Cam's In-Depth Review of "Golden Compass"

[Caedwyr]

Like I've mentioned before, the reason for the controversy behind the books, other than Phillup Pullman's outspoken atheisim, doesn't become apparant until book 2, though there are hints before and probably plenty of things a fanatic would find objectionable in the first book.

 

I have to say, that in a lot of ways I was reminded of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell when I read the Golden Compass (The Nothern Lights). Not so much in substance, but there was still a faint familiarity.

[Yovaneth]

I've just listened to the book for the second time (I'm a sucker for talking books - they leave you free to work on other things at the same time) and I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed it both times. I'm a sucker for good alternate history stories and there are some lousy ones out there....

 

I have the same reaction everytime I hear any religious community start screaming out against a film/book/play/whatever; if you need to make that much noise, you can't be that secure in your beliefs. Also, I suspect that part of the storyline is a bit too close to the historical bone for some religious groups; there is much in their past that many religions would prefer to be forgotten.

 

I haven't seen the film yet but the trailer was almost word-for-word in the scenes that it did show.

 

-Y-

[grogerson]

(Puts on protective gear before starting rant)

 

I happen to be one of those Christians some of you view with derision. I've heard the comments from religious leaders. All they're doing is letting the people know about thematic material the viewer may not approve of, not attacking the film or author. They learned their lesson with The Last Temptation of the Christ way back when (it was so bad it still lost a fortune, even after its home video release).

 

Regarding some of the reviews here, I'd say the film's likely to do mediocre at best. Does the film or the books interest me? Not in the least.

 

Please remember, the books made an outright attack against both Judaism and Christianity when the author used several scriptural names of God to describe the Authority, whom the protagonist kills in the end.

 

Am I against atheists in media? Michael Strazinski (Babylon 5 creator/writer) is a self-proclaimed atheist, but I own a copy of his work (the best sci-fi series ever, IMHO). He recognized atheism as a religion itself and doesn't attack others that contradict with his belief structure.

 

Michael Medved's book "Hollywood vs America" makes a clear argument about too many film-makers today, and the media in general. They're about ideology, not entertainment. Traditional American and Judeo-Christian values are mocked and ridiculed, and immorality is made to seem normal, all to get cudos from each other. Thanks, but I'd rather spend my money on entertainment that builds virtue, not undermines it.

 

By the same standard I can't recommend many Christian films I've seen. They're too much about the message and not very entertaining. I ignore the quality work issue with these because they're done by non-professionals with extremely low budgets (Attack of the Killer Tomatoes anyone?)

 

(end rant, keeps gear on)

 

Please remember, these fora are browsed by many with differing religious views from yours. Please respect them. Let the reviewers speak for themselves, then make your own decission.

[Yovaneth]

A nicely-balanced response...

 

-Y-

[CamDawg]

I'll second grogerson's call for respect, as this can devolve fairly quickly.

 

Please remember, the books made an outright attack against both Judaism and Christianity when the author used several scriptural names of God to describe the Authority, whom the protagonist kills in the end.

This isn't directed at you grogerson; it's a general observation (and is very specifically about American culture).

 

What's special about Judaism or Christianity (or any spirituality--Buddhism, Pastafarianism, Islam, take your pick) that excludes it from criticism, literary or otherwise?

 

It's always fascinated me that people are willing to take strong stands on issues of any stripe and argue them at length--except religion and spirituality. Though they often veer into vehemence and irrationality, discussion is always a good thing if it makes people think. If something makes insightful points about the nature of spirituality and religion, why do we refrain from talking about it?

 

He recognized atheism as a religion itself and doesn't attack others that contradict with his belief structure.

Atheism is a belief (you can not prove or disprove the supernatural, after all) but it is most certainly not a religion--unless you also consider not playing basketball to be a sport.

[Caedwyr]

I'm on the side of asking questions and provoking thought and discussion. Grogerson cited JMS, the creator of Babylon 5 and one thing that show brought up is the importance of constantly asking questions. In Babylon 5, the Old Ones ran into problems with their dealings with others when they thought they had all the answers and had stopped asking questions. It is suggested that people do not like to live in a state of uncertainty, but by its nature the world around us is constantly in a state of uncertainty. So, constantly asking questions is good as it leads us to a greater understanding of ourselves and everything.

 

 

Also, please note that I used the term 'fanatic'. Clearly, this doesn't apply to the majority of members of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths (or at least I hope not).

 

Further, to completely spoil the theme of the stories, which doesn't show up until the second or third books in any concrete way, it basically comes down to "The winners write the history books". Personally, I find that an intriguing thought and helps provoke some further examinations about bias in messages. To be honest, it isn't nearly the most inflamatory message I've seen about the big three religions ("The reasons demons and devils exist is to cause people to turn to God" is always an interesting take).

 

Reading this, you may get the impression that I am anit-religious. On the contrary, I just object to people stopping asking questions. To give an example, my grandparents belong to an offshoot of the Morman churhc; a good family friend is an Anglican deacon. Something I've always noticed is the difference they've approached their faiths. My grandparent's church is very much in the mould of an evangelical group, constantly proclaiming their religion and putting it front and centre all the time. On the other hand, the family friend who is an Anglican deacon has always been willing to talk about his religion and beliefs if you ask him, but they are his beliefs and he has always seen comfortable in them.

 

One way I've perceived it, is that the Anglican deacon friend's beliefs are more mature. He is confident in them and his place in the world, and he doesn't have to go out of his way to convince others. On the other hand, my grandparent's church has always felt like a slightly more immature set of beliefs, not entirely confident in its acceptance in the broader world prompting the more extrovert nature of the church. Strangely enough, even though the Anglican deacon runs a major cathedral, his religious beliefs have never felt like the 400lb gorilla in the room that my grandparent's beliefs have.

 

 

There, that should put the cat amongst the canaries.

[Skandrae]

Okay...saw the movie AND read the books so I think I'm qualified to comment on the series as a whole...and it rates a so-so. The movie was, I agree, long and boring.

But then, so were the books. I didn't give up on 'em though (I read The Fountainhead, my tolerance for boredom is now nigh-infinite) and found some good stuff in there. There's also a lot of shock value...I mean, the things were written specifically to shock, every convention you can think of is turned on its head. Angels all powerful, all knowing embodiments of truth and justice? Not anymore. Clearly defined battle of good and evil? Nope. Cute little girl who never tells lies or does bad things? HAH. Lyra is a evil little runt, and I could not stand her. I consider myself fairly devout, and I managed to get through the books without my eyes burning out of my head though, though I do agree that they may be a liiittle strong for some ages. Especially Lyra. She's a BAD person.

That being said, I did find the actual parts that didn't waffle around interesting, though far and few between.

And, oh yeah...funny noone's mentioned this...ARMORED WAR BEARS. That's at least 12 different kinds of awesome, completely by itself saves the series from mediocrity.

I'm concerned about the game though, supposedly kind of puzzleish with some action. Long as I get to swat some things with Iorek.

 

...Armored war bears. I can't even THINK the phrase without a big goofy grin...

[Mike1072]

Necroposting time...

 

I saw the movie tonight and while it was exciting and enjoyable, a lot of that was due to my fond remembrance of the book. I read the book back before its sequels were released, when I was but a wee lad, and it remains one of my favourites.

 

A few things were shortened or rushed through in the film, so the plot seems to jump around rather quickly. I think the portrayal of Mrs. Coulter and the CGI Iorek Byrnison were the parts that translated best. My biggest disappointment in the film was its conclusion. It stopped short of the book's ending, which I found to be one of the most intriguing parts of the whole novel. I'm purposefully not going into detail here so as to avoid spoiling it.

 

All in all, I'd recommend the book first, and say that the movie is an acceptable adaptation.

[Icendoan]

I loved the books and hated the film. It was a version soley focussed on the storyline, and not the metaphorical philosphy which gave the books such an applause and outcry.

 

I also feel that Pullman gets better over the trilogy, so, I for one am giving the films another chance.

 

Icen

[CamDawg]

As much as I liked the movie, I have to say I thought the books were... less than impressive. The story relies entirely on a series of very improbable yet convenient events.

[Rabain]

I'll second the ARMORED WAR BEARS...even though I dislike the books and still am not interested in seeing the movie.

 

I'm all for spirituality, though I'd rather everyone sought their own rather than trusting something/someone else to show them it (or their approximation of it).

[jcompton]

I'm not a huge fan of the "Kids + Magic = ADVENTURE!" genre but having seen it at the cheap show over the weekend I wasn't displeased. It was pretty obvious where dozens-to-hundreds of pages of exposition had been skipped but it at least hung together.

 

I thought I had the ending pegged a mile away but was wrong, so that's always nice. (I think I may still be right in the long run, but not enough to want to go read the books and find out.)

 

For all the ranting about its purported anti-church/atheistic bent I was surprised there wasn't more furor over the name of the villainess.

[theacefes]

Haha, would have been funny to see one of her books lying around in the background of one of the scenes.

[Caedwyr]

I saw it over the Christmas holidays and my impression was that it was a DVD that someone was hitting SKIP CHAPTER every 45 seconds. I did like the world they created for the screen, and it match very closely with how I imagined things in many places. The steampunk technology was a bit different, but a touch that fit in my opinion.

 

Heh, also they did a real cop-out on where they ended the movie, but I wasn't all that surprised.