Pharyngula

I hope it doesn't suck, but the books will still be awesome no matter how it is.

The shittiest movie ever (aside from Armageddon) was the D&D movie, and people still play D&D. So I think the books will be okay even if the movie sucks.

Posted by: Hexxenhammer | December 3, 2007 1:38 AM

Right-wing radio talk-show host Mike Gallagher had a caller last week who told him that the movie was "even more insidious than we were led to believe" because Scholastic has lesson plans--"ready to go!"--for distribution in schools that include The Golden Compass in its reading assignments. Pretty hideous, no? The caller noted that Scholastic had distributed the ungodly Harry Potter books and was clearly anti-God (at least anti-Christian-God, the only one that matters, you know). Gallagher expressed his horror at Scholastic's nefarious plans to promote and profit from Pullman's books and the new movie. Apparently the movie is a kind of "gateway drug" that will lead innocent children to the "hard stuff": Pullman's actual books, which have a harder edge than the movie. Gallagher and his caller feared that children would read the Pullman trilogy and become unbelievers.

Pretty shocking, no? I expect the panic to escalate.

Posted by: Zeno | December 3, 2007 1:45 AM

Can't say how good the movies will be from the trailers. The one thing that's absolutely undeniable is they spent a buttload on effects.

The earlier trailers didn't include daemons in every shot; the more recent one does. I was heartened. OTOH I thought the earlier voice for Ioreck Byrnison worked better, good as Ian McKellen is.

Plus, we see a continuation of the apparent iron law saying holiday season blockbusters have to have Christopher Lee in them. (Not that I'm complaining - he's generally good. Still, after having him in all three TLOTR, Star Wars, Sleepy Hollow, Corpse Bride etc. I was thinking he might need a vacation.)

Posted by: jimBOB | December 3, 2007 1:57 AM

I have not read any of Pullman's books, but will have to. I will also be going and seeing the movie. Even if it sucks i'll gladly pay money to increase its box office success to piss of the religious. However, I'd rather it not suck so we can see the triology that I believe is being talked about (I think). On a side note, there is a Church that is planning to hold its services in the local Regal Movie theaters here in Orlando. They will begin in January. I find it a little disturbing, and hoping not to find religious paraphernalia spread throughout the movie theater, as well as religious people bugging me. I may just take my business elsewhere.

Posted by: Chris | December 3, 2007 2:28 AM

I went to see an early public screening of the film last night in a packed theater. The crowd was made up primarily of teenagers and families with children. I was somewhat disappointed with the entertainment value of the film. It was clearly cast in the mold of New Line's earlier fantasy trilogy success, the Lord of the Rings (e.g. the prologue and the ending feel lifted straight from Fellowship of the Ring). Unfortunately, it did not come up to that standard, particularly in the writing and direction, both by Chris Weitz. It's hard to complain too much about the technical aspects of the film; rendering the daemons alone must have been a mammoth task, but all the effects tend to diminish the power of the rest of the images. Fans of the book will probably be confused by the way it ends, or rather when it ends. I also was struck by how much more fantastical Weitz' vision of Lyra's universe was than mine. On a positive note, the acting was very good: Nicole Kidman, as Mrs. Coulter, and Dakota Blue Richards, as Lyra, were the standouts in cast full of many acting legends and promising newcomers. The polar bear fight was the most thrilling part of the film and it elicited gasps and cheers at the same time.
No mention of the Church in the film; it has been shifted to the more inoccuous "Magisterium." Nevertheless, the link should still be apparent (e.g. it's representative labels Lord Asriel's expedition heresy). The Magisterium itself is clearly the villain of the film; this point is well-made by having established film baddie Christopher Lee and Derek Jacobi plot and scheme in dark-lit, private conference rooms. Mrs. Coulter is the attractive, seductive representative of the Magisterium, which she says is like a benevolent guardian, neither mean nor petty. The story here seems to be mostly about maintaining free will, which is all fine and good.
I think, and I hope, the film will do well enough to green-light "The Subtle Knife," the second part of the His Dark Materials trilogy. Once you see it, however, I think you will agree that we would all be better served by a different helmer, someone who has more experience in large-scale epics and the ability to bring out better the subtleties of Pullman's writing. I would love to see Alfonso Cuaron or Peter Jackson attached to either of the two remaining projects.

Posted by: HannibalUltor | December 3, 2007 3:03 AM

The most amusing thing about the fuss over the movie is that the decision to make the film more acceptable to Christian viewers is being decried as a subversive and coldly calculating move to draw unsuspecting children into reading the books and being turned into fire-breathing, Satan-worshiping atheists.

Those critics don't care about the contents of the movie at all, nor its potential sequels. They view the movies as a gateway drug to the hard stuff in the books where kids will be mainlining atheism directly into their soul.

Oh, the horror!

8|

Posted by: tacitus | December 3, 2007 3:16 AM

If stories about rebellious young girls by non-believers are so dangerous, how come Pippi Longstocking hasn't been banned yet?

Posted by: windy | December 3, 2007 3:38 AM

If stories about rebellious young girls by non-believers are so dangerous, how come Pippi Longstocking hasn't been banned yet?

Oh, there are small minded school boards which every few years get around to banning it and the wizard of oz.

The trailers look ... well, awesome. It seems that they've choosen to depict Lyra's daemon rather consistantly as a ferret (which is a perfect animal for the purpose) rather than mutable as all childrens' daemons are before adolescence.

Sigh. Culture wars. I like to be objective and believe "the other side" might have valid and legitimate concerns that are simply different than mine but so far absolutely nothing said or done has implied anything other than that "the other side" is simply mortally and thouroughly scared of free thought.

Posted by: woozy | December 3, 2007 3:51 AM

Sex? She's like twelve years old. What was pullman's 'lesson' at the end by the way - in the union of will and lyra? That it's wrong for adults to interfere in teenage sex lives? What ridiculous nonsense. As they say - a social conservative is a liberal with a daughter in high school. Pullman, with two sons, probably doesn't understand this. Most societies in the world severly regulate teenage sexual mores so as to prevent things like teenage pregnancy and ruining your lives and all that. Only someone with a leftist ego like pullman could consider restrictions on teenage sexuality a bad thing.

HDM is essentially traditional english anti-catholicism updated with the new religion of political correctness (homosexual angels? 'gytian' rebels? come on!)

Posted by: cuchulainn | December 3, 2007 5:18 AM

What was pullman's 'lesson' at the end by the way - in the union of will and lyra?

What is the 'lesson' at the end of Lord of the Rings by the way? Don't eat Orcs, they have a bad after-taste?

I like to read literature because it can be entertaining, beautiful and thought-provoking. Generally, I am put off by books that try to teach me a 'lesson' (and I think it is slightly out of fashion to teach lessons in novels anyway). Are you always looking for the lesson at the end of a good story?

Posted by: Don Quijote | December 3, 2007 6:07 AM

Sadly, a lot of Scholastic book fairs at schools around the country have been chosing not to offer these books due to the FEAR of protests and irate parents. Never mind that perhaps some kids DO want to read them and have parents who don't mind if they do - we must "protect the children" against literature that might make them question what they've been told.

I got my copy of the trilogy at Costco for about $12. It's not really my kind of fiction, but hey - I'll buy it if it supports the cause.

Posted by: Heather | December 3, 2007 6:36 AM

"a social conservative is a liberal with a daughter in high school"

It's a good thing there are no liberals with teenage daughters around THIS blog, or that would be obvious bollocks!

Most societies in the world severly regulate teenage sexual mores
Most societies in the world severely regulate women's sexual mores. When was the last time you heard someone joke about his baby son "and I'm not letting him date until he's 30"?

Posted by: MissPrism | December 3, 2007 6:53 AM

Hey, Pee-Zed! Have you worked out what responses to give on the daemon-site to get a cephalopod yet?

My reading of the HDM books was mild amusement. The writing is so lumpen and pedestrian, the metaphors and structure so terribly obvious and strained that I put the popularity it enjoyed down to good marketing by the publishing 'in-crowd' supporting one of their own. Shows how far removed from the literary zeitgeist I am, i suppose.

If this film is being used to bash faith-heads or even gets a few kids to question their dogmatic teachings then I'm all for it but for goodness' sake let's not confuse it with literature.

Posted by: AllanW | December 3, 2007 7:23 AM

Oh Cool! mine was a tiger called Haythia. And yes, I was honest, honest.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | December 3, 2007 7:33 AM

I saw the movie at a sneak preview on Saturday evening. It is a fantasy movie, pure and simple: magic, familiars, parallel universes, intelligent talking polar bears, good witches, and so on. The Magisterium is not recognizable as a religious entity, per se, but rather a generic if malignant authoritarian regime that has great power in the universe of the story, one being fought by a very brave little girl whose fate it is to oppose it. Obvious religious sentiment, pro or con, is notably absent. There is, of course, magic, and use of the term demon to denote the familiars which are a part of every human in the story will doubtless give those who opposed the Potter stories a reason to object. Bottom line: It's a movie, people, one suitable for children of all ages. Anyone who uses this a brickbat in the culture wars needs to give it a rest. Seriously.

Posted by: Meade | December 3, 2007 7:34 AM

I have two daughters and I had no problems with Lyra and Will coupling. For one thing, it was necessary for his parody of Paradise Lost. Without it the whole plot of the scientist woman sent to the world of the wheel trees to act as 'satan' and the pre absolved (what a horrible concept) priest sent to shoot them before they could 'sin'.

The idea of regulating child sexuality is one born of wanting to control women and is common in patriarchal societies. If two people who have demonstrated their fidelity and commitment and shown great personal growth cannot be deemed able to handle this, also knowing it would be their one and only chance. Then I have no hope for your sense of humanity.

Does that mean it is always appropriate for kids growing up in our culture? no. Because different pressures, responsibilities and consequences arise than operated for Lyra and Will. Hence no wider less can be drawn. It was a bloody allegory, in such things not all events, motives etc have to map to our world. This is basic Literature 101.

Peter

Posted by: Peter Ashby | December 3, 2007 7:41 AM

+1 social liberal with a daughter in high school. If argumentem ad sound bite isn't a logical fallacy, it should be.

Posted by: Ray S. | December 3, 2007 8:01 AM

I read the books a long time ago, and didn't noticed anything particularly odd or atheist-y about them.

Criticism of institutionalized religion and magic use is pretty standard in the genre. Honestly, if you had a dime for every story of young protagonists being stymied by ( or liberating themselves from) authoritarian social structures/institutions of some kind, you'd be able to afford to regularly purchase new books to read.

It must have something to do with most of the books being written for young people.

Then if you had another dime for every young freedom fighter who turns out to be the anonymous genius/heir to the kingdom and suddenly elevated to the top of the dominating social structure, bringing a refreshing new attitude before being tormented into cynical acceptance by the necessities of the job, you'd have another giant pile of change.

Posted by: John B | December 3, 2007 8:38 AM

"The trouble is that for problems like teen pregnancy, the "restrictions" mentality (let's try to keep teens from having sex) doesn't work."

That's why out-of-wedlock births were less than 3% at the turn of the century versus over 30% today.

Posted by: cuchulainn | December 3, 2007 8:44 AM

"That's why out-of-wedlock births were less than 3% at the turn of the century versus over 30% today."

No, THAT was because, at the turn of the 19th century (and I'm assuming you meant that one), a child born out of wedlock was considered so much of a shame on not only the mother, but also her whole family, that the women were either forced to marry, or they were shipped off to some foster home for fallen girls, where they would give birth, have their babies taken away from them, and then return home, never to mention their pregnancy again.

Posted by: Darwin's Minion | December 3, 2007 8:58 AM

+2 liberal with a teenage daughter, partly because I don't want to be a grandfather quite yet. This is my second one, and if that little saying were true, then I would have been Mike Huckabee, ECD, by now due to my oldest. Thank big pharma for depo-provera!

And cuchulainn, I wonder about the accuracy of your data.

As to my daemon, I was paired with a Lion named Thedra. I felt like I was taking a Mini=MMPI - internal validity checks and all that.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | December 3, 2007 9:15 AM

I want a daemon called Damon.

It's a well known fact that repressing teenage sexuality and encouraging fear and ignorance about the subject increases morality, reduces unwanted pregnancies and stops underage sex in it's tracks.

Oh, wait . . .

Posted by: Scrofulum | December 3, 2007 9:20 AM

MissPrism is correct that rates of teenage pregnancy are dropping, as the graph here demonstrates.

Some notes from the graph:

* The pregnancy rate (the sum of births, abortions, and fetal losses per 1,000 females) declined by two-fifths for adolescents ages 15-17 during 1990-2002, reaching a record low of 44 per 1,000 in 2002. Rates for births, abortions, and fetal losses declined for these young adolescents from the 1990s through 2002.[11, 31, 32]

[11] Hamilton, B.E., Sutton, P.D., and Ventura, S.J. (2003). Revised birth and fertility rates for the 1990s: United States, and new rates for Hispanic populations, 2000 and 2001. National Vital Statistics Reports, 51 (12). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

[31] Ventura, S.J., Mosher, W.D., Curtin, S.C., Abma, J.C., and Henshaw, S. (2000). Trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcome: Estimates for the United States, 1976-96. Vital and Health Statistics, 21 (56). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

[32] Ventura, S.J., Abma, J.C., Mosher, W.D., and Henshaw, S. (2006). Recent trends in teenage pregnancy in the United States, 1990-2002. Health e-stats. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/teenpreg1990-2002/teenpreg1990-2002.htm.

That's why out-of-wedlock births were less than 3% at the turn of the century versus over 30% today.

cuchulainn, 44 per 1000 is 4.4%, so your data is way off. I am curious as to why you made that particular mistake.

One possibility is that, despite your earlier emphasis on teen pregnancy, you are conflating it with pregnancy rates across all ages. If so, and if you are being honest, then that means you don't understand how stratification works; if you are not being honest, then that means it's not just about the teenagers for you. But either way (honest mistake or not), it's not a kosher way to use statistics just to make a point.

Posted by: thalarctos | December 3, 2007 9:26 AM

And cuchulainn, I wonder about the accuracy of your data.

With good reason. I actually addressed the problems with his numbers, but my comment is being held because I cited references.

Kinda ironic how ScienceBlogs holds your posts if you back up your numbers, but not if you don't.

Posted by: thalarctos | December 3, 2007 9:30 AM

Saw it on Saturday. It was good, but not as good as I had hoped. It was just so... rushed. And they left out perhaps the most important theme from the first book - Lyra's betrayal. The movie should have been longer and at least had that in it, hanging over you, with every decision she made.

Posted by: Greg | December 3, 2007 9:39 AM

That's why out-of-wedlock births were less than 3% at the turn of the century versus over 30% today.

Isn't this about "out-of-wedlock" births? I thought we were talking about teenage pregnancy.

Posted by: Amanda | December 3, 2007 9:52 AM

I read the books a long time ago, and didn't noticed anything particularly odd or atheist-y about them.

The Catholic Church is the major baddie, the insane decrepit entity calling itself "God" is killed by the protagonists, and the rule of that entity and others like him is challenged by humans -- that doesn't strike you as a bit "odd" for a mainstream fantasy novel? That isn't a bit atheist-y?

I recently read the novels, and I was dumbfounded that there wasn't more protest against them when they were published. I guess the religious don't read.

Posted by: Tulse | December 3, 2007 10:02 AM

pre-1960 for most of the west bernarda, obviously. africans have different family structures to the rest of the world, where women & men tend to sleep around, men rarely help with raising children etc and monogamy is rare. we'll probably develop a greater understanding of this anomaly with the emerging science of race differences in genetics. these unusual sexual practices are, incidentally, one of the main reasons aids is spreading so rapidly in africa, but don't expect to read about it in the nyt anytime soon.

theo - the vast majority of single mothers are burdens on the state. in fact you can predict the size of the underclass in the next generation with one single figure - the number of single mothers in the country.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.14891/pub_detail.asp
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.13422/pub_detail.asp

Posted by: cuchulainn | December 3, 2007 10:12 AM

maybe it is odd for a mainstream book, but that's what makes it good: it's not the same old crap that every other mainstream book is. Pullman isn't afraid to offend a few people. so someone might not like the idea of killing "God", well nobody forced them to read the book, and I don't see the previews marketing the movie based on this fact. this does, however, seem to contrast with the fact that churchgoers show up on my doorstep berating me about joining their church, believing their ideas, being chastised for not believing and being told I'll go to hell and that I simply must accept Jesus as my lord and savior. the part I don't get is why it needs to be boycotted, if your particular faith and religion is so damn true and strong, why are you afraid that someone might change their mind about it after viewing this movie? could it be that it made the leaders of religion start thinking about their beliefs and faiths? obviously it had to provoke thought in someone or nobody would be concerned about it.

Posted by: Zeph | December 3, 2007 10:17 AM

All right, my previous comment shows no sign of appearing, so I'll do it again without links.

MissPrism is right; you can go to www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDREN/famsoc6.asp and see the graph of declining teenage pregnancy rates.

And 44 per 1000 in 2002 is a rate of 4.4%, nowhere near the 30% you cited, cuchulainn, so I am interested in why you made this particular error.

If you conflated the teenage pregnancy rate with the pregnancy rate for all ages, and if it was an honest mistake, then it means you simply does not understand how stratification and statistics work. You have to do it the same way throughout.

If the error was not inadvertent, then it means it's not just about the teenagers for you, after all, despite your leading with that point. Or there may be another explanation I've missed that accounts for how you made that error. In any case, though, even if it is a totally honest mistake, it's not kosher to use statistics that way in support of a point; you have to do it in the right way, or not at all.

Posted by: thalarctos | December 3, 2007 10:19 AM

well, jimc, some races are a lot more monogamous than others. look at this worldwide infidelity chart.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/05/infidelity-around-world.php

for those who want a dissection of hdm, this site has many:

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/

Posted by: cuchulainn | December 3, 2007 10:32 AM

hephaistos: I am a sucker for any movie which has talking animals in it. Those magnificent polar bears in armor are just frosting on the cake. My daemon is an ocelot - won't reveal her name so that no one can cast a spell on her.

The talking beavers in The Chronicles of Narnia turned me permanently away from the Sweet Baby Jesus, and into a life of beastly fraternization.

I expect the talking polar bears in The Golden Compass may actually drive me to eat living Christian babies, possibly even the offspring of unwary Catholics.

My daemon is a Dutch Belt cow named Bertha. "Your profile reveals that you are overweight, unassertive, contemplative and flatulent."

(There was also something in there about a crow named Anthora - modest, spontaneous, solitary, assertive and shy - but that can't be me. If I'm gonna have a corvid, I won't settle for anything less than Corvus corax, the raven, and she'd have a neat name like Grrrook.)

Posted by: Hank Fox | December 3, 2007 10:37 AM

It seems that they've choosen to depict Lyra's daemon rather consistantly as a ferret (which is a perfect animal for the purpose) rather than mutable as all childrens' daemons are before adolescence.

I am among those who got a sneak peek at the movie over the weekend. Pan is mostly a ferret, but also takes other forms often enough to make the mutability clear, as do the daemons of the other children.

Posted by: Kevin W. Parker | December 3, 2007 10:43 AM

I have a tiger daemon named Sereno. Apparently I am modest, shy, assertive, proud and competetive.

It also seems I am schizophrenic. Nothing I didn't already know then!

And to put in my two pennies' worth: I first read these books when I was in 6th Form, and I never assumed Lyra and Will had sex. I always felt it was left to each reader to imagine the ending they wanted. Maybe I was just a very naive 17 year old? It certainly did not encourage me to go out and have sex!

Posted by: Max Hannan | December 3, 2007 10:53 AM

Hank, are you sure you don't want to name your corvid something like Quoth?

Posted by: G | December 3, 2007 11:22 AM

My daemon is an 'alf-bee named Eric.

Posted by: Rey Fox | December 3, 2007 11:43 AM

I saw the sneak preview this past weekend, also.

While I agree with those who've said the story seemed a bit 'rushed', it did as fine a job of adapting a book to film as I've ever seen. This can't really stand as a serious criticism.

Regarding the religion angle: while they did change the Church to the Magisterium, and remove *most* of the religious symbolism, please note of the paintings on the exterior of the Magisterium building that the bear breaks into to recover his armor. Those paintings look an awful lot like Medieval religious icons. More significantly, while they never said 'Church', they *did* say "freethinkers" in reference to the Magisterium's opponents. Several times. I thought it was a very clever solution: if you can't say who the Magisterium is, but its opponents are 'freethinkers'... then what MUST the Magisterium be?

It's a good solid film. Not perfect, but then very few films are. I think it would be a good idea to support it.

Posted by: Jeff Dee | December 3, 2007 11:58 AM

the vast majority of single mothers are burdens on the state. in fact you can predict the size of the underclass in the next generation with one single figure - the number of single mothers in the country.

Not if "the country" is, say, Sweden.

Posted by: windy | December 3, 2007 12:06 PM

It's not the preganancy so much as the residual effects of said pregnancy. This is where good sex education comes into play and where Europe is light years ahead of the USA.

Not in the good old UK as we have just about the worst statistics in Europe on that score .

To be honest the Christian religion is largely regarded as an embarassment over here. Tony Blair has said he didn't want to emphasise his Christian beliefs in case he was perceived as nutter which says a lot.

So the film will be regarded as just another kids fantasy over here , now if it criticised the Islamic version of religion and God then there would be one hell of a reaction both here and abroad.

Conservative types do sometimes argue that the retreat of the Christian religion here creates a vacuum into which Islam jumps and there is some evidence that a few non-ethnic believers are attracted to its disciplines , but there's been few if any studies on the numbers involved .It has the appearance of being a handful who probably would have been attracted to extreme religous beliefs in any event.

THe challenge here is about building a humanistic version of morality that just doesn't bend with the wind or "might is right" or lead to a shallow hedonistic lifestyle. I think the environmental movement is scoring well here on that score and in some aspects its moved away from pure global warming science to an embryo proto-religion .It's one which our politicians are prepared to embrace for sure even with some dodgy science behind it at times.

The advance of irrationalism worries me as much if not more than the actual real evidence that does exist for global warming .It's not being taken seriously however in either educational or political circles.

Posted by: Bliar | December 3, 2007 12:17 PM