[Edward Bradshaw]

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

[Inquisitor]

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.

[Mongoose]

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.

[Corsair]

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.

[Deepblue]

For some reason I almost cried during certain points in the movie.

I have no idea why.

[aldo_14]

For some reason I almost cried during certain points in the movie.

I have no idea why.

Were you peeling onions?

[Marauder]

The movie was brilliant.  It's one of those movies that takes to the book extremely well.  The animation just blew me away. 

[Sandwich]

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, 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]

[Flipside]

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

[aldo_14]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.' "

[Galemp]

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. :-\

[Sandwich]

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.

[Goober5000]

...

That's most likely a quote from the Bible, 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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[IceFire]

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

[Mongoose]

Goober's got the right idea. I wish I could find the source for that quote; I heard it fairly recently, but BrainyQuote doesn't have it listed.

[Sandwich]

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.

[Corsair]

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.

[redmenace]

Air Superiority is a nice thing to have