"Atheism for Kids" movie to destroy America yet again
If he brings me some MRE's, he is my new God.
There is hope, but not for us.
[QUOTE=Loren Vitale;1105196]He talked about that at last years Beyond Belief conference. I think he was invited back for this year's conference earlier this month, but unfortunately I didn't get to go.
Have you read [U]Why People Believe Weird Things[/U]?[/QUOTE]
I believe I did read that. I also have an autographed 1st ed copy of [U]How We Believe[/U].
Think for yourself. Question Authority.
It comes out today, who's going to see it?
Think for yourself. Question Authority.
im going
I loved the books
and i think this will actually be a really cool movie.
but i would not be surprised if im disappointed
I've read they take all the controversial stuff out anyway....
Think for yourself. Question Authority.
no they do not really take it away.
the ideas are all still there very strong.
"the magesterium wants to control what you beleive and the way you think"
can anyone guess what the Magesterium is ??????
IT WAS AWESOME
a bit thin on some of the plot and circumstances. They kept the most important stuff from the book except the ending.
the ending is sadly saved for the beginning of the sequel.
people familiar with Lord of the rings will relate to this from the ending and beginning of all three were shifted as well.
the ending is a big DOWN note, i guess they didnt want to end the movie that way.... instead its a very nuetral ending of really no extreme happyness or sadness.
I really enjoyed it! and that is rare for a book fan first perspective.
i agree, the ending was foobared.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
[url]http://www.livescience.com/history/071211-fundamental-birth.html[/url]
Think for yourself. Question Authority.
i thought they totally neutered it!
OK, not totally. But in the book, the fact that the Magisterium is a branch of the Church is very explicit. Religion is not mentioned once in the movie... they use the word "heretic" and the word "heresy," both of which imply religion, but they never make explicit that the Magisterium IS religion.
Also, the reasons they give behind the Magisterium's reasons for investigating Dust are, well, wrong. They really water it down. Sure, they still frame it in a way as it being totally self-serving and not really "to save everyone" as they say, but in the book it is much more insidious than it is in the film.
and then they sanitized stupid little details, some of which are important some not, but for reasons beyond understanding save for wanting to secure the PG13, family friendly feeling. The few of these that stick out in my mind, remaining spoiler free both of the book and film... 1> Now, who is it that tries to poison Asriel in the beginning? 2>Why is the reason Iorek was exiled? 3> The question "Ragnar Sturlsson (is that the same name as the book? It seems unfamiliar) asks Lyra to prove herself 4> Who is the boy they find out in the shack, who has Ratters for a daemon?
However, even all of these weird and unfortunate things, including the really unfortunate ending and the total distortion of geography (and logic) are not the true downfall of the film, in my opinion.
The reason I think the film is disappointing is because it is less than 2 hours long, and there is way too much in the book for that. It seems as if the screenplay author (Chris Weitz, who incidientally also produces and directs the film, and has NO GOOD WRITING credits under his belt... aka Nutty Professor 2 The Klumps) basically went through the book, identified all of the scenes he wanted to include, and then went through and found all of the quotes he liked as well as all of the important and relevant details needed to understand the larger storyline... and when itmes in these two lists did not match up, well he just inserted them in other scenes. The result is that a lot of lines are delivered by a different character than in the original, at a different time in the storyline, and they feel very forced. As a result many of them seem out of place and some of them seem cheesy. Lord Faa's speech is amazing and moving... wehn told in context. When very small pieces of it are excerpted and told in an entirely constructed context, well, it is just cheesy. The movie did not flow, it tried to include too many things in too short a time period.
In the end, it neutered itself, sanitized itself in very disappointing ways, and was too choppy and disjointed to have a larger appeal.
Whatever, dude!! John Frum could come visit TOMORROW and bring us all gifts from his aeroplane!! Just you watch!!
FUCK YEAH BABY ANIMALS