Michael Medved on 'The Golden Compass'

CBN ^

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the background.

[DoughtyOne]

Ben, the first movie isn’t the problem. It’s a problem of kids being enticed to read the books, or view the first and second sequels. The first movie was rather benign. I’ve written about the first on the forum.

I haven’t read the first book, so I don’t know if it was also benign or if it was neutered on the way to a screen play.

I believe Medvid sees the first movie more or less the same way I do.

I do not approve of kids seeing this movie. I for sure don’t want them to read the books. And if sequels come out, which they may not since this is bombing, I for sure wouldn’t advise parents to take their kids to see them.

[DoughtyOne]

Silly? I saw the movie and I’m giving you my analysis. Nobody said you had to agree.

[DoughtyOne]

Did I advise anyone to see the movie? Did I advise anyone to read the books? Did I review books 1 through 3?

I expressed an opinion related to what I have seen.

If you will look at other threads this topic, you’ll see expanded comments that include the admonition for parents not to take their kids to see this movie or let them read the books.

[RightOnline]

Read the multiple threads here that include interviews with this author.......you’ll quickly change your mind.

He’s bad news. There is a special place in Hell for his type.

[DoughtyOne]

I cannot comment on the book, but I have seen the movie. The animal counterparts in the first movie mirrored the disposition of the human.

There was no depiction whatsoever in this movie of the animal counterparts dominating their human partner.

I do believe in possession, but this movie did not depict anything of the sort.

Now, if you wish to state that type of activity might take place in follow-up movies, that may happen. I have no way of knowing.

I do not advise parents to let kids see the first movie or any sequels. I do not advise adults to let kids read the books.

[aruanan]

Other characterizations that are not good are "daemons," which are the human characters' animal companions or spiritual counterparts. They seem cuddly and friendly but they are in fact personal demons which Pullman does not really disguise.   

If he had read the books, he would see clearly that in Lyra's world the demons are a visible manifestation that in this world is the soul.

[aruanan]

But in this story, the things that are good are evil (the church is the Magisterion, the bad group trying to gain control of all) and evil is good (daemons and witches are allies.) 

This is a blatant misrepresentation. Even the church in this world has been quite evil at times. And the witches in this book have nothing to do with witches in the earthly scheme of things. Of course, the daemons have nothing to do with the popular idea of demons. The writer is really reaching on this one in order to try to prove a point.

No one should worry about the effects of these books on a kid's spiritual sensibility because there is nothing spiritually energizing or attractive about them at all, as good as they are as entertaining stories.

[DoughtyOne]

If you’ll read those threads, you’ll note what I have said on them.

The author is despicable. That being said, I have addressed what I have seen. That is all. Once again, did I advocate kids go see this? Did I advocate kids read the books? Did I suggest adults go see this? In all cases no.

Medvid’s concern with the first movie was related to the depiction of one individual who was unquestionably bad. That figure was not the main bad figure, so it’s a tough call to say that person was the focus.

It’s my opinion that the first movies is benign. That being said, it’s certain movies two and three won’t be. It’s a certainty that the books aren’t. I see the first movie as a loss leader. It was out there to entice. I’m glad the American public seems to have seen through that ploy.

[Left2Right]

"Actually, I think the exact opposite is true. Atheists are happy people who have no problem at all with others practicing whatever religion they want. The self proclaimed atheists who are upset actually do practice a religion of some sort, the forerunners seem to be either communism (ACLU), environment, or both. A true atheist doesn’t acknowledge religion, so therefore doesn’t get angry about it."

You make a good point. I recall a professor I had in a genetics class many years ago who was clearly an atheist, but never made a big deal about it. He was a very popular professor, very likable, and was able to make a subject that could be very tedious a lot of fun and very fascinating. What I remember most about him was his passion. He had to be at least in his 60's, but was full of life.

[Left2Right]

Because of all the controversy, I decided to go see the movie for myself. I wasn't originally going to see it because the previews made it look like a very stupid kids' movie. I have to say I actually enjoyed it quite a bit and that it is not really a kid's movie. I thought the animation & special effects were quite well done.

I can understand why some people are going to be very uncomfortable with this movie, but considering some of the real trash that is coming out of Hollywood these days, I don't see this movie in that category. The bad guys are really bad (especially Nicole) and the good guys are really good. And the movie clearly states in the beginning that this is an "Alternative Universe". Being a big Star Trek fan (TOS) I'm OK with things being a little different & turned around in an AU.

I actually liked the idea of being able to see someone's soul or spirit as represented by an animal. It really makes the bad guys even more evil and makes one consider what it would be like if one didn't have a soul or had it taken away from you.

[Robert A Cook PE]

A true atheist doesn’t acknowledge religion, so therefore doesn’t get angry about it.

But most (all but a very, very few ?) of today’s Western atheists DO viciously hate Christianity.

They do ignore the Eastern religions, Maoism/Communism and Islam - perhaps because instinctively today’s atheist realize that those religions support their fight against (western/Christian) values and capitalism.

But their fight (rebellion ?) against Christianity is their entire life.

Combine that hatred with a hedonist pursuit of pleasure, and you have most of the gay community as well.

[DoughtyOne]

I found the movie interesting also. I do think the second and third movies would turn quite problematic though. That’s why I don’t view this film positively, even though I too enjoyed it.

[flaglady47]

I haven’t seen the movie, however, from all I’ve heard and reviews I’ve read, and arguments I’ve heard on TV about it, I see this movie the same way I see the DaVinci Code movie and book. I read the DaVinci book and enjoyed it as an action murder mystery adventure, and ignored the subliminal message. I would do the same with The Golden Compass movie. Although I would do it in reverse. I’d probably like the movie but not the books, whereas in the DaVinci Code, I liked the book but not the movie (it was Tom Hanks hair, I think, that kept turning me off).

However, in the case of The Golden Compass, which appeals to children, as versus the DaVinci Code that appealed to adults, I would worry much more about the subliminal message in the movie, and the very blatant message in the books. Therein lies the problem. Adults can discern differences in the subliminal and obvious prejudices of the author. Children cannot. That makes it more dangerous as brainwashing comes into the equation. So, I guess parents should be sure not to allow their children to read the books, whereas it’s a toss-up as to whether they should see the movie. I suppose the younger the kid the better, as they would least understand the hidden messages of the movie and concentrate only on the special effects, as most kids do.