Christian groups slam Golden Compass

[Moonliner]

Hey, I thought the buzz on this move was dudsville. Now I'm thinking it might not be so bad.....

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'll have to look at it now.

[JWBear]

Old news. And not surprising considering they already hate the books.

[Not Afraid]

Ho hum. The Christians hate something again. ;)

[innerSpaceman]

The film still looks lame to me. I like Nicole Kidman, but I'm tired of her faux ice princess schtick. Daniel Craig's only in it for a second. I hear the bear fight is good. But I can't even manage enough interest in this to Netflix it down the line ... and even Christian uproar does nothing.

[Stan4dSteph]

I didn't mind the first book, but the anti religion slant got really heavy handed in the last two. It was too much for me. I'm not really interested in going to see the film.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think it's a contrived controversy started by the producers to create some free press for a film that's getting not-so-good reviews.
But that's just me.
:D

[€uroMeinke]

Is it a film about Mormons?

[Not Afraid]

I didn't get that the books were anti religion, but then I didn't get that the Narnia series was religious. Apparently, I'm not very bright. But, it's a good thing because I have enjoyed both the Narnia series as well as His Dark Materials series.

[Alex]

I saw it tonight.

I'm reviewing it so I'm embargoed but I expect I'll be receiving letters from the same people who thought I wasn't hard enough on communism in my review of Miracle.

[JWBear]

The film still looks lame to me. I like Nicole Kidman, but I'm tired of her faux ice princess schtick. Daniel Craig's only in it for a second. I hear the bear fight is good. But I can't even manage enough interest in this to Netflix it down the line ... and even Christian uproar does nothing.

And to me, it looks incredible.

[blueerica]

I saw it tonight.

I'm reviewing it so I'm embargoed but I expect I'll be receiving letters from the same people who thought I wasn't hard enough on communism in my review of Miracle.

When might your review be up? This is a movie I'm somewhat interested in, if I can find the time...

[Alex]

It opens Friday.

[Nephythys]

meh- wasn't interested in it before, or now.

But then I am not a Christian who needs to find outrage in everything-for example....I am a HUGE Potter fan and so far none of my impressionable children have started casting spells-


Hmm.....

[Moonliner]

meh- wasn't interested in it before, or now.

But then I am not a Christian who needs to find outrage in everything


Say, could I interest you in a nice cuddly Jesus Bear?

[scaeagles]

I am selectively outraged by selective outrage, and not outraged by my own lack of outrage at some things outrageous, and similarly outraged at the lack of outrage over what I am outraged about.

However, I have no problem with any group of anyone expressing their issues with a given movie or book or whatever. Sometimes it simply shows the idiocy of the groups in questions (for example, when there have been calls to ban the "racist" book Tom Sawyer because of the use of the "N" word - even though it uses it in such a way as to demonstrate the evils of racism), and other times I find it informative. Granted, I was not interested in this movie at all, but I found this information to be worthwhile, simply because I don't want to support that which is in opposition to my beliefs. Some people aren't like that, and that's OK. I can't stand the sound of Streisand or see a movie with George Clooney in it for the same reason.

[Stan4dSteph]

I didn't get that the books were anti religion, but then I didn't get that the Narnia series was religious. Apparently, I'm not very bright. But, it's a good thing because I have enjoyed both the Narnia series as well as His Dark Materials series.Pullman has been very vocal in interviews about his anti-religious beliefs. Most of the coverage is not in the US however.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm outraged by the music in the commercials

[Kevy Baby]

I am selectively outraged by selective outrage, and not outraged by my own lack of outrage at some things outrageous, and similarly outraged at the lack of outrage over what I am outraged about.That's outrageous!

[wendybeth]

I am selectively outraged by selective outrage, and not outraged by my own lack of outrage at some things outrageous, and similarly outraged at the lack of outrage over what I am outraged about.



That's all well and good, but have you been snubbed lately?

:D

[BarTopDancer]

I am outraged by the animal abuse! Putting spikes on CGI bears. How dare they! /sob

[Kevy Baby]

Can one be in-raged? I know you can be enraged, but what about in-raged?

That's inrageous!

[scaeagles]

Poeple with outies are inraged. That's why most people are outraged - because we have innies.

[katiesue]

I have an innie!

[Alex]

Damn, my bellybutton is broken.

I'm hardly ever outraged. I hope there is elective surgery available to repair it.

[cirquelover]

My son really wants to see this but I haven't decided yet what to think. I eagerly await your review Alex, as they are always insightful.

[Alex]

Here's my review (http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=sr071207as).

It has flaws, particularly in that a lot is crammed into it while still staying under 2 hours.

Overall, though, I liked it.

There is really no religion in the movie, without knowledge of the books it would be difficult to say with certainty that the Magisterium represents religion and not any of the plentiful examples of secular authoritarian oppression (Stalinist communism; Rush Limbaugh's delusional views of the Groupthink American University Campus; etc.)

I'm glad I saw and wrote the review before reading the long article (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/religious-movies) about the process of getting the movie made in this month's Atlantic. It is a good read but would have been too influential on my thinking.

[NirvanaMan]

I'm outraged by the level of suckage that appears in the trailer. However, if the Christians hate it, I might be pleasantly surprised.

[scaeagles]

Hmmm....what if I posted "if gay people hate it, I might be pleasantly surprised"?

Would that be considered bigotry? I'm just wondering....

[Gemini Cricket]

I kinda lost interest in the movie when the bear started talking in the trailer.

[BarTopDancer]

Hmmm....what if I posted "if gay people hate it, I might be pleasantly surprised"?

Would that be considered bigotry? I'm just wondering....

Not to speak for anyone here but when have you heard that the "gays" hate anything movie wise (after Passion)? It seems that several times a year the "Christians" get in a tizzy over something, be it Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Golden Compass - anything that doesn't suit their beliefs. They have to make a big to-do about protesting and boycotting it. Yes, it's their right to believe how they do. At some point though, it becomes tiresome. Yes, we get you think the movie is anti-god. Then don't see it! We get you think HP is the occult. Then don't read it! It's not that complicated.

[Gemini Cricket]

The last movie that I saw that was non-animated and had a talking bear in it, I hated, hated, hated. That film was AI. Then again, Brother Bear had talking bears in it and that was bad, too. Not that I have anything against bears who talk, there are a few on the board... I'm just saying....
:D

[Alex]

All animals in The Golden Compass talk.

[BarTopDancer]

The last movie that I saw that was non-animated and had a talking bear in it, I hated, hated, hated. That film was AI. Then again, Brother Bear had talking bears in it and that was bad, too. Not that I have anything against bears who talk, there are a few on the board... I'm just saying....
:D

AI had Teddy Ruxpin in it.

http://www.bigredtoybox.com/articles/ruxpin.jpg http://www.gobuyersnet.com/supertoyteddy2.jpg

[Stan4dSteph]

Is it really all Christian groups? I thought it was mainly the Catholic League who were actively engaged in boycotting the film?

It will be interesting to see what they do with the next two films, assuming they make them. Those are definitely more anti-religion, but maybe they'll be toned down as well. Nicole Kidman is Catholic and I seem to recall her saying she wouldn't be in a film that was overtly anti-Catholic.

[Alex]

No, it isn't all Christian groups, or even all Catholic groups. Particularly if they judge the movie separate from the books. The Catholic League is definitely calling for a boycott. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops however, says that while the books aren't good for kids the movie itself is pretty good entertainment.

An except of their review (http://www.usccb.org/movies/g/thegoldencompass.shtml):

Even if Pullman's fanciful universe has a patchwork feel, with elements culled from other fantasy-adventure stories -- most especially "The Chronicles of Narnia" (a work Pullman disdains) -- there's hardly a dull moment, and the effects are beautifully realized, including the anthropomorphized creatures like the polar bears whose climactic fight is superbly done.

Richards makes an appealingly no-nonsense heroine, and Kidman makes a glamorous and chilling villain. Christopher Lee, Tom Courtenay and Derek Jacobi round out a distinguished cast, with excellent voice work from McKellen and others (e.g. Kathy Bates, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ian McShane and Freddie Highmore).

Whatever author Pullman's putative motives in writing the story, writer-director Chris Weitz's film, taken purely on its own cinematic terms, can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with, at its core, a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think this was the same group that wanted Last Temptation and Sister Act boycotted... Not sure though...

[Stan4dSteph]

Thanks for that excerpt, Alex.

[Not Afraid]

Is it really all Christian groups? I thought it was mainly the Catholic League who were actively engaged in boycotting the film?


I think other Christian groups have jumped on the bandwagon. I know Focus on Family has made a statement about it and plans to say more.

I just love these two statements. The both couldn't be further from my own values dealing with learning and experience.

The evangelical-activist group Focus on the Family, which plans to release a statement about the film early next week, says it's in agreement with Christian leaders and organizations on the issue. Adam Holz, associate editor of Focus on the Family's Plugged In magazine, told MTV News he fears the movie would "plant seeds" to "ultimately encourage some fans to reject God."

"Each book becomes more provocative, more aggressive and more anti-Christian." — Bill Donohue, Catholic League president, on the "His Dark Materials" trilogy

[Gemini Cricket]

I still think this is some sort of device to get publicity pumping for a film that's getting rather blah reviews...

Other movies I can think of that were boycotted by the Catholic Church:

Hail Mary
The Last Temptation of Christ
Sister Act
Priest
The Da Vinci Code

and
the "Bloody Mary" episode of South Park... where the boycott actually helped increase viewership of that episode.

My mom's really into following "anti-Catholic" films and "pro-family films". So, I hear about it all the time. Right now she's really into promoting the film "Bella".
:shrug:

[Not Afraid]

Here;s another FoF quote: Other critiques have appeared on evangelical blogs and Web sites. Adam Holz of Focus on the Family, writing on the Christian ministry's Plugged In site, calls Pullman's books and the film a "deliberate attempt to foist his viciously anti-God beliefs upon his audience."

I don't see what's wrong about "foisting beliefs"? Narnia certainly does that.

The "thought police" mentality is what really irks me.

[Alex]

Re this:

he fears the movie would "plant seeds" to "ultimately encourage some fans to reject God."It is an irony I didn't want to get into in my review, but

The "evil goal" of the bad guys in the movie is their experimentation in pursuit of a way to completely protect children from the temptation towards questioning received authority and even awareness of its existence.

So, seeing as I would disagree with such approaches, seeing certain groups advocate just that very thing in response to this movie makes me smile while being sad about it.

As one commentator I saw said, if you're faith is going to be destroyed by a movie, then there were other problems with it (your faith) anyway.

[Kevy Baby]

I kinda lost interest in the movie when the bear started talking in the trailer.What if they had a talking twink?

[Chernabog]

Roger Ebert gave this movie 4 stars (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/REVIEWS/712060302), and that is enough for me. I'm going to see it tonight after the gym, I think.

Frankly, the Christians who are protesting this movie are being idiots considering the movie takes out the heavy-handedness of the books (I mean, why not SEE a movie first, THEN protest it). Though of course, some of those people say "OMG if kids like the movie, then they'll read the book, and then they'll get these naughty naughty ideas!".

I mean, god forbid someone actually hear different viewpoints or think for themselves. I believe that people who question their religion and then come to similar conclusions of their religion (or spiritual beliefs) come out that much stronger in their faith. How is it that Mother Theresa questions her belief in God, making her a stronger person of faith in the eyes of the Church, and yet when a child hears a viewpoint that questions the belief in God or organized religion, it is evil?

Yes, yes, I know, Mother Theresa is held to a different standard because.... because.... ummm....

In an odd way, the Christian groups are PROVING the point in the books regarding the evils of organized religion. Dumb, dumb, dumb. The author of the books can just point to them and say, "see! This is EXACTLY what I mean."

[Gemini Cricket]

What if they had a talking twink?
Then I would see it over and over and over.
:D

[Tref]

Frankly, the Christians who are protesting this movie are being idiots considering the movie takes out the heavy-handedness of the books (I mean, why not SEE a movie first, THEN protest it)..

I mean, god forbid someone actually hear different viewpoints or think for themselves. I believe that people who question their religion and then come to similar conclusions of their religion (or spiritual beliefs) come out that much stronger in their faith. How is it that Mother Theresa questions her belief in God, making her a stronger person of faith in the eyes of the Church, and yet when a child hears a viewpoint that questions the belief in God or organized religion, it is evil?


Idiots? That seems a tad strong, what? The books have a clear anti-Catholic bent -- no one, including the author, would argue that point, so does it not behoove the Catholic Church to defend itself against a sugar coated tome that propagates atheism at the church's expense? I say, absolutely. An attack is an attack no matter how subtle or discreet.

I won't be seeing it but not necessarily because of its content. I am just tired of CGI animals and fantasy movies. They are starting to look all alike.

[Alex]

I would say there is an important difference in approach between defending oneself from an attack and saying that an opposing idea should be avoided as completely as possible.

"These ideas are too dangerous to even be seen" is not a defense against attack, in my opinion, it is an infantilization of the membership. "Examine this idea, think about, and here are the reasons we think it faulty/inadequate/scurrilous/etc and are confident your faith will come out strong on the other side" is defense.

I do agree that the market is overcrowded with epic fantasy adaptations (particularly YA epic fantasy) but think this is one of the better examples and I'd gladly swap the final two Harry Potter movies for two more in this vein.

[Tref]

I would say there is an important difference in approach between defending oneself from an attack and saying that an opposing idea should be avoided as completely as possible.


Let's all put aside this concept of opposing ideas, for one minute, OK? Its entirely irrelevant to the argument.

These books are an attack on the Catholic Church. That is the beginning, middle and end of it.
And for that reason, the church has full right to ask that Catholics avoid taking their children to this movie.

So far as the children's right to choose. Well, that is silly, too. Children do not and should not have the right to choose. That is why we call them children.

[Nephythys]

Here;s another FoF quote:

I don't see what's wrong about "foisting beliefs"? Narnia certainly does that.

The "thought police" mentality is what really irks me.

How does Narnia do that- you yourself have said you did not pick up on the religious undertones when you read the book. The movie is even less obvious-

[Alex]

I make no such confusion; unless you are claiming actual physical acts of violence all this "attack" can be is one of words and ideas. So I'd say it is both; it presents its own view of enlightenment and attacks what it sees at the Catholic view (in the books, little of it is in the movie). But even if it is just an attack, "pretend it isn't there" isn't a defense against it.

I don't see your last paragraph as that big of a big difference, and the movie (nor the books) is not a childrens movie.

Has the Catholic Church made any official comment against the movie or just some Catholic activist groups? As pointed out above, the official body of the U.S. Roman Catholic Church gives the movie a pretty mild review and they seem to agree with me on a better way for parents to handle it than the one William Donohue suggests:


Will seeing this film inspire teens to read the books, which many have found problematic? Rather than banning the movie or books, parents might instead take the opportunity to talk through any thorny philosophical issues with their teens.

[Tref]

I make no such confusion; unless you are claiming actual physical acts of violence all this "attack" can be is one of words and ideas. So I'd say it is both; it presents its own view of enlightenment and attacks what it sees at the Catholic view (in the books, little of it is in the movie). But even if it is just an attack, "pretend it isn't there" isn't a defense against it.

I don't see your last paragraph as that big of a big difference, and the movie (nor the books) is not a childrens movie.

Has the Catholic Church made any official comment against the movie or just some Catholic activist groups? As pointed out above, the official body of the U.S. Roman Catholic Church gives the movie a pretty mild review and they seem to agree with me on a better way for parents to handle it than the one William Donohue suggests:

I rethought and changed some of my retort so your answer may seem out of context ... but for the record, I had said I think Alex is confusing two issues as one.

I still do, in fact.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I can see some merit in a group not wanting to financially support a work that is openly trying to convince people that said group is evil.

[Alex]

These books are an attack on the Catholic Church. That is the beginning, middle and end of it.
And for that reason, the church has full right to ask that Catholics avoid taking their children to this movie.

So far as the children's right to choose. Well, that is silly, too. Children do not and should not have the right to choose. That is why we call them children.

They certainly have the right to do so (and I'd still like to know if the Catholic Church has actually done so or if it is just The Catholic League doing so; the American bishops seem to think it is safe to expose your children to this one). I just don't think it is a good approach to take and not one I'd advocate.

I'll agree with you that "idiot" is overly strong for it, but I do think it is misguided in both its intent and likely result.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm not planning on seeing the movie ... but I'm curious how it seems specificially anti-Catholic as opposed to generally anti-authoritarian. My understanding is that it's the latter case, but i'd like to hear from someone who's actually seen it.

Seems to me the anti-Catholic stuff is in the book, but not the movie. Am I wrong?

[Alex]

Steve, my comments on that are in my review linked above if you interested (it isn't until about halfway through an 1800 word reveiw that I actually start talking simply about the movie's qualities).

But you're essentially correct. It has been watered down to simple (and cinematically common) anti-authoritarianism.


GD: I agree with that (though organizing a big media oriented boycott would perhaps be overkill), but so far I haven't seen any protester against the film put it in those terms. They have all hooked it on the corrupting influence of the attacks/ideas presented in the movie (or, more accurately, in the books for which the fear is that the movies will be a gateway drug).

But I'd have no argument with anybody who says "Philip Pullman said mean things about me and so I don't like him and so I don't want him to have $0.18 of my money."

[Chernabog]

Idiots? That seems a tad strong, what?

Yeah, I think people are idiots for protesting a movie that they not only haven't seen, but haven't even read whether the things they're protesting in the source material are even in the movie.

I mean, why not protest John Cusak's latest movie, Martian Child? The book's about gay parenting, and you all know where THAT leads. Blasphemy, pedophilia, and eventually, Nazi-riding dinosaurs.

Oh wait, you mean they took that gay stuff out of the movie? Well so what, people might like the movie, then read the book, and THEN they'll read about that gay parenting stuff, and since gay parenting is wrong and not a topic open for discussion, we need to protest it anway!
:rolleyes:
But it wasn't the Christians who protested, it was actually people in the gay community who were annoyed when the gay themes were removed.

Perhaps it's the atheists who should be protesting "The Golden Compass".

[Tref]

Yeah, I think people are idiots for protesting a movie that they not only haven't seen, but haven't even read whether the things they're protesting in the source material are even in the movie.


Say what? I am not allowed to protest morally objectionable films simply because I did not pay money to see them? Let's take this to the extreme, shall we? Should I not wage battle against child pornography simply because I have not seen any? Methinks your argument would bode well with theater operators! (Your last name wouldn't happen to be Mann, would it?)

Anyway, you don't have to eat a whole apple to know its bad, Chernabog.

Idiots -- onward, march!

[Chernabog]

Say what? I am not allowed to protest morally objectionable films simply because I did not pay money to see them? Let's take this to the extreme, shall we? Should I not wage battle against child pornography simply because I have not seen any? Methinks your argument would bode well with theater operators! (Your last name wouldn't happen to be Mann, would it?)

Anyway, you don't have to eat a whole apple to know its bad, Chernabog.

Idiots -- onward, march!

Maybe I should hand you some extra lynchin' rope for that march, because your strawman is losing its stuffing.

We are not talking about child pornography, we are talking about themes that may or may not exist in a movie -- but you wouldn't know that because you haven't seen it (and, FYI reviews of the film indicate that those themes aren't there). I mean, at the very LEAST read some detailed reviews and analysis before deciding whether to protest. I tried to point out that although you may have objections to the source material, that doesn't mean it was translated to screen in that same way.

But yes, we can all agree that child pornography is bad stuff. I guess you've won there. :rolleyes:

Edit: OK so perhaps "idiots" was too strong a word. I'll just say "fundamentally misguided" and leave it at that.

[JWBear]

I agree that if a movie or a book can harm your faith, then it was a faith built of tissue. Any organization, be it religious or otherwise, that can be threatened with new ideas is an organization that is built on very weak foundations.

I don’t see the books (and even less, the movie) as an attack on the Catholic Church, but as a commentary on the dangers of all-powerful, dogmatic, authoritarian organizations.

[Disneyphile]

Sister Act was considered bad too? :rolleyes:

That's funny, because it had a positive impact on me to learn more about Catholicism, urging me to research their beliefs, and since then, I've had better respect for Catholicism. (Although, I will roll my eyes at boycott groups of all faiths, meanwhile acknowledging that they are not a full representation of the faith.)

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I think they're concerned about the "gateway drug" phenomenon, as Alex as mentioned above (I think) and elsewhere. Some kid who loves the movie is going to ask for the books and then question religion - or that's the fear.

And I do understand their concerns. It's true, it really DOES attempt to "kill God" in the series, and it can be very affronting to people who believe firmly in God (even if they're not overly dogmatic.) That doesn't mean one shouldn't see it (and for the record, it doesn't mean I agree with them.) But I can see why it would make them unhappy or uncomfortable taking their kids to a movie that would lead them to a series that would then insult their beliefs. It IS a parent's prerogative to teach them whatever dogma they choose and protect them as they see fit.

That said, I'm looking forward to seeing the movie this weekend (if there's time. And if I can first see Juno.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

That said, I'm looking forward to seeing the movie this weekend (if there's time. And if I can first see Juno.)
Juno's out! Oooooooh

[Not Afraid]

How does Narnia do that- you yourself have said you did not pick up on the religious undertones when you read the book. The movie is even less obvious-No, and I didn't pick up that the Pullman books were anti-Catholic. So, that means the Catholic argument is moot.

[Tref]

Maybe I should hand you some extra lynchin' rope for that march, because your strawman is losing its stuffing.

We are not talking about child pornography, we are talking about themes that may or may not exist in a movie -- but you wouldn't know that because you haven't seen it (and, FYI reviews of the film indicate that those themes aren't there). I mean, at the very LEAST read some detailed reviews and analysis before deciding whether to protest. I tried to point out that although you may have objections to the source material, that doesn't mean it was translated to screen in that same way.

But yes, we can all agree that child pornography is bad stuff. I guess you've won there. :rolleyes:

Edit: OK so perhaps "idiots" was too strong a word. I'll just say "fundamentally misguided" and leave it at that.

Haha! Bully for you! I have been taken down a peg, what?

Hmm, but methinks, somebody has been been into the sugarbowl again! So, pull up your little rocking chair and let's have a talk.

Yes, yes, my little one, child pornography is bad. Very bad. Made by the bad-man.

But you see, lil' punkin', what I was really saying was ... well ... I just don't want you to worry about the protests, OK? There really aren't any. Nobody is going to get lynched and the strawmen are just figures of speech.

You see, some Catholics, not all, but some, are worried that this film could influence children to read the books by which the movie was based and they contain a lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric. Heavy stuff that the movie intentionally watered down. These concerned parents want their children to know the teachings of Jesus and the Church He founded before they set them loose on the world to discover the other side on their own. And you know what? That's their right because they are the parents. The Catholic Church, or, people purportedly speaking for them have come out and warned these parents against taking their children to the movie. That's all.

And you know what, despite what you might think, these parents do not have to view the film to come to this conclusion. Nope. They are free to do what they want.

And you are too!

That's right -- you!

Oh yeh, one more thing: now, I do not where you get off responding to me as you did. I only questioned if the word, "idiot" was not a little strong. I can see you are clearly passionate about something, Chern' --- I am just not sure what.

[Kevy Baby]

Simplified:


Child Pornography: Illegal. Doesn't need to be seen to know what is there.
Golden Compass: May or may not contain anti-Christian message. Needs to be seen to know if said message is within movie. According to reports; is not.
Having anti-Christian message: Not illegal

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Some quick responses to you, KB...

Anti-Christian message is not in movie, but the concern, as I understsand it, is not the movie but the "gateway drug" phenomenon, as the anti-Christian message is DEFINITELY within the books.

No, the anti-Christian message is not illegal, but it doesn't mean a parent has to choose to take their child to it, either.

We're heading to see it (and Atonement, and Juno) today so I'll pop in later with a review.

[Chernabog]

But you see, lil' punkin', what I was really saying was ... well ... I just don't want you to worry about the protests, OK? There really aren't any. Nobody is going to get lynched and the strawmen are just figures of speech.

Sorry, DEAR, but you were the one with the "onward march" statement. I just ran with the imagery. My reference to a "straw man" referred to your strawman argument where you changed the argument to something that everyone could agree upon (child porn is bad!) in an attempt to discredit the unrelated argument.

The Catholic Church, or, people purportedly speaking for them have come out and warned these parents against taking their children to the movie. That's all.

Sure. And I still think their reasoning is baseless, for reasons I've already said in this thread.

And you know what, despite what you might think, these parents do not have to view the film to come to this conclusion. Nope. They are free to do what they want.

And you are too!

That's right -- you!

You're really working on this type of argument technique aren't you? Yes, of course the parents are free to do what they want. Everyone can agree on that. So I guess you've "won" again! ;) (And I never argued your first sentence, so you're putting words into my mouth also *sigh*)

Oh yeh, one more thing: now, I do not where you get off responding to me as you did. I only questioned if the word, "idiot" was not a little strong. I can see you are clearly passionate about something, Chern' --- I am just not sure what.

You responded in a manner that read like you not only took great offense to what I said, but that you indeed were one of the "idiots".... err "fundamentally misguided" persons that were protesting the film. So really, pardon me for responding in kind.

[Disneyphile]

As with anything, I think parents should review whatever their child watches prior to them watching it anyway. My parents did that - if they couldn't watch it, they read reviews or at least researched what the movie/television show entailed.

To be fair, I wouldn't want my kids (if we had any) watching anything that made them feel bad about our household beliefs. For instance, "Veggie Tales", which preaches biblical teachings in the guise of cute cartoons. The last thing I'd want is my kids to see something and say, "But if I don't worship Jesus, I'm bad!" So, I can understand and respect the Catholic's stance on this particular film.

[Snowflake]

Gotta say it Cherny, those non-Bjork b00bies are sort of freakin me out. Will you be going back to a regularly scheduled avatar sometime? Assuming, of course, that those are non-Bjork ;)

[Chernabog]

As with anything, I think parents should review whatever their child watches prior to them watching it anyway. My parents did that - if they couldn't watch it, they read reviews or at least researched what the movie/television show entailed.

And that's the thing -- the Catholic Church thinks the movie is bad because the books have a veiled message which doesn't appear in the movie. For them to say "we don't think your kids should read the books" -- that I can kind of understand on some level (though I still disagree with it -- I think that kids and parents should be able to talk about opposing viewpoints, if only to try and discredit them. I'm not a big fan of the "no dialog -- THIS is how things are" mentality).

To be fair, I wouldn't want my kids (if we had any) watching anything that made them feel bad about our household beliefs. For instance, "Veggie Tales", which preaches biblical teachings in the guise of cute cartoons. The last thing I'd want is my kids to see something and say, "But if I don't worship Jesus, I'm bad!" So, I can understand and respect the Catholic's stance on this particular film.

My understanding of "Veggie Tales" is that it is more than just a guise, but I've never seen it so I can't really comment. But don't you think that if your kids asked you that question, it'd be a good opportunity to sit down and explain, "well here's what some people think, and here's what other people think"? Parental censorship is all well and fine, I don't disagree with that.

So, um... don't buy your kids the book "The Golden Compass" if you're afraid it will ruin their little minds. Problem solved. And at least you're basing it on reviews and analysis from people who have actually read the thing.

Gotta say it Cherny, those non-Bjork b00bies are sort of freakin me out. Will you be going back to a regularly scheduled avatar sometime?

Your wish is my command. I hope "Clash of the Titans" Bjork doesn't turn you into stone ;) Hahah don't ask me what the hell she's doing.

[CoasterMatt]

I think she just had some happy time with Mr. Owl.

[blueerica]

I think people can do or not do anything they do or don't want to do. If that makes any sense.

But, I guess what really gets me is the letter that got sent out. Though I can't refer to it since I deleted it, I got mine from a non-Catholic and it had the whole book thing and the "gateway" idea going on, too. I also got the idea that it was also against giving money to the people who made the message, all of which I understand, conceptually.

The thing is, I really didn't care as much about the movie until the whole story blew up. The moment I got that email, being an agnostic, I was excited. Sure, I deleted the email, but what previously seemed like a boring-assed movie about a book I couldn't have cared less about is now intriguing as can be.

In fact, I'm sure to be let down that it wasn't anti-religion enough.

As a marketer, my first thought was "brilliant marketing move!" Sure it would be a tad underhanded and unlikely, but the press over this has been outstanding. Coverage over just this aspect of the film (and the books it was based on) has been incredible. Newspapers, magazines, television, radio - you name it! Everyone knows...

So yeah, I wasn't able to see it this weekend (just too busy), but I'll probably go to the theaters this weekend to go check it out. Though I'll be let down.

[Tref]

...


My response had nothing to do with child abuse, Chern. I gave an extreme example and a simplistic example about an apple. Thankfully, you have nothing against apples. So here it is again: I don't need to see it to know what is inside. That's it. That's all I was saying.

Now do you get it?

I don't know if we have ever talked before but maybe we shouldn't talk again. To my way of thinking, all this pettifoggery is just not worth it. I think your reply was overly reactionary and mean-spirited. Clearly, I failed in getting my point across and I apologise, but there are not enough hours in the day for me to want to answer anger-fueled crap like this. If you want to debate something I said -- go ahead, but make sure you know what I am talking before you get on your soapbox.

The second most annoying aspect of this whole thing is that, so far as I can see -- nobody ever protested anything. But if a group of "idiots" want to -- they can and with my blessing, because, really, who gives a sh*t? Not me. Why should I? I may disaprove but so what?

Relax, Chern. Pick and choose your fights. Clearly, this was not the right one for you.

Now, if you want to disect this post -- go ahead. If it makes you feel smarter then me -- cool. But this is the end of line for me.

[Chernabog]

My response had nothing to do with child abuse, Chern. I gave an extreme example and a simplistic example about an apple. Thankfully, you have nothing against apples. So here it is again: I don't need to see it to know what is inside. That's it. That's all I was saying.

Now do you get it?

I understood what you were saying. I disagreed and gave an example of why it was off topic. Obviously, there's some kind of communication error between what I am writing and what you are reading, and perhaps I am just not clear enough in my intent, which was not to be mean, hurtful, or anything like that. I picked apart an argument that I found invalid, and you took that as a personal attack.

I don't know if we have ever talked before but maybe we shouldn't talk again. ...

Actually I find your usual posts completely hysterical (when they're meant to be funny, of course). I do find it odd that you hate me after a few posts, but if you want to stick me on ignore, so be it.

Relax, Chern. Pick and choose your fights. Clearly, this was not the right one for you.

It isn't like I'm horrifically upset over this issue; I just gave my opinion... so I'm thoroughly confused by this statement.

Now, if you want to disect this post -- go ahead. If it makes you feel smarter then me -- cool. But this is the end of line for me.

Me too, because I've obviously struck a nerve and this is slightly out of hand (especially for this board).

[Kevy Baby]

Was that a YAGE? Can one YAGE from a thread?


ETA: Timing is everything. My response was not to the post immediately above, but the one above that.

[Nephythys]

Snark snark.....;)

...and Veggie Tales DP - teaches good moral lessons you would uphold anyway- it doesn't preach salvation.

Golden Compass is a rental movie on our list- was before and still is.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I haven't seen all of the Veggie Tales videos/movies, but I've never seen any criticism of beliefs or specific dogma taught. There may be a biblical retelling here and there, but they're not of the "Jesus loves me, this I know" sort.

In fact, the ones I've seen have hardly featured any biblical stories, only cute parables that teach kids kindness, and otherwise downright silly and clever songs and sketches.

Of Golden Compass - I found the movie to be an enjoyable enough watch, though violent enough (in one moment specifically) that I wouldn't choose to take a child under 13 to it regardless of the religion issue. Let's just say that directly following the particular moment I refer to, the grown men directly to my left and right had their hand over their mouth in the exact same fashion as my hand covered mine. [Side note: Nicole Kidman? Generally tired of her.]

To say that the "religion isn't in the film," as is being reported widely, is a little silly. The veil is really quite thin (both the atheist and the non-committed but spiritual person in our group thought so.) My problem with the line of the film (and with other hard-line atheists who bother me as much as extremists of any religion - I am a fierce believer in respecting that each person's beliefs are as true and real to them as mine are to me, and I would no more want to insult theirs than I would want mine insulted) is that ALL of the church is bad, ALL of it is brainwashing and ALL of it is out to hurt people. Certainly, some people, some cults, some historical periods of most religions have brought pain and suffering. I continue to resent the implication that all people who participate in church are doing so because they are not intelligent, and that all church leaders are out for their own good. That is simply not my experience.

[Gemini Cricket]

$26 million last weekend. Hmm. It's #1, but I'm not sure if that's a good enough start or not. The budget for the film was $180 mil. I'm wondering if they'll make that back. It doesn't look so. Maybe that's a question for the Stroup.
I'm curious about this film now...

[DreadPirateRoberts]

$26 million last weekend. Hmm. It's #1, but I'm not sure if that's a good enough start or not. The budget for the film was $180 mil. I'm wondering if they'll make that back. It doesn't look so. Maybe that's a question for the Stroup.
I'm curious about this film now...

I believe they were predicting $30 million, so it was a little under expectations.

[blueerica]

I have a number of thoughts on religion, Catholicism especially. I don't believe that ALL are out for greed/whatever, and would never venture such a blanket statement. Much of the perceived "problem" of religion(s) stems from their general origins.

When researching for a paper (that was essentially) on the origins of Catholicism, I picked up quite a bit of information that's out there publicly. I am no expert (no 30-page paper writer could call herself that), but it does seem that the earliest of times show greedier leaders. While I don't believe that is the case today, I can see how the feeling could resonate for some. It is partly the reason the Lutherans broke, off, protestants, etc... So...
you know... we all have our reasons and origins n' stuff. :)

As for me, I'm neither here nor there; agnostic and proud of it, as it were. (How many trite phrases can I pack into a paragraph to emphasize that I'm saying this all rather lightly?)

:)

I think everything has its message, which is why I've chosen to soak up the best of what everything has to offer, whether it's the positive "do unto others" message of many religions or the "freedom of thought" of the atheists.