If the church is against The Golden Compass, shouldn't they be against Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings?

They're not against it, but certain members of the Church are (and btw, I'm sure most of these same people were against Harry Potter too). The US Conference of Bishops has said the movie is a-ok though.

To recap:

You wrote that the quality of the film has no influence over opening weekend.

I then wrote: well, why then to studios decide not to screen some films in advance, if not over concern that negative criticism will affect the opening, since reviewers will see the film when it's released, and the quality of the film will eventually be known?

You then wrote that not screening films for critics is stupid because people will know it wasn't screened and not go because they "know it probably sucks."

Thus you went from denying the influence of perceived quality on box office to confirming that it does have some influence, since you wrote that if some people think a film sucks before it opens, either from reviews or lack thereof, they won't go see it.

No, I'm not saying the perceived quality of a film is the only thing that affects opening box-office, but it does have some effect, even on big-budget films, contrary to what you originally wrote.

Alvin and the Chipmunks actually rates higher than TGC in terms of audience satisfaction based on user reviews. Obviously other factors come into play, which is really my point: You're being too myopic in your determination of what caused TGC to underperform. You've decided to completely ignore some things like perceived quality, and focus completely on one or two factors that may have contributed, but not to the extent you claim.

Well, you were the one who claimed to understand the entire American audience, and their reason for not seeing/liking the film.

So, since The Golden Compass opened better than Eragon, you'd say TGC opened "fairly well"?

Indeed. In fact, there's a bevy of factors one should never overlook when trying to determine the success of any film: quality, promotion, controversy, interest, budget, etc. All have important roles to play in every film. To completely ignore some of these factors and try and explain the box-office in gross generalities like "American's don't like anything unconventional" would be an act of inconceivable arrogance. Don't you agree?

I have no doubt that at least one such poster exists. In fact, there was probably a teaser poster or somesuch that didn't even show any actors from the film. My point was that the vast majority of materials being circulated for the film, now and right before the film opened, are the ads or posters that heavily emphasis the "name" actors in the film, so it's not surprising that the general public, who are not especially versed in the ins-and-outs of the Hollywood game, would get the impression that he was featured fairly prominently in the film as well. Thus, it's not at all unreasonable for a handful of reviews to mention the disparity between his prominence in the posters and ads and the actual size of his role in the film, if at the least to correct the audience's expectations of the film.

I got to thinking about this, and while I thought it was a silly argument from the word go, after considering it a while, I've reached the surprising conclusion that it's an even worse argument than I originally thought it was.

First off, No Country For Old Men was never designed to be a blockbuster. It's budget was smaller, it's rating more restricting, it's genre less wide-appealing, and it's release platform completely different. With it being in only 28 theaters in the whole country in it's first week of release, the film couldn't have been #1 even if the theaters had been running sold-out screenings around-the-clock. Even when it reached it's widest release, it's still only playing in 1/3 of the theaters TGC opened in.

However, Ratatouille did open in about as many theaters as TGC, and was actually better reviewed than NCFOM was, according to rottentomatoes. As a film designed to appeal to pretty much the same audience as TGC, Ratatouille did considerably better in the box office as well. That, despite Ratatoulle being very unconventional in it's own right (rat as protagonist, a focus on fine cuisine, set in France with some extremely French sensibilities, surprising emotional depth, etc..).

So certainly being well-reviewed can help a film achieve financial success.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ratatouille/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/his_...olden_compass/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/no_country_for_old_men/

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/RATUL.php
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/DARKM.php
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/NCFOM.php

It's just what people expect the Vatican to say, it certainly doesn't matter to me since I think their whole organization is just a folly.

I figure the DVD will be out in April, but I don't expect much from the director so I'm not really counting on a good extended edition of the film.

I said that reviews don't determine box office success, and they never will. the end

I disagree. I think "bad buzz" has much more of an effect than reviews. I was talking about what critics are saying in terms of quality. Critics, I'm sorry to tell you, don't carry a lot of weight. They don't. Not to the general public that you say can't figure out that Daniel Craig isn't in a movie that much.

Critics like TGC more than AatC. I was referring to that, since they are the ones who see the movie before anyone on opening day.

We were talking about the moviespending habits of the American audience, not about quality of a movie. Don't change the subject.


That's comparing apples to oranges.


Well, you're the one trying to show me up, but you make stupid statements like "two movies opening in the same weekend don't affect each other," and that's a really stupid statement, moreso than "Americans don't like things that are unconventional." So if you're going to argue with me over the internet and tell me I'm wrong, you shouldn't mess up by being wrong yourself.


But I wasn't talking about the general public, I was pointing out critics saying this, who should know WAY more about the movies and how they work. When they say things like they're surprised that Daniel Craig wasn't in the movie much, they really weren't doing their homework.

from imdb.com
 

The Vatican Condemns 'The Golden Compass'

Catholic Church officials at The Vatican have condemned Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig's new family film The Golden Compass, stating the movie is anti-Christian. The religious leaders claim the movie, based on author Philip Pullman's fantasy book Northern Lights, promotes a cold and hopeless world without God. In an article in The Vatican's newspaper l'Osservatore Romano, Pullman is also heavily criticized for writing the book. Catholic leaders urged the faithful to boycott the movie when it was released earlier this month. The Golden Compass director Chris Weitz stripped all references to the church from the movie, fearing he'd offend religious film fans. But it seems his efforts weren't enough. In Pullman's fantasy world, the Church's governing body is linked to cruel experiments on children. In The Vatican newspaper editorial, the film is dubbed "the most anti-Christmas film possible."

That's so weird, I would have never made the connection between the Catholic Church and the systemic exploitation of children before now.

They aren't the only determining factor, but they are one of many factors that do contribute to the overall success, or lack therof. Never is one factor the absolute determining factor in a film's box-office, and the reviews for TGC had a hand in causing the underwhelming performance of the film.

"Bad buzz" is still a determination of quality. Plus, early buzz is often at least partially based on, you guessed it, early reviews.

The general public are why the critics exist in the first place. They're the front line: they go in first so that we may not have to. They take to bullets of mediocrity and report back to us the important bits like: is this film worth seeing? They do so by relaying their impressions and possible correcting misconceptions one might have of the film, such as "hey, you know how Daniel Craig is heavily featured in the promotional materials all over the place? Yeah, he's not in the film that much."

No they don't:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/his_...olden_compass/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star...of_the_clones/

I wasn't. You were presuming you knew the motivations between the moviespending habits of all Americans: they're stupid and don't like unconventional things. Those gross generalities based on nothing but your own presumptions are what's spurned this part of the discussion, since others like me have felt the need to correct your statments by pointing out the plethora of contributing factors that, when combined, offer a clearer and more accurate account of what really cause the film to flop.

Both Eragon and TGC were big-budget fantasy movies based on popular kids books, which opened during the holiday season and were intended to be the opening film in a series. Both flopped. To my mind it's like comparing a Granny Smith to a Golden Delicious.

I never wrote that. Obviously two films of the same genre would affect each other greatly. However, if the two films are of different enough genres any overlap is minimal, and the releases can even compliment each other, such as a romance "for the ladies" released the same week as an action flick "for the boys." In the biz this is known as "counterprograming," and can lead to a larger overall box-office for the weekend than if only one film had been released. In the case of Eragon, the co-release of The Pursuit of Happyness may have complimented it nicely by convincing certain parents to bring their family to the theater so the kids can see Eragon while the parents go watch something a little more to their liking.

Why should they? Their job is to give an overall impression of the film: not to detail a nuts-and-bolts explanation of how it came to be. Even if they do know in advance of certain things in the film, they may still include it in the review so as to clue in/warn the general public who aren't so up-to-task on such minutia. For example, the one review I did find that mentioned the size of Daniel Craig's role wrote that it "is smaller than the advertisements may have led you to believe." The reviewer didn't write that they were surprised by the amount of screen time he had, but instead provided a valuable comment to the reader who may be reading a review as much for information about the film as for an opinion about it. I know I find myself reading reviews of films I didn't know about just for information about it sometimes.

AatC = Alvin and the Chipmunks, not Attack of the Clones. Are you guys even reading what you're posting anymore? :lol:

If I were a mod, I'd consider this a good place to lock this thread.

Yeah, pretty sure AatC means Alvin and the Chipmunks, not Attack of the Clones, and, you know, I was talking about "Alvin" previously, but you make a good point *pats head*

Okay, clue me in on all the unconventional stories that have been big hits. Where there's been a young girl as the lead character in a fantasy story, one's who's pretty tough, but relies on her wits to survive. Not many I'm afraid. I think there should be more, as I highly enjoyed Pan's Labyrinth. It wasn't a hit. It did a decent amount of business. And don't give me that "it wasn't made to be a hit." If the studio thought this movie could make big money, they'd sell it as such. But they're not that stupid. If people really liked unconventional stuff, all the movies critics "love" would make all the money. So I'm not basing it on my own presumptions. I've been around and have paid attention to what's popular and what's not.


Oh, those poor critics who get paid to watch mediocrity. Like it's a punishment or something, give me a break.

Bah, I knew damn well Daniel Craig wasn't in the movie much without ever having to read a single review. I'm a regular Benjamin Franklin Gates and know how to decipher hieroglyphics known to common folk as movie posters. I'm sorry most people are too stupid to do that. It further proves my point are stupid. Also, this amazing phenomenon called the internet is also a really good source of learning about movies. Or anything else for that matter.


But the stories are not similar in any sort of way. One's PG, the other PG-13. The way they were sold were completely different from each other. Eragon made its money back. A successful hit it wasn't, but hardly flopped. TGC, with its huge budget, looks like it has though. You just wonder how much preselling was done in the overseas market.


Then by your rationale Eragon should've opened bigger than The Golden Compass. Why didn't it?

Screw the general public. When I read a review, I want to know what the movie meant to the reviewer. Details like a particular actor's role as being underused seems to step out of the movie and taking outside factors into consideration.

The ads never lead to me to believe anything. They're just ads. To assume anything more from ads than them being a compilation of scenes in a movie is silly (aside from narrator, taglines, that sort of thing). But regardless, most of the reviews that even mention such details seem to give the film a negative review. It's not just that detail I cared about, it was one of many details of these reviews that don't touch on the movie itself. And when they do, it's like they really didn't get the point of what the filmmaker was doing.

It just makes me realize that some of these people really don't understand the point of certain movies, and it is why I tend not to read many reviews. I read a handful at the most, from critics who seem intelligent, who actually have a real love for movies. Most critics I read don't. Even when they claim they love certain films, when I read their reviews, they're so hollow in their reasons, like they don't put their heart in it. Like it's just their job. That's how they come across to me anyway. For all the complaining critics love to do concerning the mediocrity of movies, they never seem to realize just how mediocre they come across.

So what's the consensus:
Golden Compass failed because it was a poor film but if it would have succeeded, it would be because of the increase publicity of the boycott?

One reviewer in the compost dispatch in St. Louis actually stated in his review that just like those that deny man-made global warming, people who don't want to see this movie because of its possible anti-religious view are anti-science.

Why is that the images of pots and kettles and glass houses are jumping to mind when I read this?

Well, posting on this message board is not my job, so really, you just made the most pointless comment of all time.

Last I checked I wasn't a critic. I was just pointing out the obvious.

The most pointless comment of all time! I love it. Do you think I could apply for an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records? If you can't see what I was getting at, then that only proves my point further.

You hadn't previously abbreviated it, and AotC was the closest movie I could think of that's been regularly abbreviate that way; the "a" instead of an 'o' could've been a typo.

Also, pointing out the relative success of AatC to TGC was my point previously about how perceived quality can affect box office. It didn't make sense for you to repeat something that supported my argument.

Well, you're the one claiming that the film is wildly unconventional. Myself, the trailers and ads made the film seem unremarkably conventional. Let's see, we have a small, naive protagonist that is given an important mystical object that thrusts them into an epic quest that takes them to lands unknown to stop the ultimate evil, but not all in one film. Does that sound like any other epic fantasy series?

Are you now accusing the viewing audience of being sexist? Before LOTR, one could've asked "show me the last fantasy film that's made a box-office smash." In fact, many people actually did say that, predicting that the unconventional move or producing three movies at once, all incomplete without the others, in the fantasy genre was a sure-fire flop in the making. I mean, who ever heard of the general public ever sitting through a series of 3-hour films before? Just because something hasn't been done, or hasn't been successful before doesn't mean the general public wouldn't go see a movie that successfully pulled it off.

I think the fact that Pan's Labyrinth was a foreign-language R-rated fantasy had far more effect on it than a female protagonist.

While not every critically praised film makes boffo box office, there is at least some correlation between reviews and performance. Again, I'm not trying to make the binary argument that you seem to think this is: that either critics determine box-office absolutely, or they have no effect at all. Rather, I'm saying that box office performance is affected at least partly by critical raves or pans. I pointed out Ratatouille, which enjoyed both critical adoration and financial success.

Also, unconventional films can still be successes. Again, I point to Ratatouille, which many hollywood experts thought might be too "unconventional" for the American public, and were proven wrong. There are dozens of examples of films that were initially thought to have limited box-office potential that have generated surprise success. Take Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which took in 8 times the US box office than another film that opened the same day: Dungeons and Dragons. If the American public was as easy to pin down as you seem to think it is, studios wouldn't have flops like The Golden Compass on their hands.

Also, I should point out that my original point in bringing up critics was because you claimed the poor box office was because it was too unconventional for the masses. However, even those that do love unconventional non-"hit" financial successes like No Country for Old Men couldn't find much to love about the film. Obviously the film had more problems against it than just being "unconventional."

You're a movie geek who reads and writes about film online, and who has already distanced himself from the "general public." You've already disqualified yourself from being an example of what the general public does or should know about films; the minutia of poster credits being one example.

I agree, your points are stupid. ;)

They're both fantasies about young people on epic adventures. Are you suggesting that the stories have to be point-by-point identical in order for any sort of comparison between them to be valid?

Wow, you're so right. No PG-13 fantasy based on a kids' book has ever succeeded, excepting for those last few Harry Potter flicks.

Not to my eye they weren't. The only difference I saw was that TGC trailers made the film look slightly less inept than the Eragon trailers did.

No, it didn't make its money back in theatrical release, and yes, it did flop. It's combined production and promotion budget was $136 mil, and it only made $250 mil worldwide. With traditional rule of thumb being the studio gets half the theatrical revenue, that means the studio made $125 mil, or less than they spent.

Why do you continue to argue when you can't even remember why or what you're arguing. I brought up Eragon as an example of where poor critical reception affected the film's box-office.

You likely do. However, they also give some consideration to the audience. Reviews exist to help people make up their minds. Online forums exist for people to just talk about whether the liked the film or not and why. Look to the AVclub's comments, where the reviewers often add comments and contribute to the discussion of their own reviews.

Because goodness knows every normal person views a film in complete ignorance of anything about it. You've admitted to "taking outside factors into consideration" yourself for this film, when you claimed to have entered the film knowing Daniel Craig's role in the film was small. No film exists in a vacuum, and for reviews to try and pretend so is just silly.

You assumed from the poster that Daniel Crag's role was small; was it silly of you to do so?

I'm sorry, is Daniel Craig not part of the movie?

That'd kind of be why they were negative, wouldn't it? Communication is a two-way street, but if a film fails to get its point across, or it does so but not in an appreciable way, to a viewer, it's inherent that the viewer is going to fault the film.

One can get the point of a film and still not appreciate it. For example, the recent movie Lions for Lambs delivered its "point" in such a ham-fisted way that while nearly everyone understood it, even people that agreed with the point it was making thought it was a bad film.

Ironically, even though you've claimed to love TGC, I haven't read any reason that you've given that doesn't ring hollow. You haven't been able to earnestly convey your reasons for liking the film besides overusing certain catchwords like "unconventional." In fact, you seem to think that the best way to praise the film is to try and denigrate the people who dislike it, which just seems lazy and uninspired, as well as unnecessary and unsportsmanlike. You seem to think that pointing out that the film's been badly reviewed and underperforming is proof enough of the film being a misunderstood masterpiece, when to everyone else pointing that out just makes the film appear to be not that good.

Here's an idea: try singing the film's praises in coherent, well-thought out comments and observations about it instead of just calling anyone who didn't like it "stupid".

So when do I get my check?

You could've also asked since you weren't sure. That's what people usually do.

So you're saying that Alvin and the Chipmunks was considered high quality from critics? It has a 24% fresh rating on Rotten. I actually didn't compare The Golden Compass to that movie. I compared Alvin to No Country For Old Men, since it has a 95% fresh rating (go back to the original post if you don't believe me). I said NCFOM should've been at the top of the box office for weeks, since it is was one of the best reviewed films this year, and Alvin wasn't, yet Alvin made more money in one weekend than No Country has in it's entire run. So, to say that people love unconventional movies, that is the general moviegoing public, is simply not true. It is the exception, and not the rule.


The story is unconventional, I never said the actual idea of releasing a series of books as movies was. You added the "wild" part, I never said that, or even implied that. Sorry, but there's plenty of stories about trolls, ogres, elves, dwarves, etc. LOTR is simply the most well-known. All of these stories have a boy as the protagonist, with females supporting. Not so in TGG. Lyra was a little bit naive at the beginning, but she learned very quickly that Kidman's character was up to something. She's loads tougher, and smarter, than Frodo. That to me hasn't been seen in a movie of this fashion. I'm not saying this movie is groundbreaking by any means. Just different. The whole daemon aspect as well has never been seen in a movie.


Gee, are you really that naive? How often are women the leads in action/adventure movies (you can't count the lead's girlfriend/love interest)? I'm not saying never, but come on, you know the answer.

Yeah, they gambled with LOTR, but it was one of the most beloved stories ever written (ranked #12 best-selling single-volume book of all time), so it already proved the story had a mass appeal. All you had to do was not fuck it up, and people would come. Peter Jackson knows how not to fuck up.

Correction, most critically praised movies don't make boffo box office. That was my main point. But I never was talking about box office success for the whole theatrical run. If you recall, I was talking about OPENING WEEKEND. Get it in your head that people who create huge opening numbers aren't the people reading reviews. That's what I mean when opening weekend numbers have nothing to do with a film's quality, but how well it was marketed. Yeah, reviews matter in terms of knowing that some people have seen it and therefore deemed viewable. But your whole "not screened for critics" argument is a rarity. Most films are reviewed.

Yeah, all those Pixar movies have been hit-and-miss, right? Give me a break.

Yeah, the key word there is dozens. It's the exception rather than the rule. For the most part, studios know what movies they think will have mass appeal, if they're smart and know how to sell it. I think that's the problem that many studios run into. They don't know how to sell it properly. There are plenty of good movies that come out that are handled quite poorly, and it has nothing to do with a story lacking a target audience. If you can sell a silly M. Night Shyamalan melodrama as a scary thriller, you can sell anything.

Again, you mentioned Ratatouille as unconventional, and while true, it's also Pixar. They have an amazing reputation for producing quality, as well as hits. So, the perceived quality was there for Ratatouille before the movie was even made. The marketing was pretty brill (I remember seeing a teaser trailer last November, they knew what they were doing as far as promoting it, and the same for Wall-E, which looks even more unconventional than Rat). They can't seem to go wrong with anything they do. And yeah, I know you'll argue with something like "the whole LOTR was New Line as well, so why didn't TGC do just as well?" Easy, because everything Pixar has made has been quality (amazing quality even). New Line, not so much. And don't tell me kids don't notice names of companies. Every kid knows Disney, and I think every kid knows Pixar as well these days.

I'd love to know how you came up with that assessment. Was there a thread on here that compared the two that I'm not aware of? Are you basing it on the few people on here who didn't like it? For someone who claims I just make stuff up, you seem to be quite capable of doing the same.

I am a movie geek, but so what? I notice little details about a lot of things. No one ever told me what "And" meant. I used common sense, and have a memory.

As for "knowing" the general public, I do check out the box office every weekend, so I do pay attention to what people see, and have an HSX account (for shits and giggles). I even had "stock" in The Golden Compass. I sold it four weeks before the film was released. Why, you might ask? Because I believed all the negative press it was getting weeks before the movie was even released was going to hurt the movie tremendously. I even considered the other boycotts that didn't work. But I also considered the fact that the book was not very well known, and people were going to buy into the negativity (way before critics got a hold of it). I was right. And no, I'm not making this up. I really am this sad.

No, I'm not suggesting that. But I do think one was sold as a kids movie (Eragon), and the other to teens to adults (TGC). The types of adventures, things we'd see are probably a bit more "grown up" with PG-13, as well as the lack of cheesy promos for TGC indicated this as well (Eragon's promos to me seemed cheesy I'm afraid).


I was comparing the differences, not anything else. PG-13 movies succeed more than any other rating as of late. Harry Potter could probably be rated NC-17 and still pull in an audience. It's fucking Harry Potter. The rules do not apply to such a phenomenon.


Well, I think most people thought Eragon was LOTR-lite, and TGC to be something much different. Was there a golden compass in Eragon that I wasn't aware of?


Did I say "in theatrical release" or make any such implication? Based on the theatrical gross (which wasn't terrible) I think most people who follow box office trends knew it would make money once it was released for the home market. And it did. No flop.


You were the one who mentioned counter-programming, not me. Now who's forgetting what they're arguing? And who says I was (or am) arguing? I was simply trying to clarify. And I don't think anyone thought Eragon was "bad" necessarily, based on the trailers/ads, just not as compelling as other epic stories like LOTR. Maybe the public felt that way about TGC, but every trailer I saw made it look pretty interesting, and quite breathtaking, especially the international trailer.


Hmm, this sounds like something more for movie geeks than the general public reading reviews, but whatever.


I agree. But to say an actor is "underused" is to make an assumption that the actor was "supposed" to be in the movie more, when in fact that is a falsity.


Nope, not silly at all, because I knew his role was small. I didn't assume.


Nope, there's no such character named Daniel Craig in TGC.


Yeah, because it'd be silly to think that reviewers couldn't possibly miss the point of a movie because of their own shortcomings, so they must deem it bad. I guess no one likes to think they could possibly be wrong. I think there's been plenty of movies I didn't "get," but do I deem the movie poor because of it? No. A lot of those just weren't my cup of tea.

I haven't seen it, so I can't say anything here (which I'm sure makes you happy ;) ).


I never described the movie's quality in terms of it being unconventional. Certain members of the board were telling me it wasn't, and I said it was, and gave my reasons. Good because it's unconventional said I did not. But it did add favorably to my moviegoing experience. It wasn't just the fact that our protagonist was a girl, but a brave and intelligent girl, and used her wits to survive, and not only by being lucky. And it was done in a fairly believable fashion.

As far as a review, that's not gonna happen, because didn't take notes while I watched the movie. But I will mention the things I liked about it, which is a whole lot.

I think the enjoyment of the film lies totally on Dakota Blue Richards' performance. Everything about it was terrific. Her delivery was flawless. But she also seemed like a real kid. And with that, most of the movie is seen through her eyes. We meet certain characters briefly because, well, so does Lyra. She isn't getting to know these people either, so why should we? Yes, there are scenes that don't contain Lyra, but those are done more to advance the story than to add to character development.

One a visual level, it's as good as movie I've ever seen, and very original. I didn't see any "noticeable" effects, ones that seem cartoony or cheap. I couldn't get enough of the "compass effect." The action sequences were exciting, and never got silly.

The performances by the supporting cast were convincing. Nicole Kidman is always good. The daemons were fun to look at. The script was tight, as if you almost believed such a story could be possible. The characters weren't simply there to talk and let the viewer know everything that was going on, but to let us see how certain conversations would go down if such situations actually existed. And there were a lot of double-meaning conversations that I liked that developed the "brief" characters like Eva Green and Sam Elliot's. Eva Green character's conversation with Lyra really wasn't about what was said so much as her character wanting to get to know (or simply just to meet) Lyra. It was later paid off at the end of the movie. Sam Elliot's character first meets Lyra as if he doesn't know who she is, but it's clear that he does.

All these things add up to a certain mood and style that I really enjoyed watching as it was happening. It was very high-paced, which I really liked, as too much story really could've bogged down the action. I was never bored, and wasn't disappointed by any of it. It left me wanting a sequel, instead of just knowing there's going to be a next one.

lol, so true

No they will pick up that God is the enemy.
Just like some kids will pick to try black magic because of Harry Potter.
Wee Gee boards come to mind.
But GOLDEN COMPASS failing at the box-office should prove to America that America has more believers in God. Also remember Bush got re-elected and THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST was a huge hit and no studio wanted it.
So why did we have this attack on Christmas last year and some in the media saying there was no attack? Because of the times we live in.

I can't tell if that post is a joke or not.

It's always amusing when atheists bash believers for boycotting something "they haven't even seen" Oh, The horror! The horror!!

I would submit that most of the proudly "open-minded" atheists never darken the door of a church to actually investigate what THEY are boycotting and bashing.

I also doubt that said atheists take their children to church or read the Bible to them nightly. So much for the hypocritical comments about keeping their children informed about "other worldviews".

I would also submit that most atheists would not ridicule a Jewish person who refused to see a pro-Nazi film (and advised other Jewish people to do the same).

Likewise with a black person who refused to see a movie that lionized the KKK and treats those of African descent as subhuman.

You don't have to wallow in the sewer in order to smell the stench. Informed people avoid the sewer altogether.

Of course, there are some who love inhaling the stench and ingesting the filth. It is totally their right to do so.

Just don't expect other parents to throw their own children into the sewer along with you.

Yeah, we all know how the Birmingham bus boycotts turned out to be a total failure for the civil rights movement. Totally turned the country against the African-American community and had absolutely no long-term effects.

Boycotts against advertisers DO often work and result in corporate sponsors pulling financial support. The fact that some immature people slobber to see anything that's "banned" doesn't automatically guarantee the success of an artistic project despite the wishful thinking of those who ridicule boycotts.

Part of the reason for the boycotts is to provide information for those who don't know the full story behind a project. To require every parent to read every book and see every movie before allowing their children to see/read them is, quite frankly, a ludicrous proposal. I would hope that those who criticize parents who rely on trusted sources for second-hand recommendations would NEVER rely upon reviews of books, movies, music, or the other arts to help them choose how to spend their limited resources of time and money.

Of course, atheists simply read every book (including every religious tome from cover to cover), see every movie, listen to every CD, attend every play, etc., etc, etc. in order to be broad-minded and not allow anyone else to influence their opinions.

I am an atheist and I've attended services in temples (Jewish, Buddhist, and others) and churches, visited mosques and have read the holy books of every major religion on this earth.

I don't have children, but if I did, and the same goes for most atheists I know, I would allow our children to discover their own beliefs, just as I formed my own opinions, regardless of the religion in which I raised. And really, if you wanted to keep your child informed of other worldviews, you'd have to do a lot more than take them to church and read from the Bible. You'd have to open them up to every viewpoint every person has ever had, which is literally impossible. At a certain point, you have to decide "I will teach my children about this, but not that" simply because to do otherwise would mean that everyone would be in schools forever.

If it was certain that the films were pro-Nazi or pro-KKK, then yes, I would not ridicule a Jewish or Black person for avoiding those films. However, The Golden Compass is anti-Catholic (which is not the same as anti-Christian) in book form. The movie takes away many of the elements that made the book so stringent, and comes off as much more bland family fare. If someone were trying to bring up their children as staunch Catholics, I wouldn't ridicule them for not letting their children read the books. But to boycott the movie, even after being told it is not like the books, seems to be excessive, in my opinion.


Now who is being closed-minded? At least prior to this, you were attempting to make points about what you felt were genuine hypocrisies. You then finish by comparing atheism (which in and of itself is not an offensive philosophy) to filth, and denigrate people who associate themselves with it. Essentially, you've just confirmed all the nasty things people have been saying about zealots earlier on in the thread.