The Golden Compass: good or bad?

[Immoral Liberal]

I don't see anyone here talking about it, but The Golden Compass seems to be stirring up controversy a lot of other places.

The Christian reviewers aren't the only ones panning it either. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a rotten 39% rating, though it's at a rotten 44% now.

What do you think?

[Mortal Envelope]

Although I'm about spent on the fantasy genre as of late, I'm going to wait until I watch it before passing judgment. 

From what I've read, the controversy is only because the author of the book presents an Atheist perspective (well, sorta)?  One thing though; it's nice to see something from an Atheist point of view (even if it's more of an anti-theist perspective) other than atheists-are-bad-and-always-repent-in-foxholes endings that tend to predominate.  There are so many faith-mirrored stories already (Narnia, Passion, Star Wars, etc,), it would be a nice change to see something different. 

Too bad this "big atheist" movie comes from an author who kinda comes off as an ass lol (with the whole "killing god" comment he made).  As an agnostic atheist myself, all that "killing god" $hit is quite obnoxious and not necessary.  It's just one of a million notions that I just don't buy, which doesn't necessitate an attack on those who have a solid belief (or on that belief) in any one of them, if that makes any sense.  Live and let believe I always say; whatever gets people through life, but I digress.

Basically, I'll just have to wait and see.

[Joe]

i agree with envelope, but i think its kind of an interesting view. id like to see how its executed. i've been seeing quite a bit a b***hing about this movie because of its religious innuendo, id like to see what all the fuss is about.   

[CheezeFlixz]

Have to wait until I see it to make a call, as far as I'm concerned it's a movie. People are way to sensitive about things anymore. If a person has a strong religious belief a movie is not going to convert someone to atheism, nor is a book or anything else.

[indianasmith]

Have to wait until I see it to make a call, as far as I'm concerned it's a movie. People are way to sensitive about things anymore. If a person has a strong religious belief a movie is not going to convert someone to atheism, nor is a book or anything else.

If the movie were targeted at an adult audience, I would be with you . . . I mean, the DA VINCI CODE was pure crap, historically and religiously speaking, but I wasn't about to go picket the theaters showing it or anything.  But to have a movie specifically targeted at children, based on a book whose avowed purpose, according to its author, is to get children to "kill the image of God in their hearts", is a particularly nasty and pernicious tactic.  Releasing it at the Christmas season just adds insult to injury.

That being said, it is probably very well done, judging by the ads.  I'm not going to contribute to its success by going to see it.

[Torgo]

Looks too similar in style to the 1st Chronicles of Narnia flick which I was underwhelmed by.

[Mr_Vindictive]

Have to wait until I see it to make a call, as far as I'm concerned it's a movie. People are way to sensitive about things anymore. If a person has a strong religious belief a movie is not going to convert someone to atheism, nor is a book or anything else.

If the movie were targeted at an adult audience, I would be with you . . . I mean, the DA VINCI CODE was pure crap, historically and religiously speaking, but I wasn't about to go picket the theaters showing it or anything.  But to have a movie specifically targeted at children, based on a book whose avowed purpose, according to its author, is to get children to "kill the image of God in their hearts", is a particularly nasty and pernicious tactic.  Releasing it at the Christmas season just adds insult to injury.

That being said, it is probably very well done, judging by the ads.  I'm not going to contribute to its success by going to see it.

It is no more wrong than releasing Chronicles Of Narnia to a child demographic, trying to convert them to the ways of religion.  To have it one way but not the other is pure hypocrisy.

[indianasmith]

Only if you believe the two paths of life (atheistic and theistic) are morally equivalent to each other . . . which I do not.

[Mr_Vindictive]

But that's your opinion Indiana, which I respect.  But, to show one idea which you agree with but to deny another point of view is just wrong. 

[Torgo]

It is no more wrong than releasing Chronicles Of Narnia to a child demographic, trying to convert them to the ways of religion.  To have it one way but not the other is pure hypocrisy.

Couldn't have said it better myself.  Karma!

[Mortal Envelope]

I agree somewhat with the previous post about it being fair game either way.  

Not to get into the existential debate too much (this isn't the forum for it) but sometimes I find it troubling when I see children indoctorinated into any belief structure well before their cognitive abilities and abstract thinking have developed fully.  After all, we all start out lacking belief in gods since religion is a learned behavior and Atheism is, technically speaking, the absence of belief in any gods and not necessarily the denouncement of specific gods.  But that's the nature of the beast I suppose.  I was quite indoctorinated myself and things changed.  Everyone can change back and forth and I think that is a very healthy thing to be exposed to various viewpoints throughout life.  I personally wouldn't mind my children seeing both Narnia or The Golden Compass, for example; they can make up their own minds.  Like a previous poster said, one movie will not change someone's core beliefs unless they were already weary in the first place. Existentialism is a funny thing...and a very touchy thing for some people.

Still, I think the author's venomous attitude could ultimately be self-defeating.  In a sense, I think it might be a more acceptable if the message aimed at kids was that it's ok to have questions, not buy what you've been told just because you've been told, or that it's ok to believe what you believe or that it's ok to not believe.  

This is why I really admire the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  Think what you will about the movie vs the book series vs the radio show but in my mind, it's the most happy, positive, Atheist stories I've ever encountered ...and I've never come away from the books, radio, or movie thinking anything negative about theism.

[Torgo]

I'm not going to contribute to its success by going to see it.

And that is how anyone can choose not to show support for something that they disagree with. Don't go see it. Easy as that.

No need to get in an uproar about any form of media IMO.   

[Mortal Envelope]

Only if you believe the two paths of life (atheistic and theistic) are morally equivalent to each other . . . which I do not.

Care to elaborate on what you mean by this? Are you suggesting that I am less moral because I don't share your belief structure? 

Because one could argue that an Atheist can be more moral, doing good for the sake of being good in and of itself rather than being good because someone is watching with threats of punishment (Hell) and promises of rewards (Heaven) in the case of one particular religion as an example. I mean, if you look at it that way, who's really being moral?

Basically, morality is a learned behavior, religion or not.  Anyone can be moral or immoral regardless of which religion, if any, they follow.  Some of us don't have the "get out of jail free card" of repentance and must live with our guilt. 

Now, if that's not what you meant (Atheists are less moral than Theists) than forget everything I just said :)

[indianasmith]

Without trying to turn this into a huge atheist/theist/Christian debate, let me answer Mortal Envelope's question as best I can . . .

The whole Christian perspective is that there IS absolute truth in the universe, that this absolute truth is embodied in an almighty God, and that this God communicated his truth to mankind in the most direct way possible - by becoming one of us ("the WORD became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory" as the Apostle John put it).

Now, if that is true - and as a historian with a Master's Degree, I would argue that there is extensive historical evidence that it is - then knowledge of that truth carries with it the responsibility to inform others of it.  NEVER by violence but by reason and gentle persuasion and convincing arguments, to show any who wish to know that there is proof that God is real, that He cares for mankind, and that He desires fellowship with us.

If God is real and God is good, therefore, a book, film, or other literary work that is created for the avowed purpose of DISPROVING and DESTROYING faith in God is not morally neutral but rather actively evil.  How successful it will be, I have no idea.  But the harshest words Jesus ever spoke were directed at those who deliberately damaged or destroyed the faith of little children - "If any man causes one of these little ones who believes in Me to stumble, it would be better for that man to have a millstone tied around his neck, and be cast into the depths of the sea."

Look, this is a thread about a movie.  I have no problem with discussing or defending my faith, but if M.E. or any of the rest of you would like to hear me elaborate further on this topic, might I suggest that we move this conversation to the OFF TOPIC DISCUSSIONS board?  I'll be happy to meet you there.

[Mortal Envelope]

Sorry - modified my post before I noticed your response.   I don't think this forum, even in Off Topic is the place for this kind of discussion either really...and I'm going to try really hard to resist responding to almost every statement in your last post, but I do want you to realize that claiming your moral superiority comes off rather arrogant, which may be counter-productive. 

If you really want to have this discussion, the proper place would be the agnostic atheist forums at about.com; I'm sure with your Masters Degree in History and your mission to spread the Truth(TM) you can show us non-believers a thing or two :)