Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe [Archive]

View Full Version : Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Nate C.

12-08-2005, 08:18 PM

Captain Jim

12-08-2005, 09:06 PM

I actually had the chance to see an advance screening tonight at 6:45 p.m. It was awesome! Very close to the book (which I finished reading last week) and the visuals are amazing. Highly recommended!

mattbib

12-09-2005, 01:01 AM

Murrocko

12-09-2005, 01:15 AM

Can anyone tell me what its about, I've always ment to read the book, but never got around to it even though a lot of my friends enjoyed it.

mattbib

12-09-2005, 01:38 AM

Can anyone tell me what its about, I've always ment to read the book, but never got around to it even though a lot of my friends enjoyed it.About the books... (http://books.narnia.com/chronicles/books/index.html)

Deathstroke

12-09-2005, 05:16 AM

I'm going to see the movie tonight.

Greg Hatcher

12-09-2005, 07:59 AM

Julie has been excited about seeing this since the preview panel in San Diego, and I've been cautiously optimistic because of all the good word-of-mouth. She is bitterly disappointed at having to work tonight -- we like to go opening night to the ones we really want to see-- but we're going tomorrow.

Nate C.

12-09-2005, 01:29 PM

woooooooo.

It was wonderful.

Anyone looking for Christian allegories won't have to look too hard. Anyone looking for sheer adventure and wonder will be just as pleased.

I must have cried four or five times. (but I'm like that. YMMV)

Danger Dude

12-09-2005, 01:40 PM

I heard that they're not gonna do "The Magicians Nephew" 'cuz it talks about intelligent design. Anybody know whats up with that? :confused: And as for religious emphasis, I don't think that, because Lewis intertwined them so much that none of the Chronicles can be the same epics if they were stripped of that.

Matt Algren

12-09-2005, 02:27 PM

I'd assume Magician's Nephew could be left out because it's less connected to the other books. Really, it's my least favorite of the books, though I do understand why Lewis felt it was necessary.

Deathstroke

12-09-2005, 05:20 PM

My brother and I were going to go tonight but the snowstorm pretty much beat the crap out of that idea.

Grant

12-09-2005, 05:36 PM

My brother and I were going to go tonight but the snowstorm pretty much beat the crap out of that idea.

You guys could act it out with stuffed animals and action figures.

Deathstroke

12-09-2005, 05:39 PM

You guys could act it out with stuffed animals and action figures.

Thanks for the suggestion. It won't be taken under advisement.

Corey Dreher

12-09-2005, 05:41 PM

Just got back from the midnight showing. Absolutely loved it. Amazing acting by the youngsters, and the effects, though almost too fantastic, are wonderful. The final battle was amazing. The religious subtext is totally left in the story, for those concerned. The voice work is also wonderful Neeson made a compassionate, yet fierce, Aslan.

I so hope it does well enough to warrant sequels. I can't wait to hear an announcement for Prince Caspian.

I read last night they already announced it. He announced on MTV.

And I saw it with my whole team and it was fantastic! I loved all of their performance! I loved Lucy and her big eyes made me want to cry. Edmund was right on the dot, and Peter and Susan were dead on also.

I give this movie a 10/10

Vaders shoeshine boy

12-09-2005, 08:48 PM

DAMN! That was one BADASSED Centaur...

Oh,and the movie was fantastic,too! Liam Neeson did a fantastic job as the voice of Aslan!

Anyone else catch it yet?

Danger Dude

12-09-2005, 08:52 PM

I'd assume Magician's Nephew could be left out because it's less connected to the other books.

Less connected? It's essential if (like Murrocko) you haven't read the books to understand the magic of the wardrobe and the Profs understanding. Also it wouldn't make sense to have Polly in the end of "The Last Battle" if there wasn't "The Magicians Nephew." Oh, and I just saw the movie and it was awesome! I just wish that the armour and weapons had more of a celtic look, like "The Lord of the Rings." Especially those flimsy swords. And Aslan was way to small. Other than that it was everything I could have hoped for.

phoenixrising

12-09-2005, 08:53 PM

DAMN! That was one BADASSED Centaur...

Oh,and the movie was fantastic,too! Liam Neeson did a fantastic job as the voice of Aslan!

Anyone else catch it yet?

Guess what?

You could know these 'spoilers' by reading any magazine or IMDB over the past months. Don't worry 'bout it.

:)

Grant

12-09-2005, 08:54 PM

Thanks for the suggestion. It won't be taken under advisement.

So you'll be using Sock puppets instead?

Vaders shoeshine boy

12-09-2005, 08:56 PM

Guess what?

You could know these 'spoilers' by reading any magazine or IMDB over the past months. Don't worry 'bout it.

:)

You ever seen a poster really getting flamed for revealing a secret? I tell ya,man-it's not pretty! And neither was the White queen when she-oops!

Nate Grey

12-09-2005, 09:16 PM

Saw it, loved it.

kmeyers

12-09-2005, 09:18 PM

You ever seen a poster really getting flamed for revealing a secret? I tell ya,man-it's not pretty! And neither was the White queen when she-oops!
But, those weren't secrets. It really was an awesome movie though. It was like Lord of the Rings with kids.

and I just learned something new...apparently spoilers are still viewable when you hold the mouse over the title from the Comm Board page. Does it usually do that? I don't remember ever seeing that...

smartalek

12-09-2005, 11:48 PM

I watched it today. Here's a spoiler for you

That badass centaur got owned by peter using one arm to knock him down
I thought it was alright. I must say, the story doesn't translate aswell as Tolkien's work. The part where Tumnus was coaxing a 10 year old girl to go back to his house was kind of ackward. She than falls asleep as if drugged at his place.

Expletive Deleted

12-10-2005, 12:14 AM

and I just learned something new...apparently spoilers are still viewable when you hold the mouse over the title from the Comm Board page. Does it usually do that? I don't remember ever seeing that...Yeah, it always does that, if you use spoiler tags straight off in the first post in a thread.

I try to use spoiler space, just for that reason.

Figaro

12-10-2005, 12:52 AM

I saw it and I was absolutely STUNNED. This movie is OUTSTANDING!! The four children are very credible, Tilda Swinton is perfect as the witch, and I don't think there could have been a more appropriate choice for the voice of Aslan than Liam Neeson. The cinematography, music score and CGI are all amazing. In fact, I stopped thinking of the CGI characters as CGI characters, and started thinking of them as just CHARACTERS. And the battle scene...

But what really made the movie work for me is that for all its technical glory, it's an intimate film as well. Some of the best scenes are the small ones. And as a Christian, I really appreciate that they kept the Christian allegory intact without beating us over the head with it.

Truly a magnificent film and worthy of becoming a classic.

That's my opinion, anyway.

By thy side,

Figaro

JadeDragon

12-10-2005, 02:34 AM

Im so excited to read these reviews! Im planning to see it tomorrow, and even having seen the "Spoilers"...I dont think ya spoiled much. Just makes me anxious to watch for those parts!

I was worried this movie might be "All trailer, no payoff". I REALLY REALLY want to love this movie. My fifth grade teacher used to read all these Narnia Chronicle books to our class. I havent read them since, but have learned that CS Lewis weaved it with much Christian analogy and symbology. I LOVE THAT KIND OF STUFF!

Im really looking forward to seeing it tomorrow. Then we have KING KONG on Wednesday! YEEHAW! Its a good time to be a fantasy geek!

Thanks!~~~JadeDragon :D

darkkeeperjr

12-10-2005, 07:27 AM

Thanks for the spoilers! :) I came to this thread to get a review,Not to have the best parts spoiled. :)

Nate C.

12-10-2005, 08:34 AM

Here's the big questions.

Do you think there will be enough momentum to go six more movies, or will they have to consolidate?

And if they do go six more, will they have to make them all at once, cause these kids look like they could hit a growth spurt pretty soon?

Valmore

12-10-2005, 09:03 AM

If Harry Potter can have a movie for every book and be successful, I don't see why The Chronicles of Narnia can't have a movie for every book. Though the switching of main characters might confuse those that haven't read all the books. Of course, now it might be confusing the introduce "The Magician's Nephew" since most children have books that actually start with that book instead of the classic approach most of us older people had, which started with "The Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe." The newer series in terms of publishing tend to rearrange the books to chronological order by Narnia time - I read "The Silver Chair" fourth, now it's sixth. As I recall, my books were numbered in this order:

(1) The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
(2) Prince Caspian
(3) The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
(4) The Silver Chair
*(5) The Magician's Nephew
*(6) The Horse and His Boy
(7) The Final Battle

* - Due to age and the fog of memory, these two may actually have been reversed.

Jade_GL

12-10-2005, 09:23 AM

We got about 6-8 inches of snow up here, and I got out of work at 7 pm, so by the time I got home, I was not going out again. :)

I am so seeing this as soon as possible though. I am so jazzed for this movie. :)

I hope to either go to a late showing tonight (BF gets out of work at 7pm tonight) or a matinee tomorrow. :D

Hiromi

12-10-2005, 09:56 AM

I find this comic very applicable for this

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20051205l.jpg

Remember, the movie's new, but its still based off a 54 year old book.

Tages

12-10-2005, 03:02 PM

* - Due to age and the fog of memory, these two may actually have been reversed.
You are correct. They should be in reverse.

Also, it's "The Last Battle."

I love to get anal. I mean, wait...

Danger Dude

12-10-2005, 03:05 PM

And if they do go six more, will they have to make them all at once, cause these kids look like they could hit a growth spurt pretty soon?

It's true that "The Magicians Nephew" might have to be put off for a while, but I think they should go for it. Come to think of it, I heard that Peter Jackson was signed on to make "The Hobbit." Anybody know what's going on with that?

thomas_catbiscuit

12-10-2005, 04:33 PM

i took the g/f and the little 1 to c it and we all enjoyed. in fact its the 1st film that k has sat all the way through (not moaned, got bored or even wanted the loo) and he's 5! i loved it easier to understand (from my g/f point of view) than lotr. thumbs up 10/10 king kong has some tough competion to go top of the box office

Matt Algren

12-10-2005, 04:43 PM

Less connected? It's essential if (like Murrocko) you haven't read the books to understand the magic of the wardrobe and the Profs understanding. Also it wouldn't make sense to have Polly in the end of "The Last Battle" if there wasn't "The Magicians Nephew." Oh, and I just saw the movie and it was awesome! I just wish that the armour and weapons had more of a celtic look, like "The Lord of the Rings." Especially those flimsy swords. And Aslan was way to small. Other than that it was everything I could have hoped for.
Oh, it's connected, just less so. It'd be pretty easy to excise the Professor and Polly from The Last Battle.

Sadly, I'm going to have to wait another week, but looking forward to it.

Valmore

12-10-2005, 05:45 PM

You are correct. They should be in reverse.

Also, it's "The Last Battle."

I love to get anal. I mean, wait...

I figured I might have gotten those two mixed around. It's been so long since I've read Narnia anyway... probably explains why I put Final instead of Last.

Donald Stone

12-10-2005, 05:47 PM

Just got back, and I thought it was good, but not great.

It just seemed to lack the... whats the word... power of the LotR films. It never felt epic, nor was I ever really drawn into the story. It just felt kinda flat to me.

I mean, all the actors where fine, the fx where good, and it was a spot on adaptation of the book, but it didn't have that something extra that, say, Fellowship of the Ring had.

I will note I thought the soundtrack was awfully good, I'll probably pick it up.

tangentman

12-10-2005, 07:26 PM

I disagree with you, Donald. I felt extremely moved during numerous parts of the movie! By the way--since the books were classics before most of us were born, I'm going to spoil away. Deal with it. :evilsmile

The children became the Pevensie children--especially Lucy and Edmund! I loved the way they showed us the best traits of these beloved characters: Peter's courage and integrity, Susan's diplomacy and intelligence, Edward's skepticism and initial selfishness (the boy actually had a big heart), and Lucy's innocence and faithfulness. Tilda Swinton was the perfect choice for the White Witch, but I knew so way back when the cast was first announced. She lived up to my expectations, and I loved how badass she was with wand and swords!

Many of the emotional moments in the movie hit me: the wonder of Lucy seeing Narnia for the first time, Edmund's betrayal, meeting Aslan, the death and resurrection of Aslan, the coronation of the children at Cair Paravel, and their return years later to their childhood lives in the "real world".

The action moments worked for me. I believed that the Centaur could lead a rescue mission with little trouble when they retrieved Edmund from the White Witch's camp. I loved the charge of the armies on the battlefield. The White Witch impressed me with her deadly skill, as Peter and his siblings did with their courage. The griffins and phoenix just looked cool in the fight!

I don't see any problem with Prince Caspian, since the children should age a little bit anyways by the time we come to that title and "The Voyage of The Dawntreader". I really look forward to "The Silver Chair"--crossing fingers, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE! :D

kmeyers

12-10-2005, 07:38 PM

I loved the movie, thought it was great. There were a few things I didn't like though. A few of the scenes it was really obvious that the kids were standing in front of a green screen. Not a big deal, really, but very noticeable a couple of times.

I just wanted to scream at Edmund," Again!? You're selling them out AGAIN??? You know she's an evil bitch YOU DUMBASS!!!"

but other than that, great movie.

mattbib

12-10-2005, 08:30 PM

And if they do go six more, will they have to make them all at once, cause these kids look like they could hit a growth spurt pretty soon?I don't think it'll matter, except for Voyage of the Dawn Treader and maybe The Silver Chair.

Peter and Susan only appear as kids again in Prince Caspian. And Edmund and Lucy are only in Caspian and Dawn Treader. The latter could be a problem if the Edmund actor, as you said, has a growth spurt. Likewise for the Eustace actor between Dawn Treader and Silver Chair. Wardrobe, Caspian and Dawn Treader each take place a year apart, and Silver Chair takes place less than a year after Dawn Treader.

The Pevensies appear in The Horse and His Boy while they were adults in Narnia; it'll be interesting to see if they use the same adult actors that we saw in the end of Wardrobe.

darkkeeperjr

12-10-2005, 08:54 PM

Good film but was a little flat. From now on all film battles shall be compared to lord of the ring so they also can look lack luster. all in all a good movie to see.

Hiromi

12-10-2005, 09:38 PM

I don't think it'll matter, except for Voyage of the Dawn Treader and maybe The Silver Chair.

Peter and Susan only appear as kids again in Prince Caspian. And Edmund and Lucy are only in Caspian and Dawn Treader. The latter could be a problem if the Edmund actor, as you said, has a growth spurt. Likewise for the Eustace actor between Dawn Treader and Silver Chair. Wardrobe, Caspian and Dawn Treader each take place a year apart, and Silver Chair takes place less than a year after Dawn Treader.

The Pevensies appear in The Horse and His Boy while they were adults in Narnia; it'll be interesting to see if they use the same adult actors that we saw in the end of Wardrobe.

Not really, as a sizeable time gap takes place between each book, 4 years pass between TLTWaTW and Caspian for example. In fact the kids need to grow to look right.

Nate Grey

12-10-2005, 10:35 PM

Not really, as a sizeable time gap takes place between each book, 4 years pass between TLTWaTW and Caspian for example. In fact the kids need to grow to look right.

This (http://books.narnia.com/chronicles/books/book_prince_caspian.html) says it was only 1 year later. So they should actually use the kids as quickly as possible for Caspian and Dawn.

i_mmmchocolate

12-10-2005, 10:36 PM

Wow, I almost walked out after the Father Christmas bit.

Disappointing, boring-- not at all what I expected.

I liked some bits, some characters, but for the most part I hate that I paid 9.75 to see it.

Oh, and the early scenes with the fawn and Lucy...creepy.

Chuckg

12-11-2005, 12:54 AM

Just got back, thought the movie was fantastic. The kids were amazing, Tilda Swinton deserves an Oscar.

Cleric of Hell's Brigade

12-11-2005, 09:31 AM

Okay, I looked thru the first four pages for a thread about the new movie (all I saw was Tage's Ebert review) so here goes.

I'm going to be there in the morning. Whose going? Whose excited? Anyone have any deep seated opinions one way or the other?

Excellent movie (saw it last night).

It was very, very verbatem to the book IMO.

The Centaur General and the White Witch were badass, as was Aslan's voice. :)

P.S. The one book that doesn't really fit in with the series is ''A Horse and His Boy''.

i_mmmchocolate

12-11-2005, 12:06 PM

It was very, very verbatem to the book IMO.

IMO, the animated movie was more accurate to the book than this movie.

kmeyers

12-11-2005, 12:08 PM

IMO, the animated movie was more accurate to the book than this movie.
Is it a Disney animated movie? how long ago was it made?

Was it anything like the Lord of the Rings animated movie, because that REALLY sucked.

i_mmmchocolate

12-11-2005, 12:30 PM

Is it a Disney animated movie? how long ago was it made?

Not Disney. Click here. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079474/) Rent it, buy it, check it out. It's great.

Was it anything like the Lord of the Rings animated movie, because that REALLY sucked.

Hell no.

Chuckg

12-11-2005, 12:33 PM

IMO, the animated movie was more accurate to the book than this movie.

In the same way that 99.9+% accurate is more faithful than 99% accurate, yes.

i_mmmchocolate

12-11-2005, 12:35 PM

In the same way that 99.9+% accurate is more faithful than 99% accurate, yes.

Okay.

.

Michael P

12-11-2005, 02:27 PM

I liked it. I've never actually read the Narnia books (a flaw which I am now going to rectify), but I did see the cartoon version of this one when I was really little, and I remember liking the big talking kitty, so I figured I'd go for this one as well. I ended up enjoying it, not on quite the same level I did as Lord of the Rings, but still a whole durn lot. Recommended for anyone who has kids or still is one deep inside.

Deathstroke

12-11-2005, 03:15 PM

Oh, and the early scenes with the fawn and Lucy...creepy.

I'll give you that. I thought that played out just a bit too weird, but it didn't take away from my overall enjoyment of the film.

Deathstroke

12-11-2005, 03:18 PM

Slam_Bradley

12-11-2005, 03:36 PM

Took the boys to see it Saturday afternoon. Overall I was pleased and impressed. But it did seem to lack some of the epic sweep that I was expecting. I've only read the book once and then as an adult reading it to Nathan. So I really have no great memories tied up in it. It was certainly enjoyable.

Taltos

12-11-2005, 05:57 PM

So I went to the movie today and I really thought it was an excellent film.

Kind of funny thing happened at the theater. I walked into the room and one of the little girls in the seats said really loudly to her dad, "Hey I know him (meaning me), he's a coach at basketball!"

Then right before the movie started one of my players came in with his dad. They were two rows in front of me.
That reminds me of an incedent with my coach. Basically I went to see harry potter a few weeks ago and I met some team mates on their way out. They told me that the coach was watching "Walk the line" and since Harry Potter wasnt starting for awhile we went into his theater and shouted his name 3 times. "Millard Millard Millard (like a fading echo" and then we proceeded to get the hell out of dodge.

Turns out he was with his in-laws at the time and he recognised my voice :)

ElectraAlan

12-11-2005, 06:13 PM

Regarding the Biblical allegory, I agree with what I read in the New Yorker:

When “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” (magical title!) opens, four children who have been sent to the countryside discover an enchanted land on the other side of an old wardrobe; this is Narnia, and it has been enslaved by a White Witch, who has turned the country to eternal winter. The talking animals who live in Narnia wait desperately for the return of Aslan, the lion-king, who might restore their freedom. At last, Aslan returns. Beautiful and brave and instantly attractive, he has a deep voice and a commanding presence, obviously kingly. The White Witch conspires to have him killed, and succeeds, in part because of the children’s errors. Miraculously, he returns to life, liberates Narnia, and returns the land to spring.

Yet a central point of the Gospel story is that Jesus is not the lion of the faith but the lamb of God, while his other symbolic animal is, specifically, the lowly and bedraggled donkey. The moral force of the Christian story is that the lions are all on the other side. If we had, say, a donkey, a seemingly uninspiring animal from an obscure corner of Narnia, raised as an uncouth and low-caste beast of burden, rallying the mice and rats and weasels and vultures and all the other unclean animals, and then being killed by the lions in as humiliating a manner as possible—a donkey who reëmerges, to the shock even of his disciples and devotees, as the king of all creation—now, that would be a Christian allegory. A powerful lion, starting life at the top of the food chain, adored by all his subjects and filled with temporal power, killed by a despised evil witch for his power and then reborn to rule, is a Mithraic, not a Christian, myth.

Danger Dude

12-11-2005, 07:33 PM

Oh, and the early scenes with the fawn and Lucy...creepy.
Only cause your'e a pervert.

tangentman

12-11-2005, 07:37 PM

Besides, Tumnus clearly stated that he was into those long, late-night dances around the fires with the dryads! He's not studyin' Lucy, he wants a buxom wood nymph!

Captain Jim

12-11-2005, 07:54 PM

Yet a central point of the Gospel story is that Jesus is not the lion of the faith but the lamb of God...

Actually, he's both. See Revelation 5:5-6. And Aslan's role is consistant with this: he's a lion who takes on the role of a sacrifical lamb.

If we had, say, a donkey, a seemingly uninspiring animal from an obscure corner of Narnia, raised as an uncouth and low-caste beast of burden, rallying the mice and rats and weasels and vultures and all the other unclean animals, and then being killed by the lions in as humiliating a manner as possible—a donkey who reëmerges, to the shock even of his disciples and devotees, as the king of all creation—now, that would be a Christian allegory. A powerful lion, starting life at the top of the food chain, adored by all his subjects and filled with temporal power, killed by a despised evil witch for his power and then reborn to rule, is a Mithraic, not a Christian, myth.

I can't agree with this at all. The Bible never uses the donkey as an image for Christ. And Jesus (as Christians understand him) did not begin as a "nobody"; he began as the Lord of Glory, who humbled himself by taking the same form as his subjects. There are an astounding number of parallels between Jesus in the Bible and Aslan in TLWW. I should know; that was the whole focus of my sermon today (yes, I'm a pastor).

Captain Jim

12-11-2005, 08:03 PM

Concerning the order of the books, this may be of interest:

There are two ways of numbering the Narnia books. When the American publisher Macmillan decided to put numbers on their editions they chose to use the order in which the books were originally published, i.e.:

1. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950)

2. Prince Caspian (1951)

3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952)

4. The Silver Chair (1953)

5. The Horse and His Boy (1954)

6. The Magicians Nephew (1955)

7. The Last Battle (1956)

When Harper Collins took over the publication of the books in America, they decided to keep numbering the books, but on the recommendation of Lewis's stepson Douglas Gresham, they adopted the order that follows Narnian Chronology, i.e:

1. The Magicians Nephew

2. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe

3. The Horse and His Boy

4. Prince Caspian

5. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

6. The Silver Chair

7. The Last Battle

This is also the order followed by the current British editions, published by Fontana Lions.

A case can be made for both orders. Lewis himself came down in favour of the chronological order, which is why Douglas Gresham recommended it. In a letter written in 1957 to an American boy named Laurence, Lewis wrote the following:

'I think I agree with your order {i.e. chronological} for reading the books more than with your mother's. The series was not planned beforehand as she thinks. When I wrote The Lion I did not know I was going to write any more. Then I wrote P. Caspian as a sequel and still didn't think there would be any more, and when I had done The Voyage I felt quite sure it would be the last. But I found as I was wrong. So perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone read them. I'm not even sure that all the others were written in the same order in which they were published.'

So read them in whatever order you like and stop worrying about it!

This is from http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/cslfaq.htm

Hiromi

12-11-2005, 08:59 PM

Grant

12-12-2005, 12:49 AM

I couldn't get into it. I did love the Beavers. I would have watched a two hour movie with them.

Grant

12-12-2005, 12:56 AM

Oh, and the early scenes with the fawn and Lucy...creepy.

It seemed lifted from Fritz Lang's M.

Kirayoshi

12-12-2005, 01:12 AM

I enjoyed it immensely. Kind of like Lord of the Rings Lite, which is what the Narnia books always were to me. Tilda Swinton was perfect as the White Witch, and the visuals, while many and impressive, served the story and not the other way around. And I'm glad that Father Christmas didn't look too much like a classic Santa Claus. Although when I saw the eight reindeer I kind of figured who was piloting the sleigh.

Anyone remember an old BBC live-action version of Narnia during the late '80s? I remember thinking that was pretty silly. Aslan looked like an F.A.O. Schwarz window display, the special effects were straight out of Dr. Who and the actress playing the White Witch reminded me of that Will Farrell character from SNL, the guy who suffered from voice immodulation syndrome. Seriously, it's one thing for Jadis to shout at her troops, or to shout when she's torturing prisoners, but when she's offering Edmund a plate of Turkish delight? I guess I had some slight trepidation regarding the movie, based on the old BBC version. I'm happy to be wrong in this case.

What the heck is Turkish delight anyway? Just curious.

Grant

12-12-2005, 01:19 AM

What the heck is Turkish delight anyway? Just curious.

Nasty ass British Candy.

Eyeswithoutaface

12-12-2005, 02:03 AM

There are a few things that fell flat when I watched this.

1. Lucy obtains a potion from Father Christmas that can heal anything with one drop. Fast forward to the scene where Susan and Lucy find Aslan dead on the stone table. Lucy goes to use the potion on Aslan and...stops? Why? Because Susan tells her it's too late? Weird. They establish Lucy as being this pollyanna-ish/enlightened girl in a fantastic world, but all of a sudden she's taking her sister's advice? Apparently Lucy has become just as cynical and pessimistic as Susan that she can't even spare one measly drop.

2. Susan and Lucy are confused that Aslan doesn't go immediately into battle after his resurrection. Oh, that's because Aslan is planning on freeing all those creatures turned to stone in the White Witch's courtyard that we saw earlier. Cool. That White Witch is really gonna get it now. The anticipation for seeing something like this would seem even better than diving into another long battle that we've already seen in three LOTR movies. So, Aslan starts with Mr. Tumnus...and then they cut away before Aslan does anything! I felt as if I was taken to the apex of a rollercoaster ride only to have the anticipation of the big drop taken away by waking up before I could finish the dream. Obviously, Aslan does all of this, 'off camera', but the book does far more justice to this scene than the movie does I'm afraid. I felt a little jipped here.

Jonathan Bogart

12-12-2005, 02:34 AM

I've seen it twice. And I see maybe four movies a year in theaters.

I grew up with the books; they're indelibly part of the "furniture of my mind" (a phrase taken from one of C. S. Lewis's essays about his creation of Narnia). Their moral fantasy is surpassed in influence (for me) only by the cozy suburbia of Dick and Jane and the educational lunacy of Richard Scarry, and is about even with the lonely wisdom of Laura Ingalls Wilder. So take the following with a huge chunk of salt; I'm a fanatic about these books in a way I am about almost nothing else in the world.

The four children were almost letter-perfect, although I might have preferred a slightly older Lucy. Peter and Susan, especially, were exactly as I've always pictured them (my image of Peter came largely from a childhood friend, slightly older than myself, named Peter -- William Moseley is, surprisingly, the spittin' image of him), and Skandar Keynes did a great job as Edmund in surly, frightened, and forgiven modes. As a child, I always identified most with either Lucy or Peter (I'm an oldest child); as an adult, I inevitably identify more with Edmund; as the character with the most moral and psychological development, he might even be called the story's hero.

When I originally (for the first dozen times) read the books, in 1980's urban Arizona, the ordinary world of the English schoolchildren (who ate Turkish Delight, rode on trains without adults, and were on speaking terms with Shakespeare, Greek mythology, and minor tales out of Grimm) was as far away from my own experience as the magical world of Narnia. I didn't even go to school (being kind-of, sort-of homeschooled), so I don't think I even really understood the petty cruelties of childhood which every playground veteran knows. Hell, the fact that Narnia had winter at all was magical, never mind the endless part. So it was really something of a disappointment to me that the children in the movie were given rather more understandable things to say. (For example, I remember puzzling for the longest time over why Peter kept saying "by Jove." My confusion was not lessened by being informed that Jove was a sort of pet name for Jupiter, king of the Roman pantheon.) But I'm a realist, and was resigned to the fact that the wonderful English slang of the turn-of-the-century schoolroom (Lewis used his own childhood's language, which was quaint in 1950) would be excised in the interest of comprehension ... but did they have to trash all but a few scraps of the original dialogue from the book? Lewis, whatever his faults as a philosopher, theologian, social commentator, or fabulist, wrote pitch-perfect dialogue, and a three-hour re-reading of the book brought back to memory several lines that it seems criminal to have left out. My favorite is, "All names will soon be restored to their proper owners." Or "One has only to look at her and talk to her to see that she is not mad." Though I will give credit where credit is due: the built-up relationships between the children rang entirely true to someone who's teased out every implication and between-the-lines reading there is over twenty-some years of reading the books, even if some of the language was too modernized and flat.

The CGI was obvious and distracting, but I felt that way about the Lord of the Rings and what little I've seen of the three Star Wars prequels, too. Some of the "Narnian army" made me wince; the choice to pile more flesh, make-up, costuming, whatever, onto actors and extras instead of stripping away the blocky bulk of adult humanity reminded me more of Star Trek extras (in the worst possible way) than of my own Pauline Baynes-derived images of Narnian fauns, centaurs, dryads (the film's flower-people who looked like they'd wandered in from some video game were unsettling), and the rest.

Tolkien's vision translated better to the screen because (though he would certainly have denied it) he thought cinematically: the visual and the concrete detail were a lot of what interested him as a storyteller. Peter Jackson's translating of all that turgid description into economical visuals was a change for the better. But the loss of Lewis's drily witty narrative voice (borrowed largely, I have to point out, from E. Nesbit) is a major handicap. A friend who read the book for the first time a couple of weeks before seeing the movie said, "I expected it to be narrated." I hadn't really expected it, but when she said that, I realized what I'd missed.

I could nit-pick for ages: Tumnus was too pale, too adult, too much given to making goo-goo eyes at Lucy, too obviously fresh from the makeup trailer. The locations were too generic or too New Zealand-reminiscent of Lord of the Rings. Northern Ireland would have been closer to Lewis's ideal. The battle scene tried too hard to be epic; in Lewis's books, even wars seem like cozy affairs, with maybe a few hundred on each side. There wasn't even the faintest attempt to bring to life the purest passage of imaginative vigor in the book: the ride across Narnia on Aslan's back. The final crowning scene was (inevitably? probably) too reminiscent of the final scene from the original Star Wars, though the sheer joy on the kids' faces made up for it.

Ultimately, what made Lewis's fantasy so addictively re-readable for me was the way he told his stories through the eyes and minds of children, never talking down and presenting interior moral crises that only last a moment. In the film, we only get the barest hints of this; we can only get the barest hints of this, because we're always on the outside, watching the children ourselves. Film is a documentary medium, at least at present. (Lewis from memory again: "every rule of style is at botom a rule about what sort of things may be said.")

Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy it. I did, very much, and (though it doesn't sound like it) for what it was, not for what I brought to it. I wouldn't give away the shiver of gladness I got when I caught sight of the red lion emblem on Peter's shield, for worlds.

But I'll enjoy re-reading the books more.

Puffy Treat

12-12-2005, 04:31 AM

. The battle scene tried too hard to be epic; in Lewis's books, even wars seem like cozy affairs, with maybe a few hundred on each side.

With the exception of "The Horse and His Boy", none of the battles in the Narnia series ever clarified how many participants there were. So they had a lot of leeway for the LWW battle.

Chuckg

12-12-2005, 09:44 AM

As for why Lucy didn't use the potion on Aslan -- even she was old enough to figure out that while it could heal wounds, it couldn't raise the dead. And Aslan was long dead by that point. Susan was merely reminding Lucy that Aslan *was* dead, and cold, and not merely wounded.

Besides, as I recall, she didn't try to use the potion in the book either.

Hiromi

12-12-2005, 11:24 AM

With the exception of "The Horse and His Boy", none of the battles in the Narnia series ever clarified how many participants there were. So they had a lot of leeway for the LWW battle.
From that we know that an army of 200 men in Narnia terms was considered small and could be raised quickly, so I could see them justifying numbers like they did in the movie.

ElectraAlan

12-12-2005, 12:02 PM

I can't agree with this at all. The Bible never uses the donkey as an image for Christ. And Jesus (as Christians understand him) did not begin as a "nobody"; he began as the Lord of Glory, who humbled himself by taking the same form as his subjects. There are an astounding number of parallels between Jesus in the Bible and Aslan in TLWW. I should know; that was the whole focus of my sermon today (yes, I'm a pastor).

I'm a Christian, and I'll repeat what I said to my minister:

Seeing Aslan made me agree with what the New Yorker said. I don't see a lion as being the right allegory for Christ. The way Aslan behaved is not how I imagine Christ behaved. I see Him as being kind and gentle, and with very few exceptions, slow to anger. Christ was a teacher, not a conqueror. He is unique for many reasons, but one of them is that He won no military victories and yet this very day there are millions of people on the earth who would die for Him. So I think we should embrace His uniqueness and say that He is a lamb, not a lion. My two cents.

Amokitty

12-12-2005, 01:01 PM

What the heck is Turkish delight anyway? Just curious.

For all intents and purposes, it's this.... http://www.libertyorchards.com/newac.asp

That stuff's incredible. I'll even bet you've eaten Applets & Cotlets, just never knowing it was an Armenian version of what's known as "Turkish" Delight! :D

Shade

12-12-2005, 02:13 PM

I'm a Christian, and I'll repeat what I said to my minister:

Seeing Aslan made me agree with what the New Yorker said. I don't see a lion as being the right allegory for Christ. The way Aslan behaved is not how I imagine Christ behaved. I see Him as being kind and gentle, and with very few exceptions, slow to anger. Christ was a teacher, not a conqueror. He is unique for many reasons, but one of them is that He won no military victories and yet this very day there are millions of people on the earth who would die for Him. So I think we should embrace His uniqueness and say that He is a lamb, not a lion. My two cents.

As I mention before Jesus is also called "The Lion of Judah". THis is one of the reasons Lewis used the animal. From what I recall he made mention that he created the world of Narnia to be one of talking beasts, and the idea of Christ coming to that land he would also be a beast much like he became a man in this world. Lewis used a Lion because the lion is seen as the king of the jungle or beasts. Christ was the King of Kings, etc etc.

On the YABS board MacQ explains it all way better than I can. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2320171&postcount=15)

Nate Grey

12-12-2005, 02:25 PM

For all intents and purposes, it's this.... http://www.libertyorchards.com/newac.asp

That stuff's incredible. I'll even bet you've eaten Applets & Cotlets, just never knowing it was an Armenian version of what's known as "Turkish" Delight! :D

That does look pretty good. I may buy some myself. :D

ElectraAlan

12-13-2005, 11:15 AM

Only cause your'e a pervert.

No, it's because the Faun was not a CGI, but rather played by an adult actor with cheesey looking facial hair who had his nipples showing.

ElectraAlan

12-13-2005, 11:34 AM

As I mention before Jesus is also called "The Lion of Judah". THis is one of the reasons Lewis used the animal. From what I recall he made mention that he created the world of Narnia to be one of talking beasts, and the idea of Christ coming to that land he would also be a beast much like he became a man in this world. Lewis used a Lion because the lion is seen as the king of the jungle or beasts. Christ was the King of Kings, etc etc.

On the YABS board MacQ explains it all way better than I can. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2320171&postcount=15)

All I can say is that looking at Aslan made me think that you wouldn't want to mess with him, and you should not be thinking that about Christ, because Christ had no interest in coercing anyone to follow him.

ElectraAlan

12-13-2005, 11:50 AM

By the way, I love DisneyWorld and I make no apologies for that. Being as this is a Disney flick and there will probably be sequels, what are the chances of a Narnia ride? They already have this:

http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/wdw/parks/attractionDetail?id=NarniaAttractionPage

Matt Algren

12-13-2005, 12:20 PM

Shade

12-13-2005, 02:46 PM

All I can say is that looking at Aslan made me think that you wouldn't want to mess with him, and you should not be thinking that about Christ, because Christ had no interest in coercing anyone to follow him.

I know many Christians often paint Christ/God as the "big Father in the sky" kinda deal, but we are also to fear God. Christ and God are one in the same. The children are SCARED of Aslan and recognize his power but they also know that he is good. Christ was good and loving but he was also confident and sure and knew who he was and why he came. Sadducees, Pharisees and I'm sure others saw him as threatening to their authority/power/comfort/safety, etc.

Nate C.

12-13-2005, 05:28 PM

Electra, I did respond to your comment in the YABS Narnia thread.

Captain Jim

12-13-2005, 08:43 PM

The children are SCARED of Aslan and recognize his power but they also know that he is good. Christ was good and loving but he was also confident and sure and knew who he was and why he came. Sadducees, Pharisees and I'm sure others saw him as threatening to their authority/power/comfort/safety, etc.

Indeed. Mr. Beaver's quote from the book (which I believe was moved in the movie and given to someone else) was "Course he isn't safe. But he's good."

yeoman

12-13-2005, 09:03 PM

Indeed. Mr. Beaver's quote from the book (which I believe was moved in the movie and given to someone else) was "Course he isn't safe. But he's good."

Just got back, IIRC it's split between Tumnas and Lucy at the end.

And, yeah, Lewis went out of his way to describle Aslan as terrifying. He also went out of his way to describe him as both terrifying and good at the same time.

Bruce Wayne Jr.

12-14-2005, 10:45 AM

Saw it last night and I'll just say a few things. Just so you know I've never read the books, so if I'm off base or getting the wrong idea, just smack me straight.

The kids and the witch were really well cast and I couldn't help but smile every time Lucy did. That's a cute kid.

Outside of that, I didn't enjoy it like I thought I would. The appearance of Father Christmas a.k.a. Santa Claus really threw me for a loop and I'm surprised I hadn't heard of his involvement in the books already. However, at that point in the film I realized the film was very grounded in *our* reality, so to speak, and it was a bit jarring.

I understand that the children are the offspring of Adam and Eve and thus destined to rule, but why? They really didn't do much throughout the movie to make it seem like they'd be worthy. I couldn't really connect with them either because they tended to react more than act. It looked like they didn't have that much impact on the events of the film.

I was also kinda bothered by how much Aslan used the children. The almighty Aslan had to have known that Peter wasn't ready to slay any wolf, yet he chose to hold the men back and allow Peter to be perceived as a hero when the wolf literally jumps onto his sword. I take it Aslan was taking the opportunity to have Peter convince himself of his own bravery...? Did he have some control over the wolf? I might be missing something here, but Aslan came off as deceiving.

Another example was the scene where he had the girls follow him deep into the woods where he was slated to die. What was his purpose in having the girls see him slain? Did he need them there for his resurrection? My initial reaction from these two events is that Aslan was trying to inspire the children through fear, and for some reason I have a problem with that...

There were some other minor things about the movie that took away from it for me, so I'm gonna file this one under 'disappointing'.

*Braces for smacking*

Chuckg

12-14-2005, 11:10 AM

Re one of your points:

Given that the fight ended with the wolf dead on Peter's sword, how can you say that Aslan 'should have known that Peter wasn't ready?' All I can see is Aslan correctly predicting the outcome of the fight.

Besides, Peter *needed* that moment -- it was his coming-of-age as a warrior. Think he'd have done so well on the front lines of a huge honking battle later that week if he *hadn't* been blooded first?

Remember, this novel was written right after WWII. Kids only slightly older than Peter had to go out and kill people for *real*. It wasn't exactly shocking the audience back then to have one do it in fiction, too.

And no, 'lucky guess' does not apply -- not if we accept the premise that Aslan is the Creator, at any rate. :)

yeoman

12-14-2005, 11:39 AM

The Father Christmas bit. I'll say, I twas handled well, but I kinda wish it had been left out. In the book it works better, but in a modern film it feels... jarring. At least as an adult. Maybe if I'd been much younger it would have worked better.

roguespirit

12-14-2005, 04:14 PM

well it was a kids book

roguespirit

12-14-2005, 04:15 PM

hugh45

12-14-2005, 05:02 PM

Actually, he's both. See Revelation 5:5-6. And Aslan's role is consistant with this: he's a lion who takes on the role of a sacrifical lamb.

I can't agree with this at all. The Bible never uses the donkey as an image for Christ. And Jesus (as Christians understand him) did not begin as a "nobody"; he began as the Lord of Glory, who humbled himself by taking the same form as his subjects. There are an astounding number of parallels between Jesus in the Bible and Aslan in TLWW. I should know; that was the whole focus of my sermon today (yes, I'm a pastor).

Cool! A pastor as geek/Christian! Can't beat that combo.

I take it you have a lot of young members??

hugh45

12-14-2005, 05:17 PM

I never read the books,but is....Narnia = Nazareth?

Captain Jim

12-14-2005, 07:05 PM

I never read the books,but is....Narnia = Nazareth?

Nope. Don't think those two have anything in common other than the letter "N."

Captain Jim

12-14-2005, 07:10 PM

I was also kinda bothered by how much Aslan used the children...Another example was the scene where he had the girls follow him deep into the woods where he was slated to die. What was his purpose in having the girls see him slain? Did he need them there for his resurrection? My initial reaction from these two events is that Aslan was trying to inspire the children through fear, and for some reason I have a problem with that.

You seem to be under the impression that he somehow enticed them into this; that's not the case. They couldn't sleep and sensed something was wrong; they found him outside and begged to be allowed to accompany him.

In the "symbolism" department, I see parallels here between the presence of the women at the foot of Jesus' cross and at his tomb.

yeoman

12-14-2005, 08:42 PM

well it was a kids book

Which is why I do not object to it. I'm just saying, for me, as an adult, it was jarring.

Jonathan Bogart

12-14-2005, 11:24 PM

You seem to be under the impression that he somehow enticed them into this; that's not the case. They couldn't sleep and sensed something was wrong; they found him outside and begged to be allowed to accompany him.

In the "symbolism" department, I see parallels here between the presence of the women at the foot of Jesus' cross and at his tomb.
Also, from a more mundane narrative standpoint, we would never know what it was that happened if the girls didn't follow him, unless when he showed up at the battle the next day, Aslan said, "Oh, and by the way, I died last night." Nothing happens in the story that the children don't take part in or witness -- that's part of what makes it a fairy tale. Formally, I mean.

roguespirit

12-15-2005, 01:21 AM

Bruce Wayne Jr.

12-15-2005, 02:40 AM

You seem to be under the impression that he somehow enticed them into this; that's not the case. They couldn't sleep and sensed something was wrong; they found him outside and begged to be allowed to accompany him.

Well, he still led them out to the scene of the crime, knowing full well that they'd probably see it happen. Still seems a little cruel, and I couldn't help but question his motives at the time.

Matt Algren

12-15-2005, 07:38 AM

roguespirit

12-15-2005, 09:37 AM

Chuckg

12-15-2005, 12:01 PM

Well, he still led them out to the scene of the crime, knowing full well that they'd probably see it happen. Still seems a little cruel, and I couldn't help but question his motives at the time.

Actually, Aslan stopped short of the hill and said 'thanks for walking with me, but I really need to be alone right now.' and went on ahead.

The girls followed him after he left.

So they were there at the hill solely because they chose to be there. Aslan was grateful for their company, but he did *not* lead them to where they would see what happened... they followed him that far on their own.

Bruce Wayne Jr.

12-15-2005, 12:12 PM

Actually, Aslan stopped short of the hill and said 'thanks for walking with me, but I really need to be alone right now.' and went on ahead.

The girls followed him after he left.

So they were there at the hill solely because they chose to be there. Aslan was grateful for their company, but he did *not* lead them to where they would see what happened... they followed him that far on their own.

Yes, but that's after they met up closer to the woods' edge. I understand the guy needed some company at the time, but it still seems suspect to take them deeper into the woods, and then tell them he needs to be alone. Why not ditch them where he found them and save them both the trauma?

I plan on reading the books for clarity, because I might have been thinking in the wrong direction while watching the movie. You all make good points, but I'm still having trouble.

Danger Dude

12-15-2005, 12:13 PM

I'm a Christian, and I'll repeat what I said to my minister:

Seeing Aslan made me agree with what the New Yorker said. I don't see a lion as being the right allegory for Christ. The way Aslan behaved is not how I imagine Christ behaved. I see Him as being kind and gentle, and with very few exceptions, slow to anger. Christ was a teacher, not a conqueror. He is unique for many reasons, but one of them is that He won no military victories and yet this very day there are millions of people on the earth who would die for Him. So I think we should embrace His uniqueness and say that He is a lamb, not a lion. My two cents.
Your'e acting like Aslan got mad at some of the good guys or something. The White Witch reresented the Devil, evil incarnate, and the bad guys were the demons. Christ is slow to anger, sure, but He'll not waste any of His mercy for those who can't be saved (White Witch/the Devil).

Danger Dude

12-15-2005, 12:18 PM

No, it's because the Faun was not a CGI, but rather played by an adult actor with cheesey looking facial hair who had his nipples showing.
Dude, the poor faun just wants to live his own life. All he's doing is following the White Bitche's orders.

Danger Dude

12-15-2005, 12:21 PM

I know many Christians often paint Christ/God as the "big Father in the sky" kinda deal, but we are also to fear God. Christ and God are one in the same. The children are SCARED of Aslan and recognize his power but they also know that he is good. Christ was good and loving but he was also confident and sure and knew who he was and why he came. Sadducees, Pharisees and I'm sure others saw him as threatening to their authority/power/comfort/safety, etc.
Couldn't have said it better!

Danger Dude

12-15-2005, 12:26 PM

*Braces for smacking*
Smack! YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT NARNIA LIKE THAT, @*!@

kmeyers

12-15-2005, 01:11 PM

Captain Jim

12-15-2005, 08:23 PM

but, he had to *know* they would follow him...he IS Aslan after all.

Eh, I dunno. Using the analogy to Jesus here, Jesus voluntarily limited his natural omniscience and hence did not know everything while on earth.

Captain Jim

12-15-2005, 08:27 PM

Your'e acting like Aslan got mad at some of the good guys or something. The White Witch reresented the Devil, evil incarnate, and the bad guys were the demons. Christ is slow to anger, sure, but He'll not waste any of His mercy for those who can't be saved (White Witch/the Devil).

Very good point.

Captain Jim

12-15-2005, 08:31 PM

I also see a lot of Gethsemane here.

Oh definitely. Especially where he says, "I should be glad of company tonight" (LWW p. 149) and "I am sad and lonely" (LWW p. 150).

Captain Jim

12-15-2005, 08:34 PM

Yes, but that's after they met up closer to the woods' edge. I understand the guy needed some company at the time, but it still seems suspect to take them deeper into the woods, and then tell them he needs to be alone. Why not ditch them where he found them and save them both the trauma?

Actually, in the book anyway, when they first ask for permission to accompany him, he says, "Yes, you may come, if you will promise to stop when I tell you, and after that leave me to go on alone" (LWW, p. 149).

AceOfSpades

12-16-2005, 06:23 PM

I loved The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe... I hope they make Prince Caspian too (and whatever movies Reepacheep is in)

Danger Dude

12-17-2005, 02:02 PM

That would be Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and The Last Battle.

Nate Grey

12-17-2005, 04:16 PM

So as far as the sequels go, Prince Caspian and Dawn Treader are confirmed/likely?

Are they only going to film the books that feature the kids? Will Horse or Chair ever get filmed?

Solaris

12-18-2005, 12:33 AM

I hope they do the entire series.

I enjoyed the film very much, in part because it stuck much more closely to the plot than LotR. On the other hand, LotR was a size monster compared to LWW. :)

However, the film *did* have something... lacking in involvement, as compared to LotR, and I'm not sure what it is. On the other hand, we took our 4 yr. old with us, and he was something of a distraction for me for most of the film---his attn. span was enough to sit through most of it, and be fairly quiet, but not enough to get really involved in the story... so he was doing things like occasionally pulling on the seatback in front of him, whispering loudly, stating (in a quiet whisper) that the movie was ending and it was time to go, etc. Bit hard to get really involved when that's going on. *wince*

I adored the children. They were perfect, though it was a bit of a surprise at first to see Lucy so young, and not quite blonde. She was great, though. So was the Witch, and Liam as Aslan's voice.

I have to agree with Jonathan that it would've been better if they'd kept a bit more of Lewis's dialog in there... especially the part where the girls follow Aslan.

Yes, Aslan is an allegory for Jesus. No, he's not uber-violent, nor does he force conversion. What you have to remember is that Lewis wasn't just drawing on the Jesus story, he was also drawing on the ideals of chivalry, a la King Arthur, and on Celtic mythology he loved as a young man (he was Irish and loved Ireland). So there's a lot of the "brave night/fair maiden" stuff in the books as well, and it's surprising that Lewis was able to blend that in with the Christian allegories as well as he did.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the film, and look forward to seeing more.

Jonathan Bogart

12-18-2005, 10:47 AM

What you have to remember is that Lewis wasn't just drawing on the Jesus story, he was also drawing on the ideals of chivalry, a la King Arthur, and on Celtic mythology he loved as a young man (he was Irish and loved Ireland). So there's a lot of the "brave night/fair maiden" stuff in the books as well, and it's surprising that Lewis was able to blend that in with the Christian allegories as well as he did.
I don't think it's surprising at all, if you know Lewis's academic work, particularly The Allegory of Love. The "brave knight/fair maiden stuff" has its conceptual origins in an explicitly Christianized body of work from the high medieval period in France, England, and Germany. The Romance of the Rose, the French Arthurian tales, Tristram and Isolde, that sort of thing. That was his area of specialized knowledge and scholarship.

Chivalric literature was always heavily Christian, and heavily allegorical, with the action of the heroes and heroines often standing in for aspects of man's relationship to God. That sort of thing is sublimated in the more familiar versions of these stories that we get in Malory and later writers, but it's still there. It wasn't until the Wagner-period revival of romance that people interested in knights-and-damsels stuff started to seriously leach the Christianity out of it, by adapting pagan stories and themes to chivalric modes. Which is where Tolkien comes in.

(Tolkien, by the way, didn't think the chivalric literature amounted to much, which accounts for the much of the differenc between his and Lewis's fantasy worlds. For him, English Literature was all downhill after the Norman Conquest. He wasn't much of a classicist, either, which Lewis emphatically was.)

Of the perceived divide between valor-at-arms and Christian meekness, Lewis was scornful. Jesus was not a warrior, but even the most ardent pacifist Christian believes that he conquered sin and death in the Resurrection. When the Narnians fight the Witch and her minions, it's obviously virtue against vice; not being likely to run across an Ogre, I can instead do battle against what the idea of an Ogre represents in this world and in myself. It's much more tricky when the Calormenes show up and turn the battles to human against human; the allegory break down, though the metaphors become more sophisticated.

The word allegory should be used sparingly, anyway, of anything this side of The Pilgrim's Progress. There are lots of people who can't stomach fantasy unless it's allegorical; there are a lot of people who love fantasy except when it seems to have any direct bearing on the real world. In the space between, there's the Narnia books. And now, to attempt not to derail the thread, a movie.

Alex

12-18-2005, 12:14 PM

I gotta say, if i hadn't read anything else Lewis did (Though, i never read these books) and someone didn't tell me before hand, i would have totaly missed the religious connections.

Nate Grey

12-18-2005, 12:16 PM

I don't think it's surprising at all, if you know Lewis's academic work, particularly The Allegory of Love. The "brave knight/fair maiden stuff" has its conceptual origins in an explicitly Christianized body of work from the high medieval period in France, England, and Germany. The Romance of the Rose, the French Arthurian tales, Tristram and Isolde, that sort of thing. That was his area of specialized knowledge and scholarship.

Chivalric literature was always heavily Christian, and heavily allegorical, with the action of the heroes and heroines often standing in for aspects of man's relationship to God. That sort of thing is sublimated in the more familiar versions of these stories that we get in Malory and later writers, but it's still there. It wasn't until the Wagner-period revival of romance that people interested in knights-and-damsels stuff started to seriously leach the Christianity out of it, by adapting pagan stories and themes to chivalric modes. Which is where Tolkien comes in.

(Tolkien, by the way, didn't think the chivalric literature amounted to much, which accounts for the much of the differenc between his and Lewis's fantasy worlds. For him, English Literature was all downhill after the Norman Conquest. He wasn't much of a classicist, either, which Lewis emphatically was.)

Of the perceived divide between valor-at-arms and Christian meekness, Lewis was scornful. Jesus was not a warrior, but even the most ardent pacifist Christian believes that he conquered sin and death in the Resurrection. When the Narnians fight the Witch and her minions, it's obviously virtue against vice; not being likely to run across an Ogre, I can instead do battle against what the idea of an Ogre represents in this world and in myself. It's much more tricky when the Calormenes show up and turn the battles to human against human; the allegory break down, though the metaphors become more sophisticated.

The word allegory should be used sparingly, anyway, of anything this side of The Pilgrim's Progress. There are lots of people who can't stomach fantasy unless it's allegorical; there are a lot of people who love fantasy except when it seems to have any direct bearing on the real world. In the space between, there's the Narnia books. And now, to attempt not to derail the thread, a movie.

Wow, man. That was great everything you just wrote. Now I want to pick up the works that influenced Lewis and Tolkien.

lonewolf23k

12-18-2005, 12:25 PM

Saw it yesterday, and I absolutely LOVED it! The movie wins a lot of points in my book for:

-Seemless (or nearly so) special effects for the creatures of Narnia.

-Keeping the christian allegories, without being too blatant about it.

-The battlefield scene actually rivals the Pellinore Fields battle in my book, winning a lot of points for the use of the gryphons and the phoenix.

-Edmund's character. I actually understood his motivations now. He's not really a rotten child, just one suffering from "Middle Child Syndrome".. And he pretty much turns back towards the moment he figures out just what he did, too.

All in all, I'm hoping Prince Caspian does get made.. One movie's not enough.

Grant

12-18-2005, 12:45 PM

So as far as the sequels go, Prince Caspian and Dawn Treader are confirmed/likely?

Are they only going to film the books that feature the kids? Will Horse or Chair ever get filmed?

I read Prince Caspian got the greenlight once this one reached 60 million. The script is already written and the kids already are committed for the next one. I'm sure there will be a big annoucement next year. But apparently 2007 is the target date.

All Seven Books are optioned I assume they will go in the order of whatever is the most convient to film next based on how the child actors age (I think the Dawn Treader features two new kids in addition to Edmund and Lucy and those two kids are in two more books).

So I'm assuming if they did all the movies it would be...

1. The Lion, The Witch and The Wadrobe
2. Prince Caspian
3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4. The Silver Chair
5. The Last Battle
6. The Horse and His Boy
7. The Magician's Nephew

roguespirit

12-18-2005, 05:05 PM

I read Prince Caspian got the greenlight once this one reached 60 million. The script is already written and the kids already are committed for the next one. I'm sure there will be a big annoucement next year. But apparently 2007 is the target date.

All Seven Books are optioned I assume they will go in the order of whatever is the most convient to film next based on how the child actors age (I think the Dawn Treader features two new kids in addition to Edmund and Lucy and those two kids are in two more books).

So I'm assuming if they did all the movies it would be...

1. The Lion, The Witch and The Wadrobe
2. Prince Caspian
3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4. The Silver Chair
5. The Last Battle
6. The Horse and His Boy
7. The Magician's Nephew

Tha Magicians Nephew is chronologically first although it wasn't the first written or published, and I don't think it would make a good climax to the series if you have listed the stories in the order you think they should be filmed

Grant

12-19-2005, 12:30 AM

Tha Magicians Nephew is chronologically first although it wasn't the first written or published, and I don't think it would make a good climax to the series if you have listed the stories in the order you think they should be filmed

I'm talking what would be the most convient to film. So unless they wanted to filmed The Magicians Nephew, The Horse And His Boy around the same time as Last Battle it will probably be that order.

Plus I imagine those books were probably be low the producers priority list. I never read them but from what I gather they don't feature any children that feature into the other five books. Likelihood Walden and Disney will even make it Dawn Treader and Silver Chair is still a bit uncertain. These films are still aren't the guranteed box office hits like Harry Potter.

And who said Magicians Nephew had to be the climax? It could just be a stand alone story. If Peter Jackson made The Hobbit. It wouldn't be a climax to Lord of the Rings. It'd be a movie in it's own right and when it's out on DVD you could watch right before the LOTR movies. Much like The Magicians Nephew.

Hiromi

12-19-2005, 01:56 AM

Putting the Last Battle before the Magician's Nephew wouldn't work out that well, as the end of the Last Battle would act as spoilers for MN.

Captain Jim

12-19-2005, 09:27 PM

I have a pretty good idea they'll want to prioritize whatever stories feature the kids from the LWW.

Grant

12-19-2005, 11:52 PM

Putting the Last Battle before the Magician's Nephew wouldn't work out that well, as the end of the Last Battle would act as spoilers for MN.

Sure. But probably no more then the LOTR movies would spoil The Hobbit or the original Star Wars movies spoiled the prequels.

Plus aren't the Narnia Books fairly self contained?

I'm just saying it makes sense from a production standpoint if they go in the order based on how the children age. Plus this is assuming they even decide to do any Narnia movies after Prince Caspian.

roguespirit

12-20-2005, 02:58 AM

Sure. But probably no more then the LOTR movies would spoil The Hobbit or the original Star Wars movies spoiled the prequels.

Plus aren't the Narnia Books fairly self contained?

I'm just saying it makes sense from a production standpoint if they go in the order based on how the children age. Plus this is assuming they even decide to do any Narnia movies after Prince Caspian.

They are self contained yes but The Magicians Nephew doesn't have the same level of excitment about it as the others. It is also set before any of the other children are even born and sets up Narnia, the witch, the lampost and the wardrobe. Plus the Last Battle is such a climatic story that it really is the one that you want the franchise to bow out on. Anything else would be oure anti-climax.

But then like you say we don't even know how many they intend to make. If they don't make some of the later one's they are definetly not gong to make The Magicians Nephew.

Anyone know how it's performed in the box office?

Grant

12-20-2005, 03:37 AM

They are self contained yes but The Magicians Nephew doesn't have the same level of excitment about it as the others. It is also set before any of the other children are even born and sets up Narnia, the witch, the lampost and the wardrobe. Plus the Last Battle is such a climatic story that it really is the one that you want the franchise to bow out on. Anything else would be oure anti-climax.

But then like you say we don't even know how many they intend to make. If they don't make some of the later one's they are definetly not gong to make The Magicians Nephew.

Pretty much. That's why I assume it such a low priority. But if they make 5 movies and make a ton of movie off of them I don't think Disney and Walden would mind tapping into the well again. Kind of like how they remade Red Dragon with Anthony Hopkins after Hannibal came out. Was it necessary? Nope but they capitalized off the Hannibal brand regardless.

Yeah that's a cynical position to take but it makes the most sense from an economical standpoint.

So I think if they ever made The Horse and His Boy and The Magicians Nephew they'd probably come out towards the end. And since the stories are much smaller scale they might be released as DTVs or released during a slow period like February or September.

Anyone know how it's performed in the box office?

It's about 100 million. Prince Caspian has been been green lit.

Sheldon

12-21-2005, 07:13 AM

Tumnus was the weak link in this film.
Loved it besides him.

Captain Jim

12-21-2005, 09:59 PM

Wow, different strokes, I guess. I absolutely loved him.

roguespirit

12-22-2005, 04:08 AM

Tumnus was the weak link in this film.
Loved it besides him.

Why?
*Doing the 10 letter fandango*

Theophilus

12-22-2005, 08:29 AM

I'd assume Magician's Nephew could be left out because it's less connected to the other books. Really, it's my least favorite of the books, though I do understand why Lewis felt it was necessary.

There's another point to that, too. If it takes two years to film each movie, it could be problematic in keeping the same actors for the entires series. Peter, Lucy, Edmund, and Susan appear in the first three books, and then they tie out the series nicely in the Last Battle. But if I remember correctly, they aren't that much older in the last book than the first three. It's been a while. So if Disney/Walden go through the entire series, it could take fourteen years, conservatively, to get there, unless they film some simultaneously. But I'm not sure that all of the books would translate as well into film.

As for the film itself, I had the best time at a movie I've had all year. It was just amazing. The writers did a great job of filling in details for the script. Acting was splendid. The air raid scene was a terrific addition. The tone of the books wouldn't seem to lend itself as well to the screen as, say, the incredible detail of Tolkien's LOTR. But then, I suppose freedom to move about has its advantages as well. At any rate, I loved it more than the LOTR, and left the theater of my own power. Take that, Peter Jackson!

Sheldon

12-22-2005, 06:21 PM

Why?
*Doing the 10 letter fandango*
I just felt he was too underacted, and creepy --> everytime I saw him it pulled me out of the film, he was a bad distraction...

MacQuarrie

12-22-2005, 06:52 PM

Not Disney. Click here. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079474/) Rent it, buy it, check it out. It's great.
Hmm. Strange new usage of the word "great". I didn't know great could also mean horrifically bad and nearly unwatchable, causing one to scream obscenties at the screen because of how badly botched the thing is.

That is what you meant by "great", right?

I guess it's true; it's the difference of opinion that makes the horserace.

MacQuarrie

12-22-2005, 07:01 PM

MacQuarrie

12-22-2005, 07:02 PM

I have a pretty good idea they'll want to prioritize whatever stories feature the kids from the LWW.
The can always shoot the film they need of the kids when they're the right age, then hold on to the footage until they need it for each given film.

smartalek

12-22-2005, 07:07 PM

I just felt he was too underacted, and creepy --> everytime I saw him it pulled me out of the film, he was a bad distraction...
Yeah, as I stated earlier, that whole part where he invites Lucy into his house was pretty ackward and creepy.

Theophilus

12-22-2005, 09:54 PM

Yeah, as I stated earlier, that whole part where he invites Lucy into his house was pretty ackward and creepy.

I thought Tumnus was played perfectly. He's a very nervous character in the book, you know. And it's supposed to be a little creepy. He's planning to shanghai an innocent little girl for a wicked witch.

But keep in mind that when Lewis wrote Tumnus, Michael Jackson and Neverland Ranch weren't present concerns. So it only seems natural to take an invitation from a sweaty, shirtless, stuttering fawn.

Jared

12-23-2005, 01:23 PM

I
But keep in mind that when Lewis wrote Tumnus, Michael Jackson and Neverland Ranch weren't present concerns. So it only seems natural to take an invitation from a sweaty, shirtless, stuttering fawn.

Oh how we have lost our innocence. *sigh*

Winslow

12-26-2005, 03:55 PM

Finally got to see this over the Christmas weekend

The Good:
My daughter's face when Aslan first came on the screen.
The faithful adaptation of the book

The Bad:
People bringing young kids that needed explanations to follow the plot. If your kid isn't old enough to follow a movie plot without an explanation - they're too young for a theater. OY! Color commenting behind my right ear the entire time . . . alas.

re sequels:
The books are more plot driven than character-driven, so I see no problem with substituting other actors should sequels be made. Aslan is the central character through the series.

The Horse and His Boy is my favorite - but isn't very "PC" towards the muslim world - wondering how they'll handle that is they decide to produce it.

borateen

12-27-2005, 02:44 PM

I saw this over the weekend with my 21-year-old sister, who has yet to read the books. Myself, I haven't read them since college, which was about 6 or 7 years ago, so I was a little iffy with the details...but we both thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought it remained very true to the book (from what I remembered), and I thought the CGI was flawless.

I'd watch a sequel.

Peter

12-27-2005, 05:53 PM

Saw it last night.

Loved it. *Loved* it. I was just loving every second of screen-time. I'd see it again in a heart-beat, it was a *great* film. And to reiterate -- *loved* it :).

I went with a bunch of friends and one of them (who hadn't read the books) hated the movie, she said it was "really weak". And I had to defend the movie like crazy on the ride home, but no, I thoroughly enjoyed the film.

It was faithful to the book, but better -- the battle scenes at the end were *fantastic* -- and it met (and exceeded in a positive way) pretty much any expectations I had.

The kids were great. I know we were supposed to stick with Lucy, but Peter impressed me the most. Putting it bluntly -- the kid had balls. When you're a 14 year old with a sword facing down an *army* of countless thousands of evil beasts, and you raise your sword and charge (and I really liked the "For Narnia. For ASLAN!" moment), I mean holy crap. That was awesome.

It was also a neat moment when the Witch showed up at the camp for Edmund, and -- despite the enormous ogres, giants and minotaurs in front of him -- at the thought of losing his brother, Peter was like, "Yeah, come and get him." That was cool.

Susan and Edmund were okay, but damn, the High King was Red Ranger material, and we know what that means :D. That just sold me, right there. It was really cool that Peter and the witch got to throw-down one-on-one for a few minutes too, that was cool.

The shot of Aslan ripping her head off (well, off-camera, sort of) was great too.

The Witch was also played great. She was cool and calculating and evil and vicious -- and it was pointed out to me that at the final battle, she was wearing Aslan's mane, which was a really neat touch. I liked how she so obviously turned on the fake-charm when dealing with Edmund, but somebody his age wouldn't have seen through it.

Tumnus was great. I mean, yeah, it was supposed to be awkward and weird. And the guy *did* have ulterior motives, after all.

I read above that "Prince Caspian" has already been given the go-ahead. And you know, that's just awesome :).

tangentman

12-27-2005, 08:12 PM

Theophilus

12-28-2005, 10:48 AM

The installment which I'm most anticipating is The Silver Chair, my favorite Narnian novel after The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe! I loved the addition of Jill and Eustace to the cast by this point in the series, and also appreciated the exploration of outer Narnia (particularly the episode with the giants).

I saw a children's book about a year ago that featured Puddleglum.

I went saw a play production of the Silver Chair for my tenth birthday, and it was probably one of the best times I'd ever had.

Kamen Rider Might

12-28-2005, 11:35 AM

I was pretty disappointed when I saw the movie. The whole Santa and the potion that caused too many plotholes to count kinda blew it for me. The book was not all too terrific either, in my opinion.

Kamen Rider Might

12-28-2005, 11:42 AM

Though it was well adapted to the book, I thought Peter in the book was the character that you felt sorry for. In the movie, he was just a brat.

Peter

12-28-2005, 05:10 PM

Though it was well adapted to the book, I thought Peter in the book was the character that you felt sorry for. In the movie, he was just a brat.

You meant Edmund, right? 'Cause I can't see any possible way like at all you could call the eldest brother a 'brat'.

Captain Jim

12-28-2005, 09:36 PM

I was pretty disappointed when I saw the movie. The whole Santa and the potion that caused too many plotholes to count kinda blew it for me. The book was not all too terrific either, in my opinion.

*shrug* Magic plays a big part in the book and movie both. If you can't accept that, I guess you wouldn't like it. I'm not sure that amounts to "plotholes" however.

Kamen Rider Might

12-28-2005, 09:58 PM

*shrug* Magic plays a big part in the book and movie both. If you can't accept that, I guess you wouldn't like it. I'm not sure that amounts to "plotholes" however.

It's not the magic that bugs me. It's the fact that the bits of *magic* used creates monstrous plotholes.

Captain Jim

12-28-2005, 10:08 PM

I don't follow you. Could you elaborate or give an example?

Kamen Rider Might

12-28-2005, 10:18 PM

I don't follow you. Could you elaborate or give an example?

1. The girls are mourning over the Lion''s death when they have a potion that heals people to health or brings people back to life.

2. If Narnia had not heard of Christmas, how is Santa there?

3. If you look closely at the reviving soldiers scene, you may scene an enemy or two being revived. Why?

4. Why wasn't Santa's reindeer flying at all?

kmeyers

12-29-2005, 12:00 AM

1. The girls are mourning over the Lion''s death when they have a potion that heals people to health or brings people back to life.

2. If Narnia had not heard of Christmas, how is Santa there?

3. If you look closely at the reviving soldiers scene, you may scene an enemy or two being revived. Why?

4. Why wasn't Santa's reindeer flying at all?
I haven't read the books, but...

1. The potion doesn't bring people back to life. It heals any wounds. Aslan was already long dead, the potion wouldn't have done any good at that point.

2. I forget exactly how that was explained, but the children aren't from Narnia, they've heard about Christmas...and I remember Santa saying something about how he hadn't been there since the White Witch took over...or something. But he's been there before, because the Beaver recognized him.

3. I didn't see any enemies being revived, but maybe since the White Witch is dead her hold over them is broken.

4. Just because you don't see them fly, doesn't mean they can't.

Kamen Rider Might

12-29-2005, 12:28 AM

4. Just because you don't see them fly, doesn't mean they can't.

Just because you don't see them fly doesn't mean they can.

kmeyers

12-29-2005, 12:38 AM

Just because you don't see them fly doesn't mean they can.
you asked why they didn't fly. How do you know they don't?

I would say that not flying makes that scene much more dramatic because it leads you to believe that it's the White Witch coming after them. If the reindeer had flown in, you would know right away it wasn't her, and there would be no tension, and the scene would have had much less of an impact.

Then when they leave, theyre in heavy woods where it wouldn't be easy for them to take off.

...and not seeing Santa's reindeer fly really bothered you that much?

Hiromi

12-29-2005, 01:55 AM

Who gives a flying flip one way or the other? That's like the ultimate nit pick I've ever seen. Somehow he manages to get around a whole lot of places in a short period of time. How's this any harder to swallow than talking sentinent Rhino's?

Peter

12-29-2005, 05:14 AM

1. The girls are mourning over the Lion''s death when they have a potion that heals people...

Who aren't already dead. By the time the *entire* Witch's army had left, Aslan would've been lying on that stone table for half the night, if not even longer. And he would've been most assuredly-dead. He *had* to have been, otherwise the whole scenario was pointless.

...brings people back to life.

Never, in any of the books nor in the movie, was it suggested that Lucy's potion could do this. It could heal *nearly-dead* people, as it did with Edmund, but it can't heal dead people.

borateen

12-29-2005, 07:11 AM

2. If Narnia had not heard of Christmas, how is Santa there?

They know of Christmas, it's just that since the Witch plunged Narnia into this "artificial" winter, there hasn't been one. Like Tumnus said, it's always Winter, but never Christmas.

And in the original lore, did Santa's reindeer actually fly, or is that a relatively new addition?

Also, the good magic was gradually coming back to Narnia. Santa was back, but maybe his reindeer weren't at the point where they could fly yet?

Matt Algren

12-29-2005, 08:18 AM

2. If Narnia had not heard of Christmas, how is Santa there?

3. If you look closely at the reviving soldiers scene, you may scene an enemy or two being revived. Why?

4. Why wasn't Santa's reindeer flying at all?

1. Several already answered, so I won't here.

2. I'm working from the book here (haven't seen the movie yet), but the major spell that the witch cast was to make it "always winter but never Christmas". They'd known 'Christmas' in some fashion before, and I'd suspect that the legend of Father Christmas had been passed down and was remembered by some of the longer-living species.

3. Why not?

4. They're in a place where trees talk. Maybe Santa's reindeer don't fly there. Maybe not. Either way, I don't think that's a plothole per se.

Kamen Rider Might

12-29-2005, 08:30 AM

you asked why they didn't fly. How do you know they don't?

You're just saying they do. How do you know if they do if you are not shown the spectacle yourself?

roguespirit

12-29-2005, 10:40 AM

You're just saying they do. How do you know if they do if you are not shown the spectacle yourself?

Seriously this matters why?

kmeyers

12-29-2005, 12:43 PM

You're just saying they do. How do you know if they do if you are not shown the spectacle yourself?
I'm just suggesting that they might fly(since Santa's reindeer are supposed to fly), but we don't see it in this very short appearance by him. Most likely, because it would take away from tension of the chase scene.

Either way, please explain to me how that is a "monstrous plot hole." It doesn't affect the story in any way.

Jared

12-29-2005, 01:12 PM

I'm just curious as to what Christmas entails for talking animals in another dimension who presumably have never heard of Christ. (Yes, I know Aslan is the same guy, but they don't know that, right?)

Jonathan Bogart

12-29-2005, 04:44 PM

I'm just curious as to what Christmas entails for talking animals in another dimension who presemubably have never heard of Christ. (Yes, I know Aslan is the same guy, but they don't know that, right?)
Hasn't this already been touched on upthread? Anyway, briefly, the history of Narnia is that when Aslan created it, he set a man and woman (a cabdriver and his wife) from 1910's England to rule it. (In The Magician's Nephew.) They would presumably have celebrated Christmas, being ordinary English people, and so it would have become one of the new country's traditions.

If C. S. Lewis had really worked out all of the implications of his fictional country before writing The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (like Tolkien did), the scene with Father Christmas would in all likelihood not have taken place. It always felt "wrong" to me, as a kid, after knowing Narnia through the other books. It's still a potent moment anyway.

Captain Jim

12-29-2005, 06:49 PM

1. The girls are mourning over the Lion''s death when they have a potion that heals people to health or brings people back to life.

Already answered; you're wrong, it doesn't bring people back to life.

2. If Narnia had not heard of Christmas, how is Santa there?

Already answered; you're wrong, Narnia is familiar with Christmas. They just haven't experienced it in 100 years.

3. If you look closely at the reviving soldiers scene, you may scene an enemy or two being revived. Why?

It's questionable whether this actually happened but, if so, so what? Aslan's beef was with the witch, not her minions.

4. Why wasn't Santa's reindeer flying at all?

I think it's pretty clear (even more so in the book than the movie) that while Narnia's Father Christmas greatly resembles our Santa Claus, the two are not identical. (For that matter, Santa's description and lore has changed incredibly over the years and across the globe. I'm not certain of this, but I don't think reindeer were even mentioned before "The Night Before Christmas.")

To refer to these is "monstrous plotholes" is really silly.

Jonathan Bogart

12-29-2005, 08:39 PM

kmeyers

12-29-2005, 08:41 PM

"Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!
On, Comet! on, Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!"

They kinda were.
What if those were just the names of Santa's Ho's?

Ho ho ho.

Kamen Rider Might

12-29-2005, 10:13 PM

Seriously this matters why?

I'm not sure. He's been annoying me with this interrogating.

kmeyers

12-29-2005, 10:21 PM

I'm not sure. He's been annoying me with this interrogating.
Are you serious? I'm annoying you? I'm assuming you're talking about me since I was the first to respond to you.

but, if that's interrogating, then you must live with the teletubbies.

I was just trying to answer your questions and fill your "monstrous plotholes" for you.

because I haven't read the books, but all the answers to the plotholes you mentioned, are there in the movie.

Kamen Rider Might

12-29-2005, 10:26 PM

Are you serious? I'm annoying you? I'm assuming you're talking about me since I was the first to respond to you.

but, if that's interrogating, then you must live with the teletubbies.

I was just trying to answer your questions and fill your "monstrous plotholes" for you.

because I haven't read the books, but all the answers to the plotholes you mentioned, are there in the movie.

Well, answer it and leave it be.

kmeyers

12-29-2005, 10:44 PM

Well, answer it and leave it be.

well, when you quote my posts and end your sentences with a question mark, I assume you're asking me another question.

so I responded. How silly of me.

Kamen Rider Might

12-29-2005, 11:22 PM

well, when you quote my posts and end your sentences with a question mark, I assume you're asking me another question.

so I responded. How silly of me.

Yes. There's the ticket.

kmeyers

12-29-2005, 11:39 PM

Yes. There's the ticket.
and the ticket didn't even cost me $10!

you keep quoting me, and we are way off topic, so as a constant movie-goer...The Chronicles of Narnia was a hellofa movie...and that's all I'm arguing with you. you dislike it for reasons you gave...I (and others)refuted those reasons, except for one, and now I'm interrogating you...

I still want to know how these monstrous plotholes ruined the movie for you....but I don't want to be interrogating. so answer if you want to.

Davideaux

12-30-2005, 05:25 AM

I finally saw this yesterday and I enjoyed it. I wasn't bowled over but I had a good time, especially during the early parts.

I had read the book but didn't remember much of it, but there were images that must have been stuck in my mind because the film captured them perfectly.

I wasn't really emotionally invested in the movie though. I was only moved by Aslan's sacrifice. The children were well played but I remember liking book Susan more than movie Susan. I also remember liking Edmund a lot and I feel he was a little underplayed in the movie. Peter and Lucy were flawless in my opinion.

Tilda Swinton was a great white witch. Frigid and not at all lovely.

Question for the fans of the book: Did any Narnians ever try to make into the world of the children? It seemed odd how Thomas and the White Witch never really questioned where they came from.

Nessor Sille

12-30-2005, 07:36 AM

Who is "Thomas"?

The White Witch doesn't want to go to Earth. She's been there before, and she loses most of her magic except for the incredible strength and the ability to read thoughts.

Davideaux

12-30-2005, 07:38 AM

Who is "Thomas"?

The White Witch doesn't want to go to Earth. She's been there before, and she loses most of her magic except for the incredible strength and the ability to read thoughts.

I meant to type Tumnus. Thanks for the reply.

Nessor Sille

12-30-2005, 07:42 AM

Mr. Tumnus has been told all his life that humans are evil and should be given to the Queen if ever found in Narnia. So he wouldn't be too eager to find his way to Earth either.

Kamen Rider Might

12-30-2005, 09:42 AM

and the ticket didn't even cost me $10!

What a rip off! It cost me $15!

Tobias March

12-30-2005, 11:03 AM

I actually thought the best child actors were the ones playing Edmund and Lucy. Actually I'm sick to death of hearing rave reviews of the actress playing Lucy. She looked like a young clone of Anne Widdecombe.

But dammit she was actually good! And centaurs riding into battle wielding two swords.....I always wondered what they would get up to. Kewl :p

Captain Jim

12-30-2005, 08:52 PM

Question for the fans of the book: It seemed odd how Thomas and the White Witch never really questioned where they came from.

They are actually more questioning in the book. In fact, in the book, the "Are you a beardless dwarf?" line was actually given by the witch to Edmund, not Tumnus to Lucy. It makes more sense that way, too. I did think the movie made it pretty clear how confused Tumnus was when he saw Lucy, though.

Captain Jim

12-30-2005, 08:56 PM

I'm not certain of this, but I don't think reindeer were even mentioned before "The Night Before Christmas.""Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!
On, Comet! on, Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!"

They kinda were.

What are you talking about? You're quoting "The Night Before Christmas"! That's exactly what I said: I don't think there were reindeer mentioned before that. :rolleyes:

Theophilus

12-30-2005, 09:33 PM

They know of Christmas, it's just that since the Witch plunged Narnia into this "artificial" winter, there hasn't been one. Like Tumnus said, it's always Winter, but never Christmas.

And in the original lore, did Santa's reindeer actually fly, or is that a relatively new addition?

Also, the good magic was gradually coming back to Narnia. Santa was back, but maybe his reindeer weren't at the point where they could fly yet?

Well, Lewis might have been operating under 1950s British traditions which I'm not familiar with. Or he might have had Santa Claus manifest in a slightly different form in Narnia, just as Christ takes on the form of Aslan.

Jonathan Bogart

12-31-2005, 12:55 AM

What are you talking about? You're quoting "The Night Before Christmas"! That's exactly what I said: I don't think there were reindeer mentioned before that. :rolleyes:
Woah. I could have sworn you wrote the reindeer weren't mentioned in "The Night Before Christmas." But . . . so, yeah, I'm a doofus.

Captain Jim

12-31-2005, 06:23 PM

But a very nice doofus. ;)

Lord_Archive

12-31-2005, 11:52 PM

I gave the movie a B. It had some good action and the storyline wasn't so simpel that it was embarassing. I don't get why the religious right are salivating over this one. There were far more - and far better - religious references in the Matrix.

I got a chuckle out of how they portrayed Santa Claus as an arms dealer. That was just funny. I also thought it was cool how they dressed the White Witch in autumn colors during the final battle as a symbol that winter would soon return - from her point of view.

My main gripes:

1. I'