Golden Compass (Anti God flick released at Christmas, bad taste?)

Tools    





Man, Pullman leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Atheism's a broad church but I'm still not happy to share it with him, there's something fundamentally warped about a thought process that takes umbridge over the Christian indoctrination of children and concludes the best course of action is counter-indoctrination.

As for the Christmas release, it's still a kid's movie and kids go to see movies during their holidays, there's no agenda except the good old capitalist profit motive.



You ready? You look ready
I'm sorry, but all these people getting bent out of shape over The Golden Compass are just down right hysterical. My best friend's church already had a sermon on it. Hilarious? You be the judge. :laugh:



Originally Posted by John McClane
I'm sorry, but all these people getting bent out of shape over The Golden Compass are just down right hysterical. My best friend's church already had a sermon on it. Hilarious? You be the judge. :laugh:
Why's it hysterical? The books have an agenda that is at odds with basically any form of theism, so it seems entirely reasonable that someone might preach about it.



The Adventure Starts Here!
Philip Pullman (author of The Golden Compass series) has stated outright that he has an enormous agenda: He wishes to indoctrinate small children into atheism and teach them that everything their religious parents have taught them is a lie.

And he's admitted that he knows it's best to hook them when they're young and that using fiction, subtly, slowly, to draw them into not believing in any sort of theistic God is the easiest way to lure in children.

The first book is apparently the least offensive (most subtle), but as the series progresses, the agenda becomes dreadfully clearer. But by then (in his plan), some kids will have followed him hook, line and sinker.
Sorry, John, but that's enough of an agenda for me.



The Adventure Starts Here!
I've read quotes from him, and frankly, his total hatred of anything theistic is palpable (and he admits it freely). It's a bitter, angry hatred, and he's purposely writing these books not to entertain but to indoctrinate.



The Adventure Starts Here!
I never got in a huff over the Harry Potter books or The Da Vinci Code (why did it sell so many copies? it wasn't that good!). I didn't see any sort of agenda behind either of those.

But Pullman is a wholly different matter.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
I'm a little curious to know what the difference is between writing a book for children that is pro-atheism and forcing children to attend church and listen (if not read directly) to the bible?

Disagree with the finish line if you want, but the agendas between the two are exactly the same. Frankly, I think letting a child chose to read or not read a book when they're 10 is more honest than forcing them to church from day one.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
Also, just so everyone is clear, all anti-religion sentiments have been stripped from the adaptation of The Golden Compass. Anyone who bothers to actually look into the issue would know that several people involved with the actual film have confirmed this.

Hate on the book series if that is your agenda, but please do not blindly perpetuate this fake notion that this movie is going to burn the souls of children everywhere.



Speaking for myself, I'd let my kids watch the film if they wanted to. I told them about the controversy and my daughter doesn't want to see it. My son, who loves a bit of controversy, wants to see it and I won't stop him from it.

My question is... if the anti religion sentiments were the purpose for creating the work (which they are, Pullman himself said they are a retaliation against Narnia) then why strip the heart out of it? They should at least have the balls to stand behind what they've created otherwise it makes it a rather weak stance to have.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
You're talking about Hollywood, Toose. As a rule they don't give a damn about what they adapt. They know they'll make more money if they leave the religious aspects out. This shoutbox is more than enough proof of that.



All that other stuff aside, if the movie is good then I'm in. Some of the previews make it look a little hokey but we'll see.

Does kind of make me want read the books though.



Originally Posted by OG-
I'm a little curious to know what the difference is between writing a book for children that is pro-atheism and forcing children to attend church and listen (if not read directly) to the bible?

Disagree with the finish line if you want, but the agendas between the two are exactly the same. Frankly, I think letting a child chose to read or not read a book when they're 10 is more honest than forcing them to church from day one.
Excellent point. :)
Originally Posted by Sir Toose
My question is... if the anti religion sentiments were the purpose for creating the work (which they are, Pullman himself said they are a retaliation against Narnia) then why strip the heart out of it? They should at least have the balls to stand behind what they've created otherwise it makes it a rather weak stance to have.
I'd say Pullman chose dollars over principals.



You ready? You look ready
Yea, OG- slammed the nail right on the head about why I find it hilarious that all these people are up in arms over the movie.

And isn't Narnia practically the same thing, but with a theist agenda? Where was the huff and puff when that movie was made? Oh wait, atheists are sensible people and can tell when some thing's fiction. ;)



Originally Posted by OG-
I'm a little curious to know what the difference is between writing a book for children that is pro-atheism and forcing children to attend church and listen (if not read directly) to the bible?
The difference is that telling a child to go to church or read The Bible isn't subversive. It's entirely upfront and there's no mistaking its intentions. And while Pullman himself has admitted his, there's little to no chance any kid who picks up The Golden Compass will know of them. The way the series eases into its ideology underlies this point.



Originally Posted by John McClane
And isn't Narnia practically the same thing, but with a theist agenda? Where was the huff and puff when that movie was made?
Again, it's about the subversiveness. Narnia is upfront and unmistakable. One of the largest complaints about His Dark Materials is that it's subtle, and eases into its ideology. But this is irrelevant to the main point, anyway.

Originally Posted by John McClane
Oh wait, atheists are sensible people and can tell when some thing's fiction.
This is the same non-defense people use for The Da Vinci Code. You need look no further than Aesop's Fables see that, as a species, we respond to ideas in story form. There are countless other examples of how you can smuggle ideologies into a good story. And when you have someone who has made their ideology plain, and it aligns with the "fiction" in their books, then falling back on their fictional status seems a little obtuse to me.



Originally Posted by Yoda
Originally Posted by OG-
I'm a little curious to know what the difference is between writing a book for children that is pro-atheism and forcing children to attend church and listen (if not read directly) to the bible?
The difference is that telling a child to go to church or read The Bible isn't subversive. It's entirely upfront and there's no mistaking its intentions. And while Pullman himself has admitted his, there's little to no chance any kid who picks up The Golden Compass will know of them. The way the series eases into its ideology underlies this point.
The means may be different but the end result is the same, indoctrination. It's not as if being upfront about it gives the child a choice...



Originally Posted by adidasss
The means may be different but the end result is the same, indoctrination. It's not as if being upfront about it gives the child a choice...
It gives them perspective, which is really all you can ask, unless you don't think parents should be teaching or influencing their children at all.

I think there's a huge difference between whether or not these sorts of things are upfront or subversive. It's not unlike the difference between persuading someone to do something, and tricking them into doing it.