Please explain this to me.

[Esran]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Why am I seeing this advertisement all over the Internet? Furthermore, why, after consulting the USCCB’s film review, from which this quote was reportedly drawn, do I fail to find this quote?

Is Newline Cinema deliberately lying and falsifying quotes? If so, what should we do?

 

[Cobbfmly]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/Esran/GCbish1_300x250.jpg

Why am I seeing this advertisement all over the Internet? Furthermore, why, after consulting the USCCB’s film review, from which this quote was reportedly drawn, do I fail to find this quote?

Is Newline Cinema deliberately lying and falsifying quotes? If so, what should we do?

Unfortunately, it is there.

Whatever author Pullman’s putative motives in writing the story, writer-director Chris Weitz’s film, taken purely on its own cinematic terms, can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with, at its core, a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism.

To the extent, moreover, that Lyra and her allies are taking a stand on behalf of free will in opposition to the coercive force of the Magisterium, they are of course acting entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching. The heroism and self-sacrifice that they demonstrate provide appropriate moral lessons for viewers.

The Bishops should have known that this would be taken out of context. What the bishops are saying in the review is that in the movie, without regard for the books, the Magisterium is not the church, but rather a coercive authority, therefore opposing it is within Catholic teaching.

The Bishops made a BIG , unnecessary (the review would stand on it’s own without this statement), mistake by including this in the review. Not only do they make the movie acceptable, but they will also cause confusion for parents and children who read the books after seeing the movie.

I pray that the Bishops will realize the mistake they made and take fast and concrete action to correct the problems created by their review.

 

[Esran]

What worries me is that the quote in the advertisement is:

1. Not found in the actual review
2. Not a statement of the USCCB

It is an imaginary quote read into Mr. Forbe’s review. The quote is not there, see? This is lawsuit territory. Attributing it to the “U.S. Bishop’s Conference” is downright dishonest.

 

[Cobbfmly]

What worries me is that the quote in the advertisement is:

1. Not found in the actual review
2. Not a statement of the USCCB

It is an imaginary quote read into Mr. Forbe’s review. The quote is not there, see? This is lawsuit territory. Attributing it to the “U.S. Bishop’s Conference” is downright dishonest.

usccb.org/movies/g/thegoldencompass.shtml

The first part of the quote comes from the 12th paragraph of the full review and the second part of the quote comes from the 13th paragraph of the full review.

I doubt that any legal challenge would hold up in court. This type of selective quoting is very common in the movie and publishing industries. The only things wrong with the quote is that they used a comma between the parts when they should have used “…” and they should have put “…” at the beginning of the quote.

As far as saying that is not a quote of USCCB, this definitely would not hold up in court. The following is found at the end of the review.

The following movies have been evaluated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop’s Office for Film and Broadcasting according to artistic merit and moral suitability.

It is an acceptable practice to say the quote is from an organization when it comes from an office of the organization, esp. when space is limited.

 

[Esran]

Well, the quote is still misleading, and yes, it would hold up in court. That’s why you have to be careful when quoting sources. Miss one ellipses, or distort the meaning of the quote, and you can indeed be sued. I learned all about this in my technical writing course at college.

 

[Cobbfmly]

Well, the quote is still misleading, and yes, it would hold up in court. That’s why you have to be careful when quoting sources. Miss one ellipses, or distort the meaning of the quote, and you can indeed be sued. I learned all about this in my technical writing course at college.

If this will hold up in court, who don’t more professionals, celebrities, etc take people to court (our settling out of court) when they are quoted out of context?

If there is a chance it will hold up in court, I pray that the Bishops take action TODAY to get this ad stopped!

 

[Esran]

Well, a lot of misquotes aren’t taken to court because:

1. It’s a big hassle
2. There’s so many misquotes
3. Most are not as blatant as this one

Honestly, if someone took up this case, it would be an open-close-book lawsuit. This misquote is so obvious. Plus, proper citation style is completely ignored. Even against a company like Newline Cenima, winning a case like this would be fairly easy, I think.

 

[TMC]

Well, the quote is still misleading, and yes, it would hold up in court. That’s why you have to be careful when quoting sources. Miss one ellipses, or distort the meaning of the quote, and you can indeed be sued. I learned all about this in my technical writing course at college.

Not only would it hold up in court, but I read the review and it is not misleading. I have also heard that manipulating quotes like this is common in the industry, and if you don’t change the sense of the review no one complains. This is without question a favorable review, and the sentiments in the quote are in the review.

Also, the USCCB’s Office for Film and Broadcasting rated the film A -II, which means they find it morally appropriate for adults and adolescents. Few movies get A -I, which means appropriate for everyone.

I see no reason to be upset by the ad; the ad is honest. If there is any reason to be upset it would be at the Office for Film and Broadcasting. I have not seen the film, so I don’t know if they got it right or not.

 

[Esran]

Well then, TMC, even though I disagree with you…maybe we should be banging on the doors of the USCCB instead?

In any case, fighting our own misguided bishop’s conference is much more fun anyway.

In his story, Pullman writes:

“The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty—those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves—the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. . . . The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of all. He told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie.”

And the bishops reply (sort-of, not really. I bet not a single bishop was ever consulted): “An exciting adventure story…entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching.”

Pardon my French, but…what the hell!?

 

[Nohome]

Honestly, if someone took up this case, it would be an open-close-book lawsuit.

No, but it would give the movie so much free advertisement that it would virtually ensure it to be a boxoffice success.

Nohome

 

[CuriousInIL]

Well, a lot of misquotes aren’t taken to court because:

1. It’s a big hassle
2. There’s so many misquotes
3. Most are not as blatant as this one

Honestly, if someone took up this case, it would be an open-close-book lawsuit. This misquote is so obvious. Plus, proper citation style is completely ignored. Even against a company like Newline Cenima, winning a case like this would be fairly easy, I think.

I agree that it would be an open and shut case; but the result would be a win for Newline–likely on a motion to dismiss. The quote while missing ellipses is not (perhaps unfortunately, I can not say because I have not seen the movie) overall misleading of the review.

 

[Cobbfmly]

In his story, Pullman writes:

“The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty—those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves—the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. . . . The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of all. He told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie.”

I notice that he left out Allah from the names. I wonder if he did this because he knew if he included Allah there would be a price on his head?

The other thing I notice is that he does not list Jesus or Holy Spirit. I wonder why he did this? Maybe he wanted to make sure he attack could not be construed as just being against Christians, but against all religions except ones that would threaten his life if they were included.

 

[Mirdath]

In his story, Pullman writes:

“The Authority, God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty—those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves—the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. . . . The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of all. He told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie.”

And the bishops reply (sort-of, not really. I bet not a single bishop was ever consulted): “An exciting adventure story…entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching.”

Pardon my French, but…what the hell!?

From what little I know of Pullman’s works, this Authority is not actually God but an impostor-God – a Demiurge. It’s a gnostic concept: the universe was sort-of created by this Demiurge, who attempted to usurp authority from the real God and played the part through the Old Testament, but got smacked down in the New.

If the protagonists are going up against this being, I see no reason to say it’s against Catholic moral teaching. Theologically unsound, yes, and utterly fantastic, but nothing to froth at the mouth over.

 

[Cobbfmly]

From what little I know of Pullman’s works, this Authority is not actually God but an impostor-God – a Demiurge. It’s a gnostic concept: the universe was sort-of created by this Demiurge, who attempted to usurp authority from the real God and played the part through the Old Testament, but got smacked down in the New.

If the protagonists are going up against this being, I see no reason to say it’s against Catholic moral teaching. Theologically unsound, yes, and utterly fantastic, but nothing to froth at the mouth over.

Does he make this distinction clear in his books?

 

[Mirdath]

Does he make this distinction clear in his books?

The specific quote ‘those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves’ would seem to make it clear as crystal.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think this text from the USCCB review is bad enough, let alone the movie poster:

To the extent, moreover, that Lyra and her allies are taking a stand on behalf of free will in opposition to the coercive force of the Magisterium, they are of course acting entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching. The heroism and self-sacrifice that they demonstrate provide appropriate moral lessons for viewers.

How could the US bishops say that? What’s going on over there in America? Since when is it heroic to oppose the ‘coercive force’ of the Magesterium… ?

 

[Esran]

As an update, the advertisement was removed after I sent out a massive email. One person can make a difference.

Newline Cenima removed the ad.

 

[mercygate]

Are similar ads being put up with laudatory “quotations” from Focus on the Family or the Christian Research Institute?

Are Protestants being dragged around also? Or is it just the Catholic Church (again) that is being painted with this spurious brush.

 

[Cobbfmly]

The specific quote ‘those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves’ would seem to make it clear as crystal.

How does he distinguish this is a gnostic concept vs. the atheist concept that the God everyone believes is true God and creator is not God , as there is no God, and this God is not the creator, as there is no God?

 

[stove]

How does he distinguish this is a gnostic concept vs. the atheist concept that the God everyone believes is true God and creator is not God , as there is no God, and this God is not the creator, as there is no God?

He doesn’t. It’s as he states, his books are about killing God (here), not some gnostic concept.