Comic Genesis Forums

Los Angeles? Sheesh...

Special effects: excellent. The fact that they were farmed out to about half a dozen companies doesn't seem to have affected the overall consistency.

Acting: pretty good, especially the child actors who all came across as very natural. Of course Tilda Swinton as the Witch overacts, but the trick in playing a supervillain is in knowing exactly how much to overact, and she got the balance just right. I was sorry to see so little of Jim Broadbent's professor, but that's a minor quibble.

Overall it didn't have the epic quality of Peter Jackson's trilogy, justifying the 'LOTR Lite' tag some critics have gven it. As an example, the track in on the city near the end wasn't nearly as spectacular as the establishing shots of Minas Tirith in ROTK. Nor did it have the raw emotional intensity of the Harry Potter films. Still, if it wasn't a great fantasy movie it was at least a good one, and I'll clear a space for the DVD.

==Spoiler==
































Aslan's resurrection scene has been criticised by some people as "ramming Christianity down children's throats". Well, I wouldn't go that far. A message that was too blatant would stick out like a sore cliche, but this was done in a fairly subtle manner. And kids aren't (all) stupid. I suspect that most of them will get it, and make of it whatever it suits them to.

I loved the movie. It's been about seven years since I read the series (I was nine at the time) and I still figured that the plot was mostly unchanged.

I heard a complaint that 'The Magician's Nephew' should have been made first, since it takes place before LWW chronologically. What do you think?

Lee M.:

Aslan's resurrection scene has been criticised by some people as "ramming Christianity down children's throats".

I've heard a few rumblings like that too, Lee M.
And, as the forums semi-official flaming liberal, I say unto them: Yeah, get a life. What would you expect from a book written by one of the leading Christian theologians of the 20th century?
The central theme of the Narnia books is growth with a Christian flavor.
The central theme of, say, Charlies Angels is scantily clad women and violence.
Nobodies trying to sneak something past you in either case. If you find the theme offensive, don't go to the movie.
Personally, I find a movie built around plot and story refreshing.


Best quote: I fink I'm bwave enough.
Second Best: Wait! What happened to 'battles are terrible things'???

Doink wrote:I loved the movie. It's been about seven years since I read the series (I was nine at the time) and I still figured that the plot was mostly unchanged.

I heard a complaint that 'The Magician's Nephew' should have been made first, since it takes place before LWW chronologically. What do you think?

They were written in that order for a reason, I think, and I'm not going to second-guess Lewis at this point. LWW is the best known from a marketing standpoint, too - and the WW2 origin is more familiar to a modern audience than the turn-of-the-century Earth in TMN.

Now, if they'd make A Horse and His Boy next, that'd work.

Kerry Skydancer wrote:

Doink wrote:I loved the movie. It's been about seven years since I read the series (I was nine at the time) and I still figured that the plot was mostly unchanged.

I heard a complaint that 'The Magician's Nephew' should have been made first, since it takes place before LWW chronologically. What do you think?

They were written in that order for a reason, I think, and I'm not going to second-guess Lewis at this point. LWW is the best known from a marketing standpoint, too - and the WW2 origin is more familiar to a modern audience than the turn-of-the-century Earth in TMN.

Now, if they'd make A Horse and His Boy next, that'd work.

By some accounts, Lewis later said the stories are best read in story timeline order, despite having not been origianlly released in that order.

My guess is that making LWW first was a business decision. Due to the two previous movie versions, more people are familiar with that story than TMN. Plus, it's got more of the character and story elements to draw in viewers and get them hooked on the series so they'll come see the other parts.

Wayfarer wrote: I've seen those (LWW, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and The Silver Chair). In fact, I have them. Whenever I hear other people talking about them, they say how horribly made they were. I think I saw them and got used to them at a time when I was too young to notice or care, because I never thought they were that bad ('course it has been years since I saw them last).

I got the tapes from Costco a few years ago. They're definitely low budget, but I thought they did a remarkable job with what they had to work with. The effects on LWW were pretty poor -- a lot of the fantastic creatures (griffins and whatnot) they simply gave up and did them with standard cel animation in one brief scene.

The other episodes, they seem to have had some more money to work with. The "Giant" effects in TSC were extremely good; better than in the Hollywood-budgeted "Honey I Blew Up the Kid". And they did a live-action centaur which gave me a moment's startlement. It was easy enough to figure out how they did it, but it didn't leap out as being completely unreal-looking.

squirrelly61104 wrote: Side note: according to an early november article in newsweek, one movie company wanted to shoot Narnia as taking place in a post-earthquake Los Angeles!

Perhaps they were considering an apocalyptical site for the lost city of Charn in The Magician's Nephew? That would make a bit of sense as long as they purged all signs of life from the area. I don't see how that would have fit into any of the other tales

Doink wrote: I heard a complaint that 'The Magician's Nephew' should have been made first, since it takes place before LWW chronologically. What do you think?

Listening to Focus on the Family radio, I think the current rumor is that Prince Caspian will be next, once Disney is assured that the movies will be profitable enough. I read the books in "Narnian" chronological order as oppsed to publication order, and it seems to make a little more cohesive sense.

Lee M wrote:"ramming Christianity down children's throats".

Critics be darned, that is one thing I find so refreshing about the movie, for once I'm not forced to swallow Hollywood's phony $3 bill theology. If they would have cut the stone tablet scene from the story it would have eviscerated half the point of the book. Deleting the christians ubcontext from Narnia turns it into mediocre fantasy without a message.

That is one thing I don't understand sometimes. There's something like 1,000,000,000 christians on the planet (counting all sects and denominations) what is so horrible about producing something that affirms the better aspects of the faith? (self-sacrifice, putting the needs of others before your own?)

Although after seeing the "stone tablet" scene I wonder how they are going to do the Final Battle. (if they get that far) After reading the story, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry once I realized entirely what had happened at the end of the story. Although I had to agree with Lewis' ending statement: "they all lived happily ever after" Demonstrating a perspective rarely seen in any fiction I have read.

If I may nose in....

Lewis did say something encouraging the idea of reading the books in chronological rather than publication order, which some people have taken as reason to reorder the books altogether. But when I tracked down the context, it seems that he was writing a letter to a kid who had already read the books and liked to go back through in chronological order... and Lewis also said he wasn't sure it really mattered much where you started, that he hadn't realized he was going to write more of them when he began, and that he wasn't entirely sure they'd all been published in the order they were written, either.

Personally, I like going back and rereading in chronological order myself, but I'm inclined to think that The Magician's Nephew might make more sense on a first reading if you've already read LWW... if only because there are a few places where it refers back to how this or that produced what was encountered in LWW. It's possible that this wouldn't work the same for everybody.

(I also had Prince Caspian and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader missing from the set that introduced me to the series, so I can vouch for being able to sort out at least some things when introduced out of order, too. *grin* Then again, it's not the first or last series I read out of order.)

I do hope they make TMN eventually; I'd love to see it.

My favorite book was Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I forget why.

That's my favorite one too because of the ending.

I really should read the books, some day.

But I did sneak in and read the ending of the last book, though.

Guess what?? You were in an accident! You're all dead!! Isn't that GREAT????

Huh?

maxgoof wrote:Guess what?? You were in an accident! You're all dead!! Isn't that GREAT????

Huh?

I believe that was also Hans Christian Andersen's favourite ending.

The point is that if you believe Heaven exists then being dead is the best thing that can happen to you, provided you're not a sinner. Unfortunately this belief is also shared by suicide bombers, who naturally don't consider blowing up unbelievers a sin.

maxgoof wrote:I really should read the books, some day.

But I did sneak in and read the ending of the last book, though.

Guess what?? You were in an accident! You're all dead!! Isn't that GREAT????

Huh?

As you said in the first statement - read the books. Context is everything.

Spoiler warning... (text is in white, highlight to read, but not if you haven't already seen the movie...)



I must say, that contrary to several opinions here, I watched the movies and was very disappointed.

I'm a die-hard fan of the books, and in my humble opinion, the sets and everything LOOKED like Narnia, but some of the FEEL of Narnia wasn't there... especially Aslan. I didn't get any of the sense of AWE and MAJESTY from Aslan himself. Susan was played off as being rather a wuss (we need to go back... NOW!!! Peter was frequently unable to take charge, or to even make a simple decision, even when lives depended on it. Lucy- didn't talk much and seemed to be more childish than she was in the books. Edmund- he was a bit nastier in some places than need be but on the whole played pretty well. Mrs. Beaver was frequently running down her husband, which didn't happen that much in the book either. The White Witch was done well, though. The professor wasn't all that well done, either, and reminded me too much of Olaf from "A Series of Unfortunate Events." He was definitely odd, but the copious amounts of good advice he dispensed in the books seemed to be missing, along with the oddest ending where he tells Lucy she can't get back through the wardrobe... he already tried.

A lot of little scenes seemed to be added merely for slapstick humor, and several were very obviously edited to be Politically Correct. (Most notably, "Wars are ugly things, WHEN WOMEN ARE INVOLVED" was cut to merely "Wars are ugly things." Which gives an entirely different sentiment to the matter, almost anti-war sentiment, really.)

I went in thinking it would be a wonderful movie, and I was a bit upset (okay, a LOT upset) that the same FEEL of Narnia didn't seem to be there... I think they cut out a lot of the overtly Christian material and added a bunch to make it politically correct and non-offensive.

On the other hand, they got some of the most minute details correct, such as the fact that other than the wardrobe, "there was nothing else in the room but a dead blue-bottle [fly] on the windowsill...]

LeiraHoward wrote:On the other hand, they got some of the most minute details correct, such as the fact that other than the wardrobe, "there was nothing else in the room but a dead blue-bottle [fly] on the windowsill...]

Oh, is THAT why that was in there? I was wondering about that.

I finally saw the movie. My reaction is... mixed.

I'll admit I'm a stickler when it comes to wanting movies to stay accurate to books. Just can't stand the idea of someone messing with and changing the story someone's already told. I know people will take license when making movies. That doesn't mean I have to like it, and it definitely doesn't mean I have to like how they use it.

But any case, my thoughts:

Visually, it was a great movie. Very well made as far as effects and such. There were definite good points there.

I had two major problems with the portrayals. (Warning: if you haven't seen the movie yet, this has details. I'll go ahead and make it white.)

My first problem: the scene with the professor, where Peter and Susan went for help (well, in the book they went for help) about Lucy. Butchered. There's no other word for it. I think the professor may have looked more like the professor of the books, but the whole dialogue there was destroyed. And - yes, this is a minor point, but they ruined my favorite line in the scene, on top of it all. ("Logic! Why don't they teach logic in these schools?") But even if you set that aside, the message of that scene was gone.
I'll admit there may be some small excuse for them on this point. If they're planning on doing the rest of the books, the way they did it makes it pretty apparent that the professor, who is in fact Digory from The Magician's Nephew, has indeed been to Narnia before. But what they gain there doesn't make up for what they lost (or threw away). At least, not to me.

My second problem: Aslan. Visually, he was magnificent. But narratively, they completely decimated the communication of Who He really was. They did this largely by taking the focus off Aslan and putting it onto the four children. It wasn't "Aslan is on the move. Now things will begin to happen." There wasn't a word of the saying about Aslan putting all to rights. It was just, "The four of you: you're our hope." This was true both in the scene in the Beaversdam and in the one with Father Christmas. But all in all, except for one excellent line (in essense: "I was there when the deep magic was written"), Aslan seemed to me to be reduced from the Divine Sovereign of Narnia and the World to simply a really wise and powerful leader, and the rightful king of Narnia.

There were things I liked, too, though. One that comes to mind was the way Aslan roared in the fire at Tumnus. I found that intriguing, even though it wasn't in the book.

I also don't have any real complaints about the death scene. It was well done, I think. That can be said in their favor.

Hmmm... and the clothes. I very much liked the clothes. And I can now officially call my cloak a Narnian cloak.

Oh, and Tbolt - I know now the part you were referring to earlier.


All in all, I didn't leave hating the movie, but I didn't leave it in raptures, either. And during the movie... during the movie I was driving the friends next to me nuts with my reactions, which included a great deal of finger-drumming and such.

Any case, gotta go.

Persephone_Kore wrote:If I may nose in....

Lewis did say something encouraging the idea of reading the books in chronological rather than publication order, which some people have taken as reason to reorder the books altogether. But when I tracked down the context, it seems that he was writing a letter to a kid who had already read the books and liked to go back through in chronological order... and Lewis also said he wasn't sure it really mattered much where you started, that he hadn't realized he was going to write more of them when he began, and that he wasn't entirely sure they'd all been published in the order they were written, either.

*tosses two cents into the bucket*

I was listening to a radio interview (I think on 'Focus on the Family' of the step-son of CS Lewis (who is now in charge, basicly, of the publishing right sto the books) And in the interview he mentioned the same thing. That CS Lewis recommended it be read chronologicly (sp) rather than in oublication order. Based on that the books were re-numbered in the US into the chronological order rather than publication order. Alot of people were not happy with that.
I'd have to re-read the whole series agian to have an opinion

I hvae now seen the moive and I think that it was alright. It was visually very good, but I would agree that they downplayed Aslan's power and changed the lines slightly for political correctness. However I think the biggest problem with the movie was the music. Call me stupid but I think the BBC's music was fantastic, (the only thing they had going for them) and the music for film waws decidedly sub-par, especially compared to the BBC's. Apart from that good, I look forward to future films and to going to see it again with my family

I think that they did a good job on the movie. I espeically like the fox.