Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ummmkay]

I'm honestly pretty surprised there isn't a thread about this already. Who has seen it, is planning to see it, etc? What did you guys think?

[Surgoshan]

I was very meh after the first one.  I've no intention of seeing this one unless my mom really wants to.

Frankly, given the Christian allegory, shouldn't these things be Christmas movies?

[Lines]

They pushed back the original release date because of Harry Potter, but anyways, I don't really see why it should have to be released at Christmas. Besides, this movie will not be Christmas-y and considering how close the first movie was to the book, I expect this will be the same.

I am excited! I loved the first one and am really looking forward to this one. The first one was a pretty darn good adaption and from the previews, this looks like one, too.

[Boro_Bandito]

The books, being as short as they are, are relatively easy to incorporate pretty much everything about them into the film, so from a standpoint of being like the book the first movie was pretty good. It just didn't have the oomph, and the "omg that's my childhood up on screen" that I was expecting. Now that I'm older and I know what the books represent it probably has ruined my view of them, but I try, I really try, to just view them as works of fiction, that in this case are better written allegories than the "book" they were based on.

So I'm probably going to end up seeing it. Damnit. Eventually. The first movie did have really good casting.

[E. Spaceman]

meeeeeeh

I'll probably see it

[0bsessions]

Now that I'm older and I know what the books represent it probably has ruined my view of them, but I try, I really try, to just view them as works of fiction, that in this case are better written allegories than the "book" they were based on

You see, this stance kind of bugs me. Now, given, I've never read the books, but a book is a book is a book. I don't see why it's such a big deal if it has Christian allegory in it (Which Lewis alleges was unintentional, anyway). I mean, really, who the fuck cares? If you enjoyed the books as a kid, why should it relating in some manner to a religion be a problem?

There are apparent similarities, but it's not like the books say "join religion NOW!" Allegedly, you can't even really notice if you're not familiar with Christianity. I myself, have only ever attended one church service in my life and have never been arsed to study a religion I'm not involved with (Outside of random crap you pick up here and there). I can attest to the fact I didn't notice shit worth of shit for allegory in the first movie because I don't know shit worth of shit in terms of Christianity.

After having seen and enjoyed the first film, I plan to see the second.

[ForteBass]

Went to see it on Friday. I loved it. Trees kicked some ass.

[Jimmy the Squid]

Now that I'm older and I know what the books represent it probably has ruined my view of them, but I try, I really try, to just view them as works of fiction, that in this case are better written allegories than the "book" they were based on.

If it helps, the book it is supposedly based on is fiction too so it all balances out really.

I'm totally going to see this film, but I might have to rent the previous one first, just to catch up.

[Lines]

Lord of the Rings had Christian overtones in it, especially in the character of Gandalf, and nobody seems to have a problem with those books/movies. Besides, there are so many movies and books that show the writer's religious views, or lack thereof, anyways. Just wait until they make The Last Battle...

[Jimmy the Squid]

I'm sure most of us have heard the phrase "the author is dead", though of course, in this case, the author really is dead. However the point is, it doesn't really matter what the intent of the author was, you can read your own message into it. And if you find that too difficult, write your own book (or indeed series of books) and put your own allegories in. I did.

[Cartilage Head]

 Not sure. I've read about it, kind of iffy about some of the changes they are making.

[Orbert]

I saw it; it was great.  It makes sense that they made this one next, as it's the only other one with all four Pevensie kids in it, and the one which feels most directly like a sequel.  For those who aren't familiar with The Chronicles of Narnia: they don't form a single continuous narrative.  There is a certain order to them which makes them make a bit more sense, but at least one of them is pretty much a stand-alone story, they don't all feature the same characters, and the only thing all really have in common is that they all take place in a land called Narnia.  Mostly.

Anyway, this one's a bit darker than the first.  The Bad Guys are Humans this time, not talking animals, so there's a more realistic feel to it, and these guys are pretty nasty, both to each other and to the Narnians.  It follows the book pretty well, although the few changes they did make were annoying, mostly because they were totally unnecessary and added nothing.  But I thought it was well-paced and well-directed.  The books are short, yes, but packing everything into a two-hour movie is still a task, and they did pack a lot in.  It moves right along, though, and takes a few turns, so I came out of it feeling quite entertained.

<rant>

I honestly don't understand why people are screaming about the "Christian themes" and all the underlying allegory.  They never hit you over the head with it.  It's always referred to as "the magic" or even "the deeper magic".  I'd think all the Christian-haters would like that even better, since they think it's a bunch of malarkey anyway.  Why not call it "magic"?  It's a fantasy.  It has talking animals, giants, centaurs, and people using magic, but people are upset about the allegory angle which is only there if you're looking for it in the first place?

</rant>

[ummmkay]

Yeah they weren't written in chronological order. I think The Magician's Nephew might have been written last of all (although I could be wrong on that) and it's about the very beginning of Narnia. I'm already excited about The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - it's my second favorite of the books.

As for the Christian thing - seriously people? Christians can appreciate the symbolism of it, and people who aren't Christians can just enjoy a really great story. Big deal? NOPE.

Okay now SPOILERZ:



I really enjoyed this movie! I actually teared up when they were retreating from the Telmarine castle or whatever and had to leave some people inside and they were climbing up the gate. The only thing that made me absolutely furiously angry was the ridiculous thing between Susan and Caspian. I guess they were trying to emphasize the fact that Susan was growing up (which is why she and Peter won't be returning to Narnia) but I just... I really hated it. As far as I can remember, there was absolutely nothing in the books to even hint at anything between them. IMO a better way to make the same point would have been to do something at the end with the boy who approached her at the beginning of the movie. Or maybe I'm just grasping at straws since I hated that so much.

Caspian's accent also irritated me, as well as the river man thing who destroyed the bridge at Beruna. I would have liked it better if it had been just a really big wave, or maybe if it had taken the form of Aslan's face, or something. That's not really a big deal though.

[hrivero]

In my opinion, this one was one of the few book-movie adaptations that was win. I've read the books so many times, and for once I was pleased with what happened through translation into a film.

One key thing I felt was spot on was the maturity of the Pevensies. It's hard to remember from one film to the next that they physically and emotionally grew up in Narnia the first time around so just because they returned to their childish physical forms, it doesn't mean they forgot everything that happened. It was really awesome to see almost wisdom shining through Lucy's eyes when she spoke because she looks so young and small. I felt it was really awesome of the director to make sure that happened.

Also, I agree with the above poster about the Susan/Caspian thing. I was in the theater with a 'Double you tee eff?' look on my face as I watched that unfold.

It didn't make sense to me for a couple reasons. One: Wasn't in the book. Two: She's already BEEN married in Narnia. I guess she's a widow now cause her husband would be dead but still...it just weirded me out.

Also, in response to the Christian allegory topic: These books and films ARE indeed good demonstrations of faith vs proof. While it was blatant in Caspian (Peter praying for Aslan to give him proof vs Lucy's faith) it can be much more subtle.

I don't find a problem with that.

[Surgoshan]

The LWW film toned down the allegory, certainly, but the books also certainly do have those themes in them and they're clear if you know more about Christian mythology/theology than the average 8-year-old.  Face it, in LWW you have one person being tortured and sacrificed for the sins of another, and then he comes back to life and breathes life back into those twisted and tormented by evil.  In A Horse and His Boy, the boy recreates the journey across the desert and Aslan draws water from the earth as Moses did.  Finally, in The Last Battle, you have an enactment in Narnia of, of all things, the last battle written of in Revelations.  The allegory was never incidental or accidental, but was written into all the books by a theologian who also happened to write some compelling stories.  Aslan is simply the christ in another realm and is the hand of divine providence.  Lewis's purpose may not have been to write allegories, but instead to write children's stories, but he was a devout and intelligent man and they didn't end up there by accident.

I recently reread the books and I'm not surprised I didn't notice these things when I was a kid, but they kind of buffet you about the head and neck if you know something about christian theology.  A character, unseeing in the dark, asks who's following and receives in reply a roar "It is I!", a gentle, caressing, "It is I." and a whispering, "It is I."  How many children will realize that's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

[0bsessions]

Man, I don't realize that, because as I said, I haven't more than the vaguest familiarity with Christianity and it kind of proves my point, I think. Why should a non-Christian give a flying fuck if it's allegories to something they're not even familiar with to begin with?

[Boro_Bandito]

Wow, you guys are taking my comments a bit further than I intended. I wasn't realy Christian bashing in my post. To answer Jon, see, I was raised in various christian sects through childhood, and I broke away from that as I got older. And its true, reading the books as a kid doesn't mean I shouldn't like them as an adult, in fact I thought I said that in my first post, guess I wasn't clear enough. Having going back and read the books recently, yeah, like Surgoshan says, there really is a lot of obvious stuff in there.

To answer Linds, yeah, Tolkien was christian before Lewis was. They were friends, and Lewis apparently one day had an epiphany for some reason. Gandalf being reborn is an obvious reference to Christ. Of course, it doesn't ruin my view of Tolkien either, but then I thought he was a better writer and I must've read the original Hobbit in excess of thirty times as a kid. My elementary school library gave me the book because I checked it out so many times. I still have it.

Edit: It matters Jon because we can see it. Why should it matter to a christian if the themes in Philip Pullman's novels are obviously atheist? Maybe it shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't. A large part of it also is feeling tricked. If the themes and characters in the children's book you're reading at the time are drawing the same parallels as the bible study course you're in, it can reinforce those ideas on a somewhat unconcious level. True, just the fact that I'm atheist now means that that didn't necessarily work on me, but meh.


Talking about the Spoilers Below:

And also, hrivero, this version of Susan isn't married. If you'll remember, once they left Narnia they all became kids again, and forgot a lot about what had happened in the "years" that they'd spent there. She was a kid, it would've been creepier to think that she was still married. It sounds like a contrived plot idea, of course, but not really that wierd.

Also for the love of God the point of the post above yours has spoilers sectioned off for a reason! Fix your damn post before Hulk get angry!

[jimbunny]

Just an offhand point, here: so it's obvious (much more obvious than in LOTR--and a lot of other modern literature, too, for that matter) that the Christian narrative finds its way into The Chronicles of Narnia in lots of ways. Is it really either a good story or an "allegory" (and I think that word is too often thrown about--real allegory finds a concrete stand-in for abstract ideas, while much of The Chronicles is just finding characters that stand in for other, biblical characters and pairing actions and events to other actions and events)? Even if you don't accept the Christian story as truth, there are definitely elements in it that make compelling myth. Lewis also wrote a novel retelling the myth of Cupid and Psyche (Till We Have Faces), which is a wonderful tale that is never explicitly Christian. You can find shared thematic material in that novel and in many, many others that is applicable both within and outside the Christian worldview. That doesn't make the material itself less deep and resonant, nor does it make the Christian religion unquestionably true.

[0bsessions]

That's a point I was making in Gabbly. From what little I do know from the bible, I know it's a damn interesting story on its own. Just like many other religions, in 1500 years or so, Christianity will likely be relegated to the same status as Greek myth. A quaint idea that led to some pretty badass stories about morality.

[Lines]

To answer Linds, yeah, Tolkien was christian before Lewis was. They were friends, and Lewis apparently one day had an epiphany for some reason. Gandalf being reborn is an obvious reference to Christ. Of course, it doesn't ruin my view of Tolkien either, but then I thought he was a better writer and I must've read the original Hobbit in excess of thirty times as a kid. My elementary school library gave me the book because I checked it out so many times. I still have it.

Yeah I know. Tolkien was the one who converted him, basically. But don't worry, yours wasn't really the comment I was replying to.

[snalin]

So what if there's references to the bible in the Narnia books?

It's not good damned preaching. Lewis just used the fairy tale he knew best to get inspiration. I mean, if you rewrote the bible to a novel, it would be HELL GOOD. Seriously. I've read the story of Kain and Abel as a novel, and it ruled.

I guess this is what Lewis wanted to do, take the rather good biblical elements and integrate it into fantasy. 

[Surgoshan]

Yeah, East of Eden was really good. 

A whole lot of the Bible wouldn't make very good literature.  It would make horrific literature you would want to use as an indicator of a deranged, criminal mind if someone enjoyed reading it.  That's a different issue, though.

[0bsessions]

I thought the movie was okay, but I missed a fucking Red Sox no hitter for it.

Fucking balls.

[squawk]

I really liked this movie! Also Edmund got hot.

[0bsessions]

My big issue with the movie was that it absolutely and entirely did not stand on its own. I saw the first one once and that was when it first came out on DVD. I've never read the books either, as noted previously.

That said, half the time I didn't know what the ever loving fuck was going on. All I could really remember was that the first one had four kids, there was some ice lady and the Lion died and came back on that slab thing that appeared to be broken. The movie didn't seem to make a point to explain any of this shit either. It was pretty and all, but the more I think back on it, the more I have to admit that I think it was pretty bad.

Meanwhile, Rachel hated it due to apparently constant inaccuracies to the books. If you can't make your movie faithful to a 200 page fucking book enough to please the core audience and simultaneously make it impenetrable to people who aren't familiar with it, you've fucked up your movie. I wanted to like it, I really did. When it comes out on DVD, I'll rent the first one and this one and watch them together to see it it's enjoyable, but as it stands, it definitely failed as a stand alone movie.

[volatile]

So, for those of you who are hating on the books because of the Christian overtones, would you also avoid books that you felt had Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindi overtones?

I suspect not.  It's strange to me that so many people have such kneejerk reactions to Christianity in entertainment.  Don't get me wrong, I'm an avowed atheist, but because I don't believe in it, I also don't worry about whatever someone may or may not be trying to shove into my head.  I know I don't believe and won't believe, so they can try as hard as they damned well please, for all I care.  I guess I just get confused as to why it's such a big deal.  The books are entertaining, either way.




Also, to whoever said that Gandalf = Christ.  Bzzzt, not quite.  Gandalf = Odin.  There's actually WAY more Norse overtone than Christian in that trilogy.

[Border Reiver]

Which is where Tolkien got much of his imagery (and a lot of Dwarf names) for LOTR.  Tolkien drew heavily on Anglo-Saxon myth for his source material.  The one ring of Sauron is similar to the Ring of the Niebilung (not sure if I spelled that right), and the lesser copies were similar to Odin's magic ring which copied itself each day.

Although the good Professor didn't work a Ragnarok into his tale

[WriterofAllWrongs]

Is it just me, or did this movie have the most ridiculous cinematography of any movie you've ever seen?

[volatile]

Which is where Tolkien got much of his imagery (and a lot of Dwarf names) for LOTR.  Tolkien drew heavily on Anglo-Saxon myth for his source material.  The one ring of Sauron is similar to the Ring of the Niebilung (not sure if I spelled that right), and the lesser copies were similar to Odin's magic ring which copied itself each day.

Although the good Professor didn't work a Ragnarok into his tale

In a way he did.  He alludes to some Ragnarokian elements.  Ha, Ragnarokian.  Anyway, as the power of Sauron grows, it is said that everything gets darker and darker, that the sun seems to have gone.  In the Ragnarok legend, part of the end of the world is being brought about by the deathwolves Skoll and Hati devouring the sun and moon.  If you consider that Minas Morgul was formerly Minas Ithil (Moon Tower) and Minas Tirith was formerly Minas Anor (Sun Tower), you could say that the fall of the Sun and Moon bring about the end of the world.


Wow.  Was that way too analytical, haha?



But, I have to say, I'd love to see some kind of novelization of the Eddas and Ragnarok itself.  A well-done, non Uwe Boll movie would be ace, as well.

[Border Reiver]

Wow.  Was that way too analytical, haha?

Yes, yes it was.  But that's alright, unleash the geek within.

[Surgoshan]

But, I have to say, I'd love to see some kind of novelization of the Eddas and Ragnarok itself.  A well-done, non Uwe Boll movie would be ace, as well.

Try David Drake's Northworld trilogy (now bound into a single paperback titled, of all things, Northworld).  It's a sci-fi epic built around the Eddur.  He doesn't romanticize it at all; he wrote them after visiting their native Iceland.

[Boro_Bandito]

Saw Narnia today, and I pretty much agree with Jon. Someone who never have read the books or seen the first movie will have no fucking clue what was going on in this one. Overall it wasn't bad, but it wasn't nearly as gooda s the first one.

[Lines]

No offense, but anyone who sees a sequel and expects to understand it completely is a bit silly. I've seen some sequels without seeing the first movie and sometimes they make sense and sometimes they don't, but I expect not to understand all of them. Indiana Jones (and maybe even Harry Potter) sequels can totally stand on their own. Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or even Underworld just do not make as much sense unless you see the first one first and/or read the book. It's part of a series for a reason. These books weren't really meant to stand on their own with the exception of maybe A Horse and His Boy, because the Pevensie's are only minor characters and it takes place in a neighboring country. The Magician's Nephew could also possibly do this, but the other 4 books definitely can not be understood completely unless they are read in order.

I still haven't seen the movie, but as I've read the books many times and own the first movie, I don't think I'll have a problem understanding it. (And honestly, I don't expect it to be as good as LWW, as I think LWW is a better story in general than PC and PC is actually one of my least favorite books in the series.)

[axerton]

It's not out here yet, but I plan on seeing it when it does come out. The only thing that I'm disappointed with is that they skipped The Horse and His Boy, which was always my favorite. I know that the story isn't really necessary for the course of the series, and any time wasted making it would mean that they actors grow up even more, but I don't see why they couldn't have made it at the same time as Caspian, as they have basically separate casts except for a few scene with Lucy, Susan, Peter, Edmund and Tumnus. This would satisfy fans such as myself, get them an extra movies' worth of revenue and introduce the enemy state and the followers of Tash, which will become very important in The Last Battle.

[0bsessions]

Linds, give me some credit.

Common sense would dictate that they would intertwine, but the mark of poor quality is a product that absolutely cannot be enjoyed without having to invest your time in another product. Once you see the movie, you'll probably understand, but it's not a matter of continuity references, fan service or other such trivialities; it's a matter of the movie being practically impenetrable to someone new to the series. I've been over this in other threads. It suffered from the same problem as the last two Matrix movies: it didn't contain enough information and enjoyment on its own to qualify as a good movie. The Matrix flicks, however, at least conveyed some common sense in that they were released within a few months of each other. It's been like two and a half years since Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. in order for me to actually understand and enjoy the movie, I have to either read the book or have very recently seen the other movie. I should be able to watch the movie and enjoy it, regardless of how recently I've seen the first one.

Most of the time, I didn't know what the fuck was going on, nor why anything was going on and the screenwriters didn't seem to feel it necessary to enlighten me. I went in knowing that there are four children in England and they previously stumbled into an alternate world of swords, sorcery and anthropomorphic animals. I also remember a lion dying and coming back and something about a snow queen (And I THINK I recall the black haired boy joining her, but don't remember him turning out to apparently not be an ass). Sure, the movie was pretty and the quips were occasionally fun, but the complete lack of any context for the uninitiated killed it.

See, the Lord of the Rings movies, while not what I'd call stand alone, had the courtesy of a brief summary covering the important shit you needed to know what was going on. Something like that would have seriously helped this movie.

As I said, once it's out on DVD, I'll rent both and watch them together. As it stands, though, it is not a complete movie.

[Lines]

Axerton, they didn't skip it, they're just doing the movies in the order the book was written. I'm pretty sure the plan is to do all six. (Horse and His Boy is one of my favorites, too.)

Jon, I do. But like I said, I haven't seen it, so that's basically an assumption.

[0bsessions]

Conversely, I'm not sure you'll notice it like I did.

My brother insisted Order of the Phoenix caused him the same problem, it skipped around too much and he didn't know what the fuck was going on half the time. I didn't notice as much because I'd recently read the book and it's entirely possible my memory of the book kinda filled in the blanks for me without me noticing.

[Orbert]

I agree on Order of the Phoenix.  I haven't read any of the books, but have watched all the movies, some of them multiple times, and Order of the Phoenix was still confusing in a number of places.  I suppose if you were totally grokking every single line, you'll realize that they do "explain" most of what's going on, leaving you to fill in the blanks, but come on.  It was like half the length of the first HP movie, and people complained that that one didn't do the book justice.  Did they really think chopping it down to a 90-minute feature would work?  Would it have killed them to slip in those five or ten seconds of dialogue here and there to explain what the hell was going on?

[MaidMarian]

I can't wait to see it!!  I've loved the whole series all my life and I was pleased with LWW.  I'm glad they're trying to it justice.

[Boro_Bandito]

Yeah Axerton, no skipping. The books were written in the order of:
1. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
2. Prince Caspian
3. Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4. The Silver Chair.
5. The Horse and His Boy
6. The Magician's Nephew
7. The Last Battle.

Speaking of favorites though, My two favorites are by far the Voyage of the Dawn Treader and The Magician's Nephew. Which while earlier its true I "complained" about the books referencing the Bible (you guys read way too far into it) I do hope the series continues at least as far as the next one.

I've basically decided after sleeping on it that I liked the movie. They really did make it to be viewed one after the other though. Maybe they were banking on children's love of watching movies over and over again, or maybe its a subliminal way of telling audiences they need to read the books to get the full story, thus encouraging reading in viewers. Either way I guess the uninitiated are shit out of luck, good thing I read the books.

[Dissy]

Doesn't it Chronologically go:
1. The Magician's Nephew
2. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
3. The Horse and His Boy
4. Prince Caspian
5. Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6. The Silver Chair
7. The Last Battle

I think that is how my boxed set is.

[MaidMarian]

The chronology of the story is different from the order in which the books were written.  As has been mentioned earlier in this topic.

[Lines]

That's the way publishers ordered it after Lewis died. Boro's list is the order in which they were written and the "true" order in which they should be. (Or something.) I've read them in both orders, but the first time I read the series, I read it the original way because they were separate books, but my omnibus has them in the other order.

*Shrug. Whatever order you read it, as long as it makes sense, you're good.

[jimbunny]

If you've read The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, the rest should make some kind of sense. They're not very dependent on each other.

[axerton]

It seems an odd choice to make the movies in the written order as opposed to the chronological order. I mean, most novel-to-screen movies have to go on the assumption that the books haven't been read. As it is they're going to make The Silver Chair, which the original four kids play no part in what so ever, then they're going to skip back to into a time in the middle of the first movie. And like Jon says a movie should be able to stand on it's own with out the viewer having to have recently seen the previous movies. As it is they're going to have to do a lot of explaining so that the audience isn't left wondering "wait - where did these kids come from," explaining that could have been avoided or at least reduced had they made Horse second.

Another potential problem is that (going on an average of a year an a half to two years per film) Horse will be made nearly 6 years after the finish of Wardrobe meaning that the young actors will have aged considerably. Though I suppose this could work with the idea that they actually grew up and physically aged in Narnia before going back to their original selves when they left.

Not a major annoyance to me, just something I noticed.
.

[Lines]

They aren't "young" in Horse, though. They're old enough to have Peter thinking of having Susan married.

But really, they need to do them in the order they're doing them in before Lucy and Edmund age too much. When they get to Eustace and Jill, their age will also have to be reasonable, because those two will age quickly, too. The only thing I'm worried about is doing Horse and Nephew before Last Battle, as all 6 are in that one at one point.

[Boro_Bandito]

If they were really worried about going in order they would've made The Magician's Nephew first, now wouldn't they? Anyway, I think one of the cool things about this series is that it isn't just about one set of characters throughout the entire thing. C.S. Lewis was able to pull of switching focus not just on different characters, but drastically different eras. He Pulled a Tarantino style nonlinear editing job  20 years before the damn bastard was even born, and on a set of children's books! *James Lipton's voice* "Brilliant."

[Surgoshan]

The Magician's Nephew will probably be the most difficult to make into a movie.  It would certainly be impossible to make it into a film that can stand on its own.  Virtually everything that happens in the story requires a lot of narrative explanation (the rings, how they work, that Uncle Andrew can't understand the animals), and everything of importance is basically just backstory to LWW.  Why the wardrobe is a portal, where the white witch came from, why only humans can be king or queen in Narnia, where the lamppost came from, etc.

[axerton]

I think most of that could be explained easily enough through dialogue, nephew's major problem as far as making it a movie goes is there is no epic battle scene, and it's not even much of an adventure story, it just doesn't fit with the other five in terms of style.

[Lines]

That would be a lot of explaining, though, so it's easier and truer to the series not to do it first. But anyways, I like that they're going in the order they are. When they're all complete, then the order can be switched around.