Okay sooo I am sure that almost EVERYONE has heard of the movie "The Golden Compass" and I am also sure that a lot of people want to see the movie. Well anyways long story short it was written by this guy named Phillip Pullman who is an athiest, and well in the end of the book he "kills god". So rumors are floating around that the reason why he "killed god" in the end of the book just so he could somehow convert kids into athiests. So why would they release this into theaters. Well they acctually watered it down to make it seem more like the Choncles of Narnia (or something like that) which somehow fools parents in wanting to go out and buy the book for their children. When the kids read the book they see what actually happens in the end, and somehow makes kids believe that there is no god and ultimately results in turning them into atheists. Although this guy completly denies all of it. Saying that no his book isnt "anti-catholic" or "anti-christian". Well okay so if your wondering where i got all of this from it's from this website:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/rel...en_compass.htm

There are also MORE websites on there that some I did read and some i didn't. If you find anything that is wrong or corrections or more to add to what i said please do. But what I was wondering is what do YOU think? Good bad weird strange great idea or what? Anyways Im out...

Anyone have a Gaia account? I posted something longish there about the books. Book bashers rejoice or tremble. Can you look if you don't have an account? ...Dunno. Scroll down to Lyneun. That's me.

Blarg

quote:

Originally posted by Shade:
Ah, yes. Believable, I agree with, but that is not at all what I said.

They are flat. One-dimentional. Lyra is a liar. Will is a fighter. Mrs Coulter is a double crossing bitch. Where is their second layer?

Again, haven't read them in years but I do remember finding characters breathing human beings. What's it take to be three-dimensional, some sort of very human flaw? (Can't remember if they had one - I should really read those again.)

Ah, yes. Believable, I agree with, but that is not at all what I said.

They are flat. One-dimentional. Lyra is a liar. Will is a fighter. Mrs Coulter is a double crossing bitch. Where is their second layer?

quote:

Originally posted by Shade:
*nods* While this is true, the other characters are all rather flat. He could have spent time developing the others like Scoresby, Iorek, Mary, or even Asriel, on a more personal level than their direct importance to the book. They're not minor characters; they're pretty important.

They were? Really? I haven't read those books in years (I read the last one in January 05), but I do remember that the characters were very believable. I didn't expect Asriel = Daniel Craig, really (we need some SNOTTY British dude - SNOTTY!).

And Lyra wasn't flat, I know little 12 year old girls JUST like her (except they'd probably die if they saw a bear - especially one that talks). The scene where they try to bathe her for Mrs. Coulter's visit summarises her whole character.

quote:

During the first book Lyra is oviously a flat character, but she is still a child so I think it fits her character well. Later on, when she meets Will and they start experiencing things together she becomes deeper and more mature.

*nods* While this is true, the other characters are all rather flat. He could have spent time developing the others like Scoresby, Iorek, Mary, or even Asriel, on a more personal level than their direct importance to the book. They're not minor characters; they're pretty important.

quote:

Doesn't a major plot point hinge on what happens to him? I mean, I'm nearing the end of the Amber Spyglass, and it's becoming more evident that what happened to Roger shaped what Lyra did/thought afterwards.

Yeah, in fact Lyra's whole course of action over the next two books is dictated by what happens to Roger and her sense of responsibility towards him.

quote:

Yeah, I love his description, especially of the feelings portrayed by characters. As I'm thinking about it, though, it seems he's focusing more on epic storyline than characterization. That isn't a bad thing, necessarially, but I prize characterization in books; it's what makes it memorable to me. His characters are real and believable, but they're very typical, which makes them feel somewhat flat.

During the first book Lyra is oviously a flat character, but she is still a child so I think it fits her character well. Later on, when she meets Will and they start experiencing things together she becomes deeper and more mature.
I think the author may have done this on purpose to simbolize their growth as individuals and their transition from childhood to adolescence.

quote:

Well that's just stupid of them. If they're making a second movie, they can't really just start out with that scene, so they must have decided that children couldn't handle it. Why would they make a movie out of a book if they think that children can't handle the key parts? Stupid movie network people!

Doesn't a major plot point hinge on what happens to him? I mean, I'm nearing the end of the Amber Spyglass, and it's becoming more evident that what happened to Roger shaped what Lyra did/thought afterwards.

quote:

He really is. No matter what's being implied, it's undeniably a great story. I'm rereading them now, going to start with The Amber Spyglass tonight

Yeah, I love his description, especially of the feelings portrayed by characters. As I'm thinking about it, though, it seems he's focusing more on epic storyline than characterization. That isn't a bad thing, necessarially, but I prize characterization in books; it's what makes it memorable to me. His characters are real and believable, but they're very typical, which makes them feel somewhat flat.

quote:

...leaving out the end scene with *cough* Roger *cough*

Well that's just stupid of them. If they're making a second movie, they can't really just start out with that scene, so they must have decided that children couldn't handle it. Why would they make a movie out of a book if they think that children can't handle the key parts? Stupid movie network people!

quote:

That is all. He's a good author. Get caught up in the book, and I forget to look for the finer things like technique, style and grammar.

He really is. No matter what's being implied, it's undeniably a great story. I'm rereading them now, going to start with The Amber Spyglass tonight

Saw the movie. In reference to the religious elements, it mentioned the Church and the Magesterium probably every ten seconds. It got old after a while. They switched up a few plot points, and cut out the last few chapters, leaving out the end scene with *cough* Roger *cough*

Read the book. Didn't say much to be offended about, except that it implied that sin was a good thing and "should be embraced," but that was about it.

I'm in the middle of the Subtle Knife now. There's not really much to worry about, but I am prematurely worried what he's going to do with the plot and background information now that angels are heavily involved...

But I just have one thing to say. How can it be a knife if it's a long double edged blade? He even described it as a "dagger"!!

That is all. He's a good author. Get caught up in the book, and I forget to look for the finer things like technique, style and grammar.

I did, and it absolutely paled in comparison to the book. Sure, it was a nice little movie, nice special effects, etc, but it by no means conveyed the depth plot of the book, let alone the subtle themes running just below the surface. I've only read the first of the His Dark Material series and literally started the second two minutes ago. As far as I can tell, there's freedom of expression for a reason.

I wanted to see it, but my local movie theater cut down on its showings dramatically after it failed to make a lot of money. Only two times, as opposed to National Treasure's 15 or so...

Nope I know some folks who did both who have and haven't read the book, their conclusion is that it was poorly executed as movies go and that they want a warrior polar bear.

So did anyone see this movie?

quote:

Speed, we know how you feel about religion, you can stop insulting it now.

I was merely stating the truth, most modern organized religions are based on scripture of one kind or other; and if a fantasy book is enough to make children lose their faith then it obviously isn't true faith they had in the first place, in which case it isn't really a problem to have lost it.

I didn't mean it as an insult, seriously.

Ah, okay. Thank you, clpo.

There was an interview with him in my local paper (through Associated Press, I think). I can't remember specifics nor can I find the interview online, so you'll have to take my word on that.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Pullman himself said he didn't write the book with the intent to convert anyone. The underlying theme of the book is criticism of organized religion, not spirituality or religion in general.

If a book makes you lose your faith, you clearly didn't have much to begin with.

Source?

Speed, we know how you feel about religion, you can stop insulting it now.

quote:

If a book makes you lose your faith, you clearly didn't have much to begin with.

Abolutely right, then again, modern organized religion is based on books...

Pullman himself said he didn't write the book with the intent to convert anyone. The underlying theme of the book is criticism of organized religion, not spirituality or religion in general.

If a book makes you lose your faith, you clearly didn't have much to begin with.