Talk:The Golden Compass (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"fantastical"

This word can't be a real word. Please remove this joke word from a real article. There has got to be a better way to explain it. If someone can reword that paragraph without " fantastical" I would appreciate it. Kaiser13 (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pullman has since said that the books do not have a religious agenda"

Pullman's claim here has been disputed by others. I attempted to add some of Pullman's remarks about C.S. Lewis in order to give the reader some more info about Pullman's views so they can judge for themselves as to whether Pullman has an agenda, however, this has been reverted.

Note this interview with Pullman from http://www.thirdway.org.uk/past/showpage.asp?page=3949. I suggest it is not consistent with the "no agenda" claim, and the article should reflect something like this long as the "no agenda" claim remains featured in this article:

Q: You’re not really giving us any clues to the source of the extreme antipathy to the Church in your books.

A: Well, all right, it comes from history. It comes from the record of the Inquisition, persecuting heretics and torturing Jews and all that sort of stuff; and it comes from the other side, too, from the Protestants burning the Catholics. It comes from the insensate pursuit of innocent and crazy old women, and from the Puritans in America burning and hanging the witches – and it comes not only from the Christian church but also from the Taliban.

Every single religion that has a monotheistic god ends up by persecuting other people and killing them because they don’t accept him. Wherever you look in history, you find that. It’s still going on.

Q: But why is there no light and shade? It’s striking that you don’t portray the rebels as particularly good – Lord Asriel is as wicked as Mrs Coulter, I would say – and yet the followers of the Authority are monolithically odious, even though you admit that in real life there are decent people among the servants of God.

A: OK, that’s an artistic flaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdell555 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have two questions. How is that 1) relevant to this film article, and 2) become an agenda, rather than a criticism or commentary on religion? In addition, the article already makes reference to the aim/agenda to "undermine Christianity" and the later refutation from Pullman serves merely as the man's own rebuttal to that. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. While awaiting an answer, perhaps we can consider what agenda, criticism or commentary signify.Anthony Krupp (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

re (1), if Pullman agrees that he harbours "extreme antipathy to the Church", what could be more relevant to the question of whether he has a "religious agenda"? As for whether "Pullman has since said that the books do not have a religious agenda" is relevant to this film article, I'm not the one that put that edit in. re (2) the word that appears in the article is not "criticism" or "commentary" but "agenda", and we shouldn't have to resolve the fine distinctions between these words when readers can draw their own conclusions.Bdell555 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether Pullman has "refuted" or "rebutted" anything is a matter of opinion. The reader should be allowed to draw their own conclusions about that. The article currently implies that "undermine Christianity" is a misrepresentation of Pullman's views by suggesting that that quote is mere hearsay ("[a Catholic partisan] cited author Pullman as saying...") . Pullman has said many other things that are indisputably not hearsay and the question is why those statement must be kept out in favour of his statement that he has no agenda.Bdell555 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason we have Pullman cited by Donohue, rather than citing Pullman directly, is not because we're trying to undermine the point, but because Donahue was using the remarks (made before the film was even a glint in New Line's eye) in direct relation to the film. Ditto Pullman's own defence of his books. Anything not related to the film on this subject should be directed towards the author's own article or the His Dark Materials article. The section as it stands right now does give a good overview of the controversy from both points of view, allowing the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The TimesOnline doesn't share your view that it is necessary to go through Donohue to achieve relevance, since the paper says flatly that "he told the Washington Post that one of his key goals was to "undermine the basis" of Christian belief." Also, Pullman's defence applies to his "books" not the film, according to the TimesOnline.Bdell555 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the Times Online article he is defending the books, but in response to criticism about the film, criticism which has its roots in the books, as cited. The interview you post above is one which has literally nothing to do with the film, was conducted before the film even entered production, doesn't even mention the potential problems a future film adaptation may face, and therefore has nothing to do with this article. I'm not sure what you want changing here. We have Donohue and the Catholic League saying the film should be boycotted, and their reasoning for that. We also have those who disagree with that reasoning. In the course of their rebuttals, they must mention the books, because that's what the CL's criticism boils down to. It's as balanced and as fair as can be, but any argument/counterargument which plays out here must be directly related to the film. Anything else belongs in Pullman's own article or the His Dark Materials article. Steve ^{T • C} 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your exemption of Pullman's "rebuttal" from your requirement that "any argument/counterargument" "be directly related to the film" is one-sided: either "both sides" should be exempted in this way or neither. Also, I don't see how anything in your response explains why TimeOnline's approach of not using Donohue to present the quote in question is inappropriate.Bdell555 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exempting Pullman from anything. Let me restate this: Pullman was directly responding to criticism about the film, the boycott, and those he called "nitwits" for suggesting it. In other interviews, he was talking solely about the books with no regard to the plans for a film, past or present, and these comments do not belong in this article. As for citing the Times Online article for the "undermine Christianity" quote instead of Donohue, that will separate the reasoning for the Catholic League's boycott from the details of said boycott. We state that there is a boycott. We then state the reason for it, from the mouths of those calling for it. What's so wrong with that? I fail to see how that misrepresents anyone. If you prefer, the sentence perhaps has some scope for expansion, and could instead say something like, "…citing Pullman as telling the Washington Post in 200x that he is trying to 'undermine Christianity'." Would that meet with your satisfaction? Steve ^{T • C} 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't throwing in random remarks about C.S.Lewis amount to violating the synthesis policy? If the subject under discussion is not Narnia, then his comments on Narnia shouldn't figure in. And I don't like that some people are insinuating Pullman is "anti-religion", and using his hatred of Narnia to back up that argument. It simply doesn't logically make any sense. From everything I've ever read he appears to hate Lewis because he finds him really racist and sexist. I happen to agree with him - although there are many Christian writings I enjoy very much, I do see his point with Narnia - and yeah, I understand it was written during a time when sexism and racism were more ingrained in culture, so Lewis may not have been consciously being a bigot, I'm not saying hate and demonize Lewis or anything, but regardless I do recognize that there are those questionable elements in his stories and they should be questioned, because we don't live in that time anymore. And I would extend that to all works that attempt to put forth guidelines for morality, including (and especially) the Bible and other church doctrine that were not written with modern values in mind. So does that make me "anti-Christian" or "anti-religion" just because I criticize the values portrayed in Narnia and other books?VatoFirme (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The reader is currently being told that "Pullman has since said that the books do not have a religious agenda" while material that might lead readers to conclude otherwise is minimized or excluded. If readers were as informed as you are here I would have no objections. Readers could then come to their own conclusions about the questions you ask here.Bdell555 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In order for it to be "his agenda", he would need to actually have that agenda. He says he doesn't over and over again. Just because other people are accusing him of having other intentions doesn't mean that he does. They aren't him, they don't know what he's thinking, they cannot speak for his "agendas". You can't impose agendas on people if they say they don't have them; you can't put words into people's mouths.

The controversy and accusations have been noted, nobody is trying to hide them. It sounds like you are putting a lot of effort into steering the readers of this article toward some sort of conclusion, and no offense, but that sounds pretty sketchy to me.VatoFirme (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the reader should "steered toward some sort of conclusion". Rather, I am saying the reader should NOT be steered toward one conclusion in particular, and that's that Pullman has "no agenda". The issue here is being NPOV. You've clearly come to the conclusion that he has no agenda simply because Pullman says he has no agenda. If someone says he is holding 2 apples in his left hand and 2 apples in right hand, he is holding 4 apples EVEN IF the holder also says he is not holding 4 apples. It is not inappropriate to include the two "2 apple" statements in an article that contains the "not 4 apples" statement. That's not "putting words into the speaker's mouth" or "imposing an agenda" on someone. Isn't Pullman "putting words into (C.S. Lewis) mouth", according to you, by accusing him of being a "racist" while C.S. Lewis never explicitly stated he is a racist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdell555 (talk • contribs) date

Can you spell out exactly what you would like the section to say, instead of assuming bad faith on the part of the editors here? After your last message I altered the section to better reflect where Pullman's "undermine Christianity" quote had come from, even though I personally didn't think it was necessary, and yet you're still projecting motives onto us which simply do not exist. I've stated the reasoning behind the wording of the section enough times already, and you have not even attempted to properly refute the points. In addition, this is not the place for debate over whether the books have an agenda. Anything of that nature should either relate to the film (as the comments currently do) or be taken over to Pullman's article or the His Dark Materials article. Am I hoping this film will be good? Of course I am; but then again, I want all the films I watch to be good. Heck, I was even rooting for An Alan Smithee Film to be good when I watched it (it wasn't). But rest assured, content relating to this film, positive or negative, will be added as and when it becomes available, and the history of this article bears this out. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 08:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Bdell555, this is not the article for a debate over the religious agenda or otherwise of Pullman and his books. That material should go into the articles on the man himself, or perhaps the His Dark Materials one. Anything added here, including in defence of the books, must be excluded if it doesn't have some relationship to the film. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case then "Pullman has since said that the books do not have a religious agenda" should go as well. If that remark is related to the film then all sorts of currently excluded remarks are also related.Bdell555 (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You want to include material that would violate the synthesis and original research policies. All your quotes prove is that he is a critic of organized religion and of C.S. Lewis, which is well-known. You still need to come up with evidence that he has an "agenda" and that it relates to the film.VatoFirme (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I just moved this here: "Reviews that have applied negative criticism towards the movie seem to compare it excessively to the books, arguing that it's faults stem from the script wandering to far from the original material, whereas more positive reviews view the film and the book as two separate mediums, arguing that both of which are entertaining in their own right." Aside from the grammar, does this not seem a mixture of OR (analysis of what the reviews are doing) and POV (excessively)? I think some version of this might be includable, but would want it to read more encyclopedically.Anthony Krupp (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included, I think it's too much of a generalization. I think it's crossing the line of objectivity to try to theorize about why critics are making their judgments. Everyone is free to follow the links to critics' reviews and read them for themselves. If someone notable movie critic or something observes it and makes a good case for it, then maybe we could quote that person, but otherwise it feels like original research.VatoFirme (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, this seems a bit off

“ (Kidmand was, however, a member of the Church of Scientology during most of her 11 year marriage to Tom Cruise.[44]) ”

This sentence seems to portray Kidman as possibly insincere or conspiratorial. The reference is from 2001 so is unlikely to be discussing the film. I would be more swayed by a statement that she is a bad Catholic because doesn't attend mass. I leave it up to the regular editors to sort out if it merits inclusion but a more accurate statement about her current religious would seem more encyclopedic. Benjiboi 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I left this message on Mamalujo's talk page, explaining my revert. Have not received any response from Mamalujo, who has reinserted the quote (along with the category Anti-Catholicism):

"Hi; I just reverted on The Golden Compass (film), but my edit summary got truncated. I agree with you that Kidman's statement about Catholic essence seems questionable, but that doesn't belong in an article on the film itself. Maybe on her bio page or something: knock yourself out. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, let me retract my invitation to knock yourself out: it seems from the warning tags on your talk page that there are many reasons not to do so (like WP:BIO). Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"

Mamalujo should perhaps remember that wikipedia is not a soapbox. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism category

Per the insertion of this category onto bios and high-profile articles the category description was modified to read:

“ This is a category for organizations, theories, books, individuals, etc. who have a notable connection to Anti-Catholicism. ”

Part of the reasoning we made the inclusion more focussed was that "it does a disservice to Wikipedia as well as to those who are actually fighting anti-Catholicism and mitigates the real damage of those who are anti-Catholic". Simply having the catholic League call something anti-Catholic would include hundreds of articles in the category which would seem to indicate that everyone's anti-Catholic which is hardly true. Benjiboi 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Question for more seasoned editors: is there something that can be done, other than reverting, about a single-minded editor who reinserts the same cat every few days, against consensus and without discussing his edits here on the Talk page? That is, is there a tag for this, or an administrator action that can be taken? I'm thinking of Mamalujo [1], who has added this category on December 5, December 6, December 9, December 11, and December 14. Any advice? Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You can put a friendly (or not-so-friendly, if appropriate) warning on the user's Talk page. On my User page (not the Talk page), I have a list of the different warning templates if you would care to look.

I think the "Please stop" template ({{subst:uw-vandalism3|PageName}} would be appropriate. If the user continues to make unsuitable edits, add the "Last warning" template ({{subst:uw-vandalism4|PageName}}. If the user persists after that, you can report them to the administrators for action. This page on how to deal with vandalism is also a good reference. TechBear (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Among criticisms I have heard from a wide variety of Christians is that Golden Compass makes beings called Demons and Witches the good and trusted companions of the hero. Imagine little Johnny coming home from the film “Mommy, I want a demon of my very own too”. If anybody can find less anecdotal references of this ilk, it might make an appropriate addition to the article. Me, I’m new to Wiki and don’t trust myself to do it right yet. Jeff Vollmer, 12/30/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.192.92 (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pullman Interview

http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=268&article=0#bluebox

News item #25 in the podcast box leads to the interview, if it doesn't load right away.

He talks generally about himself and the book series a bit, but most of the interview is in response to the film premiering.

Some notable things: Pullman avoids labels like "humanist" or "atheist". He directly denies having an agenda, because he wants people to think for themselves. He also professes respect for Narnia for its literary importance and the fact that it takes on large questions of faith, even though he hates the conclusions it comes to - whereas he sees LOTR as pure fantasy that doesn't ask any big questions, doesn't hate it, but doesn't respect it either because it doesn't say anything. He directly comments on the movie (loved it), and the protesters (he thinks they are acting exactly how the Magisterium is portrayed in his books).

Great interview and pretty long, and he gets a chance to represent his beliefs with more nuance, rather than sound bytes, so check it out.VatoFirme (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaked or press got it?

The.Golden.Compass.CAM.READNFO.XViD-mVs has been released by a warez group called "mVs" and has got a "cam" release of the movie, now how have they got it when it isn't even out? Has it been leaked or has it been seen in the cinema by the press and/or other people who have then recorded this here? [I can not put a link up due to piracy rules] --Kanonkas 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad, was seen in the UK 5th december. I'm sorry for this here. --Kanonkas 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanonkas (talk • contribs)

Reception section

The whole section as is seems rather unwikipedia and that's the nice version of what I want to write. I would hope to see something like "reviews have been mixed with film critics citing acting as ____" and such. The statements about Rotten tomatoes and the other site are fine if we are selling the DVD for Amazon but we're not. I would suggest dialing it back to more generalities until there is better actual film critics with insightful quotes to work with otherwise the section detracts from the rest of the article. Benjiboi 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The independent aggregate nature of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic allows a better perspective of how a film has been received so far. Prose from the film critics themselves are welcome, but I'm not sure why you think we seem to be selling DVDs? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It could certainly use expansion, but the way it's actually presented seems fine to me. I think after the weekend there will be a lot more which can be added to the section. At present, apart from the review aggregators, we can only really cite individual reviews because, apart from some of the acting, there appears to be no clear consensus as to what is good or bad about the film, even in reviews which ostensibly agree with one another. Have patience; this is for the ages. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"This is for the ages." I like that. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I probably saw it on one of the bl**dy donation banners :) - Steve ^{T • C} 23:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I added clarify tags as metascores and rotten ratings are rather meaningless, the reader should not be directed off site to figure out what this means and if we can't tell them then maybe it should be shelved. Benjiboi 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They're not meaningless at all. They show what percentage of critics liked/disliked the film. I'm not sure where your confusion lies. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have been cited widely for films' receptions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I was making a good faith effort at improving this section and I take exception to your simply removing as unneeded. Do you really think I made a deliberate effort to bring my point here and then when prompted to clarify exactly what phrase I had a problem with just to be dismissed? I honestly believe "48% Rotten rating based on 40 reviews" is rather meaningless. Is "48% Rotten rating" good, bad, what does it mean? I hereby give up on this article do what you will. Benjiboi 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold on; this information is commonplace, so it's just new to have an editor consider it questionable. If we removed either "Fresh" or "Rotten", does that clarify the matter? Perhaps these two items need to be defined. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with waiting until the opening weekend to edit the section. I did the edit to "45%...53 reviews", who got rolled back. I was trying to make a point. Does it matter right now? It wont matter until the general public "recieves" the film. And, following with the rollback on my edit, why would it be more valid than an updated info? --Dreyesbo (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic will be cited for the life of this article, I'm not sure why there's a reason to exclude it at this point. There are reviews available, and while the rating has not balanced out, it definitely serves to be preliminary. Since Wikipedia is dynamic, such information can easily be updated as time goes by. As for confusion over the details, I'm not sure how much more clear it could be. There are wiki-links these particular websites, just like there are wiki-links for topics that a reader may not fully understand. Not everything can be fully elaborated in a single article. These websites have already been identified as "film review aggregate websites", so perhaps the brief definition could be fine-tuned. It just seems rather clear to me, but perhaps I've been accustomed to seeing these websites cited. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive talk comments

Could someone please start an archive and move old talk topics to clear up this page for current discussion? Benjiboi 00:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think much could be archived... a lot of the discussion isn't even a week old. In addition, keeping the discussions about the controversies would prevent unnecessary reiterations of the topic. Maybe in a few more days, perhaps? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dakota Blue Richards

I've recently expanded the Dakota Blue Richards article quite a bit; would anyone here be interested in looking at the article to possibly give it a new grading/improve it/discuss how it could be improved, or anything else appropriate? There don't seem to be that many people looking after it at the moment so I thought this would be a good place to ask for some new input on it... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversies - Pullman's stances and this article's connotative misinformation.

I added information on Pullman's previous stances on the book. I don't believe that these stances were accurately covered in the article and I believe that the reader was given misinformation by reporting, "Pullman has since said that the books do not have a religious agenda," without giving any prior references to what Pullman has said about the book regarding religious agenda. Without prior quotes or information on his prior stances, the article's content is misleading: it implies that Pullman is only responding to the critics and that his stance has not changed, which does not appear to be the case given what he has previously said. James Lednik (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We do give prior reference to what Pullman has said - the Washington Post interview is already cited. There's no desire to misrepresent what anyone has said. Additionally, I urge you to read my, oh, half a dozen or so responses above where it is explained quite clearly why this article is not the place for a claim/counterclaim back-and-forth; in short, material must relate to the film in some way, anything else is for Pullman's own article or the His Dark Materials article. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 13:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While I did read much of the discussion here (including your comments, Liquid), I missed the prior Washington Post reference when making my edit. James Lednik (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Sorry if my tone was a bit off; it was a byproduct of my laziness in not wanting to type the explanation out again. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Catholic League (U.S.)

Looking at the Lead section, one thing that clearly stands out is an out-of-place reference to a proposed boycott by an American religious organisation, on the grounds that this organisation has identified the film as "anti-Catholic."

While discussion of that proposed boycott may belong in the article, it certainly does not belong in the lead section. Firstly, the organisation is unknown outside the United States; this is an English work of fiction. Second this is a Hollywood film with a worldwide distribution; the opinion of a religious organisation, while arguably relevant to its reception, is not so important to the film unless and until it has an actual influence on the revenue of the film. It may be appropriate to mention in the lead that the film has aroused controversy owing to the atheism of the author and the anti-clerical nature of the themes. Concern on that matter is not limited to the Catholic League or to the United States. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately for the viewpoint that the Catholic League information is left out of the lead section, despite my agreeing that they are at best a marginal organisation, they are capable of making a lot of noise. Thus, the news coverage this issue has generated is reasonably substantial; as such the article reflects this. The lead section is a summary of the article, and should therefore contain this information. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 23:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that your local news outlets pay more attention to such matters than mine. That in itself is significant.

The lead section is certainly a summary of the article, but because of that it should only contain the most significant facts about the film. The proposed boycott by a particular religious group is certainly not one of the most significant facts about the film.

This isn't just any film. This Carnegie Medal-winning English book was recently voted Carnegie of Carnegies, and every performance of the dramatization at the National Theatre was sold out. At this stage, it doesn't matter what the Catholic League or anybody else thinks. --Tony Sidaway 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Copyright violation

Iorek Byrnison with Lyra Belacqua on top, in a promotion event for the movie version of the story. Picture: Wettach.

In the form and size the copyrighted poster picture is a copyright violation and should be replaced or drastically reduced in size. The pic to the right is the only picture which I can offer (and had included in the article) - not a great picture, but the only Creative Commons picture available. --Gwyndon (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Has there been an actual copyright violation, like as New Line contacted you about it? Or are you just preparing in case a copyright violation claim comes up? JayKeaton (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary is Incorrect

The summary in this article appears to be based on the book, not the movie. For example, Marisa tells Lyra that she's her mother, Lyra isn't told by the Gyptians. Also, when she is kidnapped, she is taken to the Panserbjorn castle, not to Bolvigar. I think there are some other problems, but I'm not positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.149.30 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be based on the book because the text in the plot section of this page was lifted word for word from the plot section of the page for the book. Hopefully someone gets right on this --69.229.63.189 (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it does seem to be lifted from the plot of the novel, and it is in need of severe editing quite quickly (as the ultimate fate of Roger would be an unpleasant spoiler to someone who has seen the movie but not yet read the novel). Among the problems are that the king of the armored bears is named Ragnar Sturlusson, the bear fight takes place before the liberation of Bolvangar, and the movie ends before the encounter with Lord Asriel. I'd make the edits myself, but I was out of the theater for five minutes and missed other changes, so someone else would be better suited for the task. MatthewDaly (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in Description

In the description of the movie plot is this line...."Inside the room, they see the Master of Jordan College attempt to poison Lord Asriel, Lyra's uncle." I just saw the movie and it was not the Master of Jordan College who tries to kill Lord Asriel. It was an agent of the Magesterium. I am new to this and not sure how to change the entry, but I felt I should point this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.147.90 (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It becomes more confusing when you have to novel's storyline engraved into your mind. Originally, it was the Master who poisoned the Tokay. I only saw the movie today, and I'm not completely satisfied with the adaptation. Highlandblossom823 (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Father

In the film, Lyra correctly guesses that Lord Asriel is her father after Mrs Coulter reveals herself to be Lyra's mother. --Tony Sidaway 08:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I haven't seen the film yet and for some reason I mistakenly thought that didn't happen until Subtle Knife. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 10:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary

I do think the plot summary should mention the significant omissions. We shouldn't be writing in-universe, blow-by-blow accounts of the plot, but rather discussing the plotting as a work devised by the author and the screenwriters. In this context, it's an important point that the film differs from Northern Lights by omitting material from the end. This has been discussed in reviews, I believe. I'll dig something up. --Tony Sidaway 17:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary is for what is there, not for what isn't. Plus, the fact that the ending has been lopped off is mentioned elsewhere in the article, and you would simply be repeating information. If you dig up a source, by all means include the information as to what specifically was removed, but I don't think it should go in the plot summary. Steve ^{T • C} 18:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Liquidfinale (Steve). If there are differences to be noted (as there can be many between the source material and its adaptation), it's best to cite the real-world context behind the differences whenever possible. For instance, different hair colors for the same character in the book and the film may not be relevant, unless it can be verifiably shown why particular hair color was chosen. Usually, such information is best embedded in Writing sections. I have a few examples: Road to Perdition#Writing, The Seeker (film)#Writing, and Fight Club (film)#Writing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Box office performance

Modest domestic opening weekend box office performance, with no obvious competing movies opening on the same weekend.

• http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jb68x_tOGx8QHjI0Cr6C-Vy79OGgD8TE3RPG0
• http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-12-09-box-office_N.htm
• http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRBjEtERasbg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.217.199 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

PG-13 Rating

Should this article mention somewhere that the film is rated PG-13, which means that it is not inteded for children under 13? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.102.169 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing up the topic on the talk page. I don't believe it's relevant to include the rating information as ratings serve to show audiences whether a film is appropriate to see or not. If there was real-world context about the rating, such as specifically targeting PG-13 as opposed to G or PG, then it could be appropriate for inclusion. Otherwise, the information isn't very encyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm? I think the issue with listing ratings is that you'd need to list ratings for lots of different countries. This could be cone in a box. But the criterium you give would be what was needed to actually bring up the reading in the body text. --129.241.217.199 (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an movie certificates infobox available, but in my experience editing film articles, listing the different ratings don't add very much substance to an article that is intended to be encyclopedic. You're right, I'm talking about prose when it comes to ratings. From what I've seen, the ratings are not always commented upon. A couple of examples that come to mind, though, would be the PG-13 rating for Live Free or Die Hard when its predecessors were R-rated. Also for Fight Club (film)#Theatrical run, there was substantial background to how the film got its rating in the UK. I've tried to encourage implementation in such prose instead of just listing the ratings, which are easily found at IMDb (likewise with a comprehensive cast list, as you can see we discuss major players in the article). Let me know your thoughts! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to stand on its own as an encyclopedia (even in print or CD without internet access), and here the rating says a lot more about the movie than a FULL list of all cast and crew which is in the movie's credits anyway. If it was up to me I would have included a ratings box since it says something about the world's treatment of the film.--129.241.217.199 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be relevant to show the rating, since the Catholic League and others are accusing the film of being propaganda aimed at children. Then again that might be synthesis or OR, unless you can find the movie's creators actually retaliating with the information.VatoFirme (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Russophobia on the rise

My family watched this film today and came home depressed: why was it necessary to put a Russophobic stroke in the film? I understand and accept that Russians are villains in "standard" Russian mafia, or KGB spy, or military adversary, etc., elements of plot. But to make Russian villains in a film for kids is disgusting. Was it so difficult to invent some fantasy language in a fantasy film? `'Míkka>t 08:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an alternate universe mate, they weren't actual Russians. But if you can find a good source to back up your claim then it may be added to the article. JayKeaton (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They spoke Russian, they were wearing a grotesque exaggeration of Cossack uniform, alternate universe or not. Anyway, I doubt it will be discussed, since it is a minor speck of dirt, especially compared to the religious controversy. `'Míkka>t 17:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I can't remember exactly their nature from the novels. Has the film been released in Russia yet? And has it generated controversy because of this? If so, there'll be some coverage and this can be added, no problem. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 00:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This gets into that gray area though, because they were after all way up north, and I don't think it says the guards were evil, it says they were hired by the Magisterium. Kind of like, if a scene took place in the middle of Africa, and the Magisterium had hired locals, and the movie showed a band of black African warriors - would that make it racist? Or just sensible considering the setting?

I would be more concerned with whether the portrayal featured common stereotypes about Russian people. Simply portraying a group of people on screen as adversaries isn't racist per se, racism requires generalizations and judgments being placed on that race. I'm not familiar with any stereotypes about Russians though.VatoFirme (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually do consider this russophobic, they are villains and they speak russian, and... their daemons are ALL wolves. reminds you of somehting? Maybe cold war propaganda slogan "USSR is populated by wolves, not people". Yes, this is definitely a generalization, and a bad one. It was more than obvious that authors wanted to portray russians as evil in that other world. And if someone wants to draw paralells between worlds (as in, very well noted anti-religious character of this movie) then it is very clear what author wants to say about religion (without which it would not be possible to impose moral values on humans) and russians. There is no point trying to convinve people that this is not anti-russian. The facts that people noted it alone and that some people consider it insulting allready deserves a mention, this is not an issue of majority anymore. 99.231.63.253 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov 31 December 2007.

Unfortunately, the way that Wikipedia operates is that we include verifiable content from reliable sources. Editors expressing their perspectives in any sense do not count in this regard. If this Russophobia is truly a big deal, then there should be reliable sources contesting the presentation. If you can provide some, they could possibly be incorporated in the article (preferably by editors who are less opinionated about the matter). Anyone can say anything about the subject matter of any topic, and the way Wikipedia narrows the scope is to use verifiable content from reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Erik's comments that IF verifiable, reliable sources are found then may be the Russophobia should be included. However, I completely disagree that whether the editors opinions on the matter have any effect or not. The lack of opinion OR even if the editor has strong opinions does not matter whatsoever to whether material belongs in an article or not. My experience is that Wikipedians tend to attempt to stop the addition of valid, fully sourced information from editors that have a strong point of view and that is simply wrong. If the information is notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced then it should be includes regardless whether the editor has a strong opinion or not opinion at all. Generally, the editors that have strong opinions assist with creating the best articles. Editors with no opinion tend to leave out important information for the sake of stopping a strongly opinionated editor.--InaMaka (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a non-opinionated editor because an editor that is not neutral may place undue weight on the issue. I'm not sure why you think editors with no opinion would not be able to do as good of a job -- if I enjoy a film and have to write negative reviews for its article, I get an independent opinion to weigh in. Ideally, an editor can distance his or her opinion from the issue at hand, but the usage of weasel wording by some aforementioned editors just made me concerned that there is a "mission" to add in the information. For all we know, the religious issues of this film could have overshadowed the ethnic issues of this film completely. At least, there's that "your work will be mercilessly edited" caveat, and I guess some editors who steward this article can help keep such content within neutral boundaries. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall that one of the essays in Illuminating His Dark Materials talks about the representation of the Tartars. The gist is that I don't think it's russophobia per se, but rather an anglo-centrism that makes anything and anyone belonging to 'exotic' locales (in this first novel, the North) seem more cookie-cutter than individualistic. If I can find a moment, I'll look for that, and then we'd have a citation. But I'm not aware of notable discussions in the media about russophobia. Anyone noted this, perhaps in Russian-language media? If so, then I think a note would be in order. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thought. Witches = elves, bears = dwarves, Tartars = orcs. Seem right? :) Anthony Krupp (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like original research. Murderbike (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As for all having wolves, from what I remember it's explained in the novels that more communal societies or organizations where people are close-knit or like-minded have less individuality, and therefore less personalized daemons. Therefore a band of hired soldiers who live together, are mostly homosocial, and have been brought up or trained the same way should have the same or similar daemons.VatoFirme (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

About Russophobia: What counts as reliable sources? for example, there are a lot of articles on wikipedia without references, this is fine right? Plus, who, in the west, will admit of russian propaganda? also, there is discussion of there being anti-christian propaganda in the movie, what are reliable sources for that?? Opinions of other people? Ok, here are some regarding anti-russian propaganda:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12062007/entertainment/movies/broken_compass_280816.htm?page=0

http://blog.mricon.com/2007/12/golden-compass.html

And other sources noted that there WAS indeed some sort of anti-russian propaganda. Actually, it was noted not only in rusian speaking media, but in western speaking media. This issue, of course, will not be discussed in media, it is not politically correct to critisize anti-russian movies in the west. 99.231.63.253 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

No, it's not "fine" that there are articles on wikipedia that lack references. Those need work, obviously. And your question "who in the west will admit" is an unfair insinuation. If you can find reliable sources (use the help FAQs and policies to guide you) and they follow the wiki guidelines than they can be included. Though personally I think you might be making a big deal out of a short scene, and while the portrayal of "Russians" may have been lazy and half-assed, I highly doubt it was intentional "anti-Russian propoganda".VatoFirme (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is intentional one. Why didn't the authors of the movie used Scandinavian group of languages if they needed northern authenticity? Recently, I've read J.Rollins' book "The Last Oracle". Again concentration camp for Gipsy kids created by Russians who tried to kill kids in the end and brave Americans (variant of Texan Astronaut) save them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.5.31 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite of the plot summary

I have watched the film with great interest, and I have not read the book. I've added the premise. There is a substantive difference between a soul and a spirit. The movie refers to the latter. I tried to retain as much of the text I found as I could, and I did a lot of simple editing. Sometimes rewriting and reorganization was the best way to go. To whomever did the previous writing: please don't be offended. 74.221.114.73 (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one is offended. I don't know who wrote the previous summary, but if you've clarified matters somewhat, thanks! Steve ^{T • C} 10:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Poster in info box

If it opened in the UK first and the author is British, the lead characters and actors are British, and the infobox says it is a British film, why then is the American poster used in the infobox? JayKeaton (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Does it matter? (that said, it is a U.S. production, with U.S. financing and a U.S. writer/director). Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Though it was written by an English writer and released in Britain first. I do think that the infobox should have the definitive original covers/posters where possible for accuracy and historical reasons, rather than just the American or second edition covers. JayKeaton (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any kind of international poster available? One was used for Spider-Man 3 since its release was global. Jay, I think there could be arguments that go both ways. Perhaps we can look at the Harry Potter films to see how they chose their particular posters, due to the US/UK production mix. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The HP poster choice is interesting. And there are pretty vast differences between the English and the American posters for both Compass and Potter. Using both posters could be a good idea, but the English poster for sure needs to be in there no matter which way it goes. JayKeaton (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Differences from the book

I am going to make a "Differences from the book" section as there are enough. I will list them with bullets, but they can be changed into complete sentences if desired. Wolfdog (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly suggest that you try to back such prose with real-world context. There are limitless differences between the source material and its film adaptation for creative or conventional reasons. It's a type of original research to subjectively pick and choose such differences, which vary in their indiscriminate nature, to put in the article. Such an unsubstantiated comparison has no encyclopedic merit. Take a look at my previous comment for such examples to follow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "real-world context." Do you mean to say there should only be a list of differences to signify a sort of "necessary change" made to the movie, like the bear king's name being changed for a specific reason (to avoid confusion with another character)? Basically, I assume that you mean that there should only be differences listed if there is an understood reason for this difference? Wolfdog (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I want to apologize for removing the section that you contributed to the article. What I mean by real-world context is an explanation for a change in the adaptation process, or at the very least, cite an independent perspective (such as a reviewer) about a particular change. We could get a pretty big list of differences. Such a section, without the explanations, is more like a guide for people who are familiar with both the book and the film. To someone who is not familiar to both, there is no context behind it. Obviously, the religious details in the film are played down, and that's been explained at great length. Obviously, other details won't be as covered, but where it is covered, that's when we can include it. If you follow my previous link, I link to three films that shows how a Writing section can delve into the relevant changes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps we could make a "Writing" section or something similar to describe the context behind certain changes made to the movie. Wolfdog (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, should you be able to locate a reliable source which discusses the changes; either the filmmakers themselves, or someone independent. As an example, this goes into detail about changes to the The Mist from the source novel. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you go to the end of that article, it says, "Next time on Book Vs. Film:" and shows the book cover for The Golden Compass! We just have to keep our eye out for the update and implement it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; I'll look out for that. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested including the differences in an "Interpretations" section. See below. ThomHImself (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This film and Lord of the Rings

As we all know, the casting reflects at least perceived connections between His Dark Materials and Tolkein's trilogy. I want to mention just one bit of original research, as a way of possibly sparking discussion on how this intertextuality might be mentioned in the article. At the end of the film, when the gyptian children are reunited with their parents (presumably), one can hear an adult exclaiming "my precious!". The referent here is clearly the child. The referent of the same phrase in Tolkein is of course the One Ring. Just thought I'd share this WP:OR for its own sake, as well as for considering adding some words about Pullman/Tolkein. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's a bit of a reach and at most an Easter egg, considering that children being safely returned to parents (both innocuous entities) isn't like Gollum's obsession with the One Ring. I'll have to look out for that in the film, though! If there's any citations about LOTR referencing, it could be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would say that's just coincidence, but since they apparently shoved a few Lord of the Rings actors into the movie at the last minute, presumably to bank on LOTR's success, then hey, you never know. Might end up being on the DVD commentary.VatoFirme (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reception (2)

I just wanted to say, the Reception part of this page is much better now.

Well done. :) 88.107.171.1 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Something weird about how it describes how Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes work, and do we need to say Ebert is "renown" and that he works at the Sun-Times? I don't see a lot of other film articles getting that in depth into the critics' methods.VatoFirme (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

After discussion with another editor, a good approach for Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes is to simplify the information from them. No mention of Fresh/Rotten or metascores, just the percentages based on the number of reviews. A "Fresh" 70% rating may not be so "Fresh" to another person, so it'd be best to stick to the numbers. Also, for identifying critics, I'd say it's appropriate to identify the critic and the publication for which they are writing for consistency's sake. This would be especially appropriate for critics who may not have their own article (like Kirk Honeycutt), but the publication for which they are writing would be recognizable as reputable. For Ebert, we should avoid using peacock terms and focus on what he has to say. Whether he should be included or not can be something to reach by consensus considering the number of reviews out there, but I personally think that he's reputable in America. He'd obviously be better than Mr. Joe Movie Blog. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Spirit" is not equivalent to "soul"

The opening of the film clearly states, in my recollection, the premise that spirits reside inside people's bodies in some universes, and outside in others. I also find this in various reviews of the film. Spirit is a more ambiguous and less religious term than soul, and it is unfair to the movie to press on it what it did not say.

Along these lines, will someone please confirm that the terms elementary particle and original sin were actually mentioned in the movie? My inability to recall them does not mean they were not present. ThomHImself (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet, Iorik is very clear in stating -- twice, as I recall the movie -- that a bear's soul is in its armor, which is why bears do not have daemons. Soul, not spirit.

As for elementary particle and original sin, the connection is made although not expressly. During the presentation to the Jordan College board, Lord Asriel describes Dust as one of several elementary particles. Latter on, Lyra asks Mrs. Coulter about elementary particles and then describes Dust as one example, clearly repeating what she had overheard in the presentation. Mrs. Coulter does not deny connection; she merely says that some subjects like Dust are not proper for discussion. Latter on in the experimental station, Mrs. Coulter tells Lyra that Dust exists because "an ancestor committed a terrible act against the Authority." (I probably have the line wrong, but that was the essence.) The implication, expressly stated in the book, is that Dust exists because of the Fall and becomes attracted to people at some point in puberty when their daemons settle in a form, ie when the effects of Original Sin begin to manifest. TechBear (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right that in the movie Coulter is talking about Adam and Eve and the Fall of Man ("our ancestors disobeyed the Authority" is what she says), but you should realize that it's only what the Magisterium believes within the story. In the book, Dust happens naturally, it is attracted to sentience and began gathering around human beings when they evolved enough to have higher intelligence and free will above other animals. It coincided with the invention of spiritual practices such as trepanning. The myth about it being caused by the Fall is just the made-up dogma the Magisterium is shoving down everyone's throats. Mrs. Coulter tells the story from the church's point of view because she's a believer in the religion. But Mary Malone, the scientist introduced in the second book, discovers the truth - that Dust is natural and not a punishment from any god(s), and the Magisterium has been misleading everyone all along.VatoFirme (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone definitely double check the film's beginning. Highly unfortunate, if they claim that the spirit lives outside of the body as a daemon, since this conflicts with the explanation in The Amber Spyglass, which associates the daemon with the soul. Recall that Roger in the underworld has lost his daemon/soul, but his spirit is still trapped there. Also: Lyra mentions that she can think about her body and think about her daemon, so there must be a third part of her that does the thinking. Her Cartesian discovery is that she has a mind/esprit/spirit, whatever. About connotation: I think it's not necessarily true that either term, spirit or soul, has more or less religious connotation, especially if you look at the history of their uses. What we should be concerned about here is what the film says, and what the books say. And if the film begins with mention of daemons as spirits, then: congratulations to Weitz and his proofreaders for screwing this up. Anthony Krupp (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A plot summary should get into interpretation as little as possible. I took special note of the choice of "spirit" over "soul" in the opening narrative, but it would be ironic, considering the principal theme, if I claimed infallibility in the matter. In some theologies, the spirit mediates between the body and the soul. From the moviegoer's perspective, it's not clear whether Iorek is speaking literally or figuratively when he says a bear's soul is in his armor. I recommend addition of a section on interpretations that includes discussion of differences from the trilogy (see below). ThomHImself (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that "spirit" was in fact an even more religious word than "soul". 220.238.178.40 (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As a philosophy major, I will tell you all: NOONE has ever given any explicit definition of either spirit or soul, NOONE has ever proved either exists. So, what is the point of discussion: two hypothetical entities?99.231.63.253 (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

I am 100% certain the movie says "souls", not spirits, in the opening voiceover, I have checked it out.

Okay sorry, the voiceover says there are many universes, some where people's "souls" live inside their bodies, and others like ours where they walk beside us as animal "spirits" we call "daemons".VatoFirme (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested section: Interpretations

The film is philosophically deep, yet we have no section on interpretations. There are also many viewers who are concerned with differences from the book, and who want to fill in the "gaps" in the movie with content from the trilogy. It seems to me that interpretations of the film and discussion of differences between the books and the film naturally go together. The challenge, however, would be to keep the content encyclopedic. While there exist scholarly publications on the trilogy, there are not yet any on the film. Until scholarly writing on the film appears, the best sources would be reviews – particularly the longer, more thoughtful ones appearing in some magazines. ThomHImself (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, scholarly publications on films usually do not happen overnight. It takes a few years for such publications to emerge about a film, depending on what the film has to offer. I think that exceptions would be historically based films like Apocalypto or 300, which historians want to address pretty quickly. It may be better to do such a section at the book's article, considering that this film has been perceived as "watered down". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The film is not "about" the books; the books do not "explain" the film

The film is based on His Dark Materials, but it stands on its own for the moviegoer. People who want to know about the film should not be getting information about the trilogy.

The members of the cast should be credited with playing characters in the film, not characters in the book. If the film does not give a name (or a last name or a nickname or a title), then the listing here should not either. It is inappropriate to explain who a character "really" is on the basis of His Dark Materials.

Internal links to His Dark Materials articles for characters, concepts, and articles in the film are misleading, in my opinion, because the articles usually do not agree with what's in the film.ThomHImself (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Visual effects

• Navigating The Golden Compass -- Part 1
• Navigating The Golden Compass -- Part 2

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Working toward consensus on plot summary

Presently in the "Plot" section:

The story begins depicting Lyra's interactions with local gyptian children and her friend, Roger. When her uncle, Lord Asriel, visits the college of which she is a ward. Lyra saves him from assassination by a representative of the Magisterium. She learns that the motive was to prevent Asriel from presenting evidence that particles called Dust were flowing from a parallel universe into the far North. In spite of the Magisterium's official insistence that Dust does not exist, Asriel obtains funding from the college to mount an expedition to explore the phenomenon. In a subsequent meeting, it becomes clear that Magisterium officials do believe in Dust and fear its effects on people, such that they have scientists working on a means of inoculating children against its effects. Later, Mrs. Coulter explains to Lyra that Dust causes bad thoughts as children near maturity.

Shortly after Lord Asriel goes north, Jordan College receives a visit from a woman of great importance, Marisa Coulter, who offers to take Lyra north as her assistant.

The plot summary is quite long (which is perhaps unavoidable, considering that many critics have complained that too much of the book has been crammed into the film). The does begin literally with Lyra playing with other children, but this seems like superfluous detail. We should begin with the "meat" of the action. Incidentally, the viewer of the movie has no way of knowing that most of the children Lyra was playing with were gyptians, even after seeing the entire film. Furthermore, at this point in the plot summary, the reader has no idea what a gyptian is, and it seems too low-level a detail to introduce immediately.

If the phrase "The story begins" is objectionable because it does not reflect the literal truth, then we can take it out. Note that "When her uncle, Lord Asriel, visits the college of which she is a ward." is a sentence fragment, but that if we change the period to a comma, and also strike the preceding sentence, we have a reasonable introduction of the plot.

Skipping over the difficult issue of the Magisterium and Dust, I think we can agree that there's a big problem in leaving the kidnappings out of the introduction to the second paragraph. This is a high-level aspect of the plot. Lyra does not want to go north because Asriel has, but because she has vowed to rescue Roger, should the Gobblers ever get him. So not only are we missing plot, but motivation for Lyra's actions in what follows. Also, we later point out that "the alethiometer guides her to Billy Costa, who has escaped from the Magisterium," without having established that there is a Billy whom the Gobblers got. Note also that Jordan College has not been named previously. In my opinion, the name is not essential to relating the plot, and should be omitted. (I have considered removing "Ragnar Sturlusson.")

I think the image Asriel presented early in the film is very important, and I described it in an early version of section. Dust is flowing from a parallel universe, through a daemon, and into a man. If we were to state this plainly, without interpretation, then it would later make sense to our readers that the Magisterium's scientists are severing children from their daemons. A higher-up of the Magisterium clearly indicates that the objective is to ensure that people believe "what's good for them." It is manifest in the dialog that inoculation against the effects of Dust is about keeping children from developing beliefs other than those approved (authorized) by the authoritarian institution. In my opinion, to say that is to distill, not interpret, the dialog. Perhaps less distillation would be less objectionable.

A minor point: I'm confused by the edit "The guard loses the battle, and the children meet with the gyptians." As I recall, it was previously "and most of the children return home with gyptians." I suppose that's somewhat inconsistent, considering that the gyptians are nomadic, but the revision is odd in its vagueness. Perhaps the children "return south" with the gyptians, in contrast to the continued journey northward by Lyra and Roger. 74.221.114.73 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions make a lot of sense; I've only just seen the film, so stayed away from the Plot section until now, but I'll be putting my twopenneth worth in on Monday. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 23:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we revert to "06:36, 15 December 2007 Anthony Krupp," the version I refer to above, and work from there. Subsequent modifications have added explication, low-level detail, references to the trilogy, and even editorializing. I am adding a prominent comment to the head of the section to inform people of the possible reversion, and to ask them to participate in consensus-building here. Did you happen to pay close attention at the beginning of the film to hear whether the narrator referred to "spirit" or "soul"? ThomHImself (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to be largely off-Wiki until tomorrow, and I'll comment more on this then. However, for now, I can say with 100% certainty that "soul" is referred to throughout, not just in the opening narration. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi THomHImself; I think most of your suggestions are good. Here's my concern with this point, from your post: "It is manifest in the dialog that inoculation against the effects of Dust is about keeping children from developing beliefs other than those approved (authorized) by the authoritarian institution." What I recall is that the Magisterium is concerned that if Asriel proves that Dust exists, whereas the Magisterium has denied its existence, then their authority will become shaken, and thus people will develop beliefs other than those approved. You see? It's not that Dust causes independent thinking. Rather it's uncovering the lies of the Church that will do so. That's why I edited that as I did. (Could certianly be improved!) Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a minor rewrite in order to remove the interpretation and other unnecessary details, and to try to explain better the concept of Dust as presented in the film (which doesn't do a great job of it itself, as it happens). See what you think; I would still prefer a shorter version, but as others have correctly pointed out, the film crams a lot plot into a short space of time, and there isn't a great deal we can lose without removing context from later events. One other point I would mention is that the practise of not linking to other articles on Wikipedia concerning His Dark Materials is one I disagree with. While some of content of these articles will differ to that presented in the film, the onus should perhaps be on the caretakers of those articles to update accordingly, to accommodate the film. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd call it a complete rewrite, and I congratulate you on having the sense to make it that. I struggled far too much to preserve what text I could, and what resulted never read well. You've done a good job. I could pick at some nits, but having learned how things go with an article covering a "happening" event in pop culture, I shall bow out now and leave it to you to maintain the integrity of the section. Perhaps I will check in after the DVD is released. Best to you, and to Anthony. --Tom ThomHImself (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sequel update

• Peter Sanders (2007-12-19). "New Line and Director Settle 'Rings' Suit, Look to 'Hobbit'". Wall Street Journal. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The link to WSJ in the film article was only a preview. The wording did not show that the sequel was put on hold per se. I'm putting the wording here so discussion can be held on how to present the information:

News of the agreement comes on the heels of the disappointing U.S. box- office performance of "The Golden Compass," New Line's latest attempt at franchise gold. In its first 10 days, the film -- which cost as much as $180 million to make -- has brought in only $42 million domestically. The studio, a unit of Time Warner Inc., was hoping "The Golden Compass," the first installment of British author Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, would be the beginning of another blockbuster series of films akin to "Lord of the Rings." "Rings" grossed almost $3 billion world-wide. Now, with the tepid domestic performance of "Compass," New Line co- heads Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne say no decision has been made about a sequel, which was once considered a near certainty. "The jury is still very much out on the movie, and while it's performed very strong overseas we'll look at it early next year and see where we're going with [a sequel]," says Mr. Lynne, co-chairman and co-chief executive. Outside the U.S., the film has grossed $51 million over 10 days, according to Box Office Mojo LLC, which tracks ticket sales.

I don't think that "on hold" is accurate -- the studio was waiting to see how The Golden Compass performed before making a move to produce the sequel. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Erik, I agree with your analysis. "On hold" does not do the Wall Street Journal article wording justice. However, the article does make it very clear that the film has underperformed at the box office. It also makes it very clear that there is a real chance that the film may not break even. So, for editors to simply take out the information entirely is incorrect also. The Wall Street Journal article uses the words, "disappointing", "brought in only $42 domestically", "tepid domestic performance"--in reference to sales. And it uses "no decision" [on sequel], "jury is out" [on sequel]. The information needs to be article. Please discuss changes and do not wholesale remove valid, reliably sourced information.--InaMaka (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right; "on hold" suggests something stronger than what was actually said. This whole "Christmas" malarkey is putting a serious dent in my available editing time, but I'll throw something together later if no-one else has by then. Thanks for digging that article out, Steve ^{T • C} 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated the information in a more detailed fashion, placing it in the "Sequel" section and a more succinct mention in the lead section. Please review my edit and see if the wording needs to be changed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• More Information from the Wall Street Journal: STAT SNAPSHOT by Anthony Kaufman, "New Line's "The Golden Compass," the first of a planned trilogy of fantasy films, pointed south at the U.S. box office, earning just $26.1 million in 3,528 theaters. While the opening sales don't hold a candle to the $47.2 million debut of the Time Warner subsidiary's 2001 franchise-starter "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," the modest receipts improved upon other recent children's literature adaptations. Both Disney's "Bridge to Terabithia" and Fox's "Eragon" opened to about $23 million domestically, eventually grossing $82 million and $75 million, respectively. But with a reported budget upwards of $180 million, "Compass" may struggle to reach profitability. Combating mediocre reviews and ire from conservative Catholic groups, "Compass" will look overseas to make its big money, where fantasy pictures have performed well. Foreign sales accounted for nearly 70% of "Eragon's" $249 million world-wide take, for example, and even though the U.S. returns for "Compass" underwhelmed, its opening day numbers in the U.K. actually. . ."

Once again, these are NOT comments that lead to the conclusion that The Golden Compass is the blockbuster that it was expected to be. To leave out this fact leads to a biased article.--InaMaka (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like information to include in the Reception section, since it doesn't quite speak about the sequel. I think that information about it can then lead to a better understanding of the Sequel section, so go for it! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Erik, thanks much for putting the wording here for those of us who are not subscribed to the Wall Street Journal. :) I think your analysis is good, and am glad that InaMaka thinks so too. I've just incorporated the language of recent edits onto the other pages where InaMaka has introduced this reference, and in one case removed the claim that a sequel was on hold. Let's remember that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing word

The text under "Controversies" refers to "a review of the film by the of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting...." Evidently the reviewer's title was omitted. Because the review has been pulled from the website, I can't add it. Does anyone know? If not, we should drop the whole phrase. JamesMLane t c 23:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the titles; should names be readded. Also: is that review online anywhere anymore? It's a shame, if not. I'd love to link to it, if so. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the review online at another site, and have readded it. :) Add it to your blogs before it disappears from there as well. I love what the internet can do. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why we have "accessdate" options added into citations for websites. That way, you can use the Wayback Machine to see what a website looked like at a certain time in the past. Please use them! Murderbike (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Differences from the book

Someone should probably make a 'differences from the novel' section. The film doesn't need to be picked apart for its differences, but its probably worth a mention that the film basically omitted the ending of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.137.92 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB states a different box office revenue for the film

IMDB claims the film has grossed $245,000,000 on this page, http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.215.186 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and it may well be true. Unfortunately, I don't think the imdb should be used as a source in this particular circumstance, as like Wikipedia, its information is user-submitted. The Box Office Mojo worldwide figures we currently reference, however, haven't been updated on that site since December 16. I've looked for another reliable source with more up-to-date figures, but nothing's turned up so far. If you can help, please do. Found a cite, now incorporated. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 08:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast section

Surely the individual footnotes are not necessary. And bolding some names but not others strikes me as POV. Mdiamante (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, they were necessary before the film was released, because there was a lot of speculation on the matter, some of it untrue. However, now it's out, I wouldn't object to either getting rid of the citations, or perhaps finding one source for consolidation. The only ones present which should be kept are those which contain supporting information, such as the one which details Richards' casting. As for the bolding, I've always been in two minds about it, but the intention is to make clear the names on those cast entries which span more than one line, which is why some are bolded and some are not. Granted, it makes more sense when there's more information about the cast than we have presently; see Beowulf for an article in which this works well. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Budget

The movie's budget isn't $180 million, more around $250 million (reference: [2]).

172.133.37.17 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I trust the existing citation a little more than that one. It's not that I disbelieve it entirely; with marketing and such added on, it may well be that high. But the Deadline Hollywood story is vague and a little short on hard fact (with comments such as "amid reports that..."). Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminology in Introduction

I am changing the term "anti-Catholic" to "anti-Christian" in the introduction of the article. This is because several Christian denominations, such as Baptists (source a, source b), Catholics, Methodists (source c), Presbyterians (source d) etc. perceive the film to be offensive as well. Catholicism is one denomination of Christianity. Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians are also Christians. Since many denominations of Christianity have found the film hurtful, it is best to use the general term "anti-Christian" in lieu of the specific term "anti-Catholic". In addition, several prominent sources have used the general term Christian rather than Catholic (source d, source e, source f, source g (removed link from associatedcontent.com as it's blacklisted María (habla conmigo) 14:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)), source h, source h). For these reasons, I am restoring the latter term. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Based upon these cites, and information recently added to the article, for now I have no particular problem with the article's stating "anti-Christian." It may be worth courting other editors' opinions on this, however. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 08:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with this change as well (to "perceived anti-Christian", right?). Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether "Christian" or "Catholic", this must say "perceived" - the accusations made by the Catholic League and others are hardly agreed upon by all Christians, and there is nothing explicitly "atheistic" about the books either - they are mostly based on Gnostic Christianity.VatoFirme (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Languages

From older discussions I understand there was some Russian spoken in the film. From watching the film I heard some Icelandic (or old Norwegian). But I think I heard other languages. Do you know what they were? --Steinninn 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Total Gross to date 65 Million far less than the 300 Million indicated in this article

source http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 22:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

65 million is the North American gross, according to the Reception section. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blog an accurate source?

I'm removing the speculations from Nikke Finki's Deadline Hollywood Daily Blog, as she provides no reliable citations and it appears to be gossip and predictions.VatoFirme (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

With the current level of information available - and the uncertainity over whether any more films will be produced - I do not see the need for The Subtle Knife (film) or His Dark Materials film series. The subject matter is covered adequately at The Golden Compass (film)#Sequels and His Dark Materials#Adaptations. If more information becomes available then the articles could easily be split off but at the moment they will not get past the stage of be unreferenced, speculative stubs. Guest9999 (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done that; no need to discuss it, IMO. Such articles are so much crystal ballery, as well as being against the notability guidelines for future films. Steve ^{T • C} 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article is pretty good. The controversy and Reception sections are especially good. I'm putting it on hold for a few smaller issues that I hope can be fixed in the next seven days:

1. The Production section seems like it could be expanded, as does the Video game section.
2. I've left some citation tags in the few places that still need refs.
3. The Lead could use a bit more information about the struggle to find a director, since that is such a large part of the article.
4. I'd strongly recommend bolding the characters and actors in the Cast section. It makes it so much easier for me to read.

-- Wrad (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't be able to make many edits in the next week, but here's a terrific and easy resource for news on the production. Mdiamante (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for GAC for two months and been on hold for one; is this review moving forward and is work being done to address the reviewer's previous concerns? What is the status? María (habla conmigo) 14:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably safe to de-list it for now. I'll compile a {{todo}} list tonight of the outstanding issues, to be placed at the head of the talk page, and which should allow a speedy re-evaluation once they've been tackled. Steve ^{T • C} 15:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't really changed regarding my comments much, so I'm closing the hold without passing it. Be sure to renominate soon, once things are fixed. Wrad (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've listed the unresolved issues you had with the article, along with the relevant recommendations from Girolamo Savonarola's Peer Review (below) at the head of this page. Let me know if it doesn't quite reflect what you had issue with. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Film

Needs to be finished —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.198.17 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be finished as well, the sequel section seems to have alot of old information and should be trimmed to reflect the current state.Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Budget?

Is it $205 million or not? Or is this a case of the studio "massaging" the numbers to lessen the perception of how poorly the film did? "If we say the budget was lower, it won't be the #1 money loser." 67.135.49.42 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Call me crazy but i saw a figure somewhere that said 250+. i cant say where cause i dont remember but ill keep an eye out Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-catholicism

An anonIP added that Category to the article, I removed it since the movie never mentions catholicism in any way. If folks disagree with this move, please bring it here. Murderbike (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing anti-Catholic about any part of either the books or the movie. Dfmclean (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with this or not, but perhaps you should both consider this argument from Tasha Robinson at the AV club:

"The Magisterium is a hierarchical organization of formally robed, iconography-heavy priests who dictate and define morality for their followers, are based out of cathedrals, and decry teachings counter to theirs as "heresy." If you want to get really crude about it, they're also doing ugly things to children under cover of secrecy. Who are most people going to think of besides the Catholic Church?"

http://www.avclub.com/articles/book-vs-film-the-golden-compass,10156/

I'm curious as to why each of you disagrees. Web wonder (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just one minute. The Anglicans and the Lutherans, the Mormons and Greek Orthodox are all celebration-heavy. I want to say "pomp & circumstance" but that isnt the word either. There are other religions that use imagery and celebration in their rituals. The Jews as well. Even ancient pagans like the Romans had celebrations and the Aztecs and other Mezo-Americans had their blood-cult rituals.

IF the church in this film had shown prisoners escorted to the tops of pyramids and their hearts cut out and fed to eagles do you think Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans would get their panties in a twist?

It's just too easy to pick on the Catholics and Christianity in general. Can you imagine the controversy if they showed something akin to anti-buddhism? or anti-hinduism? Remember the Satanic Verses. it's easy to cry foul, it's not easy to say, it's just a movie.

AND for the record, for the fellow that thinks only Catholics abuse children, it's anyone in a position of power who has that opportunity. There are plenty of non-Catholics that abuse children as well. The preacher in Kansas that kept a boy sex slave, greek monks south of Austin, Muslims in the "Stans" ... . It's just that catholics get all the heat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Family movie

I remember somewhere on the internet saying that Deborah Forte (the producer) wanted to make a family franchise. Te movie was watered down from the book with violence and religious references removed. Shouldn't we put that in somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.237.247 (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, maybe. If not, no. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)