[kinoxi]

Do you fear that this movie will become a cult? Most sci-fi books and productions can be classified as anti-Christian or atheist. It’s called entertainment. Some call it free speech. The producers of this movie, which apparently isn’t that good, call your reaction advertisement.

[topher]

I do not have a problem with Matrix, for example. It has a very interesting concept that it is based on.

But some things are harmful. For example, the movie The Exorcist is based on a true story. Because of a bad influence, a boy in the suburbs of Washington, DC was diabolically possessed by the devil. The novel/movie is based on that true event. The author changed it from a boy in the Maryland suburbs of DC to a girl in Washington, DC.

HARM CAN HAPPEN TO CHILDREN BECAUSE OF MOVIES

But witchcraft is real. And it is my personal belief that people have sold their soul to the devil.

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church requires two miracles for that exact reason. Someone sold their soul to the devil, and it fouled many people into believing the person was endowed with special graces from God.

CS Lewis in the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe show some Christian theology, as an example.

The Star Wars movie are based on Eastern Religions, as an exmple.

The original Star Trek TV Series dealt with some very interesting topics for the times. One episode dealt with Sun Worshippers. But in this episode, it turned out that the Sun Worshippers were actually worshipping the Son of God -- the Christ.

[IrishCatholic]

Swing and a miss. Most Sci Fi and Fantasy are about imagination. This isn’t. The author has stated the intent of the books is to attack Christianity. If you google THE GOLDEN COMPASS or read the threads here, you will get a better understanding. So you don’t get a pass on that. Most of the posts have explained that to you.
This isn’t entertainment, it’s anti Christian anti religion indoctrination.
There are many sci fi fans here that liked LOTR, Star Wars, Star Trek etc. that can peg this for the POS it is.

If you want to produce an anti Christian hate movie, fine. If you hate Christianity and God, that’s up to you. That is free speech. But to hide it in the guise of ‘it’s just a fantasy movie’ is something else again.

[newguy357]

Do you fear that this movie will become a cult? Most sci-fi books and productions can be classified as anti-Christian or atheist.

No they can't. The majority of sci-fi/fantasy might not contain pro-Christian material, but it is very rare that an author outright declares that the purpose of his work is to attack God. That difference should be obvious.

It’s called entertainment. Some call it free speech.

Of course it's free speech. Has anyone here called for it to be banned? Of course not. We simply choose not to see it because we don't want to support someone who openly declares he wrote this work for the purpose of attacking Christianity. Are you daft?

The producers of this movie, which apparently isn’t that good, call your reaction advertisement.

They did... they were betting that controversy would increase sales. Apparently they miscalculated, as per the article.

[Cheburashka]

Do you fear that this movie will become a cult? Most sci-fi books and productions can be classified as anti-Christian or atheist. It’s called entertainment. Some call it free speech. The producers of this movie, which apparently isn’t that good, call your reaction advertisement.

---

The books are very much aimed at a children's market, and Philip Pulman(the author of the books) has been very open about his dislike of Christianity and his hopes that the books will undermine Christian belief. He says as much here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23371-2001Feb18?

There’s a difference between entertainment and propaganda. While the first amendment allows Philip Pullman to write anti-Christian propaganda, that doesn’t mean anyone has to be sorry that his propaganda fails to achieve it purpose and reach his intended audience.

[gridlock]

The producers of this movie, which apparently isn’t that good, call your reaction advertisement.

If the controversy is over nudity or debauchery, people who want to see nudity and debauchery, which is many, many people, will see the controversy and decide that they want to see the film. They can even delude themselves into thinking that they are "just seeing what all the fuss is about", so they have a high-minded reason to be watching the nudity and the debauchery.

However, if the controversy is over somebody trying to promote atheism and nihilism to children, in order for the controversy to result in ticket sales, you have to have parents reacting that they want to see what all this atheism and nihilism is about, and show it to their children as well. This just isn't going to happen.

On a strategic level, I think this film made a huge mistake. They should have gone for full-frontal offensive, and had Nicole Kidman parading around in the nude and give Daniel Craig an incurable potty-mouth. Maybe they could have made the Polar Bear a meth addict, as well. That way, when people were outraged by the anti-religious implications of the source material, they could have pretended that they were really outraged at the fact that the lovely Ms. Kidman is parading around with no clothes. The result would have been boffo box office numbers.