Cool News
A new GOLDEN COMPASS trailer, with 100% more Christopher Lee, hits the net in Glorious Quicktime!!!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here.
I have to say, I'm liking what I've seen of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It's the first post LOTR big budget fantasy flick that doesn't look like it's aping LOTR's style and tone.
And this new trailer is pretty great. You get Ian McKellan's voice coming out of a big bear, Christopher Lee in the flesh (albeit briefly... although I love him being cast as one of the "religious" heavies... I guess it's the THREE and FOUR MUSKETEERS, where he played Rochefort, fan in me) and tons of finished daemons.
Thanks to "Squeevil" for the heads up!
CLICK IT HERE FOR THE FINAL GOLDEN COMPASS TRAILER!!!
-
+ Expand All
-
Looks great!
-
death before quicktime
-
but it has that horrible bland flat acting that seems to come part and parcel with heavy CG films, Phantom Menace Syndrome. Nicole Kidman sounds completely flat. And it was a mistake having KcKellen doing the polar bear, he's too identifiable as Gandalf to most kids.
-
Interesting to see how they deal with the more controversial aspects of the book, which is great.
-
Stupid refresh button.
-
i never read the book. but i've heard good things. this is once again WHY PEOPLE GO TO THE FUCKING MOVIES!! great cast, amazing special effects and just plain fun. but the whole polar bear thing looks like just another coca-cola endorsement. and it comes out on pearl harbor day and my mom's birthday.
-
This does not look like it will be another Seeker travesty. I can't believe that they cut Christopher Lee out of Sweeney Todd. Even if he just stood in the corner he would still be Christopher fucking LEE! He clearly still loves to work and you can't get more handsome sonorous cadaverousness for your buck than Lee.
-
..that there will be a time when there is no Christopher Lee. The man should be allowed to live for as long as he can be badass. So, forever? Yes, forever.
-
The first trailer had the line "It's an aletheometer. It tells the truth." The new one has "It's the Golden Compass, Lyra." "It lets you glimpse what is to come."
Oh well, considering that the book is called "Northern Lights" in the civilised world, this is a small surprise. -
this looks cool... perfect for Christmas
-
Nov 03, 2007 9:38:03 AM CDT
AM I CRAZY!? there's a trailer for THERE WILL BE BLOOD on apple!
by irc-hollywood
and no mention of it on this site?
-
The sequels are far more metaphysical and when the Authority appears(along with Metatron), it becomes much harder to avoid the obvious religious aspects.
And yes, I have actually read the series. -
I've been surprised about the lack of mention of the trailer, too. Though this may still be due to the technical difficulties.
-
Looking forward to this one. Great trailer.
-
gets the Dundie for Most Consistently Awesome Facial Hair.
-
In every other clip and trailer I've seen it's been called an Alethiometer. Notice how you don't see the actors actually say golden compass? I find it to be annoying as well, but it's only for the trailer. Aside from that, I can't wait to see this! I think the daemons look great.
-
Agree wholeheartedly.
Expect the sequels to be titled 'The Magic Dagger' and 'The Shiny Telescope'.
Americans. Gotta love 'em. -
Lyrael: I certainly hope that's the case. As Pullman himself said, "Golden Compass" is a silly name, as the alethiometer (oops, misspelled it earlier) doesn't point anywhere.
Maybe it'll be dubbed as "the golden compass" in the USA and left as is in the rest of the world. -
Or at least since October 10, to wit: http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/004985.html
-
I'm just passing along some information on the movie I didn't know about and thought it interesting and wanted to share:
http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp -
And with McKellen (as a good guy) and Lee (as a bad guy) involved, I think there's no way not to see a connection. But if something that superficial is going to be a problem for some people, fine, pretend it's not there.
-
will bomb like mutherfucka.
-
Is crap. "What's this?" "But what's it for?" ughhhhhh worse than Dan Radcliffe in Philosopher's Stone.
It's nice to see my college on the big screen again though. -
WTF? Fix that shit. Stupid quicktime.
-
You're forgetting that Pullman outed Iorek after the final book. Apparently he had been madly in love with Dumbledore all along.
-
As much as i love his past work the memories of Gandalf are still too present for his characterisation of Iorek to be distinct. I bet everyone says the same after the movie opens.
I'm sure it's not too late to change the voiceover (is it)..? -
It says what's true. It sees through illusions and reveals what's hidden. This is actually sort of a big deal, since the books are about human freedom, and predicting the future suggests predestination.
-
Harry reported on this almost a month ago:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34379 -
Actually, I think AICN posted the link to the Yahoo trailer about a month ago, too. Don't remember. But it's old news.
-
Is this decades "In a world where..." Also, Eva Green is superhot, but she's got the weirdest "English" accent ever.
-
Apparently she's been attending the Angelina Jolie School of Accents, where the same quasi-Eastern European accent will do whether you're playing British or Russian or Swedish or whatever. I guess it's okay for this since her accent isn't supposed to be identifiable.
-
Relax. I don't see exactly how referencing it as the "Golden Compass" in the trailer is necessarily dumbing it down. The movie is titled "The Golden Compass", if you kept referencing an "Aletheometer" people wouldn't know what the hell they were talking about, would they?
-
But they've replaced Swearengen's voice with Gandalf's for Iorek the armored plot device, and as Lyrael noted they've introduced the alethiometer as the Golden Compass now. The first change seems like weak sauce to me, but who knows why they felt they had to make it. Perhaps Iorek's voice wasn't "Aslanic" enough? The second change will only bother me if shows up in the actual movie as well. As for the name of the book and movie, I would invite our British cousins to continue to think that "The Golden Compass" is dumbed down from "The Northern Lights." If thinking that Americans don't know what the northern lights are makes you feel even a little bit better about yourselves then it's probably worth it, you poor dears. -- In SPOILER other SPOILER news SPOILER, I really do hope this movie makes a ton of money so we can watch the absolute trainwreck of the third act of the second movie and (I'm praying) the third movie in its entirety. C'mon, you have to admit that you're looking forward to the scene where Nicole Kidman destroys Heaven and scatters the Heavenly Host by batting her eyes at Metatron. An Oscar worthy comedic moment for sure. I can't wait!
-
I even heard that shite in the trailer for National Treasure 2. I'm looking at footage of Nicolas Cage in a bad toupee, and the soundtrack is screaming Omen/Carmina Burana at me. It does NOT make a film seem more epic, or darker, or whatever, it's just massively overwrought. Forget "Walking On Sunshine", ban the motherfucking APOCALYPTIC CHOIR OF DOOM from all future movie trailers!
-
Bless you Ian!
-
"From the studio who brought you The Lord of the Rings" and a bunch of similar cast members. That said, I'm still a fan.
-
see people, it's full of magic, english accents, and stuff just like those potter movies. You'll like it just as much!
-
they spent a great deal of money creating cgi animals and people arent really going to be wowed or impressed by that. I wonder if its a concern at all seeing how Evan Almighty was incredibly expensive and didnt do very well.
-
That trailer was up fuckin weeks ago. I swear this site runs at a snails' pace. The only thing this site is good for anymore is the spy reports. Which by the way are little and far between. I think the spies have realized what uber crap in quality this site has become. They haven't even changed the design of the site in like 10 years. Everyone do what I do and hit up IGN, at least they do regular updates.
-
good stuff pullman! attack a dead guy's life's work and call it 'trivial'. Writers don't behave like that. Pullman is the perfect example of the idealist. He thinks his shit is relevant cause it has a message or an allegorical component of attacking the church. He's one of those egocentric fools who probably thinks he belongs right beside the pantheon of immortal writers who wrote 'animal farm' 'lord of the flies' or 'the crucible'. Listen up Pullman!!! Tolkien's LOTR may be 'trivial' with no real message to humanity, and without any heavy political, or societal commentary BUT IT HAD GREAT WRITING. IT WAS WRITTEN WELL! IT HAD EXCELLENT CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, IMAGERY, SYMBOLISM, SUSPENSE, AND A MOVING PLOT. ABOVE ALL IT WAS WELL WRITTEN!... your piece of shit golden compass was written as though a 4th grader with a crayon scribbled some lines and you handed it in to an editor as your own. It may have relevance (the whole church thing) but writing is about writing pullman. NOT ABOUT THE SHITTY MESSAGE YOU BRING TO IT. I don't read books for enlightenment on some relevant topic. That's an added bonus if it happens but I read books to be entertained. YOUR SHIT JOB HDM: GOLDEN COMPASS was written a hundred times worse than LOTR... Sorry but I'll take well written 'trivial' stories over shitty written garbage like yours any day.
-
who can't properly defend his writing and who can't fucking properly insult the offending writer. Attacking C.S. Lewis and Tolkien's work are the actions of a true jerk. Why doesn't he go after Harry Potter and talk about how her writing is 'trivial'. OH WAIT!!! MAYBE CAUSE SHE'S STILL ALIVE AND CAN DEFEND HER WORK!
-
I'm still probably going to go see this LOL
-
it's not "information". A more accurate word would be "propaganda". You'll find that in any Golden Compass thread on this site there will inevitably be an argument about how "religion" (meaning Christinaity) is supposedly critiqued in these books.
Unfortunately, most of the people up in arms haven't actually read the books, so they don't understand that the message is much more subtle than they think. Criticism is possible without hostility, Pullman's books ask children to consider their own truth before handing over the reins of their consciousness to a pre-determined way of thinking. That's all.
Of course, the thing about Authority is that it always ends up paranoid, and any word questioning it becomes subversive. Oh well. -
Well, I've read at least 1000 novels in my 32 years and I've never read any of "His Dark Materials" and don't know what an aletheometer might be. I've also never real any Clive Cussler, Dan Brown, or Tom Clancy, but I hardly think that makes me poorly read.
-
Want to read authentic interaction between Pullman and the Church? Here's the transcript of a public dialogue conducted between the the author and Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml
-
Unlike the vast majority of Pullman's critics, the Archbishop actually read the freaking book.
-
Whilst acknowledging that all we can bring to a debate is subjective opinion, and we're all entitled to our own expression of such, Wolvenom my friend - you are a wankshaft. Pullman has a far greater craft at his command than Tolkien, who is clunky at best. Development, imagery, suspense... yes, he can do this, also allegory, dramatic metaphor, irony and the piece-by-piece demolition of christian mumbo-jumbo to which you obviously cling fast.
-
a lot of the american audiences or anybody else who sees it wont know where the term Northern Lights comes from. I know what it means but to avoid confusion, they called the Golden Compass. which the Northern Lights was originally called. But in america they had to change the name of the book. Same thing with Harry potter and the Philosopher's Stone(in the US it was called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's stone) and the madness of King George. Which in the UK was called The Madness of George III. The british makers, kept getting hit with the same question what Happened in part two? So the third was dropped for a simpler title the madness of King George.
-
It doesn't take guts to do what, in your opinion, call Jesus a faggot? Is that what Pullman did? Let me guess, you've read all the Narnia books, but the Pullman books, not so much, huh?
-
...and British royal families. The only King George that Americans really should care about is the one who lost the colonies. "The Madness of George III" sounds like it's about some British king. "The Madness of King George" sounds like it's about THAT King George, and is thus far more interesting to Americans. The Philosopher/Sorcerer thing from the Potter books is lame, and something I'll bet they wish they hadn't done. As for the Northern Lights, please take my word for it: Americans know what the northern lights phenomenon is. Especially seeing as how the book was released as The Golden Compass in Canada--where it can be presumed that the locals know about the aurora borealis--it is likely that the decision was made for other reasons. Apparently the same editor made the retitling decision for Potter's book though, so perhaps he's just a douche.
-
Well said... However, I agree with Bloom's comments re: our culture's "decent into illiteracy" and wouldn't be shocked to find Dan Brown on our grandkids' high school reading list. That's a joke (sort of), but are more realistic possibilities like Bret Easton Ellis or David Foster Wallace any better? To bring it back to the American film front - Why can't we get a big budget adaptation of Moby Dick?
-
The Golden Compass/Northern Lights is the only good book in the trilogy. Pullman lost his mind somewhere in between and decided he'd just pluck bullshit from nowhere and pass it off as a novel.
-
Because if this marketing campaign is accurate in adapting the source material into a mystifying adventure, which it should be, enjoy it while it lasts. Unless they bring in true autueurs, the sequels wil suffer structurally if they water down the content. There's some heady philosophy that will be challenging to adapt to the screen in a way that translates to audiences. I'm all for it, but I don't have my hopes up. Besides, Subtle Knife and Amber Spyglass aren't as satisfying as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and Deathly Hallows.
"You should be honored I left a comment on this fake shit." -
But I don't need to debate with a moron.
-
Life must be so much more simple when you are incapable of making simple logical connections . In the interest of furthering the education of the ignorant, let me help lay this out for you.
Pullman has said that his books are meant to speak against religion in general, and organized religion in particular. But from reading Subtle Knife and Amber Spyglass, it is obvious that his primary target is Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular.
People such as yourself, Mr. Pullman, or Sir Ian McKellen like to mock Christianity. What happens? Those in the Hollywood crowd snicker at the ignorant masses in flyover country and pat themselves on the back for standing up against the "religious right." Some Christians get angry and a few talk about boycotts which never materialize. Life goes on.
What happens when you criticize Islam, or Mohammed, on the other hand? Muslims in Iran or Saudi Arabia burn effegies of the writers/directors/cartoonists involved in the parody and issue fatwahs. Thousands of muslims march with masks on and rifles in hand. Authors get death threats and must go into hiding. To this day, only Matt Stone & Trey Parker have had the guts to openly criticize Mohammed in the American media, and Comedy Central censored that episode of South Park for fear of drawing fire similar to what Jyllands-Posten received over a printed cartoon.
Mr. Phart's comment was obviously designed to illustrate the cowardice of Mr. Agnostic/Atheist Pullman in choosing the easy target in his criticism of religion, and if you are incapable of understanding such a simple logical connection: please, please, PLEASE, stay away from the polling place in whatever country you live. -
First of all, the reason that Pullman deals with Christianity in the novels rather than Islam is because the trilogy is openly a riff on Milton's Paradise Lost. That's where the words "His Dark Materials" come from. A Christian story by a Christian author. Secondly, most of the trilogy was written in the mid-to-late 1990s. That is, well before the Western world started to have its great fit of hilarious, self-immolating paranoia towards Islam. Thirdly, I am quite certain that if you asked Pullman, myself, or any other level-minded atheist, we would tell you that Islam is just as much of a crap religion as Christianity is. It seems more logical to me that the reason why Christians are attacked more often than Muslims by Western media is because Christianity is more immediately relevant and familiar to audiences, and because most authors don't have sufficient background knowledge of Islam to criticize in a meaningful way.
-
1. so it pisses off religious conservatives. 2. so the rest of the trilogy gets made. And I got a big kick out of Rincewind69 making a completely stupid argument and then claiming intellectual superiority after making it. Unintentional humor is the bestest kind.
-
There is simply not enough in the way of remotely intriguing ideas on religion in these flimsy 'books' to honestly waste our time with a relgious debate, okay? It's laughable. If Pullman is trying to make any real statement about religion, particularly in the them last two disasters we loosely call 'novels', he fails miserably. Because the only feeling I came away with after struggling to finish that last god-awful 'story' was that he completely threw point-of-view out the window, turned what could have been an interesting character in Lyra into an annoying little whelp and, as mentioned above, howlingly has Coulter batting her eyes at Metatron where an actual climax should be. This, after the previous howler of having her actually stroking whathisname's (I can't remember...the guy who had the goddamned Knife for a bit) SNAKE daemon in the one of the most blatant phallic images I'd like to forget, frankly. But like Frisco said...let's see the other two films anyway, cuz damn...that really could be funny. And I'd really like to see CGI Iorek making a nice long lunch of Sam Elliot.
-
Or is Pullman not too subtly pushing his beliefs on others? He should learn that forcing beliefs on others never works. Heck, they did an episode of "American Dad" where it was the other way around (Stan trying to convert his Atheist friend to Christianity...and fighting an uphill battle.)...you'd THINK people would learn...
-
For some time during the pre-publication process, the series of novels was known as The Golden Compasses. The word Compasses referred to a pair of compasses: the circle-drawing instrument, rather than a navigational compass. Pullman then settled on Northern Lights as the title for the first book, and continued to refer to the trilogy as The Golden Compasses. In the US, in their discussions over the publication of the first book, the publishers had been calling it The Golden Compass (omitting the plural), which they mistakenly believed referred to Lyra's alethiometer, because the device resembles a navigational compass. Meanwhile, in the UK, Pullman had replaced The Golden Compasses with His Dark Materials as the title of the trilogy. But the publishers had become so attached to The Golden Compass that they insisted on publishing the US edition of the first book under that title, rather than Northern Lights, the title used in the UK. As the book was known as The Golden Compass in the US and Canada, New Line Cinema chose to use that title for the film adaptation.
-
Imagine a fantasy tale set in a slightly skewed version of the 1950s. A precocious youth is propelled along an amazing adventure to other lands--indeed, to other universes. Along the way she meets fascinating people of diverse backgrounds, abilities, and world views, and in time she comes place the deepest trust in their judgement. As the plot thickens it is discovered that her powerful, enigmatic father is gathering esoteric and martial power from across the multiverse in support of his pending assault on... what, exactly? For about 1 1/2 books we don't know for sure, but as the mystery deepens and our hero closes in on the answer we are hammered with the primary lessons from the author: trust your own judgement, resist dogma, challenge authority. Ultimately the great evil is revealed: the hero's father seeks to challenge the unchallengeable... COMMIES! That's right, you thought you were reading a fascinating, thoughtful fantasy story, but no: the author has hung the entire plot upon his puerile, sophomoric hatred for the international communist conspiracy. Upon learning of the nature of the enemy every single good and decent character whom the hero has come to trust immediately and without reservation throws in with the hero's father's cause. Even those characters who have no political axe to grind--for whom communism is far out of their experience and mind set--take the commie-hunter's claims at face value and set out to kill and die for the cause. The reasons given for fighting the evil commies amount to, "They're mean and they're always telling you what to do." Naturally the hero uses all the wisdom she has gained over the course of her adventure... and does exactly what her favorite authority figures expect her to do. Are you starting to understand why people feel let down by this series right around the time they get to the second half of the second book? It gets worse in the third book as the author abandons all pretense at writing anything other than spittle-flecked propaganda and his stated intention of "innoculating" children against the horrors of organized religion pushes aside all standards of storytelling. It's a mess, it really is.
-
That's why Arnold is governer of California and you accept any war as long as fake bullshit 'facts' are thrown in your face. Of course, every other country is the same. That's the main reason Americans are dumb - they think they're getting a better deal than other nations and are above everyone else. Well that's what every other country thinks about themselves. And only one country can think that and not be wrong in their assumption - the UK. Bwaha.
-
but of all organized religion. The god they are at war with is only ever referred to as The Authority. It is also revealed that he is senile and not the original creator of the universe but that this process of rebellion and replacement has occurred many times. I really like the first two books, but it really falls apart in The Amber Spyglasss, though there are many clever bits in that one too.
-
Gave me throat lumps and goosebumps.
-
I do love me some sir Ian, but I simply can't deal with his voice coming out of Iorek's mouth. It doesn't appear to work, and though I'll reserve final judgment for after I've seen the film, I don't see how it *could* work for me. And yes, I was annoyed at explanation of the alethiometer as a device to predict the future. And while I look forward to an adaptation of the second book, I have to admit that the thought of adapting the third book for film...well, my imagination fails me here. As does Pullman's, I think.
-
Innocent mistakes are only embarrassing when you've been acting like a pompous ass. Learn the lesson and be happy.
-
You are entitled to your opinion but i do believe something can be said to the fact that pullman attacked Tolkien for not having a substantial and relevent allegorical component to his work (calling it 'trivial') rather than critiquing his writing. Pullman is either a seriously jealous writer or just doesn't know how to show some manners especially when it concerns writers 6 feet below the ground and unable to defend their work. Critiquing a writer's method of writing is one thing, but critiquing a writer's decision not to make his work a breeding ground for an 'ideal' or commentary for those to rally around (or in the case of pullman those who hate the church to rally around) is another thing. PULLMAN IS TRULY A FUCKING JERK AND AN IMBECILE.
-
That even a man with a fucking PH'D isn't without reproach or respectful enough to refrain from attacking far more accomplished writers with PH'Ds ...
-
most people sorta grow into atheism as they grow out of adolescence and into adulthood. college also helps.
-
if you hate someone's work, then you hate someone's work. there's no getting around it. if dan brown were to drop dead right now, and i insulted him, and you enjoyed the books, then i would hope the reactions would be the same coming from some of you dolts.
-
"Mike, this is really a magical land. I hate magical lands". Let's see. Christopher Lee. That's good! Nichole "Box Office Poison" Kidman. That's bad! Bond. That's good! CGI animals. That's bad! CGI animals wearing armor. That's good! CGI animals that talk. That's bad!
-
Lonestar from Spaceballs wrote this?
-
I just read an article in Entertainment Weekly that said the director consciously removed all direct references to Christianity. WTF? How is that going to work? The first book refers to the church in a mirror-universe way, but by the third book things are spelled out pretty clearly. Here's hoping it lives up to the books! The actors and action certainly look fantastic.
-
For those of you assuming its another Christian allegory. In fact, its quite the opposite, as pablo2004 and Frisco pointed out.
-
has anyone who's read the books thought about alternative perspectives by which to analyse these books? There's the obvious attack on the fallacies of organized religion, but what about Pullman's mention of Dust, and how its everywhere, and all the quantum physics references in the books? It's got New Age and mystical elements intertwined in the "anti-Catholic" propaganda that dominates the second half of the trilogy, and I find the conclusion to be relevant in our modern age of the self-realization craze, what with The Secret and everything being energy and stuff like that.
Any thoughts? -
This trilogy contains the best attempt I've ever read personally to make the atheistic "afterlife" as warm and fuzzy as possible. Pullman tries to teach his young readers that at the cessation of life our essence sort of fades away, like Yoda in Empire, and eventually we return to the universe that birthed us, though of course we never actually left it when we gained consciousness. In the story nearly every character is completely at peace with this--even welcomes it. Now, part of the reason for that is that Pullman cheats again. Instead of having people go directly to oblivion without collecting their $200, first they have to go to what's left of Pullman's religionists' afterlife. This is where their bodiless souls are tormented in a fashion worthy of one of the lower circles of hell. Is it any wonder that they feel relief when they're released from that torture? Even God is portrayed as preferring oblivion to continued existence. -- Other aspects of the metaphysical reality portrayed by the author are predictable given his extreme allegiance to leftist political correctness. Those characters and cultures that are most removed from the traditional Western mindset are invariably the most enlightened, peaceful, and likely to share the author's opinions. The bourgeoisie and monied classes are practically without exception portrayed as insipid, greedy, untrustworthy, etc. (all except for college professors, conveniently, heh) while members of the lower class are inevitably salt of the earth types, trustworthy, honorable, courageous, and so on. And of course, the closest thing to a sympathetic character who has anything to do with the Church is a powerless, befuddled, old fool. All others are some combination of evil, psychotic, pedophiliac, murderous, fascistic... you get the idea. I could go on, but then again I already have, haven't I? At some length, lol.
-
Nov 04, 2007 1:08:47 PM CST
Ok its alright to critique dead writers, just not attack them...
by wolvenom
is what I'm trying to say. Its fine to critique a writer's method of writing but to call it 'trivial' is another thing. That kind of behavior shows a writer's true nature..... Lastly, Darwinwins and BobWalnut; you both need to learn some manners when expressing your points. I know this is a talkback but namecalling 'dolts' and 'wankshaft' is uncalled for. Have you no other way of expressing your point but through namecalling? I already won this argument for the sole fact that I didn't resort to namecalling like you children. Wait till you get into actual debates with real people outside of your basement and find out how namecalling doesn't work at all.
-
Being anti-Church and being anti-Christian are not the same thing. It's entirely possible for a person to live their life by Christian principles without subscribing to a belief in Heaven, Hell, or a supreme being. Sure, it's a lot more difficult (humans are not predisposed to turn the other cheek) but that's the point.What Pullman's getting at is the way institutions tend to exploit faith and fear in order to consolidate their power. And where he's going with Dust is the notion that the supernatural and the superscientific can be seen as much the same thing when one stops forcing definitions upon them.
-
Mark Twain once wrote a vicious and hilarious critique of the works of Fenimore Cooper.
-
Thank you for describing the basic story. I had no idea what these books were about. Very helpful.
-
There's a lot to like about His Dark Materials, so please don't take my descriptions of the story as being impartial. I grew to really dislike the series, so my posts reflect that. If you want a more neutral (and boring) description of the series, by all means check out its Wikipedia entries. Thanks for the shout out though!
-
Nov 04, 2007 4:33:02 PM CST
pablo2004, Twain critiqued Cooper's style of writing mostly.
by wolvenom
Not on any kind of a decision the writer made on his part to whether or not express a 'universal truth' or commentary on society. Pullman attacked Tolkien's work not for its style of writing but for the fact that Pullman believes LORD OF THE RINGS SUCKS CAUSE IT DOESN'T BASH THE CHURCH, OR MAKE ANY KIND OF A STATEMENT ON THE PERILS OF MANKIND. Which I might add that Pullman is severely mistaken on this matter. Some might argue that Tolkien's work summarized the industrial age's utilitarian destruction of nature (ents and saruman). Others might argue that LOTR was a reflect ion of Tolkien's experiences in WWII. HARDLY 'TRIVIAL' as pullman put it. BUT I WOULDN'T EXPECT ANY NOBLE PERSPECTIVES FROM A PISANT LIKE PULLMAN WHO HAVING NEVER SERVED FOR HIS COUNTRY, AND FEELS THE RIGHT AND NEED TO ATTACK BOTH WAR VETERANS TOLKIEN AND LEWIS.
-
here come the all-caps...
-
BLEGH (some all-caps for you samsquanch), this is looking more plasticky than ever. fakey-fake bad CG plastic blegh. good job, R&H. you guys really knocked it out of the park and right into your own nutsacks.
-
He might be afraid of Ms. Rowling. The rumor is that she met him on book tour and that she based the slimy and phony Professor Gilderoy Lockhart (played by Kenneth Branagh in the second film) on Mr. Pullman.
-
Wolvie, you're so full of spleen that I'm almost sure that you're just putting it on for the hell of it. You're dismissing Pullman on the grounds that he dismisses Tolkien as trivial. I don't agree with his estimation, but whatever-- that doesn't diminish Pullman's chops as a writer or a thinker. If you have something coherent to say about The Golden Compass-- other than it's piece of shit written in crayon by a 4th grader-- then say it. But then, you haven't read them, have you? Otherwise you wouldn't be stooping to your ad-hominem attacks on their author.
The truth is that Tolkien's literary concerns aren't the same as Pullman's. Tolkien is concerned with great, eternal truths; he's a nostalgic monarchist who finds transcendent values in his Catholicism and lets those values map the moral terrain of Middle Earth. His characters are often conflicted, but deep down, they know what's the good thing to do. They may fail, but they know the difference between Good and Evil.
Pullman relocates morality in the individual, not in a transcendent deity. If he believes in any transcendent value, it's in the enlightenment value of natural rights-- for all sentient species. Pullman wants to replace Augustine's City of God with an earthly Republic of Heaven, where humans take responsibility for their collective destiny. He sees organized religion as an impediment to humanity's collective maturing, since part of growing up entails understanding that one's choices have to be judged on their effects, not on whether or not a God is going to punish you for them.
SPOILERS
As for his writing-- Pullman's a master stylist. John Faa's oration to the Gyptians; the scene where Pan and Lyra are almost severed; the battle between Iorek and Iofur-- they've got some of the finest writing that fantasy literature has to offer; they're up there with the best material in LOTR (and, IMHO, they kick the butt of all but the very best material of the Chronicles of Narnia.)
SPOILERS OVER
I guess the point is-- if you can't stand the fact that Pullman thinks that Tolkien is trivial, then feel free to be pissed off-- but if you're going to criticize his books, you should probably have something useful (or clear) to say about his writing. -
I think it was Douglas Adams who said it would be odd for a 15 year old not to think LOTR is the best book they've ever read, but even odder if they still felt that 10 years later. I liked it when I was younger, but now find it cloying and clumsy. I find our lupine friend's reverence for authority (dead writers, people with PHDs) the signifier of an inherently religious mindset - such reverence is a Pullman target also
-
Although I don't know if Wolvenom is going to get much out of it. This is the guy who mispelled an abbreviation. Twice.
-
And I just misspelled "misspelled" For the love of...
*banging my head against desk* -
Insult me by saying I must take prozac... right after that your argument went out the window. I didn't even have to bother reading the rest of that essay on why you think I'm mistaken about Pullman. Further, you got me all wrong on why you think I have a religious mindset Walnut. The reason I've been upset with Pullman's attack on Tolkien is because of his obvious elitist view on things. I don't like anyone who thinks they know all the answers and then goes onto preach his views while at the same time demeaning other writers' work. I would have liked him much more if he had ignored the questions and comparisons of other fantasy literature rather than resulting to contemptuous disdain. I would have loved and welcomed a critique from Pullman on how Tolkien's style of writing was long, boring, too slowly paced, muddled, etc. Unfortunately because of some inherent inferiority and esoteric complex Pullman decides to call Tolkien's work 'trivial'. Its almost like he's saying 'HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT TOLKIEN OR LEWIS IN FRONT OF ME!' with a snobbishness that I can only imagine that Tolkien or Lewis never felt or gave to anyone. Its no wonder people believe Rowling's Gildroy Lockhart is based on Pullman. I'd even go so far as to say that Pullman's elitist ego has been crushed because a poor young uneducated woman (Rowling) bulldozed him over by taking the spotlight and now he's acting out by attacking other fantasy writers. He wants to prove his shit doesn't stink as much as theirs. And yes I have read Golden Compass. It was great, but nowhere near as good as Lord of the Rings. You people are confusing me with not liking Pullman the person with not liking his work. I like his work and I like how he's opened up for discussion the controversial issues surrounding that of religion. Just as I also enjoyed Tolkien and Lewis's work.
-
i just felt like saying that.
-
I may have said that shit about a 4th grader writing HDM with a crayon but I honestly meant that in the nicest way possible. With respect to Tolkien's work any other fantasy book written tends to look like that of a 4th grader's crayon scribblings. I really did enjoy The Golden Compass and do continue to the read the remaining books. I just don't like Pullman's attitude and how he goes about attacking other writers. I MEAN WTF! he called Tolkien's LOTR 'trivial'. LOTR is not just the cornerstone but the fucking Rosetta stone of FANTASY LITERATURE. Pullman needs to choose his words more carefully when critiquing legendary writers.
-
doesn't give a shit what we write about him or anyone. why? cos there is no afterlife and anything said is of no consequence. same goes for c.s. lewis. that probably really stings for him.
-
but this is AICN. The whole site is a testament to bad grammar and spelling.
-
your atheistic remarks are neither insightful nor apt. your losing all of your dignity and validity in your insipid remarks. thinks about the world and your life for a while. you don't know everything. none of us do.
-
To tell you the truth, I actually liked Lord of The Rings better when I most recently read it, than when I read it as a teenager.
We've got this naive notion that everything has to be done in a certain style, with a certain pace. We hem ourselves in.
After the death of Robert Jordan, I started re-reading the Wheel of Time books, and was surprised at just how distinctive and detailed it was. At the same time I was reading through the Dalemark novels by Diane Wynne-Jones (best known for Howl's Moving Castle). I've read through C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, too.
And yes, all three books of the His Dark Materials Trilogy. My opinion? He's imaginative, but he's a bit too heavy-handed with his attack on the church. I mean, you can't get much more obvious if you look at who they kill in the last part of the third book.
However, if you want a book that does a great deal of nothing to hide it's subtext, perhaps diametric in it's obvious agenda, Try the Shadowmancer books by Graham Taylor.
But you know something? There's good writing in either case. The real trick of it is not dragging a hundred and one kinds of political, cultural, and religious baggage into what you read. -
you sound like a wanker.
-
i'm not trying to be preachy here and i certainly don't want to come onto aintitcoolnews.com and have a theological discussion with whomever is out in the cyber universe but when someone says shit like:
"there is no afterlife and anything said is of no consequence"
it really pisses me off and i can't, for benefit of my consceince, let it go unacknowledged.
p.s. i am a wanker. i prefer penis, though. -
what do you care? People believe the most insane shit, why is believing in no afterlife any more or less nuts? You go ahead and believe anything you want, believe that heaven is another universe where you eat cheese all day for all I care, and I won't give you crap for it.
However, when someone elses belief "pisses you off", you have to ask yourself what the fuck your problem is. I probably don't like the same music you do. Does that also "piss you off?" -
I don't know about you guys, but out of the last 100 times I've read a religious attack on the Intarwebs, probably 99 times it has been atheist-on-religionist instead of the other way around. Atheists perceive that their point of view is coming into vogue a bit again, and a lot of them are seeing this as license to act like aggressive assholes intent on belittling and mocking the believers around them. It's low class and not 1% as cute as they think it is. Trumpeting the same old shit every college freshman thinks they're the first person in the history of the world to come up with ("Christians think they're so righteous, but look at how many people have been killed in religious wars!" ; "It's not the spirituality that's so bad, just organized religion." ; "Religion is a crutch for people who can't bear to stare into the abyss." ; etc. etc. etc.), needling believers with references to "Jebus", and so forth does NOT make them look smart, just full of doubt.
-
I agree with you about Adams' oeuvre, couldn't wade through it again and thought the recent film was terrible. Have just realised that it was Stephen Fry who said that about LOTR though: apologies... guess that'd why I didn't get my PHD...
-
For the record, I wrote an extended essay on LOTR as a grand metaphor for WWII, with the ring representing atomic bombs, the east attacking the west etc... worst piece of crap I ever wrote. Most disturbing thing about the books is the dreaming of England as a perfect rural idyll (the Shire), a conservative reactionary idea that was never true in Tolkien's time as it isn't true now.
-
always want to drag the board down to another futile comparative discussion of which ridiculous, asinine, nonsensical sky-fairy is the true God. Ooh, attacking Allah takes guts, attacking Yahweh is easy, let's attack Ganesh. It's all incredible shite anyway.
-
Bring it ON!!!
-
They changed the name of the film to "The Golden Compass" because the producers realised that most Americans are too fucking stupid to know what "The Northern Lights" refers to.
Also, they refer to the Alethiometer as 'The Golden Compass' for the stupid Americans.
Also, throughout the script, they will not refer to Lord Asriel by his name. Instead, he will be referred to throughout the movie as "the tall English dude". -
Pullman is a fiercely clever man, and if you'd ever seen him being interviewed on TV, you'd recognise that this world has a terrible lack of thinkers like him who are bravely prepared to publish atheist anti-authoritarian books like his, even for adults, let alone for kids.
-
Do you really believe that? Because they could have called it "Yer Mom's Bush" and I don't think it would have made the title any more or less cryptic, or you any smarter. Go suck a fat one, ya psuedo-erudite twat.
-
I enjoyed the book (many thought provoking concepts), and I am looking forward to the movie adaptation. I hope it succeeds on its own terms, as a wonderful piece of speculative fiction thinking people of all ages can appreciate, and not be hindered because a "League" of small-minded sheeple are threatened by its themes.
-
Man, your previous posts were so right on, but this one just... doesn't seem like you.
First of all, claiming that religious people are the victim of bullying atheists is a real stretch, considering atheists are in the ultimate minority, even in the secular humanist wasteland of the west. Second, even if that position had any merit, your second point that athiests only believe what they believe is because it's in 'fashion' is such a basic "us vs them" attack it's beneath you. It's insulting and offensive, exactly the kind of thing your religious people are supposedly victims of.
The point I was trying to make was that no matter what you happen to believe, you have the right to believe it, and no one has the right to discriminate. That said, proselytizing is where the issue of 'rights' gets a little muddy. You have the right to think that my beliefs are ridiculous, and you even have the right to say such a thing, but trying to change my mind, or annoy me into conversion is where most people's tolerance for respecting your 'rights' gets stretched a little thin. The fact that you're accusing atheists of crossing that line with religious people is... ironic, to say the least. I consider myself an athiest, but that's just because of what I believe, I can't help it. I certainly don't fit the description of the snot-nosed loudmouth you describe. If you believe in... whatever you believe in, that's fine, I don't really care, but let's agree that at least we'll treat each other with respect, Kay? -
Hey man, I'm not going to get involved in you silly arguement, but don't go knockin' snopes. It's got a rock solid reputation for its place on the internet. That's just a bad call to jump on them. They don't have an opinion on the movie/book. They just verify that the claims made in the spam email referenced ( which happens to be about said book/movie ) are true. -
I agree with you that there haven't been many authors writing books on athiesm for kids (at least in the wst, I imagine the communist countries had their share), but there have been plenty for adults, not only from niche publishers like Prometheus Books, but also the recent best sellers from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett et al.
-
Let me reiterate: For some time during the pre-publication process, the series of novels was known as The Golden Compasses. The word Compasses referred to a pair of compasses: the circle-drawing instrument, rather than a navigational compass. Pullman then settled on Northern Lights as the title for the first book, and continued to refer to the trilogy as The Golden Compasses.In the US, in their discussions over the publication of the first book, the publishers had been calling it The Golden Compass (omitting the plural), which they mistakenly believed referred to Lyra's alethiometer, because the device resembles a navigational compass. Meanwhile, in the UK, Pullman had replaced The Golden Compasses with His Dark Materials as the title of the trilogy. But the publishers had become so attached to The Golden Compass that they insisted on publishing the US edition of the first book under that title, rather than Northern Lights, the title used in the UK.As the book was known as The Golden Compass in the US and Canada, New Line Cinema chose to use that title for the film adaptation.Nothing to do with "dumbing down" the title, a la Sorcerer's Stone.
-
Thanks for making me waste my time downloading a trailer I have already seen.
-
The scope of the books was amazing. Multiple universes, killing God, gay angels, etc. I am sure that the references to the Catholic Church will be removed, but even so it should be astonishing, and I hope all three books wil be filmed. ATARI is right. This is the same old trailer.
-
Oh, I most definitely have noticed that the vast majority of religious attacks that I've witnessed (as I said, on the Internet--I wasn't referring to real world events) have been atheist-on-religionist. Come on, you can't mean to tell me that you don't see all the "dumb ass bible thumpers" and "save meh, JEEEEBUS!" style comments in the AICN talkbacks and other message boards. Every once in awhile you'll see some believer, usually Christian, make some outrageous comment, but they're immediately shouted down. I'm talking about the "normal Internet" here, btw, not the fever swamps. In the AICN Talkbacks, YouTube comments, the audience of the Daily Show, the editorial staff of the Onion, in the Fark / Something Awful / BoingBoing communities, and so forth the atheistic or anti-religionist view is FAR from a tiny minority. -- Also, I didn't say that atheists only hold their beliefs because they are popular now (though hold that thought*), just that too many of them feel emboldened by the relative popularity of their positions of late to act out in the ways I've talked about. -- Please understand, I think that attacking people for their beliefs when they have offered no offense and where the beliefs themselves are not the topic of conversation is a bit low class. I have tons of respect for people who can discuss religion without making everything personal. But there is a generalized coarsening of public discourse where religion is concerned, and though I've tried to keep my own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) out of things here, I honestly do see that coarsening coming much more from the atheist side than the religionist side. -- *Now, while I don't think that most atheists (or religionists, for that matter) hold their views because of those views' popularity, I do think that more popular ideas are more attractive to people who have not made up their minds yet. That seems fundamental, and is by no means limited to atheism.
-
And holy crap, but is episode 8 good. That has got to be my favorite hour of television ever. Sheer badassery from beginning to end. And that scene between Major Briggs and his son Bobby in the Double-R diner is the best scene I can remember from a TV show. Just amazing stuff.
-
trust me, I'm not the Defender of Atheism or anything, but your post just seemd a little off. I understand your point a bit better now, and I agree with you, mostly.
Your observation that there is a 'coarsening of public discourse' is correct, I would say, but I invite you to widen your scope a bit. Sites like BoingBoing, Youtube, the Onion, Fark, this place, and many others tend to all fall into a kind of nook of white liberal privilege on the net, (as if that makes them a ghetto) I'm sure that most of the posters in this talkback, just to use an example, are probably mostly white, mid-class north americans, with a few brits and aussies (also male, white mid-class) thrown in. Even so, whenever a topic even peripherally dealing with something touching on religious, and you'll see opinions polaraized in a snap. It's funny, here your opinion on whether or not X3 sucked is just as important and will be just as virulently debated as your feelings on whether or not there's an afterlife, and don't even bring up politics, hoo boy. My point is, don't think that a few loudmouth athiest bastards represent anything other than a buch of adolescents throwing shit at eachother through their screens, it doesn't amount to much. I would even go so far as to theorise that it's a small, victimless rebellious thrill for these guys to say stuff like "jeebus", since most of them were probably raised at least somewhat religious.
Public discourse has been coarsening for generations, we're just seeing the tip of a long, shameful lineage of bad manners and abuse. I'm guilty, as much as the next guy. I will disagree that there's an imbalance on the atheist's side though, some of the believers 'round here can get mighty nasty. But again, that's no real cross-section of anything. Discourse is good, even if it does get a little crass. cheers. -
Nov 14, 2007 10:51:15 AM CST
THE PHILIP PULLMAN, GILDEROY LOCKHART CONNECTION IS SHITE
by sepulchrave
I've looked everywhere and read the interviews and all I can find is WISHFUL thinking, with enemies of Pullman TRYING to find reasons to think that Rowling was referring to him when in fact she is obviously referring to an old boyfriend. This wish turns passive; 'it is believed..' WHO believes? NOBODY? YOU? And then it flips back into active: 'Rowling based her character Gilderoy...' and the laundering is complete; opinion become fact and off it goes, the lie that speeds around the world while the truth is getting its boots on.
-
There is no industrialized nation on earth where atheism, or at least freethinking, isn't treated with respect and intense religious belief with the caution that it so richly deserves. The struggle aginst religious fundamentalism is basically the struggle against the developing world's ignorance and the legacy of the USA in the developed world.
-
because church charities are cheaper than a national health system. Simple as that; religious conservatism is just cheapness masquerading as faith.
-
because church charities are cheaper than a national health system. Simple as that; religious conservatism is just cheapness masquerading as faith.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts