Talk:The Golden Compass (film)

easy difference to see

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

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

New Line

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

Title

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

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

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

"Proposed actors"

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

Old information

The information on this page is out of date, according to [1], Chris Weitz has apparently changed his mind and is directing...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

Proposed merge

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

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

I made a cast table

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

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

Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed move

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

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

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

Budget source

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

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

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

Set visit

• Heather Newgen (2007-02-01). "Set Visit: The Golden Compass". ComingSoon.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Jenny Karakaya (2007-02-15). "Set: Golden Compass". JoBlo.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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

Filming techniques

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

Possibly Interesting Trivia?

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

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

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

Religius Subject Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cast

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

Differences Between Book And Film

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

Iofur's name change

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

UK film title

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

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

Pantalaimon's voice

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

Reference

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

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

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

Boycott of film by Christian groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

---

His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass → The Golden Compass (film) — The posters and official site refer to the film only as "The Golden Compass". The (film) suffix should be used to disambiguate it from the novel. —Chaz ^Beckett 21:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support I'm not even sure the present form disambiguates successfully from the novel. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Agreed with the previous poster. This article doesn't fit Wikipedia's naming conventions at the moment. "His Dark Materials" simply isn't in the title of the film. I'll go ahead and move this in a couple of days, barring no objections. --Whamilton42 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is The Catholic League's boycott relevant?

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

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

Snopes

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

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

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

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

Christopher Lee

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

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