Talk:The Golden Compass (film)

message: :Overall, it's looking very solid, and certainly most of the hard work has been done. Well done! A few points, though:
::1. In the lead, unlink the film series (which is currently a circular link). I'd also rewrite, since there is (at the moment) no confirmation of any further films.
::2. Some of the real-world information may need tense changes to the past tense, as the film has been released. (Note that the plot summary, however, should remain consistently in the present tense, per MOS.)
::3. book's perceived anti-Christian and atheistic themes - correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Pullman openly admitted these biases? If so, the "perceived" should be dropped - it's not POV to state this as fact if the author confirms it.
::4. The cast parentheticals in the plot summary section should be dropped, as the cast section handles this function. See the style guidelines for further information.
::5. The plot summary is filled with run-ons, dangling phrases, and other sentences which appear muddled, awkward, or grammatically incorrect. This could use a good copy edit. (See the League of Copy Editors, if necessary.)
::6. The cast section could use some beefing up with more information for most of the names, both describing the character and the casting, with references. Asriel's entry is distressingly brief, considering that he's a central character.
::7. Discussion of the abrupt ending should probably not be in the development section, but instead be moved to concentrate the topic together either at Reception or an independent section regarding the ending.
::8. The title section is really not germane to the film directly - it is more appropriate for the article on the book and book series - all that need be mentioned in the film's article is that the title was taken from the American book release, with a passing mention to the UK title. This is already done in the lead.
::9. Production section needs a great deal more coverage, and more equitably spread between the various departments. Given the prior stature of the source material, the large budget, wide PR campaign, and recent release, there should be no difficulty finding references for this.
::10. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that second unit and plate shots began well before principal photography.
::11. Another thing worth looking into that I remember is that the production had originally chosen to shoot on the Panavision Genesis camera before even settling on a DP. (This is precisely why Henry Braham was hired, since he had prior experience on Flyboys.) However, after tests with both the Genesis and 35mm film, even though Braham preferred to use the Genesis, the studio insisted on film. It was shot on Fujifilm, and I'm certain that their UK-based magazine Exposure has some discussion of this. Some of the more recent issues are on their UK website.
::12. The fansite speculation on the extended cut is not a reliable source and should be deleted.
:I look forward to seeing how it develops! Good editing, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that the plot section could be significantly reduced to two or three paragraphs rather than five or six, as the article is a long one already. Mdiamante (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good, thorough review, Girolamo.  Thanks for taking the time to do that. I will only question point 3 for now. This was subject to several discussions during the article's development; if I remember correctly, "perceived" was ultimately chosen because Pullman doesn't have the final say and there were enough sources presented which challenged even his view. All the best, Steve T  • C 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I've addressed points 1,2,4 and 12, and agree with Steve on 3. I won't be able to make many edits in the next week, but here's a terrific and easy resource for news on the production. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: The novels and movie are not atheistic, or in anyway related to atheism.
This is best evidenced by the fact that God appears in the 3rd novel. The reference in the start of the article to atheistic themes should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.170.48 (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So God appears in the 3rd novel… which is relevant how to a movie that doesn't contain anything from "the 3rd novel"? jae (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheistic 

message: Is that plot outline really so detailed to warrant a banner? The plot is quite complex, with all the major storylines having fantastic elements requiring explanation. It seems reasonably straightforward to me - does anyone have any justification for the banner?  Mdw0 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it is neither too long nor excessively detailed.  It lists all the major plot turns without a blow by blow description of the film.  It takes about three minutes to read, and summarises a film almost two hours long. (At least I try (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot length

message: Perhaps I read this too fast, but the article seems to refer to two writers having provided draft scripts, and one of them being judged the best of the three??  Nandt1 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion over Scripts?

message: the golden compass is not based on the sitcom The Golden Girls  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.200.166 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information 

message: the golden compass is not based on the sitcom The Golden Girls as stated in the first line.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.200.166 (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information 

message: Just a heads-up that when the link on Reference #84 is tapped, an "Error 404" is returned and you do not get the article/source listed/mentioned.
Can someone correct the error? 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reference" 84 

message: We ought to decide whether this article is in American or British English, and tag it accordingly. If you look at the edit history you will see a recent back-and-forth which we could have avoided had this been agreed already. I see that it is supported by the American and British cinema task forces, and it seems to me to be an American film albeit based on a British book. My guess would be tag as AmE but it's not my area. Furthermore I don't really care: I don't have some nationalistic notion of it ... it would just be good to be consistent. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which English?