"Golden Compass" is an anti-religion film?
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
...and that's all I've been saying from the start (doesn't try to prove or disprove God). Geez.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
His name escapes me at the moment, but we had/have a poster in here, who is not only a HS teacher, but says the same thing about Evolution/Creation in regards to each "day", being an eon, eg Phanerozoic would have been the last/current day of creation. (he made that post a couple of years ago, so it's not verbatim)
"Golden Compass" disappoints at box office
"Golden Compass" disappoints at box office
By Dean Goodman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "The Golden Compass," a costly fantasy starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, got off to a slow start at the North American box office and will likely fall short of opening-weekend expectations.
New Line Cinema's $180 million film sold an estimated $8.8 million worth of tickets during its first day in theaters on Friday, according to data issued on Saturday by tracking firm Box Office Mojo (www.boxofficemojo.com).
After Saturday and Sunday sales are factored in, the film will come in at No. 1 with about $28 million when the studios issue their weekend estimates on Sunday, said Paul Dergarabedian at Media By Numbers, another tracking firm.
New Line, a struggling Time Warner Inc unit hoping to launch another franchise along the lines of its blockbuster "Lord of the Rings" series, said last week it was hoping the film would open to between $30 million and $40 million.
"It's below expectations, but it's not an out-and-out debacle," said Dergarabedian.
Conspiring against the movie, he said, were such factors as a soft marketplace and unrealistic expectations for an epic fantasy filling the holiday void left by the "Narnia" and "Lord of the Rings" smashes.
A New Line executive did not return a call seeking comment.
Based on the first book in British author Philip Pullman's acclaimed children's series "His Dark Materials," writer/director Chris Weitz's film is set in an alternate world ruled by an oppressive religious authority. It features talking animals and a heroine played by youngster Dakota Blue Richards.
Even though the film downplays the religious aspect, it has been savaged by such groups as the Catholic League and the U.S. Conference of Bishops. Opponents have cited Pullman's unflattering portrayal of the church and specifically the Catholic faith.
Critics were also generally negative on the film, according to the web site Rotten Tomatoes (www.rottentomatoes.com), which collates reviews.
The film represents another disappointment for Kidman, who had yet to headline a live-action $100 million movie. Her most recent successes were 2005's "The Interpreter" ($72 million) and 2003's "Cold Mountain" ($96 million).
She and Craig co-starred in the summer release "The Invasion," which flopped with just $15 million. Craig had better luck reviving the James Bond franchise last year with "Casino Royale" ($167 million).
New Line has also struggled. Its biggest movie of 2007, "Rush Hour 3" ($140 million), earned less than half of its predecessor. Other films, such as Jim Carrey's "The Number 23" and the wartime drama "Rendition" quickly came and went.
"Golden Compass" disappoints at box office
By Dean Goodman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "The Golden Compass," a costly fantasy starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, got off to a slow start at the North American box office and will likely fall short of opening-weekend expectations.
New Line Cinema's $180 million film sold an estimated $8.8 million worth of tickets during its first day in theaters on Friday, according to data issued on Saturday by tracking firm Box Office Mojo (www.boxofficemojo.com).
After Saturday and Sunday sales are factored in, the film will come in at No. 1 with about $28 million when the studios issue their weekend estimates on Sunday, said Paul Dergarabedian at Media By Numbers, another tracking firm.
New Line, a struggling Time Warner Inc unit hoping to launch another franchise along the lines of its blockbuster "Lord of the Rings" series, said last week it was hoping the film would open to between $30 million and $40 million.
"It's below expectations, but it's not an out-and-out debacle," said Dergarabedian.
Conspiring against the movie, he said, were such factors as a soft marketplace and unrealistic expectations for an epic fantasy filling the holiday void left by the "Narnia" and "Lord of the Rings" smashes.
A New Line executive did not return a call seeking comment.
Based on the first book in British author Philip Pullman's acclaimed children's series "His Dark Materials," writer/director Chris Weitz's film is set in an alternate world ruled by an oppressive religious authority. It features talking animals and a heroine played by youngster Dakota Blue Richards.
Even though the film downplays the religious aspect, it has been savaged by such groups as the Catholic League and the U.S. Conference of Bishops. Opponents have cited Pullman's unflattering portrayal of the church and specifically the Catholic faith.
Critics were also generally negative on the film, according to the web site Rotten Tomatoes (www.rottentomatoes.com), which collates reviews.
The film represents another disappointment for Kidman, who had yet to headline a live-action $100 million movie. Her most recent successes were 2005's "The Interpreter" ($72 million) and 2003's "Cold Mountain" ($96 million).
She and Craig co-starred in the summer release "The Invasion," which flopped with just $15 million. Craig had better luck reviving the James Bond franchise last year with "Casino Royale" ($167 million).
New Line has also struggled. Its biggest movie of 2007, "Rush Hour 3" ($140 million), earned less than half of its predecessor. Other films, such as Jim Carrey's "The Number 23" and the wartime drama "Rendition" quickly came and went.
Ok, I see. Basically, evolution (in the darwinian) sense, doesn't make an argument to disprove God, it just assumes God doesn't exist, through is dependence on methodological naturalism.
I am not suprised. Many christians aren't gonna see it, as well as many who are somewhat sypathetic to christanity. Some hardcore athiests might go see it for the same reason that christians won't. Still a whole lot of the poulation left, though.
I think the trailers were either very poor, or the story was very complex. You can't get a good idea of what the story is for the trailers. The trailers focus only of the style of the movie (CGI, etc) and don'g give you anything of substance, like a unique story. The reviews I have seen said the movie is a little hard to follow, so not very good for kids, which is the audience it is made for.
That's what appears so baffling about Hollywood. The repeatedly get behind these projects DESPITE knowing that they will alienate a huge market. And, time and time again, it's demonstrated that the traditional American family isn't a niche market, but the majority.
When you look at box office results, it's no mystery that movies like Pixar and other traditional family friendly movies make more money than the most violent, twisted, or socially offensive material.
Hollywood is too often run by people who complain about the market and make offensive, poor performing films simply for the acclaim of their peers.
I think it is because hollywood is living in "nich", and in that "nich", group think prevails. All these anti-american propaganda films fail (Lions for Lambs, redacted, etc.) as well as anti-religious films (which, while I can't be certian, I am willing to place my Mark VIII on the fact that this film was made largely, probably mostly, because of the anti-religious context); and religious films (Passion of the Christ) and family friendly films are box office hits. These people do view tradional family friendly films as a nich because every one in their nich dissagrees with them. Thus a logicial leap is made that the majority of western civilization thinks like them. This is held as domga, and nothing so small as loosing money at the box office will prove them wrong. Facts be DAMNED!
Watch, Hollywood will come out now and and subtly imply that the public is to blame for this failure. They will say something like "the bad press of anti-religion' turned many away from the film". They will never see any fault in their choice of making a film where the negative reation of a large part of the public is guaranteed. Hollywood is too arogant for that.
hand over your mark8 shaggy. this film is not anti-religious. there is no mention anywhere in the film of religious ideals or anything. it is about ruling powers and control of the population. and contrary to popular belief, there is nothing anywhere in it about god or a fight with god. before anybody has the right to comment, i suggest you screen the movie first. anybody using torrent or emule should be able to find a low quality version to have a look at it. if it was my film, i'd sue anybody claiming the film has an anti-religious way about it.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Correct... stupid religious groups beating their holier than thou chest, and they haven't a clue why. Idiots attacked a movie (and damaged it's sales) for the wrong reasons.
Despite the fact that it wasn't anti-religion or anti-God, it still wasn't a very good film, I can see where kids would like it, but it was cheesy-fantasy.
Symbolism... if you don't believe me, go ask that guy who wrote the book that the film was based on. You'll have to sue the author, he's quite candid regarding the message of his story.
While it's true, the studios did attempt to downlplay the anti-religious symbolism with a more vague authoritative force, it's not mystery to any thinking person that the film is representing the Catholic church.
His Mark VIII is safe.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Hrmwrm makes a good point here. The Bible as written does not support evolution. There is simply no room in the historical record for the development of Darwinian evolution. Even his secular viewpoint can see that. According to the Bible, man and beast were made in the same week.
Gap theorists need to consider the level of compromise in accepting evolution partly, as opposed to simply choosing either Creation or evolution as fact. Neither one was witnessed, and therefore neither one can be verified. Of course, nobody alive can verify that George Washington existed either, but we believe it nonetheless, don't we? And why is that? OH, because there is a written record!
As far as you being the decider of what is the right way to create a planet and the universe, hrmwrm, that is an incredibly naive and insulting statement for you to make. I guess God should have consulted you before creating the earth, so He would have had the proper instruction on how it should be done, eh? Casting aspersions again, I see. I pity you on the day when you have to meet your Creator.
that would be the book calabrio. until this thread showed up i knew nothing of this man or his books. and i'll bet the libelous parties behind the slander have never seen the movie. just start beaking off about things because of the background. have you seen it to be able to make comments? i have. and symbolism? you could read anything into any book or movie you wish. but then there's time for reality. church up in arms over the davinci code as well. there is historical proof about jesus carrying on in life. read through gnostics. that.s an ideal of christianity that the romans tried to wipe out. i know, but you believe in the right "christianity". you should check out history.
sit there and believe eveything you are told instead of going out and proving things for yourself. let 'god" be your explanation for everything instead of looking for answers. the religious right makes me sick in their empirical thinking that only they could be right. spouting off platitudes while others just sit and laugh. it's no wonder the churches are getting emptier. id was a last ditch attempt at putting the god myth propaganda back into schools and i'm glad the judicial system seen through that little charade. i could carry on, but then arguements of reality fall to deaf ears of believers around here who search only for things that help them in their belief, not in truth.
sit there and believe eveything you are told instead of going out and proving things for yourself. let 'god" be your explanation for everything instead of looking for answers. the religious right makes me sick in their empirical thinking that only they could be right. spouting off platitudes while others just sit and laugh. it's no wonder the churches are getting emptier. id was a last ditch attempt at putting the god myth propaganda back into schools and i'm glad the judicial system seen through that little charade. i could carry on, but then arguements of reality fall to deaf ears of believers around here who search only for things that help them in their belief, not in truth.
missed fossten while i was replying. i never said i was the decider of what is right. just what is written is wrong. and there is nothing stating that god told them this. yet it is written down as to an order of how things happened. if man came last, how would he know what came first? he had to be told. and the only one with knowledge of this is your god. so he lied. i would think your smart enough for that fossten. you seem intelligent. and meeting my creator(s)? i have. i grew up with them. my father passed away this spring, and my mother is still living.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Your statement that God lied is remarkable. You are implying that anything that doesn't make sense in your worldview is therefore a lie. You seem to have a lot of hatred toward Christians as well. Par for the course for an atheist. I rest my case in the other thread.
By the way, see the contradiction in your words that are bolded? You are just as dogmatic as those Christians that "make you sick."
You are not talking to some brainwashed person who doesn't understand why he believes something. You are talking to an open minded skeptic who has done the necessary research in order to determine that what he believes is right. For you to engage in wave-offs and casual dismissals laced with insults shows that you are a hypocrite and no better than those you accuse of using platitudes. The only difference is your anger is showing through, much like Christopher Hitchens.
And you are incorrect about nothing stating that God told them to write it down. I thought you had read the whole Bible! If you had, you would know that I Timothy 3:16 clearly states that all Scripture is inspired by God. Feel free to look it up; I'm sure that the Bible that you've read in its entirety is still in your house, no?
and no, i still don't have a bible. why would i? and i was referring still to genesis. as for wave off's and casual dismissals, you are more hypocritical than me. you started with the quick dimissals way back at the beginning of this thread. i've made apologies when i've been out of line, but you sit there in you're arrogance and come after me? i thought the sign of a true christian was humbleness. i guess you're not much of one.
There's no slander here.
The movie is based on the book. The book has was written with a theme and message. The movie can make that message more subtle, but it certainly can't remove it.
Yeah, you can read anything into you wish, but the AUTHOR HAS EXPLAINED what he was trying to represent. There's no "beaking off" or slander here. It's a simple reality.
If you are comfortable with the underlying message, enjoy the film.
If you are not, don't attend it. It's quite simple.
Not slander. Just information.
Your hands are full in enough theological discussion that you're clearly not knowledgable about. I'll let the last point pass without engaging it.
You just don't know when to quit. Must you put your gross ignorance out on display in yet another post? Are you simply unaware of the great intellects that come from the church? Have you ever heard St. Thomas Aquinas? Are you aware that Christian based philosophy forms the entire foundation of Western Civilization?
Apparently not. And there's certainly no point in discussing the religious scientist responsible for virtually all of breakthroughs in history.
To the contrary, their attendance is increasing.
And you demonstrate that you're foundation is in faith.. faith that there is no higher being. I.D. doesn't provide all the answers, but science has not been able to do so either. ID tends to use God, or a designer, to fill in the void of our understanding, where as someone like you just leaves those unanswerable questions unanswered.
You're unable to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, yet you aggressively view those who disagree with you in a condescending way- regardless how eloquently or thoroughly they debate you.
Just be happy that Judeo-Christian beliefs took hold and have been embraced. Because our civilization, and all of those individual rights and personal freedoms that you hold so sacred were derived from the philosophy of the Bible. Before Christianity, it had never existed. This nation of ours COULD NOT EXIST were it not for the philosophy established in the bible.
You've very right to condescend believers as stupid was made possible by BELIEVERS who it possible.
Are both of you choosing to remain ignorant, and by definition acting foolish? The book was written by an adamant athiest who, in no uncertian terms, said that he work was anti religious! Read the article Calabrio posted in the very first post. Trying to argue against it is to spread your own intellectual flaws bare for all on this forum to see. I would think you two wouldn't be that dumb, but it seems I am being disproven on that point.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Listen to the atheist try to act like an expert in Christianity. So typical. Humbleness? Please show me the Scripture that says that. I'll wait while you look it up. Please hurry. And while I'm waiting for YOU to supply a verse that tells me that I cannot correct your flawed statements, I'll supply a few for you.
Proverbs 13:1 - A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man" (I Cor. 2:15).
"...reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (II Tim. 4:2).
Proverbs 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
it would be your ignorance. i have seen the film. and as stated, it is not anti-religious. it's not toned down. it's just plain not there. you still keep using the basis of the author and a book. just as all believers, you will sit and make judgement without knowledge. it's like the little kid who sit's there saying they don't like some kind of food without even trying it. but i'm ignorant?
and as for science? no, they don't have all answers. they are only just starting to discover the answers to many things. but it's answers aren't based on supernatural or magical myth. it's not afraid to ask the questions and seek the answers. what is it that religion fears in science that they feel the need to constantly try and intervene and manipulate it?. they can and have found their own way of trying to prove things to fit their own agenda. id would be one example. they should carry on and leave science as is. keep your belief propaganda. i find my evidence for myself. and yours doesn't stand up to my findings.
and as for science? no, they don't have all answers. they are only just starting to discover the answers to many things. but it's answers aren't based on supernatural or magical myth. it's not afraid to ask the questions and seek the answers. what is it that religion fears in science that they feel the need to constantly try and intervene and manipulate it?. they can and have found their own way of trying to prove things to fit their own agenda. id would be one example. they should carry on and leave science as is. keep your belief propaganda. i find my evidence for myself. and yours doesn't stand up to my findings.
and fossten. more attacks, and a few more quotes from an antiquated text. you have still skipped how hinduism is older than judaism. but how can that be? god created everything and it was written to text in the bible. if you believe genesis, there was nobody else. nothing before. and god wiped everybody out with noah to carry on. yet there it is. the keepers of the golden cow. find me a few scriptures to explain that. yes, hinduism is an amalgamation, but it still existed before, as well as what was amalgamated existed even before that.
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" applies back to you fossten.
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" applies back to you fossten.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's where your logic falls down flat on its face. This is the same argument that everybody I've debated this subject ends up falling back on, which is pitiful and weak. You claim that science doesn't have all the answers, but then you say that others who would try to use science to show that ID is legitimate are "wrong." You say "they should carry on and leave science as is" , but how does that work when science is incomplete as you have admitted here?
Not to mention your abject hypocrisy, considering that atheists and evolutionists have manipulated science in an attempt to "prove" the THEORY of evolution for decades! For example, how do you explain Haeckel's fraudulent drawings of embryos in EVERY BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK IN THE COUNTRY? What about Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Java Man, Nebraska man, Orce Man, Neanderthal Man, and Lucy? And every time science comes up with some new finding that shows that the previous evolutionary belief is flawed, evolutionists simply MAKE UP another theory to compensate for it! What is that, if not manipulating science?
Evolutionists are acting on faith, starting from the worldview "Evolution must be true" and then trying to find some scientific proof, but then as a result are forced to start with the statement "assume a Big Bang" or "assume an amoeba" or "assume an electric storm." I can simply say, "Assume God" and there is no more need for me to do intellectual somersaults or twist myself into pretzels like the evolutionists have to do. But it takes just as much faith (if not more) to "assume a big bang WITHOUT God" as it does to assume "God." Let's face it, if scientists simply said, "We're going to go based on ONLY what we can observe in nature" they would be FORCED to admit that no species can evolve into ANOTHER species.
There isn't one thing in evolutionary theory that can be proven true, yet you have the audacity to say that we should leave science alone? You cannot have it both ways, so I suggest you either start proofreading your posts or go do some research, because you are showing your hindparts in regularity here.
You've made another mistake. Despite staring square at it, you're unable to see it. The mere fact that YOU are too obtuse to recognize the meaning doesn't not mean it doesn't exist.
You're logic is so grossly flawed, you're in some ridiculous kind of denial. THE AUTHOR OF THE SERIES HAS STATED REPEATEDLY THAT THE ATTACK ON RELIGION WAS AT THE HEART OF HIS STORY! It's not a minor detail or afterthought. It's as though the movie theaters could chose to omit or change a single character. IT IS THE MORAL OF THE STORY.
The movie theater, wisely, did attempt to play that element down and make it somewhat more vague. But the point is still made. You're ignorance or stubbornness resulting in the ability to recognize it doesn't constitute as an argument stating that others are stupid, it simply demonstrates your inability to recognize anything remotely nuanced. Infact, I would say that you're lack of perception on this topic undermines all other subjective arguments you may have engaged in..
See, you've demonstrated the limits of your knowledge again. You can argue that some religious people are wrong regarding the origins or life. But first, there's no uniform agreement within any community precisely how life was created. In this thread alone, you'll find a number of spiritual people who all disagree. From biblical literalism through the gammet.
And you'll also find atheist scientist who will question the "evolution as the origins of all life" theory as well. Perhaps you didn't know this, but it's still a theory, an unproven, still unsupported theory.
Interestingly enough, it's YOU who act defensively. The religious people I know embrace science, embrace understanding, love to have their knowledge of the world expanded. However,YOU are the one attacking a theory with the angry ferocity of a true follower of a belief system.
I'm going to explain a little debate trick to you. It doesn't score points, but it does flush out the fool, tricking them to display just how ignorant they really are. I only briefly touched on this "science" issue in my last post, if you really had any idea what the hell you were talking about, you would have left the issue alone. Since you don't know very much, but rather are acting as a puppet, repeating the drivel and "indepenent thinking" nonsense you've heard in the past, you chose to seize on it, thinking you could score a cheap point.
Let's look at science. Can you think of the major advances in science?
I'm sure you know about the initially negative reaction from the Pope, but did you know that Galileo was a deeply religious man?
Sir Isaac Newton was an extremely religious man as well, even going so far as to attempt to calculate the apocalypse.
Louis Pasteur was a devoted Catholic.
Even Einstein believed in some sort of law or order in the Universe. Not a personal God, but some kind of design. He's responsible for the quote, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind"
Jonas Salk, the scientist responsible for the polio vaccine, also believes in I.D. or more accurately, a recognition of the principles of evolutionary mutation, I'll just quote him:
“Why do I have to choose? Why must it be one or the other? Of course evolution is real. DNA mutates, and that makes evolution one of the most powerful forces in nature. But who set evolution into motion? Can’t God have done that? I can’t stand it when the ideologues take over on something like this. Don’t ever let yourself be caught in one of these “either/or” debates, because when you finally figure it out – it’s usually a bit of both.”
I can continue this list, but only feel the need to do so if you intend to argue that Salk, Einstein, Newton, Newton, and Pasteur weren't scientific enough for you.
And I know you're not going to challenge the fact that virtually ALL of Western Culture is based on biblical teachings, because it's impossible to do so. If you destroy the bible, then you destroy the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution while your at it. All of those "individual freedom" concepts are based on the biblical teaching. Without that biblical foundation, the notion of the individual is not supportable. It wasn't simply out of politeness or decorum that the founders through the word GOD into all their text so many times.
declaration and constitution aren't withstanding in my country. even darwin himself was of religion. it pained him to think his idea just might lead to a questioning of god. yet you didn't mention him in your list either. and galileo kept quiet about his findings until his death. there are many who went before. so what is your point. that society can't be created without western religious convictions? and destroying the bible would hardly create the fall of the western world. talking like you do would make it seem that seperation of church and state has been nothing but a charade. there was a reason for it and you're showing exactly what that reason is. given true freedom, you'd revoke the rights of free thought as soon as it conflicts with you. work call's. i'll continue later.