Talk:The Golden Compass (film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 easy difference to see 2 New Line 3 Title 4 "Proposed actors" 5 Old information 6 Proposed merge 7 I made a cast table 8 Proposed move 9 Budget source 10 Set visit 11 Filming techniques 12 Possibly Interesting Trivia? 13 Religius Subject Matter 14 Cast 15 Differences Between Book And Film 16 Iofur's name change 17 UK film title 18 Pantalaimon's voice 19 Reference 20 Boycott of film by Christian groups 20.1 Section break 21 Requested move 21.1 Survey 21.2 Discussion 22 Why is The Catholic League's boycott relevant? 23 Snopes 24 Christopher Lee 25 Nonso Anozie --> Ian McKellen 26 NYT cast list 27 Atheist? I think not! 28 Bold entries in cast list 29 Runtime 30 Bold Casting 31 Lede / Controversies 32 Cite(s) for use 33 More on the controversy 33.1 Wonky sentence/cite 34 Lede mention of Catholic League 35 New article source 36 Proposal: Move controversy to Pullman page 37 very minor error 38 A positive review from a Catholic organisation 39 Alethiometer? 40 Another news item and quotes one might want to use 41 Opening paragraph

easy difference to see

the movie apparently lacks d(ae)mnos read the books summary towards the end to find out the pivital problem with this, it almost makes it an entirely different story, which will undoubtively make some fans mad.

Unfortunately, I've seen the trailors and the d(ae)mons are indeed there.

• See some mad fans at the world premiere in London

"Apparently" is not encyclopedic -- only established, reliably sourced statements can be added to the article. Also, according to the movie trailer, daemons are included in the movie. María (críticame) 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

New Line

I read today on Yahoo! News that this is its main focus after recent failures. shouldn't that also be metioned, especially the packet New Line produced for itGot118115147 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Title

Is this title likely to be used in Britain, or will it be retitled Northern Lights in the UK to reflect the British book title, as with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philospoher's Stone? Loganberry 23:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The main His Dark Materials page says it will be released as Northern Lights in the UK. MC MasterChef 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

According to an interview with Philip Pullman on BBC Radio Oxford, the title of the film will be "His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass" in all territories. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2007/01/24/phillp_pullman.shtml Rueful Rabbit 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Proposed actors"

Proposed by who? If this is in reference to this, I think it should be removed as fan speculation. MC MasterChef 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Old information

The information on this page is out of date, according to [1], Chris Weitz has apparently changed his mind and is directing... again. Unfortunately I'm out of time now to change it; so can anyone beat me to it? - Estel ^(talk) 22:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Merge - the information should be synchronised, only the name will be different (between the UK and the USA versions). Pydos 11:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge. It's the same movie. The title can easily be handled just like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Derek Balsam 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a cast table

I made a table with the confirmed cast on it but I haven't got the sources yet. I suck at making things on wiki so now it is at the bottom, if someone would be able to make it to that it is under Cast, I would appreciate it.

I think the link for Dakota Blue Richards should either have some should go to a seperate page or a section within the main page for the movie talking about the contest in which she got the role rather than its current behavior of just redirecting back to the top of the movie page. Info From IMDBchazchaz101

== Title ==

There isn't a whole lot of debate here, and after checking Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) (which is referenced in an earlier post to this talk page), I didn't see any debate there. But I think it is improper to use the Northern Lights title for the US-produced film which will be distributed by its original producer under the title The Golden Compass, in the same way the novel should be the opposite (published in the UK by its original publisher under the title Northern Lights). I reject the "novel is more well-known" (possibly paraphrased) argument because this is not about the novel. The movie is based upon the novel, yes, but it is a separate work in its own right and should be evaluated exclusive of the novel. That's my two cents, anyhow.—Kbolino 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The title debate is more complex than Potter, since the title change for Potter was done against Rowling's wishes because the American publishers charmingly believed that American kids would be too stupid to know what 'philosopher' meant. With Pullman, 'The Golden Compass' is actually the original title for the novel. It was changed to 'Northern Lights' by his British publisher against Pullman's better instincts. He then changed it back for the US publication of the book. So there is certainly a stronger argument that 'The Golden Compass' is the 'real' title. However, the title is beinged changed to ensure that fans aren't confused in the relevant territories. As to which is the 'proper' title is a lot less clear. Since 'Philosopher' is the 'proper' title for the movie in that case because, although made with US money, it was made in Britain with a British cast based on a British series of books, I imagine the same argument being made with regards to His Dark Materials.--Werthead 02:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't true. Northern Lights was the original name. Golden Compass is actually a MISTAKEN reference to Pullman's interest in Milton's Golden CompassES. It was used against Pullman's wishes: apparantly he didnt have enough 'clout' to persuade the publishers and they liked it cos the aleithometer looks like a compass (though it isnt). Golden Compass actually makes no sense in the books' context, and is never used to describe the alethiometer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lallante (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The kicker for me is the original publisher/producer. What is the name on the script in Nicole Kidman's hands? It's almost definitely His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass, because that's how New Line is billing the film. Yes, the original publishing of the book used Northern Lights, and I certainly agree that's the most appropriate title for the article on the novel. But the basis—and the participants—are not what is under evaluation, in my opinion. I think that Philosopher's Stone in that respect is the more complicated decision, though I would still lean Philosopher's Stone for the novel and Sorcerer's Stone for the film(as that's how WB billed it). As for my personal thoughts, I think it's condescending to say that an (ostensibly) American film can't stand on its own right apart from the British novel upon which it was based—which is not to argue with you per se, but merely the feeling I get from the wording in the article.—Kbolino 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, Werthead, about the British publisher changing the title against Philip Pullman's will. Go to the following page to see a full explanation from him: [[2]] Lost4eva 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't using the title Northern Lights anywhere. So actually shouldn't someone change the title of this page?

That's what I was thinking; the title is most definitely the Golden Compass, no matter what country it is being aired in. Hence the website, etc.

In reference to Werthead, I just thought I would point something out. It doesn't matter if Harry Potter has a British author, cast, filming location etc. It doesn't matter that the films are 99% British. The fact that it is made with US money means that the films are conisdered American. So in the case of this film with filming being outside of Britian and the cast not being all British means even more that it is American. Wild ste 09:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of the Golden Compass was filmed at the Shepperton Studios and on location in Oxford in the UK. And there are only a few people who arent british in the cast.

Proposed move

I think we should move the page back to His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass. According to a recent talk with Philip Pullman, he said that the title is going to be under the American version which is "The Golden Compass", even when it is released in the UK and other territories that received the "Northern Lights" version. He even said that "The Golden Compass" is the more popular title. I hardly even see any websites or media referring to this movie as "Northern Lights". So, shall we? DivineLady 15:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with such a move, though you should place the citation for Pullman's mention of the "popular title" as evidence toward the proposed move. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's here. [3] DivineLady 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Budget source

Can we get a source for the budget estimate please? JayKeaton 13:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, is that estimate for "His Dark Materials: Northern Lights", or for the whole "His Dark Materials" trilogy? JayKeaton 13:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, only "The Golden Compass". I included the source for the budget estimate and took out "since the Lord of the Rings" seeing as the budget for the Golden Compass is larger than that of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

Set visit

• Heather Newgen. "Set Visit: The Golden Compass", ComingSoon.net, 2007-02-01. 
• Jenny Karakaya. "Set: Golden Compass", JoBlo.com, 2007-02-15. 

Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Filming techniques

Shouldn't it be mentioned that some of the backgrounds in the movie will be created digitally instead of filmed in actual locations (sorry, I don't have a link, I just read it in the news a while ago)? 193.217.193.45 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly Interesting Trivia?

Daniel Craig is playing Lord Asriel in the film adaptation. Timothy Dalton played the same character for a bit in the stage version a couple years ago. Both men have played James Bond (and similarly at that). Is this worthy of mention anywhere in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.204.246 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so... we're supposed to avoid trivia articles because the content is not very encyclopedic. Maybe you could submit that information to the film's IMDb page for their trivia page? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one who had picked up on this super cool piece of trivia, and was just about to add it when I thought to check the talk page... :( - Phyte 00:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Religius Subject Matter

Of the situation on the disclusion of mentions of religon and god etc in this movie, how are they going to get around that to a dapt the third book?they could proberbly get around northern lights and subtle knife, but not the amber spyglass.......PLAYWERT 14:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There are all sorts of fun things that it will be interesting to see them deal with. How in-depth will they cover His Dark Materials' strong anti-religious message? Will they gloss over Balthamos and Baruch's relationship? Inquiring minds want to know, but this is not a forum for discussion of the movies, especially not movies that may never be produced. If this flops, I find it unlikely that they'll bother with the rest of the trilogy. —Cuiviénen 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, I doubt that this film will flob. We are currently in the age of adapting fantasy books so it will likely follow Harry Potter and LOTR and be a huge success. And next, I think that they will cut out entirely the characters Balthamos and Baruch as the American public would never allow the portrayel of angels in films such as this (no offence to American users of this site). Wild ste 09:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No you're right, Americans in general are incredibly homophobic and puritanical. It's us Americans who will have to apologize to non-American fans of the book series after the filmmakers walk on eggshells around our American bigotry and ruin the movies for the rest of the world.Rglong 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like unfounded hate speech. Does that violate any, oh, wikipedia policy, mods? 68.81.106.2 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Get real. If the initial movie is a big hit then the sequels won't need to censor as much. "The US won't tolerate this portrayal of angels?". Maybe you mean Academy Award level films. But remember the many bigger B list movies like the Prophecy, Dogma, Micheal (John Travolta as Gabriel - good but a terribly crude fat slob). I think the general American public simply lacks the interest in angel movies that Europe has - except that smaller US religious segment that invests in sponsoring "family" programming and sappy angel shows. But this whole section wanders off in to predicting a future that has not yet happened. Totally off the topic of Wikipedia documentation of existing reality. (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to stay on topic. This talk page is to discuss the improvement of the article, not the subject the article is about. < / friendly reminder > María (críticame) 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Going by the movie's website, it looks as if they are watering down the religous element in the movies by potraying the Magisterium as a secular organization rather than a religous one (albeit still using religous language like "Dogma" and Heretic."). Not sure how they will potray the Authority though.....

Been a little while since I read The Amber Spyglass, but IIRC they kill God. Lyra's dad starts a war on Heaven and ends up (perhaps accidentally, I forget) breaking his crystal cage-thing and God dies. Also, two thirteen year olds have sex in a recreation of the forbidden fruit from the Garden of Eden, while a Catholic priest tries to kill them (having already been forgiven for the murder ahead of time via "preemptive confessional".) And yet, even though "religion and God will not be referenced directly", Pullman believes the film(s) will be "faithful."

I'm pretty baffled. They can weasel out of it for the first two books, but third book is nothing BUT God and religion put in a very explicit and negative light. I wonder if Pullman knows this and is just putting on a good face, or somehow thinks that New Line can be convinced to change their minds when it comes time to do the third (unlikely), or simply isn't thinking about the third movie at all and is fully awake that it will be completely castrated/rewritten.

Re: Yllosubmarine, I think this is "on topic" because the article currently contains a confusing contradictions--assurance of staying faithful to the books, and removing the overt religious and offensive elements when it's clear that the final book cannot survive such a removal while retaining anything like its original plot or message. It's possible a source will emerge to clarify the confusion. --Lode Runner (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the film adaptation of the first book. All of this is OR. Assumptions that begin with "it looks like," "it seems," "I think..." are better suited for a forum, not Wikipedia. This is obviously off topic and counterproductive. María (habla conmigo) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The article states that Pullman believes the movie will be faithful to the book; therefore, the book is relevant to the article, and contradictory statements about the movie's interpretation of the book are worthy of discussion. And yes, we are allowed to observe, create logical synthesis, and even "think" on talk pages, so long as we do not advocate inserting original research into the article itself--original research on talk pages can be used to identify problems (thus indicating a need for more sources), justify the removal of unsourced material, justify rewordings, etc. The OR prohibition does NOT apply to talk pages; I know this because I started the debate that ultimately changed the official WP:TALK policy.

I'm not proposing any change to the article; I'm merely wondering if anyone has any idea how we can reconcile two contradictory statements ("removal of all religious references"..."believes the movie will stay faithful to the book") if we extend them to apply to the series as a whole. --Lode Runner (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its hyporcitical that the director in the article states he doesn't think its anti god and that Nicole Kidman is Catholic and wouldn't agree to it if it was. HELLO! Has she READ the books? Or done even a LITTLE research? Snopes.com would be a start..that site is dedicated to proving or disproving rumors and theroys and myths...the site confirms it to be true.---Chipmonk328

Cast

I'm sure Derek Jacobi is seen in the trailer for the film but there's no mention of him at all in this article, nor in his own article. Can someone confirm his casting or do my eyes deceive me? 59.101.164.46 11:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Differences Between Book And Film

Once the move is released, shall we put in a section regarding the differences between the novel and the film or will this be thought of slightly inappropriate for an encyclopaedic-style article?

Iofur's name change

According to this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385752/faq Iofur's name has been changed to Ragnar Sturlusson to prevent confusion between him and Iorek. Just to let you know before I change the name on the chart. Also, please forgive me because I don't know how to cite sources. If someone could do that for me that would be great. Blahmaster 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

UK film title

I'm pretty sure that the UK title for this film is going to be "The Golden Compass" still. I saw a the trailer on a movie show, and they showed the name as "The Golden Compass" 90.197.137.79 03:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC) The BBC also have it listed as such [4] --90.197.137.79 04:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDB and Yahoo! Movies both have it listed as Northern Lights for the UK.[5] [6] I'm not sure why it would be called The Golden Compass in the UK seeing as how that's not the book's title there. Marketing people generally aren't ones to miss a trick, and it would be odd to give the film adaptation a different title than the book. The existence (and wide readership) of the book is one of the main things promoting the film. Then again, maybe there's as much confusion at IMDB and Yahoo! surrounding this as there is here! :-) Martin 01:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not. I just saw film posters. It clearly says Northern Lights. The article name should be changed to the British name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.206.11 (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The posters on display here in the UK that I've seen resemble the one shown at the head of this article, but "His Dark Materials: Northern Lights" is overlaid across the top, as two lines in place of the cast billing, at a similar type size to "The Golden Compass". Not as ornate though. The cast billing was moved to just below "The Golden Compass", if I recall correctly. I've added a line to the article. The film is still primarily being marketed as "The Golden Compass". --KJBracey 13:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So just a marketing banner then, rather than a change to the title. Makes sense, but there's no reason to mention it in the article I would think. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there's no reason to mention it, but agree that we've no citation. Can't find any images of the posters in question online at the moment. --KJBracey 13:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If all it appears to be is a couple of lines on a poster letting UK audiences know this is an adaptation of Northern Lights, rather than an actual change to the title, then why is there any reason to mention it? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 14:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Because as it stands the article suggests that in the UK the Northern Lights title has been totally abandoned, which is not the case. Which then prompts folks like 82.152.206.11 to come in insisting that they've definitely seen it advertised as Northern Lights. It seems sensible to me explain the situation, which is that the Northern Lights name is being used in the marketing alongside the The Golden Compass. And I also find it interesting that they're using His Dark Materials too, unlike in the US. --KJBracey 14:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just going to expand on that a little. I haven't had a close look at the posters, but I don't think they're saying "based on HDM:NL" — the "HDM:NL" is just added as an extra or alternate title, as prominent as TGC, much as one might overlay a translation of a foreign-language title if retaining the original poster artwork. If the distributors had gone one step further and marketed it solely as Northern Lights, then HDM:NL would be its UK title, whatever the actual film print said (one analogous case that springs to mind was Point of No Return which was marketed solely as The Assassin in the UK, and appears as such in the BBFC database, despite the prints retaining the US title). But the BBFC database and the main marketing uses "The Golden Compass". So I'd say it's somewhere between a marketing note that it's based on the book of the name, and actually being the local title. It's something like an local alternative title. --KJBracey 14:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Pantalaimon's voice

I dunno how to cite, but I did update it. Freddie Highmore is voicing the character, confirmed on his fansite and the new 5-minute trailer has the character speaking, and it's clearly Freddie.

Reference

• Kidman denies film is anti-church —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the references section some guy added his personal views within the link to a Catholic League page. Whether he is right or wrong, this ought to be removed. All I can see however is reflist|2, not the actual references. - Rik 13:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.133.31 (talk)

Hi, the offending material has now been removed by another editor. For future reference, all information in the references section is gleaned from elsewhere in the article, wherever you see anything within the "ref" tags. The "reflist|2" tag merely tells the page where to group them. For further information, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How to cite sources. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 12:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Boycott of film by Christian groups

I have added information about the recently announced boycott of the film. Christian websites and radio programs are starting to pay a great deal of attention to the coming release. Also, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers all aspects of a topic, it is necessary to include comprehensive documentation of the controversy surrounding the film. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for criticism, but it is also not a soapbox for promotion. Both sides must be represented in a factual and documented manner.

WP:RS is what comes into play here; exceptional claims call for exceptional sources, and a blog does not fit the definition of an "exceptional source." When more information becomes available, it will be sufficiently added. María (críticame) 22:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I will remove the blog commentary. It was meant as an example of sentiment. If blogs are off limits I apologize and will find other sources. The press release is, however, is the primary source of the boycott and should remain. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psteichen (talk • contribs) 18:54, October 9, 2007

I removed some POV wording, such as, "It is currently the subject of a worldwide information campaign" which makes it sound too general when it is the Catholic League so far that is conducting this boycott. "The proposed release of the movie has angered many in the religious community" is also POV wording because it can't be assumed how many -- citing the organization is the most objective approach. Instead of using such an extensive quote, I've rewritten it to have a little longer summary of the boycott that should cover the major points. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually in the middle of rewriting some of the same, especially the "many in the religious community" part, but you got there before me, causing an edit conflict :) For the record, I think there's too much information in the intro about this, but I'll leave it for now and see how it goes. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be improved by talking about the film's production more, and maybe the boycott mention should go at the end of the lead section as part of a rough chronological order. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've moved it to the end of the intro, removed the unnecessary info about Pullman and added one of the major points the Catholic League makes (promoting atheism). Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe current coverage of the boycott warrants its inclusion in the lead. If it gets significant press coverage it becomes a significant event around the film, but at the moment it's just an organization that would like it to be big - and we're not a platform for advocacy. -- SiobhanHansa 00:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, SiobhanHansa. This movie is sure to bring out such ugliness, but for now, two months before the film has even premiered? Not so much. Nothing has actually happened yet. María (críticame) 00:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the boycott is already being talked about on hundreds of Christian and Catholic radio stations across the US. And quite a few secular ones as well. The EWTN network alone has over a hundred stations + Sirius Satellite, and is on the cable lineup in 124 million homes. It was the topic of the day today on several shows, and I even heard of it from several friends last week before the boycott was even announced. By the end of the month the issue will be in dozens of magazines and newspapers as well. Perhaps from the perspective of someone who ignores these issues it is not "significant", but for millions of people around the US this will be the only aspect of the movie they care about. I think the fact that Pullman is a prominent atheist, as well as the blatant anti-Catholicism found in the film and books, and the fact that film is being marketed to kids who are too immature to recognize them for what they are, are important facts that readers will be looking for in an unbiased encyclopedia entry. I will try to put together some additional factual information in the coming days. Certainly the article should not become devoted solely to this issue, but infuriated Catholics (over a billion worldwide) are not going to care who is playing which characters, they will want to know facts regarding the content of the film and the books it is based upon.

I would suggest keeping on eye on this -- there's two headlines, the Orlando Sentinel and CitizenLink.com. If what you say is true, then there will be more coverage popping up at that link in the next day or two. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Coverage shows it's still a marginal issue promoted by a marginal group. A whole section on the boycott is therefore not yet warranted. It may be in the future, but we'll have to wait and see. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 10:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The boycott is now being covered by the Baltimore Sun, the Orlando Sentinel, FOX News, and The Guardian. (Not sure if I'd count CitizenLink.) The boycott may warrant a mention in the body of the article after all, since the media did eat this up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As I predicted (*sigh*). When the coverage becomes a little more in depth than a fleeting line (as in the Guardian), its own section will be warranted. I'm sure it will be an issue, because that's how the media works, but it's important not to jump the gun, and I suggest doing without a whole section until that time. Maybe we can reinstate the line in the intro for now. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that this is now getting Nationwide coverage more than justifies a section on the boycott. There certainly hasn't been nationwide interest in how the movie was produced and yet there is a sizable section dedicated to the topic. The fact is this is a major issue and is quite relevant to a thorough examination of the film. Minimizing the insult this film inflicts upon Christians with "sigh"s and flippant comments (calling Catholics a "marginal group") does nothing to advance open dissemination of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psteichen (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't straw man me. I did not call "Catholics" a marginal group; I called the Catholic League one, one which is not even close to being representative of all Catholic opinion. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 07:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and also: the Fox News interview you cited as proof of Pullman's "intentions" doesn't meet the necessary criteria for a reliable source, as it comes from the mouth of a man who I think we all would agree isn't exactly neutral on this issue. And that's if it were to even belong in this article. Which it doesn't. Something like that should go in the article on Pullman himself, or the one on the series of novels. Hope this helps, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Liquidfinale: Sorry I mistook your comment about the CL to mean all Catholics. Although your contention that they don't represent all Catholics is correct, to say that they don't come close (which implies that a majority of Catholics would disagree with them) is false. I disagree that information on Pullman and the books explaining the CL positions irrelevant to the article. Telling the reader that there is a boycott, without explaining the reasoning, leaves them with less than all the available facts. The reader is free to disagree with the boycott, and the opposing viewpoint is clearly spelled out within the same paragraph. Also, the word "perceived" is invalid in this context unless it is clearly a quote. Denying that the books and film contain anti-Christian bias is an extreme minority opinion that can only be held by someone who hasn't read the books, or perhaps is trying to promote them. You can not care, but to deny it exists is intellectually dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psteichen (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the wording ("perceived" etc), but the article does mention the reasoning behind the boycott: that while the film may not be offensive and will be "watered down", Donahue believes it will lead children to read the novels, which are not, and which he believes promotes atheism. It doesn't say it in the intro, because it's just an intro. That information comes later. Let me be clear: when (not "if"; I'm not that naive) this becomes a wider-reported issue, I will be more than happy to see the inclusion of a separate section on the boycott, but for now the coverage doesn't warrant anything more than what we have currently. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 10:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left the information in the intro at one sentence, and I agree that this is sufficient. But I also feel that the quote by Pullman is very germane to the CL boycott. The new wording shows that this quote is from the CL, and is merely stating a fact that the CL has made this allegation. This is clearly a strong basis for their boycott. Also, why should the Wiki article wait on public reaction before providing facts? Good day, psteichen.

To answer your last question, it's because that's how Wikipedia works. We see what coverage an issue receives before determining the weight it is given within an article. It may be that we hear no more of this issue, in which case it will look silly in a year or two to have an entire section on it. Or, as is likely, though not 100% certain, the issue will snowball and will receive significant coverage come the film's release. In which case, the article can then reflect the coverage, probably in a separate section. But undue weight shouldn't be given to it before then, and especially if the only person who ends up complaining is the president of the Catholic League. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 11:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Liquidfinale: The content regarding the boycott has now been reduced to 2 sentences (though the second one in the development section is a bit long and should probably be divided). I think this is all the further we can suppress this without ignoring it all together. Further information will certainly be warranted in the future. As to your comment that the only person complaining is Mr. Donohue, I would disagree. Prominent Catholic radio hosts, as well as every Catholic I know personally, are quite angry at New Line for attempting to make money on a Catholic bashing book series. Good day, psteichen

psteichen, I think you're a little too close to this issue in order to provide NPOV edits on this matter. I would rethink my motives if I were you; from an outsider, it looks like you're on a quest here. That does not make for a good editing environment and may make others discount your additions more readily. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) from now on. María (críticame) 12:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

María: The fact that I know of offended Catholics does not make me biased. Or are you trying to imply that I am a Christian and therefore cannot be trusted to be impartial? I think you should rethink your statement. I have fully documented all information I have added, and have not used POV statements. The article is meant to inform the reader, not blindly promote the movie. If controversy exists, the reader deserves to know about it and will want documentation. And the bot signs as well as I, but if this offends you I apologize. Psteichen 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not imply anything about your religion. You obviously are preoccupied with this issue, however. I still think it is far too early to put so much emphasis on a controversy that has yet to come to head. Like Liquidfinale explained above, we do not want to put undue weight on such an issue; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, the bot is for when users mistakenly forget to sign or do not know better; it doesn't offend me in the least if you don't sign your own comments, but it is proper discussion procedure to do so -- that's what the message on your talk page was about. Just a friendly reminder. It's also common procedure to indent your comments during a discussion, as you can see other editors have done above. María (críticame) 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that fantasy films are far from anything that would preoccupy me, but thanks for your concern. I am only interested in giving the issue proper weight. Most people who read this wiki will be interested in the controversy rather than peripheral trivia concerning the actors, film name, etc. It currently is given only 4 sentences....barely enough to present an outline. Actually I would recommend the controversy be given its own section, so that the reader can quickly find what they are looking for. If you feel that other aspects of the film are underweighted, then please add more material. If you have evidence that readers are uninterested in the controversy, please present it. My experience is that they are, and the world media seems to agree. Psteichen 23:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm frankly astounded by your belief that people will be more interested in the "controversy" than the production and development sections. It may be that your terms of reference are a little narrow, and I thoroughly recommend speaking to people other than other Catholics about this issue. This is not meant as a slight, but as a genuine piece of advice to ascertain the level of interest. For my part, I know many film and fantasy fans, none of whom care one jot about this. Of course, it may be that my reference points are just as narrow, but the story will be of primary interest to (some) Catholics, and (some) journalists, who know a time-filler when they smell one, and will be too stupid/lazy to bother waking any last dregs of integrity which may remain inside. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a place where a reader could find all the facts on a topic. I'm surprised that several of you seem to think that this is a minority issue unworthy of coverage. As a fan of fantasy books, and teacher who may need to discuss them, I forced myself to read them. They are so over-the-top anti-Christian I cannot imagine that any of you would think that the public would consider this a "time-filler". The anti-Christian message is the primary reason the books have gained such popularity, and this is certainly an issue that Wiki readers would find to be of interest. Minimizing the boycott makes me wonder if those who wrote this Wiki work for New Line... Integrity? My two cents. (psteichen) HoneyDog2 08:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you can tell Paul that recruiting Meatpuppets is considered highly inappropriate on Wikipedia, and that it will do no good, as WP:MEAT makes the point that, "Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am not a "meat puppet" as you say, I am psteichen. My computer logged me out and I don't have my password with me to get back in. Thus I was forced to create a new account to use for the day until I can get back into my regular one. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused, perhaps if I return to signing with my name instead of the silly quadruple tilde it would clear things up. I'll add my name to the above note to make it clear. Now what exactly is wrong with asking friends to help keep the page accurate? I specifically asked them not to try to hijack the page but instead to help ensure an accurate portrayal of the film and its author. Should that not be the goal? This article seems to have been hijacked by a very determined (and obviously unemployed) few who refuse to allow pertinent information to be added should it reflect negatively on Pullman. I don’t have the time, as some of you do, to monitor the page 24/7, so I have asked others I know online to assist me in making this page accurate and properly weighted. This is not “recruiting” of a minority. Instead I am hoping that others in the majority (ie. rational and thoughtful) will find time in their busy schedules to monitor this page and prevent a minority (those not offended by anti-religious bigotry) from hijacking the page. As I said above, I'm beginning to wonder if a few of you work for New Line. Or Pullman's publicist? Hope to be back to my old account tomorrow. I will attempt to close this one at that time. Regards, (psteichen)

• "Works for New Line", "Pullman's publicist", "Atheists", "fans", "unemployed". Would you care to throw anything else haphazardly (and quite wrongly) in this direction? Or would you care to assume good faith for once? For the record, I am not a "fan" of the novels; I read them and "quite liked" them, but think they're overrated. None of this, however, has any bearing upon upholding Wikipedia policy. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 10:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• psteichen, it would help if you were actually aware of Wikipedia guideline and policy. This is the only article you have edited (from this account, at least; maybe you have a few others hiding around) and therefore I doubt you are aware of how Wikipedia tends to work, what its purpose is, and what our intentions are as editors. By making ridiculous accusations about your fellow editors is neither in good faith nor civil. I suggest you read a few of the links we've provided you (especially since you are recruiting individuals who are clearly on your same NPOV mission who also have a lack of understanding of Wikipedia procedures). This is becoming tiring, and consensus is against you. María (críticame) 12:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to find every last thing that was ever written about something. We're an encyclopedia. We're the place to find encyclopedic information that reflects the significant opinions of experts in the subject. If the the campaign gains significant notice or impact it should be covered more. But at the moment, for instance, Nicole Kidman's role in the film has far more coverage than the campaign ([7]). And about the only reliable source to actually make any comment about the campaign itself apparently considers it (and the opposite side's campaign) to be "impotent Hollywood protest campaigns"[8] which indicates it is rather less important to cover than if such sources were saying the campaign was likely to hurt attendance figures or change studios' approach to funding such films in the future. So far there isn't the evidence that this is the big deal you are claiming. It's one minority group who has had occasional success with similar campaigns in the past. As an encyclopedia, not a news source we should wait and see what the impact is, not write about it in the hopes it becomes significant. -- SiobhanHansa 12:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay we need to clear some things up here, this might get long. Perhaps some of you should check out Wikipedia's policy titled Don't Bite the Newcomers. It sheds a little light on how those who have not edited in the past will be less knowledgeable on policy and that we should cut them some slack. This is partly my fault because I am ignorant of policy. I started out trying to explain my positions in English, only to realize that the true pros speak wiki policy instead. Every time material is added that shows Pullman in a bad light, even though well sourced and factual, those with loads of time on their hands jump in with NPOV or Weight. Not that the information is biased or over weighted, they just don't like it because it offends their POV. Oh yes I know, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. But its a bit hard to assume good faith when 3 sentences within a several page article are thought to be overweight. Or when some of you on the talk pages write of the boycott as "ugliness", which implies it is wrong; or of the Catholic League as a "marginal group"; or of reporters who cover the boycott as "stupid/lazy" and lacking integrity. Now I admit that we all have a POV. I do find the movie offensive, some of you do not. Those are both POV. But if those who don't find it offensive can consider themselves unbiased, then so should they assume the same of those who do. WP:AGF right? An encyclopedia should not be a place where might makes right. An encyclopedia should be a collection of well cited facts. If there happen to be more than 2 sentences worth of facts on a subject then they should be included. Editors are always free to add additional weight to subjects they find lacking. Now I've been branded a pariah by most of you because I continue to disagree with your opinions. And now that I've asked some rational thoughtful friends who I communicate with regularly to help me monitor the page I'm supposedly in violation of yet another policy. Apparently those who frequent wikipedia prefer only the opinions of those who have all day to sit around and edit (thus the sarcastic "unemployed" comment), and inviting friends to help is taboo because it undermines the authority of those who spend their whole day here. I apologize if I've offended some of you with generalizations or sarcasm, but hearing an organization that defends religion from bigots spoken of as a "marginal group" has left me a bit sour. I will do my best to fit in and learn from the policy police, but I will likely continue to offend those of you who expect me to know the hundreds of pages of policy, or to roll over and stop arguing for complete unbiased articles. Psteichen 17:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You accuse us of not being accommodating to your viewpoint, yet the article contains much more on this issue than I'd personally like - because I abide by the consensus and even happily aid the material's inclusion, including researching the correct URL for the Washington Post article you added. You accuse us of not being civil, yet you're the only one on this entire talk page to have insulted another editor or editors. I am utterly flabbergasted by your behaviour, and yet I will respond to you with the civility I still vainly hope to receive in turn. You simply are not listening to the arguments. The coverage so far, and I admit it has increased over the last 24 hours, still boils down to nothing more than a simple repetition of the Catholic League's statement and objection to the film/books. And we include that in the article! Sure, it's not the full, unabridged statement, but that's because it simply isn't necessary. What is in the article summarises the Catholic League's position and objection concisely - there just isn't anything else to add at present. What do you suggest we do? Cite thirteen near-identical newspaper articles, quoting them in full, when all they're doing at present is picking up on the League's release and passing it along? No, we say what needs to be said, with appropriate cites from a couple, and move on. If anyone is interested enough to know more, they can follow the links we do include. When there's something else to say, it'll be said, have no worries on that score. Good day! Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Now as to the word perceived in the opening section: Do we really want a qualifier in front of a phrase that even Pullman would agree to? Perceived implies something is alleged that isn’t really there or wasn’t intentional. The use of euphemisms as Weitz describes it, does not detract from its ultimate presence. Regards, Psteichen 17:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to your initial points later, when I have time, but I'll quickly answer that last one for now: the word "perceived". Guess what? It doesn't matter one jot what Pullman's intentions were. It's about what other people see in the books. Many people, including you, I presume (and including Pullman himself, it seems), believe them to be anti-religion. Others, however, do not. The director of the film and Nicole Kidman have made arguments for the opposite viewpoint. Yes, they have a vested interest in defending it, but others who do not have been equally outspoken. Rowan Williams, for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said he believes the books not to be against religion, but against blind dogmatism. He may well have a point. Others more still. People who disagree with Pullman's reading of his own work, people whose opinion is just as valid as his. That's why the word perceived is in there, and that's why it will remain. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it will remain.... So should we also add the qualifier "perceived" to every fact that is contested by a minority of stakeholders looking to make money? "...doctors say that the perceived harmful effects of heroin are dangerous” Because of course some drug traffickers might tell reporters that their product isn't harmful at all. I think not. I think if you asked 100 intelligent people who have read the books you wouldn't find one that tried to argue that they were not anti-religion. I don't know what Rowan Williams is thinking, but he's the only person I've heard of that would contest the author's own intentions besides those making money off of it. What about you Liquidfinale? You said you read them. Regards, Psteichen 01:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think we've hit the major roadblock here: our individual opinions do not count. The opinion of one hundred random "intelligent" people do not count unless they are noteworthy and therefore citeable; otherwise it is original research. Both the director of the film and one of its major stars have stated that they do not see the film as anti-religious, and that has been stated in the article. Discussion space is not a forum and is therefore not meant for in depth conversation about the article's subject matter; rather, it is for discussion on how to improve the article. Shall we get back to that? María (críticame) 01:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Psteichen, your heroin analogy might be an appropriate one if you'd used, say, scientists or doctors instead of "people trying to make money." If, for example, the UK's most prominent doctor or scientist came out and said heroin wasn't harmful (of course, none have as far as I'm aware), it'd be worth mentioning that in its article to reflect the fact. If it were merely some intelligent people, who otherwise had no expertise on the subject, it wouldn't. My own opinion as to the book series' anti-religiosity is therefore irrelevant for our purposes. I chose to quote Rowan Williams because he is the UK's most prominent clergyman, and therefore may be considered at least in some quarters an "expert". However, I promised you that when the coverage of the issue increased then I'd be happy to see it spun off into its own section. That now appears to be happening, and so if you give me an hour or three I'll knock something together which gives it more prominence in the article, it's own section in fact, and reword the intro in a way which eliminates the need to argue over the word "perceived" altogether. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 07:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As most definitely one of 100 readers, I do not find the books anti-religious at all. They seem quite pro-Gnosis, and Gnosticism is, in fact, a religion. Additionally, the books do not in any way seem to be anti-Hindu, anti-Shinto, anti-Zoroastrian, or (especially with a Witch supporting protagonist) anti-Wiccan. While I'll admit that this very statement is based on my point of view, I for one am bewildered by how many Christians use the phrase 'Anti-religious' when they mean 'Anti-christian' or 'Anti-catholic'. The stories can't, as far as I can tell, actually even be realistically seen as atheistic, as they do in fact contain angels, god, magick, and the like and there's no point in the stories where it's revealed that these figures never really existed or were in any way figments of the imagination.208.54.15.167 (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How about using the Dogma (film) article as a guide for the coverage of the religious protests against this film? -- Cat Whisperer 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Using Dogma as a guide I have moved the statement about the controversy from the overview back to the controversies section since the boycott is not of particular general international importance, perhaps if the movement picks up steam or multiple groups it should be moved back to the overview -- TommyMann 00:06, 25 October 2007 (CST)

Unfortunately, it appears to have already gathered steam, now receiving media attention in both the US and the UK. Therefore, I have reinserted the line back into the lead. Consider it more a heading-off of potential trouble. Other editors, who shall at this time remain nameless, may take the absence of such information as an invitation to add more about the boycott than would otherwise be necessary, so much so that it damages the integrity of the article. And so it may perhaps be prudent for the more sensible contributors to manage the article's coverage of the boycott in the best way we can. If you disagree, however, and change it back, I shall not revert a second time. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 07:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that it is gathering steam from? I haven't seen much more about it in the last week. The [Google news search remains fairly minimal with only one story added in recent days. -- SiobhanHansa 11:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I find the "due to the source novel's anti-Christian themes" to be factually inaccurate - having read the books, they may be accurately characterized as "anti-church", and a good case can be made that the "church" used as a model is the "Catholic church" - this is hardly "anti-Christian", however, since Catholicism is not the sum of Christianity (ever hear of the Protestant movement??) - suggest "due to the source novel's perceived anti-Christian themes", or better yet "due to the source novel's anti-church themes" Voideater 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Voideater: While it may by your opinion that the books and film are not anti-Christian, your opinion may be misinformed. The consensus is that they most definitely are anti-Christian. The fact that they are also anti-Catholic hardly minimizes this. (My opinion now) The books smear the name of the Catholic Church with a fictitious church that doesn't come close to representing the real thing. Yet it also smears all of Christianity by denigrating the idea of belief in a higher power as asinine and contemptible. Use of the word "perceived" implies that somehow those who find anti-religious content (including Pullman himself) are somehow reading more from the books and screenplay than where intended by the author. Psteichen 15:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It originally did say "perceived", but I forget my exact reasoning for removing it. I can't imagine it was because I was convinced otherwise. Let's put it back in, shall we? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh yes, that was it. I was going to reword the intro in such a way as to eliminate the need to argue over the word. I'll see if I can come up with something, unless someone else wants to have a crack at it. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this latest point that (finally) brings this discussion back to the text itself--always a good idea. I think you're exactly right in saying the books are more anti-church than criticizing a specific denomination. However, the Church Pullman creates is not even the Catholic church, which I think is a significant point and one that might be considered for editing on the article main page (under Controversy). The book clearly refers to "Pope John Calvin" and the abolishment of the papacy, and while the title of Pope is assigned, John Calvin is obviously not Catholic (page 30 in The Golden Compass). Pullman is definitely using this fictionalized version of the Anglican Church to comment on organized religion in general. In this interview Pullman explicitly says that his "extreme antipathy" to the Church in his books comes from "every single religion that has a monotheistic god"--even using the word "taliban" in there. Is this not significant for Catholics to realize that Pullman is not attacking their faith, but rather commenting on all organized religion? (And I apologize if this comment does not follow policy; it is my first time editing on here.) Ringo 20:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ringo: Thank you for your comments, and I agree that the books and film do attack not only the Catholic Church, but also all faith traditions. If you read the press release carefully from the Catholic League, they state clearly that they are calling on all Christians to boycott the film, not just Catholics. I do agree that perhaps we should consider changing some of the wording to reflect that the concern is over the anti-Christian themes rather than specifically anti-Catholic. Psteichen 15:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that such a discussion would be better placed at Northern Lights (novel). This is about the film in particular, and if readers want to find out about the book, they can read the book's article. You should take up discussion there and see if the information could be added neutrally. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's never bad to look at the actual wording. But to a great extent our own analysis is not really relevant - even our own analysis from good primary sources and the source you're using is unfortunately about the book rather than the film. The article is supposed to reflect the significant opinions of experts in the subject area not us! So if Catholic critics of film see it as anti-Catholic, and their opinions hold significant weight, it should be included, along with other opinions that do not consider it anti-Catholic (assuming they are also significant) regardless of our own analysis of whether the anti-Catholic opinion draws proper inference or not. The discussion here is about the wording, but also about how significant the criticism about this part of the film is and how much weight it should be given in the article. We need to make sure we're covering the bases properly with the wording - by saying the criticism is about the film being anti-church are we reflecting what the criticism actually is on balance, or are we projecting our idea of what the film is and what we think intelligent criticism might say? If you're interested, some of the policies that cover this area are neutral point of view (especially the undue weight bit) and no original research. There's also a relevant brief essay at writing for the enemy. And welcome - glad you've started editing, and I hope you enjoy it. -- SiobhanHansa 20:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My main reason for pointing out what the text says is simply because of the repetitive use of the term Catholic in the article about the film--the wording. I simply do not understand why that label is being used when neither Pullman nor the book assign that denomination to "the Church." This is something that everyone else seems to be assigning, which seems far more critical than what I'm doing. I agree that what I was commenting on is more relevant to the book than film; however, if a Catholic hears about the book or movie and uses Wikipedia as a reference, which then equates Pullman's story with a negative view of the Catholic church, I think that is misrepresenting both book and film. I suppose I'm confused on what you mean by balance and neutrality; I consider saying the film is anti-church as much more neutral than anti-Catholic. I won't belabor this point as both of the above comments make it clear that my point is unhelpful, but I felt it significant enough to create an account on here and say it. Thanks for the discussion. Ringo 04:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As I stated above I agree that the concern, and the reasons behind the boycott stem not only from the specifically anti-Catholic content, but also the overall anti-religion content. I think the reason the anti-Catholic term is getting more use is twofold. First and most simply the boycott was the brainchild of the Catholic League, which defends the Catholic Church from bigotry and misinformation in the media and entertainment industries. Secondly, the "Church" as portrayed in the novels is quite clearly trying to represent the Catholic denomination (although poorly). The head is known as "pope", the leadership is known as the "Magisterium", they have cardinals, oratories, intercessors, they hold councils at the Vatican, etc... But I agree that the term anti-Christian or even anti-religion would fit better. I'm not so sure anti-Church as you suggested would fit as Pullman (and thus the film based on his work) clearly denigrates all who honor God, not just those who are well organized into a church. Psteichen 15:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Does he? My recollection isn't perfect, but I can't recall anyone other than clergy and maybe some angels who "honor God". Lyra's mother has a possible puritan streak going on (witnessed by her participation in the project to sever prepubescent kids), but I don't recall any religious beliefs from her. The power of the Dust is a kind of quasi-religious/spiritual phenomenon, and he seems to treat that reverently enough... so no, on the whole I don't think that "anti-religion" is entirely accurate. "Anti-Christian" is more accurate, but Christians are a diverse bunch and he DID focus on a single branch. "Containing elements that are extremely offensive to many/most Christians"--yes, most definitely. That's what's going to be important here--not what we think about his work, but what other people think, and as I explain below, I think we're in for one hell of a media circus, especially if they start shooting the sequels. --Lode Runner (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What bothers me if the assumption that the boycott will be successful and meaningful. Maybe we should wait before commenting on significance? Personally I can't see this movie as that controversial anywhere but in the heart of the Catholic Society committee and similar religious activist leadership groups. It is presented as fiction. There has been a long tradition especially of US Catholic and religious leadership groups asking for bans, then rank and file Catholics flocking to such movies (IF the movie is good). So I say the tone is more likely "hype"-gossip - not true controversy, as in expect significant boycott or refusals to show.

In contrast, aren't there supposed to several "historical dramatization" movies coming out on the "Black Madonna" conspiracy which outright say that biblical references to the disciple Peter as a fisherman were actually polite references to his being a smuggler and Galenian Mafia boss - and that he revert to form by stealing the church away from Mary Magdalene? Now that might be truly controversial with Catholics.69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm reading a lot of people down-playing the controversy. It seems to me that a lot of you guys fail to grasp just how anti-religious (at least in regards to traditional religion) the series is. Let me give you a quick rundown of how the saga unfolds in the final book (The Amber Spyglass): Lyra's dad starts a literal war on Heaven, God is an impotent and powerless old man, they actually manage to KILL God (possibly accidentally), the power of the flesh is said to be more powerful than spirit (presumably including the spirit-only Heaven), there are a couple of implicitly gay angels, and two thirteen year olds have sex in a recreation of the temptation in the Garden of Eden while a Catholic priest tries to assassinate them (he's been preemptively forgiven via some super-confessional thing.) These events are not trivial asides; they form the central core of the conclusion of the series. I'm not saying you can't look at this story and consider it to not be anti-religious; I'm saying it's extremely naive to think that such a story would cause anything less than a MASSIVE firestorm of hate (check out The Last Temptation of Christ, which was actually quite obviously pro-Christian.)

Of course, none of this happens in The Golden Compass and I'm sure none of this will make it into the movie form of The Amber Spyglass (if indeed it's made at all) but I'm sure that the series' conclusion will not go unnoticed by those who are organizing the boycotts for this movie. It's all one continuous story.

Feel free to go back to quoting WPs at each other if you must, but I think it's rather silly in light of the blatant nature of the series. There's controversy now, and there's going to be a LOT more controversy once plot details of The Amber Spyglass start to become commonly known amongst the more rabid activists. Sure, it's speculative original research... but it's also mere speculation for me to say that the sun will rise tomorrow. --Lode Runner (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that the coverage is being downplayed here; the article reflects the call for a boycott, includes a couple of quotes here and there, but that's about it. Largely because there is little else to report; while the story has now appeared in most major newspapers, online and on television. they all pretty much report the same thing. Essentially, we would have what we do now, save for a the number of cites. In addition, while not strictly relevant at the moment (though it may become so), it's disingenuous of you to repeat the assertion that the kids have sex in the book without qualification. At no point does it state that, and to say otherwise is to deliberately muddy the waters with further implication and interpretation. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well of course, the article should contain references only to those protests that have actually happened thus far. I was referring mainly to the many people talking about how this book isn't as bad as book X, they don't think the current protests aren't "significant", they aren't expecting any serious protests to emerge, etc. I question whether these editors have actually read the series in its entirety. The only thing I'm advocating in regards to the article is that we fully and clearly document those boycotts/protests that have actually occurred, and NOT attempt to downplay them in any fashion (as some people seem to think we should.) I say this not because I agree with the protesters in any way (quite the contrary--I am an atheist), but because I've never seen mainstream Hollywood take on such a blatantly anti-Christian/Catholic book before, and a CHILDREN'S book at that. If the fundamentalists in this country can go nuts over childrens' films/books such as Harry Potter, I shudder to think what will happen if they read The Amber Spyglass.

As far as the sex goes, well, I haven't read the book in a few years but my recollection goes something like this: The assassin-priest has been sent to kill Lyra because she will be tempted by sin just as Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden. This parallel is explicitly mentioned several times, and another character (the woman scientist whose name I do not recall) is sent to be the tempter/serpent. She does this by relating a story to Lyra about some sort of romantic encounter she once had. Lyra is enthralled by the story. She and Will go off into the woods together, alone--it is true, the reader is not permitted to follow them--and they successfully commit whatever sin the priest has been sent to prevent them from committing (the assassin-priest is stopped somehow... I think perhaps one of the angels kill him.) When they come back, they have entered puberty. We know this because 1. Lyra's daemon can't change forms anymore (it is explicitly stated earlier in the series that this happens after a child enters puberty) and 2. Lyra can no longer operate the alethiometer intuitively. Also, upon returning it is painfully obvious that they have fallen in love with each other. Before this, we didn't see any explicit romantic feelings.

Now, I don't know for sure what constitutes a sin in the world of Catholicism, let alone the fictional world of Pullman's. However, it is fairly clear to us that this sin involves a sexual awaking of some sort. If it makes you feel better, you can pretend that they did nothing more than kiss passionately (but is making out a sin in Catholicism if one doesn't have the intention of doing anything else? I'm not sure what "lust" is, precisely.) Maybe it's even possible that's what Pullman envisioned--though if that were the case I don't think he would have prevented the reader from seeing it. So fine, instead of saying "an assassin-priest tries to kill thirteen-year-old Lyra in an attempt to prevent her from tempting Will with sex as Eve tempted Adam" we can say "an assassin-priest tries to kill thirteen-year-old Lyra in an attempt to prevent her from tempting Will with an (unseen) sinful sexual awaking as Eve tempted Adam". My point is that "thirteen-year-olds' unseen sinful sexual awakening" is hardly going to sound much better than "thirteen-year-olds having sex". If you can think of nonsexual sin that Pullman was hinting at, I'm all ears. Again, a quick recap: 1. The tempter tempted Lyra by telling her a story of a romantic encounter. 2. The sin happened with her and Will apparently-romantically alone. 3. They were in love with each other when they come back. 4. After returning, Lyra discovered she had officially entered puberty (as evidenced by the daemon's final form). Oh yes, and 5. Earlier in the book, flesh is said to be more powerful than spirit.

I'm not going to debate the book's events any further; I just think it's helpful if everyone discussing the controversy understands how the series concludes. And just to be absolutely clear: I do NOT have a problem with the books as they are written. I wish that the majority Christians of this nation were open-minded enough to accept them without a ton of stupid controversy and political grandstanding but, sadly, I know otherwise. And before the rule-lawyers come along here and threaten to delete this entire debate: yes, this is OR, but (as I stated above) the OR prohibition doesn't apply to talk pages. I know this, because I helped (with the backing of several admins) redefine the WP:TALK guidelines. I think this debate is important so that everyone here has an idea of why the controversies exist and why they are significant. This will help keep the talk pages smaller and more manageable in the long run, and help prevent wasteful edit wars.

However, if the debate keeps on raging and threatens to take over the talk page entirely, then yes it should be pruned. I just think that we can take a shortcut through a LOT of this quibbling if people would actually read the series--or, failing that, the quick summary of things likely to offend many Christians (and Catholics in particular):

1. Church portrayed as oppressive organization.

2. Literal war on the Authority and Heaven (mostly portrayed as a positive event, though we later learn that the war may be doomed.)

3. Portrayal of the Authority as weak and powerless.

4. Delegation of most of the Authority's power and authority to the Metatron (explicitly stated to be the transformed Enoch--this alone is proof enough that the Authority is the Biblical God, let alone references to priests, popes, specifically named angels, the Garden of Eden, etc.)

5. The death of the Authority.

6. Statement that the flesh is superior to spirit.

7. The sinful recreation of the expulsion from Eden (portrayed as a positive event).

8. The sexual nature of said recreation, especially in light of the age of the participants.

9. The positive portrayal of the "serpent" in the recreation (and yes, the Dust explicitly says that the woman "will play the part of the serpent.")

10. A priest's attempts to kill two thirteen-year-olds in an attempt to prevent said recreation.

11. The aforementioned priest's "preemptive confessional" that absolved him of the sin of killing the girl before he actually did it.

If we can all agree that these things happen in the book (more or less) and that these things are likely to piss off a lot of Christians, then we can get back to simply reporting the controversies as they occur without endlessly questioning their 'significance'. By this, I mean a few direct quotes from well known people/organizations combined a few simple "many people believe the books/movies are anti-religion/anti-Christian/anti-Catholic" statements with the appropriate citations. (Essentially, there's nothing wrong with what we have now.) --Lode Runner (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the full reply. I think I'm going to have to refresh my memory of the scenes I questioned; be sure, however, that as described it will not appear should the film be made. Still, to get back on-topic, if you read the mass of text above here, you'll see none of us are trying to downplay the controversy. I'm content to see the article include information on it; indeed, I'm the one who added it in the first place. But it seems to me that, from the the coverage I've seen (and I do keep an eye out), that the call for a boycott isn't having as big an impact as was intended by the CL. Maybe it'll gather pace as the week of release approaches, in which case I'll be happy to see any new, relevant, information added, but for now it's still relatively minimal. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent summary, Lode Runner. It's worth noting that points 2-11 are relevant to the second and third novels. It's point 1 (Pullman's equation of the Church with the Inquisition) that seems to have irked CL and others. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, my overall point was that the series was written as a coherent whole, not as standalone sagas, and I'm sure that the CL (and others) will be looking at the third book when criticizing this first movie. Similarly, I expect that the anti-Harry Potter guys will be screaming "ROWLING SAID DUMBLEDORE IS GAY!!!" when the next movie (Half-Blood Prince) comes out, even though we aren't going to meet his ex-lover until the movie after that (Deathly Hallows). And this isn't entirely unreasonable, either--if someone wrote a series of science books that were apparently decent, but the very last one stated that there was ample evidence that the moon landings were faked, I might very well question the accuracy and objectivity of the rest of the series. Similarly, the extremely offensive (to many, but not all, Catholics) content of the final book only makes the somewhat-offensive content of the first book seem much worse--if the third book was instead very Catholic-positive, the Catholic League would probably be willing to interpret the first book in a much more forgiving light.

Also--correct me if I'm wrong--but doesn't Lyra's Uncle announce his intentions to start a war with Heaven at the very end of The Golden Compass? Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced my only copy. --Lode Runner (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the end of Northern Lights contains a claim that Asriel's intention is to destroy Dust by destroying the Authority. (Of course he was partly trying to deceive Mrs. Coulter about the first part of that plan.) Guess that has bothered some people about the first novel/this film. It's interesting, though: the theme of the felix culpa (or happy Fall) has a tradition within Christianity... So it's not like Pullman is completely inventing the wheel here. I suspect this is what makes it possible for even Christians and Catholics to find value in this trilogy. The Authority may die, but he was not the true creator, of whom nothing is said in the trilogy. And Lyra and Will rescuing the souls from the underworld is certainly a reworking of the Christian notion of Christ's redemption of souls otherwise bound to Satan, mixed with some Greek Orphic myths as well. As a reworking of Milton, it ... But I digress. Anthony Krupp (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Why is The Catholic League's boycott relevant?

I clicked to find out more about this movie but instead I was side tarcked to find out who are the Catholic League and what's their problem with the movie. But since it has nothing to do with the director's deliberate motifs of offending them, why include their opinion? Who ever put this must have the intention of advertising this group. I mean, why dont we just list every single group of people who want to boycott movies then. Please remove it, noone cares/

It's there because, whether one likes it or not, the boycott is receiving some coverage. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Stupid enough, the Catholic boycott is relevant. They believe it "poses a threat to young minds with ideas such as killing god and demonic activity". In other words, more foolishness from the Catholic church. -Yancyfry (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't generalise about people of faith. The Catholic League ain't the Catholic Church, Yancyfry. They're rightwing pseudo-Christian lobbyists who might identify as Catholic but that doesn't make it so. I am a Catholic and hope the films will be as wonderful as the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.34.5 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what? You're absolutely right. I shouldn't have done that. -Yancyfry (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem though. Pullman doesn't merely criticize the loonies, he thinks it's ALL religion. When I read The Golden Compass I thought he was only pulling the legs of dogmatic catholics, but as time goes on the message seems more clear: atheism or nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I'm going to read the book and watch the movie to verify this for myself. -Yancyfry (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Snopes

I won't revert, because I think I might already have removed it three times, but I'm not sure the Snopes link adds anything useful to the party; the External links section is primarily for information which can't be worked into the main article, or further reading, but that merely summarises information already contained therein. If I've missed something, and it does have information we're not currently using, we should instead work it into the prose somewhere, citing Snopes accordingly. Thoughts? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

*shrugs* I removed it earlier today because it was added by a vandal whose previous edits had already been reverted. Although I don't necessarily think Snopes is all that relevant, I don't exactly object to its addition to the article. María (críticame) 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I only saw María's removal and thought she might've seen it as a religious site because of the way it was labeled. I restored it on that basis, but if it truly does not have any content to add to the topic, then it can be removed on that grounds after all. Should I do so? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. I've made a series of rash and clumsy edits these last couple of days, so I'm seriously calling into question my own judgement at the mo'. But no-one else seems bothered by it, so it might as well stay for now I guess. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 16:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link again. It does not add anything not already in the article and is unnecessary. Collectonian 18:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Lee

As far as I know, it's not yet been said who Christopher Lee will be playing in the film. He's only been seen very briefly in one trailer and was added to the film very late on - so it's unlikely he's playing much more than a cameo. I've removed the part from the cast table which says he plays Lord Boreal.

--Whamilton42 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Christopher Lee plays Lord Boreal. IMDB.com plus some other sites said so. I might be right but as far as I know, He is playing as Lord Boreal. User:Elrohir92 comment posted by 24.126.112.51.

Being "pretty sure", or even certain, isn't sufficient for Wikipedia. We need verification. -- SiobhanHansa 20:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There's your verifivation, I found it on IMDB.com and it says that Christopher Lee is Boreal. You can access it on the article or here [9]. Check it out, it is proof. Don't you all ever check IMDB.com. User:Elrohir92

IMDB is not considered a reliable source for future films. It's OK for some stuff, just not this, as the information is user-submitted. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK...but we will see who is right, I still think that he is Boreal. User:Elrohir92 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.112.51 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait? If you deleated the Chirstopher Lee theory, why didn't you deleat the Billy Costa, Tony Costa and Thorold theory? I got them from IMDB also. Why isn't the Christopher Lee theory right along with the other three theoris? User:Elrohir92 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.112.51 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I didn't spot those. Hah. Don't get me wrong, I do think it overwhelmingly likely Lee is playing Boreal, but Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait you just said the opposite of that. Explain more please. User:Elrohir92

I mean that while very strong rumours abound that Lee will play Boreal, and I personally believe he will, no reliable source has verified it, so the information can't go in yet. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonso Anozie --> Ian McKellen

Yllosubmarine, I'll replace the cite with the Empire article on the subject, which says: "The latter role [Iorek] had been voiced by newcomer Nonso Anozie." I assume your objection is to the part where I said Anozie had already recorded his lines before being replaced by McKellen, but Iorek speaks in the several trailers released previously and it's clear that the voice isn't that of Ian McKellen. I'm not familiar with Anozie's voice, but all logic would say it's him in the trailers.

--Whamilton42 15:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You would have done better to comment on my talk page, but I'll reply here. I have no objection to your edit other than the fact that you changed the prose to implicate one thing, while the citation that was previously included implicated another. That is misleading, as is the newly added source, which I don't read as saying that Anonzie had recorded all of his lines for the film. Remember that things must be accurately and reliably sourced; trailers (and an individual's interpretation of that trailer) wouldn't really count, I would think. Is there a source that says that Anonzie had completed his recording before the part of Iorek was reassigned? María (críticame) 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the "had recorded his lines" sentence to "had recorded lines" [for Iorek], which is an undisputed and cited fact. A minor change, but it makes all the difference.

--Whamilton42 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

NYT cast list

• New York Times cast listing - Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 07:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Liquidfinale, thanks for catching that about the IMDB. I didn't realize that their information was user-generated. Do you have any sense about the NYT list and its veracity? I'm hesitant to unpack it just yet. You sound like you know what you're doing here. Thanks! Anthony Krupp (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I'd say "go for it" considering it's the NYT. However, they still have Nonso Anozie listed as voicing Iorek, so the veracity of their information in this case is definitely in doubt. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 17:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They also still have Adam Godley listed for Pantalaimon too, so yes, use caution. --Whamilton42 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Atheist? I think not!

Certain religions are boycotting the movie on the grounds that they believe it is atheist. Atheist is defined as "one who denies the existence of God" but The Golden Compass does NOT deny God, but instead portrays him in a negative way. And even then the moviemakers are diluting it quite a bit. Thabookwyrm (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)thabookwyrmThabookwyrm (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See talk page, passim. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you Thabookwyrm. The books only say that the character called the "Authority" is a fraud, and was never a god in the first place, just a very powerful entity that claimed to be. The books' argument seems to be against a dogmatic, anthropomorphic conception of God as a walking, talking mythological character out of the Bible. As for an actual God that coincides with nature and transcends human religions and philosophies, I don't think the books or the author claim to know whether there is one or not. I might be wrong, but I thought I read recently that Pullman was quoted as saying he doesn't know if there is a real God and that nobody else does either (militant agnostic).VatoFirme (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bold entries in cast list

A question: is the boldface to signify importance of the actor/actress or of the character? Just wondering. Anthony Krupp (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! I made this point to someone the other day; that it would imply importance of an actor or role which isn't necessarily. It appears on the entries which span multiple lines for clarity. When the article is older, and there's a lot more information on each actor/character, it'll make sense, as the actor and character names may be hard to spot (see Beowulf for an excellent implementation of this). My objections to it stem from the fact that I think we’re failing to take into consideration users who may have, for example, different resolutions, different browser window sizes (not everyone goes fullscreen; many people prefer to tile multiple windows), permanent browser sidebars and different browser text sizes - all of which can vary which entries spanned multiple lines. Not so much with this article, but on others it can lead to it looking a mess.

Still, despite all that, I'm happy to leave it alone for now, see how it goes. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Runtime

Yahoo are now listing the runtime as 1hr 54 mins, so I've added that to the movie infobox. The information is on a page that's just for video clips though, so I wasn't entirely sure how to reference it. If anyone knows better or can find somewhere else (reliable) that gives the runtime, that'd be great. --Whamilton42 (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bold Casting

I've learned from clicking on an internal link in this (semi-protected) Wikipedia article that the character Roger Parslow, a 12 year old boy, is being played by Ben Walker, a 31 year old Australian rugby player. Where else could I possibly discover such an astonishing fact? They certainly don't give out this information at IMDb! Thanks, Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.200.108 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the catch; sorted now. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lede / Controversies

I moved the following to the Controversies section, but it may duplicate information already there, per Liquidfinale's edit summary. Question: should the lede be a summary of the article? If so, I don't think this boycott belongs in the lede. Certainly it belongs in the article. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

</ref> In October 2007, the Catholic League called for a boycott of the film.^[1]

Having actually read WP:Lead section now, I see that notable controversies can also be included there. I suppose this counts, if other editors think so. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, in an ideal world the lead section should provide a run-down of the article's content (though that's not its only function; it's also a good place to put short snippets of information which have no other home). In addition, I've reverted your last edits to the article. Allow me to explain: the story is that the Catholic League are using a statement of Pullman's (yes, sans context) to help justify their boycott of the film. However, it is not our place to provide justification for Pullman's words, or indeed give it context, by including the qualifying remarks also contained within that interview. This is because he was not responding to criticism of the film, but the books; it was before the film had even been made. Had he been specifically defending this production, I would happily see its inclusion. The only other circumstances in which it could be included is if a notable third party uses the comments to defend the film in some way. Otherwise it's interpretation on our part, and therefore original research. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While I think you are likely correct under the synthesis rule (a rule I don't really agree with, but that's for another day), I would argue that if we cannot include context, we shouldn't include the CL's sans-context quote, either. To include a quote taken out of context without providing context would violate WP:Undue weight, I think. Less formally, given the propensity of many Christians to associate anti-Christianity with Satanism, anti-life and evil in general, I think the quote in isolation is overly inflammatory and non-encyclopedic. I propose that WP:Ignore all rules be invoked and the quote with context be left in; failing that, I would (reluctantly) support the removal of the quote entirely, leaving simply the CL's objection without an explanation. --Lode Runner (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what tipped the scale for me was the nature of the quoting; it seemed like we were trying too hard, in fact saying, "No, he's not the Devil, honest!" I'm not completely closed to the idea, however, if presented with some sensible wording. Can you suggest anything? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I am interested in being encyclopedic, and I think the single quote sitting there alone isn't that. No time tonight, maybe I can try again tomorrow. If Lode Runner can give it a shot, I'd be glad. I'm sure we can figure something out together. Cheers, Anthony Krupp (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way... the article currently has a quote from the director re: the books: Director Weitz says that he believes His Dark Materials is "not an atheistic work, but a highly spiritual and reverent piece of writing" Note that he's commenting on the book, not the screenplay. If he (and the Catholic League for that matter) can comment on the book, I think certainly the author of the book should be allowed to comment on his motivation in writing it. The quote "But I'm not in the business of offending people," he says. "I find the books upholding certain values that I think are important. Such as that this life is immensely valuable. And that this world is an extraordinarily beautiful place, and we should do what we can to increase the amount of wisdom in the world." can be inserted pretty much anywhere towards the end of the controversy section. Sticking after the Kidman quote, for instance, makes it seem less like a direct rebuttal to the Catholic League's attacks.

That said, the comments Liquidfinale recently added re: the movie satisfy me. I was mainly just concerned with Pullman's only presence in the article being "I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief", which wasn't his sole motivation at all. --Lode Runner (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nitwits.... ah, yes. Now I can sleep. Thank you!Anthony Krupp (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cite(s) for use

• A Director Confronts Some Dark Material (Newsweek) Alientraveller (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll try and incorporate some of that tomorrow, if no-one else has done by then. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Now incorporated. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hanna Rosin. "How Hollywood Saved God", The Atlantic, 2007-12-01.  - critical commentary on the omission of the more overt religious aspects from the film. - Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

More on the controversy

I used Benjiboi's material, recently reverted, over here: William A. Donohue#The Golden Compass (film). What do you all think? It's incendiary, but relevant to the controversy, I think. Whether or how it belongs in this article I'm not sure. I might want to see it go back in, but will mull it over. Or invite others to do so. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant. If it were someone related to the production making such incendiary remarks, then it would merit inclusion. Secondly, it doesn't really add anything new. The Donahue article is the best place for it, if indeed it merits inclusion at all. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right that Johnson isn't related to the production, but neither is Donahue. And she does reference the film itself, as he does, so I'm not sure what criterion you might suggest to distinguish their relative suitability for inclusion in the article. The argument about 'newness' is another matter, of course. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, someone doesn't have to be related to the production to be cited defending it; I phrased that clumsily. Still, what I should have said is that the full quote is an irrelevance. If you want to include something on it, I would suggest nothing more than a "the film has also been defended by whatsherface of the thingymabob group" - the incendiary language is irrelevant (incidentally, it is also notably not present in the cited article). Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded and re-added. I only heard of the film through the interview of the two of them on the show. I also added a clarfy tag as the two-month boycott seems odd and out of character for Donohue, he seems to get whatever media attention he can and then claims some victory as proof of his success in a follow-up press release. Benjiboi 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the needlessly divisive quote, especially since it doesn't appear in the cited article. It also seems a bit POV and WP:POINT-y to wikilink to the Catholic priest molestation article, considering it's not entirely relevant to this movie. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'll have to chalk some up to verifiability not truth as the quote has been edited out. The article is now here and has plenty more material to use. When the video shows up on Youtube or elsewhere quote can be re-used. I believe she purposely used the priests molesting children barb to contrast the outrageousness of the Catholic League's position. Benjiboi 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Eek. My apologies to all for pasting and copying without checking the link. Won't do that again. Thanks to all for subsequent work.Anthony Krupp (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• In any event, edited out or not, the molestation comment has absolutely no relevance to this article. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree about the relevancy of her molestation comment. Here is the original quote which is not in the latest online version, "the movie teaches children to question authority and maybe if more children were taught to question authority we wouldn't have priests molesting them." My link to the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases seems the most appropriate one for those wondering where the "priests molesting" children idea came from. As stated above I think she was using the statement to contrast the outrageousness of the Donohue's actions and statements. If I see a full transcript or video I'll try to post it here as well. Benjiboi 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"I think she was using the statement to..." isn't good enough, as you well know. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent). Please assume good faith. They were her words not mine and I pretty much wouldn't have included them unless they were in a quote. As my content asserted they were confrontational but I didn't synthesize why should used that statement except on this talk page in a discussion about her words discussing the controversy of this film. I have little to gain by adding false content on a highly sourced article of what looks to be a major film. Benjiboi 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming anything, I was pointing out that assigning motives to her words is interpretation on your part. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thus my assumptions were written as "I think she was using the statement" and presented as my opinion here on the talk page and not in the article itself. I let her quote speak for itself thus avoiding original research. Benjiboi 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

OK then; as we were discussing whether the quote should be included, it looked as if you were using your interpretation of her "molestation" comment as a justification for its inclusion, but fair enough. My own take is to apply Occam's razor; it sounded like a deliberate barb, so it likely was one. Either way, there's no reason to include it. So, moving on... are we happy with the current version of the Controversies section? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm not as it really seems like we're portraying Donohue's characterizations as valid. Give Donohue (which essentially is the Catholic League) credit as he is a seasoned p.r. and talk show veteran and seems to know what hot buttons to push and how. However if we are going to give him a platform I would feel better if we broke down the section into the major points with balancing statements so the readers can easily see the issues dissected and addressed. To me the section feels like a several-headed beast each adding a sentence onto the next with the net result of confusion. I suggest sections including one devoted to just the League's issues (if it's just them) so we don't infer because the League said X then Y happened. In my opinion Donohue speaks as if he's representing Catholics and is actually seen by many Catholics as an extremist (I'm not sure if right-wing is accurate) who's actually feeding anti-Catholicism by perpetuating stereotypes in pop culture arenas while ignoring concerns of mainstream Catholics. I may not be wording this in the best way but I think the gist is there. Benjiboi 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that we're presenting his arguments as valid (or invalid for that matter), though to be honest, the Pullman "nitwits" quote pretty much ridicules the man (Donahue). As for breaking it into sections, do you mean just have one detailing the League's position, then a separate one with the rebuttals? Or do you mean breaking it into sections which address each point one-by-one with a point/counterpoint? If it's the latter, I think, to be blunt, that would be giving too much prominence to this controversy based upon the coverage. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonky sentence/cite

"He cited author Phillip Pullman as saying that he is "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."^[2]article link here. Pullman did state that but it's a gross mischaracterization of an eloquent article that says a lot more than that and is about the book trilogy. It also doesn't say that Donohue quoted this although I have little doubt he did. The source is lovely and speaks to the undercurrent themes but needs to be complemented with a source stating that Donohue quoted this and then balance with other views that Donohue chose to omit like another Pullman quote

“

"I find the books upholding certain values that I think are important. Such as that this life is immensely valuable. And that this world is an extraordinarily beautiful place, and we should do what we can to increase the amount of wisdom in the world"

”

or, interestingly, an endorsement from a vicar - "He says he recently received a review in the mail from a vicar who found the books' "moral base" to be secure. "What he meant," Pullman explains, "is that the qualities and the actions which the story seems to be saying are good -- such as courage, love, kindness, compassion and so on -- are ones that we can all agree on. . . . It's saying things that we generally agree on, so what is there to disagree with?"" Benjiboi 02:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. I added a ref of Donohue quoting the original source. It would still be wise to balance it out with other quotes from the same source. Benjiboi 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Already been discussed--see the "Lede / Controversies" section above. I tend to agree that the quote you mention should be included, but I can understand the argument against it. --Lode Runner (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lede mention of Catholic League

While I don't disagree with a controversy being mentioned in the lede it should clarify the main issue(s) of the controversy otherwise it gives undue weight that just because the Catholic League is protesting that the issue is valid or of greater importance. In my (somewhat) limited research the Catholic League seems to gravitate toward media-friendly controversies often fueling an issue. Benjiboi 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. How is my latest attempt?Anthony Krupp (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've amended to anti-Catholic with wikilink otherwise seems more accurate. Benjiboi 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good call, that emendation makes sense.Anthony Krupp (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

New article source

• Golden Compass author hits back: Warning: This story contains plot spoilers By Julian Joyce, BBC News. Benjiboi 02:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Pretender to the Throne", Empire, December 2007 issue, pp. 122-130. Retrieved on 2007-11-29.  - Eight-page article on every aspect of the production in this month's Empire. I'll see if there's anything worth adding from it when I've done reading. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Move controversy to Pullman page

All of the controversy is currently being endlessly repeated (with odd variations) on several individual pages. Any parts or comments that apply specifically to The Film Itself can stay here but everything else should move to the Philip Pullman page or the His Dark Materials page (with an appropriate reference on this page). Dfmclean (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but please remember that the film, a much more accessible medium, is the source of controversy itself and the article would not be complete without at least something here. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That was exactly what I meant - movie specific stuff stays, everything else goes and we leave a reference to the main discussion on the author page. Dfmclean 18:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And these recent criticisms are a result of the film, not the books. Pullman himself said that he was surprised that his books have avoided controversy up until now JayKeaton 13:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

very minor error

I'm new here so I can't edit protected pages yet, but this sentence just needs an extra word I think: "He later indicated that HE had envisioned the possibility of being denounced by both the book's fans and its detractors, as well as a studio hoping for another Lord of the Rings."VatoFirme (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A positive review from a Catholic organisation

From the Catholic News Service, here:[10]. I think this link might be relevant to provide balance, to show that not all Catholic organisations share the Catholic League's strong opposition to this film. Excerpts:

"Most moviegoers with no foreknowledge of the books or Pullman's personal belief system will scarcely be aware of religious connotations, and can approach the movie as a pure fantasy-adventure. This is not the blatant real-world anti-Catholicism of, say, the recent "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" or "The Da Vinci Code." Religious elements, as such, are practically nil."

"Whatever author Pullman's putative motives in writing the story, writer-director Chris Weitz's film, taken purely on its own cinematic terms, can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with, at its core, a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism. To the extent, moreover, that Lyra and her allies are taking a stand on behalf of free will in opposition to the coercive force of the Magisterium, they are of course acting entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching. The heroism and self-sacrifice that they demonstrate provide appropriate moral lessons for viewers."

Terraxos 18:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just please make sure this debate doesn't get oversimplified and polarized. The article you provided should feature here, but I think this quote is even more important than just the positive nature of the review: "Will seeing this film inspire teens to read the books, which many have found problematic? Rather than banning the movie or books, parents might instead take the opportunity to talk through any thorny philosophical issues with their teens."

In other words it shouldn't just be that "This Catholic group thinks it's anti-religion and is boycotting it, but this other Catholic group liked it", which is more like entertainment reporting, is oversimplified and not very useful in an academic sense. Rather, it should more specifically and accurately say "The Catholic League has asserted that the film will lead to children reading the books, which they maintain is part of Pullman's plan to undermine religion; other Catholics have challenged this assertion and suggest that rather than boycott the film, parents can use the film and books to open up a dialog about tough issues."

Basically treating these groups' sentiments as the social theories that they are (e.g. "watching the film will lead to atheism" or "watching the film will lead to discussion and critical thinking", rather than just opinions they're throwing around I think will be more scientific, and also more fair to the assertions made by each party.VatoFirme 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that some version of "The Catholic League has asserted that the film will lead to children reading the books, which they maintain is part of Pullman's plan to undermine religion; other Catholics have challenged this assertion and suggest that rather than boycott the film, parents can use the film and books to open up a dialog about tough issues." makes a lot of sense. Nice, VatoFirme. Please insert it or someone else insert it, or some version of it. I've no time right now, but wanted to just support this idea generally.Anthony Krupp 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I also think it's important that this Catholic News Service article says the values in the film are consistent with Catholic values. That's pretty much the other huge argument they put forth. I think the article just needs one sentence right after the Catholic League's assertion, stating both of the major academic points made by the Catholic News Service: that they disagree that the film will seduce children to atheism and rather than boycotting, parents should take the opportunity for discussion of tough issues; and that in fact the film is consistent with what they consider to be Catholic values. That's all it needs, but it will really help balance out the Catholic perspective here I think.VatoFirme 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay sorry one more academic thingy - also might want to point out that the Catholic League (or at least Donahue) understands the Golden Compass to be the film AND the books, and the POV of the author, while the other Catholic Source evaluates the movie itself on its own terms and ignores the books and author. Kind of a significant difference in their approaches to popular culture. So maybe just one more sentence making a distinction, just so everyone gets fairly represented in their beliefs.VatoFirme 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Anthony, and we've been very careful thus far to talk about it in those terms. It's what it says at the moment, in fact, right down to the mention of other groups, some of which are adopting a "wait-and-see" approach to the film. As for this review by the CNS, it is merely that: a review, for the most part. It doesn't touch that much on the Catholic League's opposition to the film - which stems not from the production itself, or any anti-Catholic sentiment contained therein, but from the possibility that it will lead children to read the books, which it does have a problem with. This review may be appropriate for the use VatoFirme outlines, however, though I would like to know how prominent this organisation is before anything is added. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No this group doesn't directly engage the Catholic League in a debate, but it still offers an alternative viewpoint to their social theory that "watching the film = reading the books = undermining religion"; and that's the real issue here for me - the various assertions being put forth about the work and its impact on culture. I don't find the question of whether or not two organizations are talking directly to each other to be interesting or scientifically useful, unless their debate has some big impact on events or culture. As for prominence, I think that's a subjective call. I happen to think the Catholic League represents a minority viewpoint among Catholics and only gets a lot of media attention because of its power and political affiliations. But either way I'm confident there will be more positive Catholic (and other Christian) articles from more well-known sources in the coming weeks.

Oh and I didn't mean to suggest the article wasn't being careful about this topic already, I just want it to stay the way it is, which is pretty good so far.VatoFirme 05:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Alethiometer?

Does anyone know if they are even using this word in the film anymore? In the trailers they now refer to the device only as the golden compass.VatoFirme 01:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the trailers I've seen here (in Britain) have used the word. It's possible that it's not used in the US version though, similar to how the phrase 'Philosopher's Stone' was replaced with 'Sorcerer's Stone' in the US release of the first Harry Potter movie. (Obviously, this is speculation, so don't add it to the article unless you can actually find a source.) Terraxos 20:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An American trailer I've seen uses *both* terms. For what it's worth,Anthony Krupp 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw an early preview of the film this weekend and yes, they use both terms, but mostly "alethiometer." María (habla conmigo) 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another news item and quotes one might want to use

Pullman: “Good things have been done in the name of religion and so have bad things; both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from.”

Weitz: “It’s a shame people are reacting to a movie they haven’t seen by attacking a book they haven’t understood.” The latter seems particularly apt.

Craig Detweiler: “For the church to be criticizing a book that suggests religious organizations can harm young people is particularly ill-timed. Here in Southern California the Roman Catholic Church is facing $1 billion in judgments in sexual abuse cases. So I don’t think these protests are coming from a position of strength.”

Here's the link: [11] Anthony Krupp 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Note that the movie is the subject of much discussion and so forth, and I am not meaning to cause trouble. I added the sentences in the opening paragraph because I could not get an idea of what the movie was about. Someone, please put a short synopsis of the plot in the article. Some of it is in there, but it gets lost easily if you are not familiar with the material. Thanks, Group29 21:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)