and briefly critiqued.

[Dakar the Fourth]

And the first reference to athiesm/religion in this thread goes to... the Christians. So much for not caring less.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Good for you, but your comment had nothing whatsoever to do with mine. AGAIN (let's take this slowly)...

1. Pullman writes his series as the antithesis to Lewis' works.

2. Pullman states, and always has stated, that his desire is to undermine Christianity with the writing of these books.

3. Most of you people say that's not what the books mean, how they come across, or that you don't see that in them.

4. Pullman reiterates over and over that that was his sole intent in writing them.

5. People repeat Step 3, totally ignoring Steps 1, 2, and 4.


Again, my point is that he's fixated on Christianity, as many of you are, and committed to it's reduction. Saying that's not the books' intent is WRONG simply because the AUTHOR OF SAID BOOKS says that's his intent with them.

As a Christian, I couldn't care less what he writes. People have been bashing my Faith for centuries, and will continue to do so -- and my Faith will remain standing, like it always has. What bugs me is how all you Christ-Haters start the circle jerks when the Christianity-Bashing begins...

Personally, I'm not denying that Pullman's novels are a criticism of Christianity (apparently, the Catholic church specifically). I also have no problems with that; not because I have anything against Christianity (far from it) but because I feel any dogmatic structure should be subject to criticism.

I just find it funny that the same people who use the Narnia stories to promote Christianity appear to be the ones who are most opposed to Pullman's stories. I liked the Narnia stories, but if Pullman's stories are designed as a tool to influence Christians to atheism, than Narnia is most certainly designed as a tool to influence atheists to Christianity.

And, as a gnostic, I can sympathize with you on having your faith bashed for centuries. Gnosticism has been getting bashed for longer than Christianity has existed.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

If you're planning on correcting all of MacosNerd's grammatical and spelling errors, you're a braver man than I.

Nah he's just being petty. I expect that from him.