The Golden Compass Discussion

[Disneykid]

I'm surprised there's no thread on this, yet. I just got back from seeing the film. While I loved it overall, it definitely suffered from studio interference. It's always easier for me to make a pro/con list, so I'll do that here (note that spoilers abound, and half of this will only make sense to those who've read the book):

Pros:

* The performances were all uniformly excellent. I think the performance I was most impressed with was Nicole Kidman's. Being a fan of hers, I knew she'd do well as Mrs. Coulter, but I didn't realize how well until I saw it for myself. She plays the character very subtly so that book readers know exactly what she's thinking while the non-readers will be able to tell that there's some layer to her they don't know, yet. Dakota Blue Richards also did very well as Lyra, especially given that this is her first film. Her performance is nice and natural, less hammy than Rupert Grint and Emma Watson were in the first Harry Potter film and more akin to the Pevensies from Narnia.

* The effects were top notch. Even when the CG wasn't photorealistic, it still looked great. Iorek Byrnison in particular looked amazing, even when he was physically interacting with Lyra. The bluescreen work was mostly seamless. You can tell that this is an expensive film (supposedly $250 million).

* The production design and cinematography were very impressive. Lots of book fans have been complaining that the film is too glossy and bright compared to the book. While I admit that I was taken aback at first how everything seemed to glisten and glow, it made for some gorgeous visuals. My favorite scene visually is the one with Mrs. Coulter and Lyra riding on the airship. Both the ship and the city surrounding it have amazing detail.

* Replacing Tony Markerios (or whatever his last name was) with Billy Costa made perfect sense to me. It helps to make things more familiar with the audience and drive the point closer to home than if they had used a character we've never met (or would have to introduce in the beginning along with everyone else).

* Switching the Bolvangar and Svalbard sequences also makes sense. The driving point of this particular story (outside of "rescuing" Lord Asriel) is to rescue Roger and the other kids at Bolvangar. If they kept it like the book, the film would go on for over half an hour after the big fight between the Gyptians/witches and the Tartars, making the (non-fan) audience feel that the movie is overstaying its welcome.

* Speaking of Bolvangar and Svalbard, both of these action setpieces were really well done, especially the latter. The fight between Iorek and Ragnar was more daring than I was expecting, even if there was hardly any blood. The Bolvangar battle was able to feel different from the battles seen in Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Narnia. My only complaint was how close the camera was to the action, rendering many things in a blurry mess. This shouldn't be as much of a problem when viewed at home, though.

Cons:

* The middle act (from Lyra's escape from Mrs. Coulter's house to about the time Billy dies) is insanely choppy and rushed. Each scene in this area only seems to last about 50 seconds, and there's often no logical progression from one scene to another. It's been widely reported that New Line was getting cold feet at the last second and made director Chris Weitz remove lots of scenes and add in new ones. While this didn't seem to affect the first act at all (and didn't do much to the last act outside of the last three chapters), the middle portion really seems to have been edited down the most. Chris Weitz has told MTV that there will more than likely be an extended cut on DVD, with most of the footage coming from this middle act. Hopefully that cut will solve this problem.

* The dialogue was far too exposition-heavy. Many scenes felt too heavy-handed and unnatural just to clarify things for the audience. The two most glaring examples for me are the scene with Mrs. Coulter and Lyra at the Jordan dinner table and the scene where we first meet Iorek Byrnison. In the former, Mrs. Coulter tells Lyra how Ragnar longs to be human and have a daemon of his own. This bit just seemed to scream, "PLOT SET UP! REMEMBER THIS INFORMATION FOR LATER, CHILDREN!" The scene where we meet Iorek also feels awkward. Iorek goes off on a long tangent about how he ended up losing his armor and the relationship between bears and armor. While he does this in the book, too, it was done more naturally there (from what I remember). Perhaps a few more questions from Lyra to coax him to tell more would've made the scene feel less expository.

* Removing the party sequence and having Lyra discover Mrs. Coulter's real profession through bedroom snooping felt contrived. It's all too convenient that Pan finds a complete, unripped stack of papers in the trash that happen to list the children who've been taken. It's also a stretch to have Lyra and Pan make the connection between the initials of the General Oblation Board and the Gobblers within three seconds. Also, with the party sequence gone, how is Lyra going to remember who Lord Boreal is in The Subtle Knife?

* I don't like how Billy's death was handled, or rather, the lack of handling. One second we see Ma Costa cradling Billy (who's still alive), then after the camp is invaded, we cut back and see her sobbing over his dead body. To make matters more confusing, Lyra later states towards the end that she wants to help Billy and the other intercision children find their daemons. Huh? They're dead, Lyra, and if Billy is actually still alive (and was only passed out in that quick shot I mentioned), then that's pretty pathetic. I also am disappointed that the dead fish being used as a makeshift daemon wasn't really touched on outside of a quick shot of Billy holding it. Emphasizing that point more (and having Lyra go ballistic when the fish is discarded) would've added more emotion.

And now for the big thing that's gotten the book readers crying foul: the shifting of the last three chapters (which have already been filmed and shown in the trailers) to the beginning of The Sutble Knife. I have mixed feelings on this, unlike most fans who are outraged.

On one hand, I understand New Line's decision. If they had kept the ending, it could potentially turn off many audience members, and then they'd go and discourage friends from seeing it. I admit that when I read the book, the ending frustrated me. I felt like Lyra went through all that crap for nothing. When I read the other two books, though, the first book's ending made much more sense, and now I accept it. This would be risky for New Line, though, because not everyone in the audience will know/understand there there are two films to go, with Roger's death being the driving point for half of The Amber Spyglass' storyline.

On the other hand, the shifting of the these said chapters has created a problem. The Golden Compass, as it is, now ends rather abruptly. When the screen faded to black, half the audience all said out loud on top of each other, "That's it?" From a story structure point of view, the film builds and builds and then suddenly ends while leaving things hanging. While the book ending is a cliffhanger, too, it at least tied up the plot threads about Lord Asriel, Mrs. Coulter, Roger, and parallel worlds. By attaching all this to the beginning of The Subtle Knife, they're going to kill a character 20 minutes into it, a character the audience would assume play a more active role in the second story based on how this film ended. On top of that, once we cut from Lyra entering the opening to Will and his mother, the audience will grow restless. Throughout all of Will's scenes, the audience will be thinking, "Where's Lyra?" Whereas if you begin the second film with Will, the audience will accept that immediately and forget about Lyra, only to be surprised to see her again a little later.

So, overall, I really enjoyed the film despite its shortcomings, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it even more in its extended form.

[Matt]

Will not be seeing this film! Do to the fact that the writer of the books have the kids kill God to get what they want. NO thank you!

[PatrickvD]

Will not be seeing this film! Do to the fact that the writer of the books have the kids kill God to get what they want. NO thank you!

I declare this topic legendary!

ready, set, go!

---

okay in all seriousness. I am seeing this movie because it looks decent. I find it redicolous that people are trying to get it banned because of atheist themes. Narnia is pushing christian themes, should we have banned that as well. let's not ban any movie.

Anyway, the film horribly underperformed this friday and is on track for a 27 million weekend. Compared to the "big 3" it's sort of terrible. Their first weekends:

Harry Potter - $90 million
Lord of the Rings - $47 million
Chronicles of Narnia - $65 million

[TheSequelOfDisney]

Will not be seeing this film! Do to the fact that the writer of the books have the kids kill God to get what they want. NO thank you!

Though this is an adaptation of the book, there aren't any atheistic themes at all, it's just a good vs. evil plot. Just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's in the film. How do you even know if these themes are in there if you never see the film. It's a perfectly fine film and a great joy to watch. I found most everything to be pretty good. This is not the book, it is an adaptation. Things were cut, just look at interviews, to avoid these themes and they were avoided; completely cut out. It's just a fantasy film and just because of this controversy (which really isn't a controversy because there isn't a single lick of atheism and it isn't trying to convert anyone) people aren't going to see the film. That's just plain dumb to me. Hopefully I will see this film again and I will definitely be buying this when it comes out next year.

[Disneykid]

Will not be seeing this film! Do to the fact that the writer of the books have the kids kill God to get what they want. NO thank you!

As a Christian who's read all three books, I can assure you this is not the case. The books are about saving God, not killing Him. The overall story of the entire trilogy is how the Magisterium uses God's name to do horrible things to people and restrict their free will (kind of like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition). At the same time, they completely ignore the One true God and try to stifle Him to suit their own needs. Of course, there's the argument that God doesn't really need saving to begin with, but Pullman is just trying to prove a point. Yes, he's an atheist, but he's said that he has no vendetta against Christianity. His problem is with the hypocritical zealots who preach God but do anything but actually follow His commands. Read the books and see for yourself, or at least see this film.

[Super Aurora]

Will not be seeing this film! Do to the fact that the writer of the books have the kids kill God to get what they want. NO thank you!

As a Christian who's read all three books, I can assure you this is not the case. The books are about saving God, not killing Him. The overall story of the entire trilogy is how the Magisterium uses God's name to do horrible things to people and restrict their free will (kind of like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition). At the same time, they completely ignore the One true God and try to stifle Him to suit their own needs. Of course, there's the argument that God doesn't really need saving to begin with, but Pullman is just trying to prove a point. Yes, he's an atheist, but he's said that he has no vendetta against Christianity. His problem is with the hypocritical zealots who preach God but do anything but actually follow His commands. Read the books and see for yourself, or at least see this film.

Yep this is exactly correct.. The Magisterium represent the popes, cardnials crazy fundamentalist christains etc.

Basically saying that organizied religion can becoem corruption.

Matt if you think that movie ment killing God then don't read Vertigo's Preacher where some hick named Saint of Killers actually kills God and his angels with a shotgun.

[jeremy88]

What?? Kill God? Save God? Huh?? I thought it was about looking for a golden compass...

I had no idea God was even in this movie or is he??...Atheist themes? Aaah its all a big mash up mix of nothing but a big controversial soup thats probably not even that big of a deal in the first place.

I obviousley don't know much about it, and I do want to see this movie, because from what I saw in the trailer it looks very interesting and entertaining, especially with the big cuddly polar bear. However I am Christian, and I don't really like seeing things that in ways *bash my religion. But when it comes to media and entertainment, thats all I look at it as and nothing more, it still bugs me a little but not too much. I'm secure in my beliefs to not let anything affect me in anyway. So I'm still going to see this one, and who knows I might like it. And since Disneykid said that's not the case, then I'm sure it won't stress my brain, as long as I don't pay too much attention to it anyway.

*What I mean by bash, is not like literally go all out and point out false negativity and such, but makes it in ways seem like your way is wrong my way is right sort of thing...which doesn't seem to be the case in this film anyway. And Nicole Kidman said something like she wouldn't have been able to do this film if it was anti-catholic or something.

[I Love Bambi]

I plan on seeing this movie when I get the time. The special effects look great, though as a Christian myself, I hope to not see anything that will offend my beliefs...

[Disneykid]

jeremy: the whole God aspect of the story doesn't really kick into high gear until the third and last story, The Amber Spyglass. Seeds are planted in The Golden Compass and The Subtle Knife, but it's the third one that really comes all out with what it has to say. The reason why people think the series is about killing God is because there IS a character whose goal it is to kill God, but the character he thinks is God is actually just a dictator angel who claims to be the Lord. I won't see anymore than that so as to avoid spoilers, but it seems to me like someone read a plot description of the series, thought the purpose was about destroying God, then passed it on to his friends, thus creating this hulabaloo.

[Siren]

Will not be seeing this film! Do to the fact that the writer of the books have the kids kill God to get what they want. NO thank you!

No, the kids kill A God. Not a specific God of any religion mentioned in the book. I am not atheist, but I am sure to enjoy the movie anyways. I am not Christian, and I love Narnia. I'm not Jewish and I love Prince of Egypt.

Have you even read the book? How would you feel if an atheist said, "I won't read Narnia because it has Christian elements"...Wouldn't you feel that person is being ignorant?

Believe me, Golden Compass will not convert people to atheism. I read Narnia, saw the movies, love it all. Have a bunch of Narnia stuff I bought...yet, it didn't convince me to be Christian. These books aren't written to convert. They are written to tell a story.

For those who wish to shun this author because he is atheist and wrote atheist views into his book....please also shun the following people:
Abe Lincoln, Ernest Hemingway, Aldous Huxley, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Walt Disney, George Orwell, Alfred Hitchcock, Mark Twain, Robert Frost, Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Woolf and literally dozens of others. Yes, those are all self-proclaimed atheists. Good luck boycotting them all. Telling your teacher you don't want to read anything by Hemingway, Twain, Orwell, or any of the others because they are atheist will get you no where fast.

I will see this because as far as I am concerned, it is a FANTASY movie. I love Narnia, I love Harry Potter, I love Lord of the Rings. I most certainly will enjoy this one. I don't care if a Buddist hippo wrote the book, it looks like a good fantasy kid's flick. Being a non-believer is not my deal, but I don't care. I tend to like movies for the stories, not for who wrote them. I could give a rat's behind what he is. If every author wore their religion or non-religion on their sleeve, I guess a lot of people wouldn't open their minds up to other's stories. I seriously doubt a movie that has a polar bear wearing wacky armor will convert kids to being atheists. My daughter and I are sure to love it.

[Disney-Fan]

Oo, I had no idea the book had atheist themes. As an atheist I'm now extremely curious about this movie. I might just check it out. As for the comment about banning it, I have to ditto everyone else's comments. I've enjoyed Narnia ever since I was a little kid despite atheist beliefs, and The Prince of Egypt is one of my favorite animated features. Superman Returns is heavy on Christianity and is also present in my DVD collection, and my favorite show, Xena, has many Christian themes incorporated. In short, it shouldn't matter. If the story is good, it's good. You may disagree with it's POV but you can still enjoy it.

[Siren]

The Small One, as many of you know, has always held a very special place in my heart. I watch it reguarly and enjoy it every single time. They story is so endearing. I love every bit of it. And it's a Christian story. But I love it anyways. I could never hate the a movie/book simply because it has elements of a religion that is not my own. That is ignorance and bigotry. I like to be accepting and non-judgmental of other people and their beliefs.

[purin]

I heard it was specifically an anti-Catholic edge (and, of course, Catholics and Protestants have long been at odds with each other before recent years). Although I'm not familiar with the story, it does sound like it has some pagan elements.

(Funny, I remember hearing that some of those names were not atheist. Are you sure you're not using that term too broadly?)

[Matt]

A letter was sent from my niece and nephews school not to take ur kids to see this movie. Once I read why, I was like OMG this is crazy. Not because the writer doesn't believe in God, but that fact that he had written the books with them killing God is a little ob seen for me. My niece and nephew don't even want to see the movie anyway. So that is the reason why I don't want to see it.

[Siren]

I heard it was specifically an anti-Catholic edge (and, of course, Catholics and Protestants have long been at odds with each other before recent years). Although I'm not familiar with the story, it does sound like it has some pagan elements.

(Funny, I remember hearing that some of those names were not atheist. Are you sure you're not using that term too broadly?)

I Googled "famous atheists" and got the names from several respected atheists sites.

The only pagan elements I know of are there are witches (Wizard of Oz has witches too, let's ban that!), and the idea all people have an animal guide/spirit. Which Native Americans, druids, and many other cultures and people have this belief as well.

In all truth, Narnia has pagan elements too. Unicorns, centaurs, fauns, griffons, minotaurs, satyrs, etc....all pagan creatures creatures. And funny thing is too, they are good and bad. Many of the pagan creations fight on the good side too. Right alongside Aslan.

And the schools. churches, etc...they will make this movie an absolutle blockbuster. Controversy sells. How did I find out there were atheist views in the book/movie? From a church newsletter. Thank you church newsletter for telling me about the movie, I want to see it even more to see what ignorance and hate the Bible-thumpers are spreading now!

Thou shalt not judge...unless you rationalize the judging right?

[TheSequelOfDisney]

A letter was sent from my niece and nephews school not to take ur kids to see this movie. Once I read why, I was like OMG this is crazy. Not because the writer doesn't believe in God, but that fact that he had written the books with them killing God is a little ob seen for me. My niece and nephew don't even want to see the movie anyway. So that is the reason why I don't want to see it.

That's absurd. If you actually read the books, you would know that they do not kill God but a character named God. I think all of this is ridiculous. If you actually read about the film and the books you would learn things that will totally contradict what these people are telling you: to not see the film. Sure, in the BOOKS, there are atheist themes, but not in the film. I'm sure if you didn't even think about it, as I did with the Narnia books, I wouldn't even notice a correlation between the Bible stories and the chronicles. Just because there was a letter explaining why you shouldn't take your kids to see the film doesn't mean anything. Research yourself and discover what the film and the books hold. I'm sure you'll get a bunch of insight that the letter conviently forgets to mention.

[Super Aurora]

How did I find out there were atheist views in the book/movie? From a church newsletter. Thank you church newsletter for telling me about the movie, I want to see it even more to see what ignorance and hate the Bible-thumpers are spreading now!

Thou shalt not judge...unless you rationalize the judging right?

This is why I despise organize religion especially christian ones. They want people see something that goes against their fictional book: The Bible.

Oh and Siren you for got Issac Newton. You see athesistism back in those days ment person with own beliefs and not realtion to any organize religion. He believed in one supreme god but that was it. No trinity, Jesus etc.

[Siren]

I didn't forget him, I just didn't feel like writing a book on all the atheists there are. And yes, he as more agnostic than atheist.

I don't despise Christianity. I despise the people who twist Christianity and any religion to justify their means.

[Disney-Fan]

BTW Siren, I love your avatar. That scene had me cracked up for 5 minutes straight!

[purin]

I wasn't saying the Pagan themes were bad thing. I was just saying that, since it's interesting to note them existing alongside an anti-Catholic sentiment, considering history.

Wow, I must live on an island (I do, actually XD). I went to Catholic school and as far as I could tell we were totally cool with whatever book/movie/art exhibition was making people nervous. In fact, the only sign of controversy would be in class discussions.
It's hard to believe that only a few decades ago, people would actually be taking oaths of loyalty to not see verboten movies in church. We've seriously loosened up, I think (yet we're the ones people use as an example when criticizing Christianity in general, which isn't exactly accurate).

(Yeah, that's what I thought. Some are more agnostic than atheist, and there is a difference. Agnostics are against organized religion, but still may maintain a sort of faith. I recall Thomas Jefferson (and/or his company) was a Deist)