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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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".

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.

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.

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.)