So, he's courting kids with bad parents?

Did you raise this same objection to The Chronicles of Narnia?

What if a movie challenged the notion that theft was morally acceptable? Or murder? Let's gather the kids around. Hey - it's only presenting an idea to your child. What's wrong with an idea? But like kvrdave said, once religion is involved everyone gets entrenched in their respective camps and tolerance suddenly disappears.

Why it's wrong is simple. It's wrong for me because it's questioning a belief I'm raising in my own home. I'm sorry if shielding a child from this until they're more mature is considered "indoctrination" by some.

Since Golden Compass is essentially the antithesis of Narnia, I think it's safe to say that Narnia is more accepted in our home. :) But my daughter prefers Harry Potter.

But were you uncomfortable with Narnia being marketed to children?

I don't think he needed to because there were enough people around here taking up that cause anyway.

Honestly, I thought the religious metaphors in Narnia were a little too heavy-handed and got in the way of telling a better story than, say, LOTR. But no, it didn't make me uncomfortable. Again, why would it if it isn't contradicting a belief taught in our home?

Personally, I prefer LOTR and Harry Potter since it just tries to entertain with a good moral message without trying to cater to any specific religious belief.

I just don't understand why it's okay for Narnia to be marketed to children, but not Compass.

Or vice-versa, for those who have no problem with this movie but were griping about Narnia.

Seems like if you think one is okay, the other should be too. I'm speaking of marketing on a universal level, not just for your family.

Isn't this "controversy" utterly moot?

As noted in this Atlantic article (will only be available for 1-2 more days!) and elsewhere, the film has utterly disposed of Pullman's themes. It's no longer the "anti-Narnia". It is Narnia.

Pullman fans should be urging a boycott.

I guess the discomfort lies in what Pullman's true intention was for writing these books. Was he wanting to entertain? Or was he trying to get kids to question their religious beliefs?

Yes - I know. Before everyone starts responding back with "Narnia was doing the same thing." I'll admit that it was. I guess I just happen to think I'm better off with Christian beliefs than no beliefs. Everyone seems to want to oppose Christianity these days like it's politically incorrect. Obviously, that makes me uncomfortable based on my perspective.

Which is why I'm actually more uncomfortable with the books than the movie. But my daughter wants to read the Narnia and Harry Potter books after seeing the movies. So that presents a bit of a conundrum if I'm theologically opposed to the books.

Don't need to see it now. How about a spoiler in the OP?

You are trying to look at this logically, analytically, and rationally. The bulk of knee jerk reactions about religion do not have those qualities. But, I'm guessing you understand that and are trying to make a point. One I agree with, but none of this is a surprise to me.

And I don't mind being completely oblivious to most things, but if someone had not told me about the religious stuff in Narnia (or if I hadn't already known), I would not have seen it. And maybe I am truly naive, but to get all that from a main character that died and came back to life? Maybe I just don't go into a movie thinking of all the metaphors, but it didn't mean anything to me.

Narnia was PG, this is rated PG-13, so it appears the MPAA thinks it's a bit less family friendly.

I didn't really get it either and I know my kid never did too.

Of course, by this definition then the Matrix must have been a religious movie as well since Neo also died and came back to life.

:lol: Yes, that's exactly why we do it.

Not sure why my discomfort over a message contradicting my beliefs would be an issue to anyone but myself. I'm not trying to ban the movie or prevent anyone else from seeing it. Of course, since the topic deals with Christianity, my personal comfort level with this movie suddenly becomes a real hot-button topic for some.

So was the murder at the end of the book edited out of the movie or was it just a rumor?

The Golden Compass book is darker than Narnia, so I am not surprised that the movie is rated PG-13. This is not something for seven-year-olds (although I suppose a lot of seven-year-olds saw The Fellowship of the Ring, another PG-13 movie). The books tend to be shelved by libraries as YA (Young Adult) that is: tweens and teens.

There seems to be an awful lot of teeth gnashing about this movie, given that most seem to not have read the book. The religious themes are pretty subtle in The Golden Compass and if they have been toned down it isn't likely to affect the story much. I wouldn't think that children would pick up on them anyway. But it is hard for me to imagine the third book, The Amber Spyglass, being turned into a typical Hollywood fantasy movie; the religious themes are anything but subtle in that book. I can understand why religious parents who don't want their children to be exposed to ideas differing from their own would be concerned about them being intrigued by The Golden Compass and wanting to read all three books.

Although it has been some years since I read them (some of the best fantasy can be found in the YA section of a library, BTW) I very much enjoyed the books — they are award winning for a very good reason. My concern was that a movie version of The Golden Compass would get slapdash treatment and not do the book justice, as is so often the case with movie versions of novels. But when I saw the teasers and trailers, I became cautiously optimistic that New Line might be doing a good job, even without someone like Peter Jackson at the helm. I plan to be there on opening night with some friends to see for myself.

The Golden Compass isn't very long, about 350 pages in a paperback size format, so those interested in knowing more about the book might want to just sit down and read it. Assuming one likes fantasy, of course.

Did you even read the OP? You know, the one that shows an email trying to dissuade people from seeing the film by lying and exaggerating?

I just read this article from Mark Morford, a San Francisco Chronicle columnist I love to read.

"Jesus Loves 'His Dark Materials'"

It has become some sort of rule, some sort of perfectly delicious law of the popular culture upon which any open-minded and attuned and humor-licked and spiritually aware and intellectually curious and sexually alive human worth her moist, wine-massaged soul can now rely with utter and perfect clarity.

It goes like this: If there is some sort of creation, a piece of art, a TV show, a column or a book or a movie or a statue or a blog or a movement, a wine bottle or sexual position or Jesus-shaped dildo that somehow deeply threatens the various ultraconservative sects of Christian-blasted America to the point where their pale, dour representatives demand boycotts and distribute angry pamphlets and try to stop people from experiencing said hunk of culture because of how negatively it portrays their seething, condemnatory God, well, you know it's time to break out the Champagne. Or buy that book. Or get very, very naked. Or all of the above. Depending.

So it is with the first movie made from Philip Pullman's astonishing "His Dark Materials" trilogy, "The Golden Compass," a complex, mystically gorgeous, spiritually dense, big-budget fantasy epic so far removed from the cute wizardry of Harry Potter and the thin, childish, monochromatic Christian morality of say, "The Chronicles of Narnia," it might as well be a Coen brothers movie. On acid.

Oh my God yes, they are protesting. They are pamphleting. The Catholic League and Focus on the Family and evangelical/fundamentalist Christian blogs from here to Colorado Springs, they are calling on their trembling armies to boycott the film because they believe that Pullman's brilliant books — which, by the way, if I had the power, I would place in the eager and lovely hands of every youngish human on the planet right now, but especially the girls — are not only aggressively anti-Christian, they ultimately describe, as their grand finale, nothing less than the death of God. This is what they say.

And here is the terrific thing: They are absolutely right.

But let's be a bit more specific, shall we? Because as any fan of HDM knows, it ain't really about God, per se. Pullman's luminous novels have nothing to do with rejecting faith or destroying the spirit or inhibiting the exploration of what it means to be divine. They are, in fact, the exact opposite. They relish spirit and the magic of belief and love, are soaked through with divine inspiration of a kind any intelligent Christian (or honest spiritual seeker of any stripe, for that matter) should crave the way Lindsay Lohan craves cocaine. This is what makes them so incredible.

No, the nefarious thing the books aim to kill is, well, religious authority. It's about the destruction of dogma. It's about power, about who wants to control and manipulate life on Earth; it is about blind, ignorant, even violent adherence to insidiously narrow codes of thought and belief and behavior, sex and desire and love.

This, of course, is the God of organized religion. This is the false deity that promotes numb groupthink and inhibits growth and abhors the feminine divine (perhaps the books' most beautiful, inspiring theme), the same paranoid, dreadful God that votes for George W. Bush because, well, he will smite the icky gays and protect us from vile pagans and Buddhists and Muslims and feminists and frumpy genius atheist British writers.

Indeed, if humanity is to flourish, to get over its addiction to war and guilt and fear, this is the false God that should — that must — die.

But let us get more specific still. Because while the books have as their evil antagonist a sinister cabal called the Magisterium (obvious parallel: Catholic Church), they also have a slew of dark characters in service of the Magisterium, various assassins and double-agents and robot drones running around trying to annihilate the children's spirit and destroy magic and lock down faith forever. Let us call these robotic drones, oh, say, the Catholic League. Or Focus on the Family. Gosh, no wonder they're a little peeved.

Ah, but it's almost too easy, is it not? Even a child can see that these people, these groups are so far from true spirit, so far from open consciousness it's a bit like comparing a lint ball to a cloud bank, a dung beetle to a flower bed. They are spiritual caricatures, the creepy clowns in organized religion's gloomy circus, all scrunched brows and gnarled hands and so much repressed sexuality it would make a porn star wince. Really, why give their silly protests any attention at all?

Well, for one thing, because these groups have proven they can be highly dangerous, utterly toxic to the culture as a whole. You already know the list: FCC crackdowns, stem cell research, ultraconservative judges, abstinence education, anti-choice laws, vicious homophobia, intelligent design, the rejection of science, all aiming toward nothing less than the creation of a fascist theocracy in America.

In fact, director Chris Weitz, who adapted "The Golden Compass" for the screen, reportedly removed any direct mentions of God or religion from the film version, fearing, along with New Line Cinema, some sort of Christian conservative backlash. Fans were, appropriately, outraged. It remains to be seen how much of those vital themes Weitz left intact, but you could argue that the Bible-thumpers have already taken their sad toll.

(But oh, I do look forward to the bloodcurdling screams that will surely come from these groups when they see the third film, which, if the creators hold at all true to the original book, and presuming the movie gets made at all, features a truly luminous pair of wonderful, immensely powerful, tragic gay angels. Oh my yes).

It might not matter. With any luck and if "The Golden Compass" turns out to be even half as wondrous as the book, it will hopefully fuel a massive surge in sales of the HDM trilogy in America, and perhaps inspire an entirely new literary awakening among young readers, deeper and darker and more luminous and complex and even (gasp) slightly sexual, far beyond the clever but innocuous magic of Harry Potter — which, by the way, had its share of religious bonk-jobs calling for its destruction, as wizardry is clearly the dominion of the devil. We all know what a huge drop in sales that protest caused.

But there is another note of good news, another terrific takeaway from this tale of fear and whining and outcry, and it takes the form of another delightful rule upon which your soul can happily rely, as well as a heartfelt lesson for trembling ultraconservative sects everywhere.

It goes like this: If your ancient, authoritarian, immutable belief system is truly threatened by a handful of popular novels, if your ostensibly all-powerful, unyielding creed is rendered meek and defenseless when faced with the story of a fiery, rebellious young girl who effortlessly rejects your stiff misogynistic religiosity in favor of adventure, love, sex, the ability to discover and define her soul on her own terms, well, it might be time for you to roll it all up and shut it all down and crawl back home, and let the divine breathe and move and dance as she sees fit. Don't you agree?

That was a fantastic article. :thumbsup:

Anyone going to see this Saturday?

I think me and my god-hating lunatic friends are gonna go see I'm Not There instead.

Saturday? Some sort of preview? I though it opens on December 7th.