The Golden Compass (film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 29, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed April 1, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article has an archived peer review.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The book is wholly British whereas the film has some ambiguity. It can be resolved by looking at the production and who did what. The film was made in Europe, primarily in the UK with a director from the US who resides/resided in London. Bar the Australian star Kidman, all the cast were British/Irish. The US 'production' companies were involved solely in the rights and financing, then the marketing of the film, not the actual filming production. This would point to the preference for using British English over American. People should not obsess over the language and make petty changes, as with '-ise' to '-ize', when it is obvious as to the word and meaning. By logic, therefore, it should be written in British English, and marked as such, but in my view we should not be dogmatic and let minor things go. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago

Please stop deleting material without wider consideration of other editors consideration. It strikes as pure cussedness. If you believe that there is original research/synth material, then you address the issue here not by automatically reverting good edits because you do not like them. Insertion of a "citation needed" marker is the appropriate action.

The first thing to point out is that in the portion that you deleted, my recent addition was a brief phrase between the parenthetical dashes that emphasize the last sentence in that section and is backed up with the info presented in the accolades. The portions on "praise..." and "negative criticism..." are very longstanding edits and are not my input at all. They are referenced by a number of independent citations from various sources. I believe that these portions are important to the section and so should be preserved. Your edit diminishes the film's entry and certainly is no improvement whatsoever. If you believe it is not notable enough to be in the opening section then, as a good editor, you should relegate it to a relevant section down the entry, and not delete it. If you think it lacks polish, then edit it to sing like golden prose.

The original text will be restored and shall stand until a proper resolution is made on this talk page as to what is the best phrasing. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits in which you are summarizing the reception of the film are a clear violation of WP:SYNTH, in that you appear to be combining information from a variety of sources to formulate your own claims rather than actually repeating direct claims made by sources. Whether or not they're your edits is immaterial; by restoring the material you are taking responsibility for them. The lead section should not be providing a detailed "summary" of the Reception section because the Reception itself is just utilizing a sampling of reviews of the film and is not comprehensive. In fact, it appears to be an explicit violation of MOS:FILMLEAD, which states, "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources."

If you wish to refute my concerns, please update your statements to include citations so that it will be clear which parts of what you're pushing to retain are verified by which sources. DonIago (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested opinions from additional editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. DonIago (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with excluding this content per WP:SYNTH. We editors cannot take individual reviews and summarize them to come up with overarching trends. WP:SYNTH says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." A conclusion about multiple critics cannot be stated by one critic by themselves. Follow-up publications need to observe the trends, not us editors. For example, Rotten Tomatoes has the critics' consensus, "Without the bite or the controversy of the source material, The Golden Compass is reduced to impressive visuals overcompensating for lax storytelling." We can quote that or paraphrase that to tell readers what critics overall thought of a film. No one review can do that. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement between the parenthetical dashes should absolutely be deleted; not because of WP:SYNTH, but simply because the information about award-winning effects is not stated nor cited anywhere else in the article. The rest of the sentence should also be deleted, since MOS:FILMLEAD is pretty explicit about requiring consensus on a film's reception to be summarized by a reliable source, and to not just be a summary of the Reception section. It also specifically says to avoid phrases like "award-winning" to maintain a neutral point of view. ~ Nikoledood (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you end up with a bald sentence stating "The film received mixed reviews from critics." without further explanation. Such a sentence needs and begs further explanation - why were they mixed? What does mixed reviews mean anyway? Did some critics like it and others not? Or were their criticisms conditional or ambiguous? To state the reviews were mixed and then state that it won Oscars and BAFTAs comes across as a complete non-sequitur. With the statements in question, there is a link from the former to the latter points.

The reduction to the level Doniago establishes leaves the opening section as little more than a stub. There is no degree of synth in the fact of editing down long reviews into their most salient points. These are not reviews here, nor is anything stating to be quotes - they are a summary of many reliable sources, as you stated is needed.

The debatable statements in question are salient and consistent with the guidance, though I would agree that there is scope for its rephrasing and to be polished. Erik's suggest quotes are good but too much for the opening section and should remain in the critical response. Boiling these down and into one sentences as consecutive clauses would be better and then it invites people to go down to that section. I would suggest stating that the reviews varied around the globe, which in neither former nor latter versions is stated. Do not sample just from US critics.

The point of the opening is to give a taste of the content that follows and the reduction to the suggest and further takes all this away. Its is there to draw people in and find out more. Doniago's version reduces the desire to read on. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that there is interest in explaining more about the reviews say, but this approach is in violation of WP:SYNTH. To paraphrase that WP:SYNTH passage here, it is saying, do not combine individual opinions from multiple film critics to state or imply an overall critical reception not explicitly stated by any of the opinions. We cannot cross the line of making up novel conclusions to serve readers. We have to work with what we have. Are there no sources beyond RT that already summarize the reviews, for us to cite here? Erik (talk | contrib) 12:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, as this is not synthesizing a new whole new point which is what WP:SYNTH is about, i.e. extrapolating a whole new idea from combining differing sources in combination. The opening is to boil down and give the general points not extensive quotes and string these as subclauses in a sentence is acceptable.

Currently the Review section is led by the US aggregator sites reviews giving a "mixed" results, with really giving any clarity.

Looking at the UK reviews that came out first, these are all strong, giving qualified praise, beating all competing films in the same category/time, but indicating that there are though some small issues that stop it being great. The US reviews are unjustly weighted by the large number of negative reviews coming from the religious press, like the Christian Monitor and the like that made a concerted attempt to stymie the film even before it was released because they saw the film (and the books) as heretical, so where prejudiced. This resulted in the poor US box office to what was a massive hit throughout the rest of the world.

So, just saying there were mixed reviews is wholly inadequate.

Taking on board the comments above though, I have made a quick redraft for consideration as a way forward:

The Golden Compass premiered in London on 27 November 2007, and was theatrically released in the United Kingdom by Entertainment Film on 5 December and in the United States by New Line Cinema on 7 December. Critics gave the film reviews of qualified praise in the U.K. in general, whereas those in the US were more deeply divided in their comments. There was praise for the casting and visual effects — with it going on to win the Oscar for Best Visual Effects at the 80th Academy Awards and the BAFTA at the Best Special Visual Effects at the 61st British Academy Film Awards for the CGI realisations of the dæmons, artifacts, and settings of Lyra’s world — but some negative criticism for its pacing, characterization, and screenplay, drawing unfavourable comparisons to Pullman's novel.

My own view of the negative criticism is that some is justified and valid, some not. The pacing was good, as its not meant to be a Michael Bay clash-bang action film with explosions in a crescendo, but as it was boiling down a long, deep novel so some glossing over of the nuances must be expected and this means that it is not as good as the source material. The novel works better in a longer-form adaptation. But these are my views, so I have not put them in. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is still in violation of WP:SYNTH. To use a simpler example, if one review said that the visual effects were great, and another review said the visual effects were great, we cannot say ourselves, "Critics thought the visual effects were great." That is an overall conclusion, and neither film critic actually made that broader assessment. They just shared their own individual opinion. So it is original research to try to read the individual reviews ourselves and claim overarching trends. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEASEL also applies here with the above example, "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint... Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies." We cannot analyze and interpret reviews ourselves to weasel-word our way to claiming that critics overall thought x, y, and z about the film. Editors are summarizers, and we need to summarize what others have written about how critics received the film. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points, but do not concede that there is synthesis here. It needs polishing with better phrasing. To use your simplified example, we should have "Some critics thought the visual effects were great." On the negative criticism in this entry I indeed altered "criticism" (a poor term) to "some negative criticism" to reflect that it was not universal.

I dislike the term criticism as it is a neutral word, but is used inappropriately by many as a very negative term. Critics give criticism, which can be either good or bad or neither of these.

What are your thoughts on my first redraft? Can you phrase it better? My starting place would be to relegate Entertainment Film and New Line Cinema (the rights holders / financing companies, not studios which do actual filming) to the Release section as they are not really relevant or of interest except to die-hard cinematophiles. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is still advocating for WP:SYNTH. I made up two critics, and you've written a statement "dressed in authority" that "some" (which is literally defined as unspecified) critics think the visual effects are great. That is exactly the problem here. I do not endorse any overarching-trend wording beyond what the RT consensus states, along with any other reliable sources that actually analyzes the reviews to define the overall view. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No its not "dressed in authority", you gave an example of 2 critics saying something similar, to then say that all critics said it is not valid, but to say some did is valid. In an opening section quoted number of critics is not important and further, these two may have said it and are the only ones or one other or many, many others have as well. All that can be said for definite is "at least 2 did say..." but that makes a poor sentence in the opening section.

And to quote one or two would also be inappropriate, as how can any be said to be definitive. All that can be expressed is general trends. If that is not right, then none should be included at all.

But to not have a taste of what the reviews said would impoverish the opening section. One of the first things people check for on films is how good or bad they are, which is why the crappy star-rating system has held on so long in critics reviews of films and other things critics are employed to review.

Your arguments, Erik leads to the removal of all mention of reviews and any quoted would be in the Reviews section alone with a ref. But most readers want that info on the how good the film was and what about it was good and what was not - and to find it quickly, i.e. at the top of the page.

So the opening needs to give a good rounded taster to the salient general points - the general feel - of the film with the referenced details in the relevant sections for those wanting to investigate further. Camsteerie (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just worked out what RT stands for and your consensus - Rotten Tomatoes - and other review aggregator sites. I would say that this is erroneous, as these are biased towards just the US reviews and maybe a smattering of some other English-speaking reviews around the world, but very rarely non-English reviews. And that bias leads to a massive weighting of the aggregates to US reviews to such an extent that it invalidates the results as being fair assessments. Camsteerie (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you consider yourself a better analyst than Rotten Tomatoes or some reliable source in interpreting the individual reviews and coming up with the trends? Erik (talk | contrib) 18:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all. Simply that because of the set up of RT and the other common aggregators being US-based and over-reliant on US reviews, in the main, that the results are only suitable for saying, that what their analyses are, are only applicable for the US trends. That was my point.

If there are aggregator sites that truly are working globally and across the major languages with weighting adjusted appropriately, can there be a universal review trend.

But as this film shows, what happens in the US cannot be extrapolated to cover the rest of the world, that appears to mostly thought the film to be good or great from the box office take. I cannot say at all what the overall review for the world would be. I can say that for these aggregators on this film, the aggregation is severely skewed by the US reviews and performance. This is why, more likely than not, that possible sequels of this film were cancelled - this point is synthesis.

We are getting rather bogged down in a digression on general reviewing and not actually addressing the issue of what to state in the opening of this entry. Can we focus back on that. How do we collectively make a good opener and so get a little green cross for this entry. And here I think that all of you need to input directly into both mediating and the redrafting of the phrases, to ensure that is agreeable to all parties, so it is polished as ... well, gold. Camsteerie (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we need to remove the WP:SYNTH language pronto. Doniago, Nikoledood, and I agree that it does not belong. That will happen soon.

Here is another way to put it. We say here that the overall critical reception is mixed. No one individual review will tell us that. Let's use Metacritic's breakdown here. There are 10 positive reviews, 20 mixed reviews, and 3 negative reviews. Let's say for whatever reason, I quote all and only the 10 positive reviews in this article body. Then, based on that, you're saying I can add that the film was positively reviewed by critics. That's essentially what you're advocating for here.

We have reliable sources analyzing the reviews and telling us that the overall reception is mixed. We are using that. If they say more, about trends in the overall reception, we use that too. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But what is meant by mixed - it is very ambiguous, as I pointed out. You must explain what mixed means. Unless it just being used as a synonym for average, which if this is the case it would be better to say "it was rated average". Frankly, as practically all films would come under that description, it means little. And as I have stated, these aggregated reviews apply very much to just the US only, not a global response. As reviews are subjective not objective and interpreting therefore is arbitrary, the best course of action is to remove reviews to solely being in its section. As box office numbers / bums on seats is objective, you can state that it had X amount of people seeing it.

It should be clearly pointed out that the US deviated from the rest of the world in its appreciation of the film. 188.30.75.163 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, for transparency's sake, is @Camsteerie the same person as 188.30.75.163? If so, it could be considered sockpuppetry, which could result in a temporary blocking of editing privileges. Please use your main account when participating in discussions or making significant edits.

Secondly, your redraft is just as, if not more problematic than the original passage. While your writing would probably be okay in most situations, Wikipedia has stricter standards for its content. In particular, Wikipedia has three core content policies that every editor should follow: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research.

Your redraft did address the neutral point of view concerns, although it could still be argued that including the awards within the sentence about the film's reception gives a disproportionate amount of text towards praising the film's visuals. Because of this, and because it makes a cumbersome sentence, the part about the awards should really be in a different sentence than the part about the reception.

Your redraft is more problematic when it comes to verifiability. Verifiability means that all information on Wikipedia must be backed up by a reliable source that is cited in the article. From WP:V: "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." Inline citations in the lead aren't necessarily required per WP:CITELEAD, but this does not mean that information does not need to be cited. All information in the lead must be verifiable, so it must be cited somewhere in the article. This also means that the information should be stated somewhere in the article. For example, the information within the statement "for the CGI realisations of the dæmons, artifacts, and settings of Lyra’s world" is not said anywhere in the article, so it has no citations, and therefore no verifiability. This also applies to other parts of your redraft, but they also fall under the next category of no original research.

Wikipedia articles must not include original research. Original research is information that is not stated by any reliable sources. In your statement "Critics gave the film reviews of qualified praise in the U.K. in general, whereas those in the US were more deeply divided in their comments", you drew a conclusion based on your own research into the topic, and not based on cited sources from the article. Even if you came to this conclusion based on information from reliable sources, if the conclusion itself is not explicitly stated by a cited reliable source, then it's considered original research. The redraft also states "but some negative criticism for its pacing, characterization, and screenplay, drawing unfavourable comparisons to Pullman's novel." This is where an editor has taken criticisms from multiple individual reviews, and combined them together to imply a general trend of critics views. This is also original research, but more specifically it is Synthesis, since an unsourced conclusion is being synthesised from reliably sourced statements in the article. I can understand the argument where adding the word "some" makes the sentence more valid, but I would counter this by saying that the word "some" is so vague and unquantifiable, that it could be used to either imply a larger consensus than there is, or downplay an established consensus. Because of this, using the word "some" in this instance is just a more subtle case of original research. A good example of this kind of language being used can be found in WP:SYNTH. Ultimately, a summary of the film's reception that is synthesised from multiple sources cannot be unbiased, since Wikipedia is not an aggregate of all critic's reviews, and because editorial judgement leaves room for multiple interpretations. That is why it's specifically advised against in MOS:FILMLEAD.

Finally, I would like to propose a new draft for the passage in contention.

The Golden Compass premiered in London on 27 November 2007, and was theatrically released in the United Kingdom by Entertainment Film on 5 December and in the United States by New Line Cinema on 7 December. The film received mixed reviews, with critics generally praising its visuals, but criticising its storytelling, especially compared to its source material. The film won Best Visual Effects at the 80th Academy Awards and Best Special Visual Effects at the 61st British Academy Film Awards.

The part about the film's release still needs a source, but for now I'll assume it's factually accurate. The part about the film's reception is supported by citations 66, 67, and 68, and their corresponding sentences in the article. The part about BAFTA is sourced with citation 78, but the part about the Oscars needs a better source.

And while yes, technically "criticism" is a neutral term, it is also commonly understood to be a negative term in certain contexts. The meaning used in this passage is obvious and doesn't need clarification.

I'm open to suggestions on how to improve this passage draft, but I don't think any more information could be added to it unless an additional source is found. ~ Nikoledood (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this conversation certainly evolved while I was having a very busy day...

188 was warned (not by me) against editing while logged out, so I would say it appears they are the same account.

I don't have much to say about most of what you said. Your draft seems like a reasonable summation of what RT says. I'm admittedly worried that even this more mild phrasing will encourage well-meaning editors to make exactly the same kinds of edits that prompted this discussion, because they won't realize that the revised sentence is an attempt to only reiterate what appears in the Reception section, versus synthesizing it.

I guess I also question why it's necessary to provide more than a basic summary of the reception in the lead. Any editor who really wants more detail is surely capable of scrolling down to the Reception section? But, if other editors think it's reasonable, I won't stand in the way. DonIago (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Doniago and Erik, and I think they have explained the relevant policies and MOS guidelines very well. I have encountered few editors with more experience and knowledge than them regarding our film articles. At a certain point, the one editor who has been arguing in favor of the content will need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. – notwally (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]