|
|
Post by firefolk on Dec 10, 2008 0:46:02 GMT -5
Man, what an awesome flick! Somehow I missed seeing it in the theatre (see, I used the British spelling so you can tell how grave a matter this is), and I just caught it on DVD. Highly impressive. Especially Lucy, what a great Lucy. PC was actually my least favorite of the Narnia books, but they nailed it cinematically. Dawn Treader's probably the coolest one of the seven, so that should be REALLY cool when they make it into a movie. I have deeply mixed feeling about the LOTR films, but the Narnia ones are kicking some names and taking some @$$ right now. See how I didn't technically cuss, just then? It's like the exposure to a good movie has made me classier. This is why we tell stories, folks!
|
|
|
|
Post by syme on Dec 10, 2008 20:33:21 GMT -5
You really think so? I was actually tremendously disappointed by it, as were most of the people I talked about it. They made it into a mini-LOTR, a sort of epic for kids, which the book was really not supposed to be. I also think they gutted the Christian elements in it in such a way that those that remain seemed more objetionable than attractive (since they were removed from their proper context). Perhaps you saw something in it that I didn't, but I certainly hope that Dawn Treader will be better. I thought they did a much better job with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe...
|
|
|
|
Post by firefolk on Dec 10, 2008 21:58:04 GMT -5
Certainly more than a few scenes that made you go, "Ah, this is like that scene in LOTR," but that didn't particularly bother me. Tolkien and Lewis did cross-pollinate pretty heavily in real life, after all. And you're right, I'm not sure the movie was exactly what Lewis intended the book to be, but--well--I dunno. One always hates to admit this, but I'm afraid I have to say that I actually liked the movie better than the book. I loved the way they portrayed Edmund as having essentially learned humility, and being determined simply to shut up and do what needs doing. And, I dunno--they don't bash you over the head with the Christian element, but it's definitely there, especially at the end. Lewis himself used to talk about "smuggling theology," planting the seeds of Christian thought with enough subtlety that the neo-pagan mind may begin to accept it without even realizing it. LWW was thus a little more heavy-handed and closer to the danger-line of allegory in that sense. My only real objection was that they kind of played Reepicheep for laughs, whereas the whole point of his character was that chivalry can exist even in the most unlikely places. But then again, heck--he IS a talking mouse.
|
|
|
|
Post by estiel on Dec 11, 2008 8:31:09 GMT -5
I think I agree with Syme on all points. The LOTR rip-offs were so blatant that it actually disrupted the film. I love the films, loved LOTR also, and I do recognize that film and print are so entirely different that one should be very slow to compare. Yet--really--one also thinks about marketing, right? E.g., the film "must" do to the text what it thinks is necessary to *sell*. They're always saying that alterations are for other reasons, but the only real reason is always money. So--yes, de-emphasize (to put it mildly) the Christianity in Narnia films; re-write Arwen completely, thereby excising the epithilameon (sp?)--the eucatastrophe of all literature, etc. Trade ($) tarnishes everything it touches, and quite incorrectly, filmmakers believe Christianity doesn't sell. Maybe that's just as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Dec 23, 2008 1:58:34 GMT -5
Made by Disney? Yeah, they'll neuter as much Christianity as they can while still trying to make it palatable enough to become a franchise.
|
|
|
|
Post by firefolk on Dec 23, 2008 9:42:27 GMT -5
Well, I hate to be That Guy. . . but I've just now re-read Prince Caspian, and I'm very much afraid that I must renew my disagreement with all of you on this issue. The book is actually much, much MORE pagan than the movie, guys. Re-read it. Bacchus and the Maenads? Silenus and the donkey? Aslan's rout of the ugly schoolgirls? Add to that the fact that Prince Caspian is, essentially, a re-telling of the Arthur legend--the return of the long-lost warrior king to deliver his people after centuries of bondage--which is, after all, a Mosaic, Old Covenant kind of idea: the messiah will save us by destroying our enemies in THIS world, not the next. . . No, I still think the movie is as Christian as it can be without actually referencing Christianity (which would, of course, beat the whole purpose of an allegory). And after all, let's be fair about the money thing. Everyone needs money to spread a message of any kind. Turn on EWTN and watch it for twenty minutes, and I guarantee at least one person will ask you for money. I'm not necessasrily defending Disney; I don't actually know enough about them as a corporation to have an intelligent opinion about them one way or another. But I still think they did a really good job with this movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Jan 1, 2009 5:14:49 GMT -5
My reaction to the PC movie was mixed. On the one hand, it was much better than I expected (given the reviews I've read before watching it), it was exciting, and it did get some things right, especially the mood of missing the old Narnia.
But this last point was probably due to the flaws I saw in the PC movie, which made ME miss the old Narnia. For me the unforgivable one was when they botched up the dialogue between Lucy and Aslan. The part in the book where Aslan breathes on Lucy and tells her, "Now you are a lioness" became Aslan telling Lucy, "If you were braver you'd be a lioness". This lopped off a lot of meaning from the story, and the change was unjustifiable. I couldn't think of any cinematographic or dramatic reason why they would introduce that particular change.
Then, there were parts which I found cringe-worthy: lines like Edmund's "Keep smiling!", Reepicheep being smart-alecky rather than courtly, and the way the Susan-Caspian romance was executed (I wouldn't have minded the introduction of the romance since at the end of the LWW book, CSL says that many did want Susan's hand in marriage so I would have forgiven the introduction of the romance, but the way the romance was executed -- with the timing of the playing of the song -- was, for me, cringe-worthy. I also don't know if the introduction of the Peter-Caspian conflict in the movie was necessary.
To be sure, PC was good as a movie, but as an adaptation of the book it was based on, it left me wanting so much more. And to think I tend to allow filmmakers a bit of leeway when adapting books to film, because I understand 100% literal interpretations aren't possible.
|
|
