Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Deepblue on December 11, 2005, 12:41:53 am
-
It's faithful to the book.
I personally thought it was excellent.
-
Sweet! I can't wait! :)
-
Isn't that for kids?
-
Isn't that for kids?
HERESY
-
Now there's an ironic post. :lol:
-
Isn't that for kids?
Only as much as the last Harry Potter movie was for kids. In a word: no, not really.
-
That's three words. Also, the last Harry Potter movie was for kids, it's just that when something slightly "scary" for children appears, it's immediatly "Adults too". Kid movie, but adults can enjoy as well naturally.
Also I see good reviews, guess it's good.
There have been earlier incarnations of Narnia as far as books and movies go, right? Why are they in the spotlight again?
-
There hasn't been a film of any of the books before AFAIK. The BBC did an adaptation of TLTWTW a while back, but that's it. I think Radio 4 did a dramatisation of one or more of the books at some point.
And they're making a fuss 'cos they're bloody good books, all of 'em. I'd go so far as to say they're classics, in fact.
-
I always really liked The Horse and His Boy and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader as well. I thought those two were really quite good. Haven't read any of them in a long time though, so maybe with a bit more maturity I'd appreciate some of the others more.
Can't wait to see the movie, it really looks fantastic and the book was so much fun.
-
I'm surprised Disney took on something with such an overt Christian message.
-
I'm surprised Disney took on something with such an overt Christian message.
I wouldn't say it was any more of an overt Christian message than, say, the Matrix or Star Wars. Although CS Lewis did intend it as a supposition (not an allegory as is often wrongly said) for an if, I don't think it's one that is explicitly religious or 'pushing' Christianity per se. From what I understand, Lewis wanted to express a lot of the ideas that, as an atheist (before he converted - although he regarded aspects of Christianity as being myth based on fact IIRC), he had found foolish or silly outside a fantasy context. He never intended (he said that the idea he'd come up with a series of allegories was 'pure moonshine') to 'push' Christianity in doing so, it was just a consequence of his own beliefs that the stories paralleled a lot of the Christian mythos.
And I think within said context of fantasy, it's not a particularly uniquely Christian story. Theistic ideas, perhaps, but not ones that would push a religion upon the readers. Certainly, I never had any idea the books were suppossed to be in any way religious. Even when I was still going (albeit unwillingly) to sunday school.
Although what I find more interesting is that CS Lewis apparently objected to the idea of Disney making a film of the books (when he was alive).
-
The BBC did an adaptation of TLTWTW a while back, but that's it.
They also did The Silver Chair, Prince Caspian, and Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I remember because here in the US, PBS ran Voyage of the Dawn Treader into the ground.
-
That's three words. Also, the last Harry Potter movie was for kids, it's just that when something slightly "scary" for children appears, it's immediatly "Adults too". Kid movie, but adults can enjoy as well naturally.
Also I see good reviews, guess it's good.
There have been earlier incarnations of Narnia as far as books and movies go, right? Why are they in the spotlight again?
Well lets see....I'd say the last Harry Potter was not a kids movie really because of the following:
1) Blood and a fair amount of it
2) Limbs being cut off
3) Sexual inuendo (of the teenage sort)
4) Substance abuse
5) Thematically dark and traumatic
You wouldn't want your 8 year old child going to see that. They aren't really developmentally ready for that sort of thing. Its more like a ages 14 and up sort of thing. It was after all PG-13 so I that makes sense I suppose. The kids I did see there...many of them left. The same with Narnia.
You've got death, a fairly convincingly evil baddie, thematically dark in some places, some blood, large and somewhat violent (not overly so) battle scenes. Now its not like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire as that was darker than Narnia but again I saw several parents with their obviously terrified youngster leave the theater and all I was thinking is "this is too much for them, they aren't ready and you shouldn't have brought them".
I honestly think that, although it is marketed in such a way to appeal to a young audience, that the people they are hoping to catch are infact the parents and late teens early 20's (there I am :)) because we're the people who read the books. I read them when they sort of picked up in visibility in the early 1990's...
Anyways...I'll stop blathering now. I enjoyed the movie...it was good it was faithful to the book as I remember it and it did a good job. I'm not sure where I put it on my list of favorites this year...its in tough competition with some really great movies like Serenity and the Goblet of Fire.
-
We don't seem to regard the same age group as "kid" age.
Everything below 14 = kid. PG-13 movies are movies for kids that require parental guidance. That's it to that. Now, I wouldn't take an eight year old, but personally an eleven or twelve year olds I think could handle it quite easily and deftly.
Harry Potter are children books and movies FOR kids. Adults are separate, the movie makes most money off of kids, and therefore attempts to target that demographic. Adult movies are adult movies, and that's exluding porn because porn is another subject alltogether.
So from 1 to 5.
1) Who cares?
2) Who cares if it's not graphic, and it wasn't. They didn't show entrails.
3) I must have missed this. They were talking of "love" in regard to Potter and his girlie, and that the dumbass from the other school was after "something else". Kids won't get that if they don't know it already, and if they get it, then they've been educated.
4) I missed this as well. The weed he eats for special powers underwater? Otherwise I can't remember.
5) So what? The world is dark and traumatic. Anyone who hasn't taught his kid by age 11-12 that the world is like that, they aren't doing their job right pure and simple.
This is evidently an issue that's solely based and supported on opinions. There is no "middle" ground here or right vs. wrong especially with the amount of atrocious parents out there.
However, I'd say that my views are somewhat more realistic in regards to reality - not the MPAA and FCC board of overpaid assholes that define "mature" and "undeveloped".
It's a kids movie.
-
I saw 11/12 year olds looking gleeful in the cinema during Potter and especially during the more vicious sequences. Most kids love this stuff, they like to be scared and excited. It's an adventure within it's self to see these mvoies. (or at least that's how I remember scary movies from being a wee boy). In fact, the worst movies I found were the "nice" and "safe" ones.
-
Kids need to learn fear, anyways; it's a necessary part of understanding the bad side of the world.
-
I just want Harry Potter to turn into some kind of magical Rambo
-
No you want him to turn into Arnie in Predator, just so he can scream: "Get to tha brooooom!" and of course to yell at Snape "Do eet! Do eeeeeeeet now!"
-
Arnie should be in the last harry potter...
-
Narnia is definitely a family-friendly movie. The only time you see blood is when Edmund is lying on the ground stabbed by the White Witch. Nevertheless, it is delightful.
-
I'm surprised Disney took on something with such an overt Christian message.
I wouldn't say it was any more of an overt Christian message than, say, the Matrix or Star Wars. Although CS Lewis did intend it as a supposition (not an allegory as is often wrongly said) for an if, I don't think it's one that is explicitly religious or 'pushing' Christianity per se.
The quote "son of adam and daughter of eve", is quite a Biblical message. What does it mean in the CONTEXT of the story? And Lews wondered why people thought he was trying to purposefully create characters and stories based on some kind of Christian message?
Ed
-
It was well done. My wife really enjoyed it, and she's an atheist. She thought it was very faithful to the source material.
Good stories are good stories, and Lewis was a gifted wordsmith.
I thought the movie felt a bit rushed, but then, I haven't actually read the books for something like 22 years, the story itself is definitely very kid oriented (4 young children becoming heros and kings) and I think I may have read it originally when I was too old. I think I was 14 when I read it (yes that was 22 years ago) so it felt a bit kiddie to me then. I think I have only read the series once, as well, about to remedy that, it's under my stack of books after the latest George RR Martin.
Anyway, it was well done, worth seeing.
-
I first read the Narnia series in second grade, and they had a huge impact on me; behind Lord of the Rings, I still count them as my favorite books. I really love the fact that, when I first read them, all of the deeper symbolism that they exhibit went right over my head, and yet they work amazingly well as just a simple story. Once you grow old enough to recognize the themes that Lewis worked into them, they become that much more meaningful. I'd also highly disagree with the sentiment that they're mere "children's stories;" the way I see it, the very best types of stories are those you can enjoy as a child and then come back to 50 years down the road to re-capture that same sense of wonder. I think that Lewis himself once said something to the effect of his growing up and putting aside childish things, like the desire to be grown-up. If you ask me, that's an excellent sentiment to live by. At any rate, if I didn't have exams this week, I'd have been out to see the movie on opening day; as it is, I hope to get to it at some point next week. The first trailer I saw sent shivers up my spine; if the movie holds to that standard, then it'll be truly excellent. :)
-
Well, yesterday I went back and reread The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe just to refresh myself before I go see the movie this weekend. I have to say, it really was a very fun read and I picked up so much that I didn't when I read it for the first time however many years ago. I'm really excited... this should be quite good and I can definitely see how it could turn out to be a great movie that is completely truthful to the book. Definitely a lot of kiddie themes there but there's more under the surface.
-
For some reason I almost cried during certain points in the movie.
I have no idea why.
-
For some reason I almost cried during certain points in the movie.
I have no idea why.
Were you peeling onions?
-
The movie was brilliant. It's one of those movies that takes to the book extremely well. The animation just blew me away. :)
-
I wouldn't say it was any more of an overt Christian message than, say, the Matrix or Star Wars. Although CS Lewis did intend it as a supposition (not an allegory as is often wrongly said) for an if, I don't think it's one that is explicitly religious or 'pushing' Christianity per se. From what I understand, Lewis wanted to express a lot of the ideas that, as an atheist (before he converted - although he regarded aspects of Christianity as being myth based on fact IIRC), he had found foolish or silly outside a fantasy context. He never intended (he said that the idea he'd come up with a series of allegories was 'pure moonshine') to 'push' Christianity in doing so, it was just a consequence of his own beliefs that the stories paralleled a lot of the Christian mythos.
And I think within said context of fantasy, it's not a particularly uniquely Christian story. Theistic ideas, perhaps, but not ones that would push a religion upon the readers. Certainly, I never had any idea the books were suppossed to be in any way religious. Even when I was still going (albeit unwillingly) to sunday school.
I'd call it a close parallel, far closer than Matrix (Neo didn't lay his own life down; Aslan and Jesus did) or Star Wars (??). But you're right, it doesn't explicitly "push" Christianity. If anything, it's an expanded parable, something that helps the mind understand something else better.
I think that Lewis himself once said something to the effect of his growing up and putting aside childish things, like the desire to be grown-up.
That's most likely a quote from the Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:8-13;&version=31;), in 1st Corinthians 13:
[q]Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.[/q]
-
Hmmm... well, the movie looks interesting, but it's not really my thing, I might watch it just for the chance to watch something that was actually well made.
I'd have enjoyed the BBC version of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe that much more if the lead actress hadn't looked like she'd been thrown into a wall as a baby :(
-
I'd call it a close parallel, far closer than Matrix (Neo didn't lay his own life down; Aslan and Jesus did) or Star Wars (??). But you're right, it doesn't explicitly "push" Christianity. If anything, it's an expanded parable, something that helps the mind understand something else better.
Nitpick; Neo did die at the end of the Matrix, although 'sacrificing' himself to destroy his nemesis (the devil? sin?) isn't quite a biblical parallel. Although you could say - if you wanted to horribly over analyse - that by doing so he's also atoning for mankinds treatment against the AIs and opening the door to a new future, which would be a parallel.
But it's also very easy to establish deliberate meaning into these things. L:ike the fundie groups who have been using a documentary about penguins as an advert for monogomy.
-
Anyone who's seen "Finding Forrester" knows what's probably the truth in 90% of cases (and also one of the best lines ever delievered by Sean Connery): "I just told a story. And then all these damn idiots made up all this bull**** about 'What I was really trying to say.' "
-
Off topic personal anecdote: My dad had me read that passage from Corinthians at his second wedding a few years ago, which made no sense because I never talked like a child, thought like a child, or reasoned like a child; I've always acted like I was 30 years old. :-\
-
Nitpick; Neo did die at the end of the Matrix, although 'sacrificing' himself to destroy his nemesis (the devil? sin?) isn't quite a biblical parallel. Although you could say - if you wanted to horribly over analyse - that by doing so he's also atoning for mankinds treatment against the AIs and opening the door to a new future, which would be a parallel.
But it's also very easy to establish deliberate meaning into these things. L:ike the fundie groups who have been using a documentary about penguins as an advert for monogomy.
Ahh, true. I completely forgot about Reloaded and Convolutions; I was referring solely to The Matrix.
-
...
That's most likely a quote from the Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:8-13;&version=31;), in 1st Corinthians 13
Yes, but I think you missed the point Mongoose was trying to make. ;) Read it again, with emphasis added:
I'd also highly disagree with the sentiment that they're mere "children's stories;" the way I see it, the very best types of stories are those you can enjoy as a child and then come back to 50 years down the road to re-capture that same sense of wonder. I think that Lewis himself once said something to the effect of his growing up and putting aside childish things, like the desire to be grown-up. If you ask me, that's an excellent sentiment to live by.
-
Nitpick; Neo did die at the end of the Matrix, although 'sacrificing' himself to destroy his nemesis (the devil? sin?) isn't quite a biblical parallel. Although you could say - if you wanted to horribly over analyse - that by doing so he's also atoning for mankinds treatment against the AIs and opening the door to a new future, which would be a parallel.
But it's also very easy to establish deliberate meaning into these things. L:ike the fundie groups who have been using a documentary about penguins as an advert for monogomy.
Ahh, true. I completely forgot about Reloaded and Convolutions; I was referring solely to The Matrix.
Of course, then you also have to consider whether they had any idea what the storyline for the sequels for the Matrix would be.........
Although Neo does die at the end of the first film, and is then reborn-stroke-resurrected. So it's not exactly original in that idea, anyways.
-
We don't seem to regard the same age group as "kid" age.
Everything below 14 = kid. PG-13 movies are movies for kids that require parental guidance. That's it to that. Now, I wouldn't take an eight year old, but personally an eleven or twelve year olds I think could handle it quite easily and deftly.
Harry Potter are children books and movies FOR kids. Adults are separate, the movie makes most money off of kids, and therefore attempts to target that demographic. Adult movies are adult movies, and that's exluding porn because porn is another subject alltogether.
So from 1 to 5.
1) Who cares?
2) Who cares if it's not graphic, and it wasn't. They didn't show entrails.
3) I must have missed this. They were talking of "love" in regard to Potter and his girlie, and that the dumbass from the other school was after "something else". Kids won't get that if they don't know it already, and if they get it, then they've been educated.
4) I missed this as well. The weed he eats for special powers underwater? Otherwise I can't remember.
5) So what? The world is dark and traumatic. Anyone who hasn't taught his kid by age 11-12 that the world is like that, they aren't doing their job right pure and simple.
This is evidently an issue that's solely based and supported on opinions. There is no "middle" ground here or right vs. wrong especially with the amount of atrocious parents out there.
However, I'd say that my views are somewhat more realistic in regards to reality - not the MPAA and FCC board of overpaid assholes that define "mature" and "undeveloped".
It's a kids movie.
Probably a matter of how kid is defined I guess and perhaps yours is the more apt definition :)
I just remember seeing a stream of younger children who I figured should not have been there leaving the movie theater at various points during the course of both movies. And all I could think was "Give them a few years before you take them to something like this...". Of course I don't have to hear the "take me to THIS MOVIE NOW!" sort of thing that kids get away with :)
-
Goober's got the right idea. :p I wish I could find the source for that quote; I heard it fairly recently, but BrainyQuote doesn't have it listed.
-
Just watched it. I hate to say it, since I really wanted to like it, but I didn't really like it that much. :( It was Disney, so there was no blood whatsoever, which took away a bunch of the feel of "realism", if you will. The opening sequence reminded me of Sky Captain type effects. The actress for the White Witch sucked. Liam Neeson may have been good for the gentle part of Aslan's voice, but it needed to be around an octave deeper. The dwarf was laughable, and my bro actually burst out laughing when he got shot by Susan. Made the whole theater laugh. Edmund's loyalties were far too flimsy. There was no feel of depth to anything at all - no connection between the audience and any of the characters. And finally, they left out the best line of the whole book! "Is he safe?" "Ho ho! Safe? No, of course he's not safe! But he's Good."
It suffered from modern-day Star Wars-itis. The effects were all very nearly seamless (a couple of strange mismatched lighting moments, but nothing too bad). At least it didn't have the feel of Episodes 1-3, that they were made around the effects. It was definitely made according to the books, but I fear it adhered to them to strictly. Many times, I felt, "Wow, they're at THIS point already??", while the whole general feel of the beginning of the movie was that it wasn't moving along.
A good, perhaps great, kids movie. Nothing spectacular.
All in all, I think Peter Jackson ruined Narnia. :nod:
-
Well, I saw it Tuesday night and I thought it was pretty much awesome... it stayed fairly true to the book and was basically all-around great. A really nice holiday movie to go see with your family, friends, girlfriend, or whoever.
-
Air Superiority is a nice thing to have ;7
-
All in all, I think Peter Jackson ruined Narnia. :nod:
:wtf: Peter Jackson had nothing to do with the movie, AFAIK.
I haven't gotten around to seeing it yet, mostly for the reasons that I thought it would be too much of a kiddie movie. I guess I ought to see it sometime soon.
-
All in all, I think Peter Jackson ruined Narnia. :nod:
:wtf: Peter Jackson had nothing to do with the movie, AFAIK.
Exactly. He did such an amazing job with LOTR that nobody could have met the newly raised expectations of the public. Hence, Peter Jackson ruined Narnia. :D
-
And finally, they left out the best line of the whole book! "Is he safe?" "Ho ho! Safe? No, of course he's not safe! But he's Good."
What what what?!! That sucks! :(
Also (flicks open book), I believe the quote is "Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you." Not sure about where you got the "ho ho" from. :D
-
Well excuuuuuuuuuuse me! :p
-
I'm an atheist and I didn't give **** about the oh-so-hyped Christian messages. I really enjoyed the film and was glad they weren't savagely raping my childhood with red-hot pitchforks.
Pros:
- felt like the book
- I was happy
- Extremely well produced
- Lucy is kawaii
Cons.
- The Stupid Animu MegaEyes Fox
- Edmund is gay
-
Just watched it. I hate to say it, since I really wanted to like it, but I didn't really like it that much. :( It was Disney, so there was no blood whatsoever, which took away a bunch of the feel of "realism", if you will. The opening sequence reminded me of Sky Captain type effects. The actress for the White Witch sucked. Liam Neeson may have been good for the gentle part of Aslan's voice, but it needed to be around an octave deeper. The dwarf was laughable, and my bro actually burst out laughing when he got shot by Susan. Made the whole theater laugh. Edmund's loyalties were far too flimsy. There was no feel of depth to anything at all - no connection between the audience and any of the characters. And finally, they left out the best line of the whole book! "Is he safe?" "Ho ho! Safe? No, of course he's not safe! But he's Good."
It suffered from modern-day Star Wars-itis. The effects were all very nearly seamless (a couple of strange mismatched lighting moments, but nothing too bad). At least it didn't have the feel of Episodes 1-3, that they were made around the effects. It was definitely made according to the books, but I fear it adhered to them to strictly. Many times, I felt, "Wow, they're at THIS point already??", while the whole general feel of the beginning of the movie was that it wasn't moving along.
A good, perhaps great, kids movie. Nothing spectacular.
All in all, I think Peter Jackson ruined Narnia. :nod:
I don't think I could disagree with you more. :p I just saw it two days ago, and I think it's the best movie I've seen since ROTK, hands-down. In fact, I'd put it just about even with the LOTR trilogy. I don't know how you didn't like the White Witch's actress; I thought she did a brilliant job. She played a perfectly coldhearted *****. Considering that the books, and by derivation the movies, were made for children (I first read them at the age of 7 or so myself), I thought the lack of blood was entirely appropriate. Even without the blood, that battle sequence gave me a feeling I haven't felt since Helm's Deep or the Pelennor Fields, that of utter awe at the cinematic majesty that was unfolding before me. I think the dwarf was meant to be laughable; he came off as comic relief in the book, and besides, Lewis's dwarves were far more lawn-gnome-ish than Tolkien's hardened warriors. I laughed when he died, too, but I thought it was entirely appropriate. I had always pictured Aslan as having a voice very similar to James Earl Jones's, but I thought that Liam Neeson was absolutely brilliant; he had such a genuine warmth and kindness that he lent to the character. He played it about as far from Qui-Gon or Batman Begins as you can get, and for that I'm grateful; I think he pretty much nailed the part. I thought that Edmund played his part very well; looking back at the book, he wasn't even sure of his own loyalties until after he spoke with Aslan. That aspect of confusion in his own mind fit the character perfectly. The special effects were amazing; I swear that Aslan was portrayed by a real lion and not CGI. WETA are absolute masters at what they do. :) I felt that no other adaptation could get as close to the books, both in story and in spirit, as this did; I had tears in my eyes during Aslan's execution scene
and again at his resurrection
I felt such a great sense of depth and emotion from the film. The release of the next one can't come soon enough for me, and I hope to God they follow through until all seven are completed. If anyone hasn't seen this yet and is thinking about it, then by all means, get out there as soon as you can and see it. Easily the best movie of 2005 (although, admittedly, I haven't seen King Kong yet), and definitely the best I've seen since LOTR.
P.S. As for that line, I barely even remembered it from the book. :p In my opinion, the best line was, "He's not a tame lion," and I was immensely pleased that they snuck it in at the end. :)
-
P.S. As for that line, I barely even remembered it from the book. :p In my opinion, the best line was, "He's not a tame lion," and I was immensely pleased that they snuck it in at the end. :)
As we disagree on so many points, I'm not going to argue them; I'm glad you liked the movie. :) I just want to respond to this line you brought up: Did anything in the movie - anything at all - indicate that the character they made Aslan out to be was anything but, in fact, a tame lion? I think that was the part I was most disappointed in, that Aslan wasn't this fearsome being whose first moment on-screen was so awe-some that none of the other characters could bear to look upon him, as it was portrayed in the books. Instead, they all kneel down nice and reverent-like, Aslan emerges, and they talk to him as if nothing extraordinary just took place - nevermind the whole aspect that they didn't know, until he came out of the tent, that he was a lion, and not a human or whatever!
-
Sorry for the week's bumpage, but I've been too lazy to bother reading all of the posts over the past few days. (Granted, that means that the load just gets bigger when I finally get back here, but what can you do? :p) Anyways, when I read the books, I never really had the impression of Aslan as a completely awesome being, at least not all of the time. That's how he was portrayed during The Magician's Nephew, particularly during the creation sequence. However, in The Lion Etc. (:p), I thought he came across as a character on a much more human level. It's been a few months since I last read them, so I don't exactly remember how the children reacted when first meeting him, but I do know that, later on at least, Susan and Lucy interacted with him on a much more personable level, both leading up to the Stone Table and in the Witch's castle, just as was portrayed in the film. Remember, in the book, after the Stone Table scene, he was rolling and running around with Susan and Lucy; it was one of the scenes I've always loved the most in the story. :) Also, during Prince Caspian, Aslan shows a very similar side to Lucy during their journey to Aslan's Howe, and again during and after the battle. I thought the movie portrayal went very well overall. To close, regarding your initial question, I think the scene of him leaping at the Witch during the battle, which all but had me leaping out of my seat in the excitement of the moment, banished any image of "tameness" that may have arisen in my mind. :) I never associated his lack of tameness entirely with his majesty or fearsomeness, but rather with the fact that he was controlled by no one and came and went as he pleased.