So, I decided to see the new Narnia movie tonight, and I gotta say I thought it was very "ho-hum," average-at-best, paint-by-numbers fantasy movie.
Let me start of by saying I have never read the books. I'm only familiar with the first movie, of which I actually really liked. But this movie, while far from terrible, just felt like a lot of rehashed ideas everyone's already seen in a lot of other movies, especially LotR, and, well, the first Narnia.
I'll try to keep my spoilers to a minimum, and mark what I feel needs to be discussed, so with that being said, the movie IS darker and appropriately so. But it's only as dark as a Disney movie would really allow. It's not a bad movie, and probably worth seeing if you've seen the first one, but that's really the only thing positive I can say without delving into spoiler territory. So here it goes:
[spoiler] For some reason I found myself laughing a little bit when the movie got really serious. I thought it went a little overboard with the dramatic music. There's a scene in particular where the 4 of them are walking while super dramatic music is playing. And there's really no need for this. It's like, I get it people, the movie is EPIC, and it's constantly reminding me so.
I think my biggest gripe with the movie is it's fairly blatant rip offs of LotR. I know the authors of both series were friends and whatever, but for christ's sake, at the end of the movie, the tide of the battle is turned when Aslan "awakens the trees" and the trees fight off the bad guys, just like the Ents in LotR only not as cool. Then we get treated to a scene where the bad guys are going across a river and Aslan summons some sort of water entity that looks an awful lot like Jesus (sound familiar from LotR, sans the Jesus looks?). Furthermore, all this cool defensive stuff is summoned by Aslan, but where did he suddenly get this magical crap and why didn't he display this power in the first movie? Which leads me to my second gripe with the movie, and that is that hardly anything is really explained. Things like, where has Aslan been all this time? Or, who are these telemarine guys and why did they wipe out the other Narnians? Things I would assume the book would, and should, go into greater detail about, but that is the book, and this is the movie. (I personally HATE it when people use this as a defense for movies, as if I have to read the book in order to fully understand the movie. It's something that's plagued a LOT of the Harry Potter films, and why I don't like most of them. Yet so many fans tell me to read the book and the movie will be better, but that just makes the movie seem like that much more of a failure to me. But I digress). And as a final thing that bothered me about the movie, and this is minor, is that the cute mouse with a sword reminded me soooo much of Puss in Boots from Shrek. He made the movie pretty funny, but I couldn't help but think this was yet another thing ripped off from another successful movie franchise.
Caspian was a passable movie, but overall a disappointment to me. I thought the trailers looked awesome, so maybe my hopes were too high, I don't know. Like I said though, I'm not familiar with the book, but the whole story of this entry seemed so...blah to me. I thought things would have gotten much more interesting if the White Witch actually returned instead of making a cameo, but alas, I assume that wouldn't be following the book.
a generous 6/10, as it could have been a lot worse.[/spoiler]
Some answers from a long-time Narnia fan.
[spoiler]
Quotebut for christ's sake, at the end of the movie, the tide of the battle is turned when Aslan "awakens the trees" and the trees fight off the bad guys, just like the Ents in LotR only not as cool.
Straight from the book, and Narnia did it first. If anyone ripped it off. . .
QuoteThen we get treated to a scene where the bad guys are going across a river and Aslan summons some sort of water entity that looks an awful lot like Jesus
Eh? I don't recall any giant River Gods in LoTR. Although he doesn't play quite as dramatic a role in the book. The bridge was removed long before the battle, although it was done FOR the River God, not BY him. It still trapped the soldiers, though.
QuoteFurthermore, all this cool defensive stuff is summoned by Aslan, but where did he suddenly get this magical crap and why didn't he display this power in the first movie?
You're talking about an entity that RESURRECTED HIMSELF and turned stone into flesh? You're kidding, right? Throughout the books, he pretty much can do whatever he wants to do, shapeshifts, appears and disappears, undoes enchantments, opens dimensional doors and even creates the entire world.
QuoteAnd as a final thing that bothered me about the movie, and this is minor, is that the cute mouse with a sword reminded me soooo much of Puss in Boots from Shrek.
Also straight from the book, although he only appears in a few scenes in the book. He's more important in the next story.
QuoteOr, who are these telemarine guys and why did they wipe out the other Narnians? Things I would assume the book would, and should, go into greater detail about, but that is the book, and this is the movie.
The book only has two or three lines on the subject. Aslan said they were pirates who wandered into a hole into that world, into a then-depopulated land call Telmar (although Aslan refused to say what happened to the previous occupants) and that a famine forced them to move elsewhere, causing them to invade and conquer Narnia. Nothing further is ever said.
[/spoiler]
I'm going to tell you this one thing about Aslan, that may explain some things.
He is Jesus. Not a representation of Jesus or something. He is suppose to be Jesus' incarnation in the universe of Narnia. He leaves a lot of the time, to go do things in other dimensions or whatever, and eventually comes back and does crazy magic and saves everybody.
QuoteHe is Jesus. Not a representation of Jesus or something. He is suppose to be Jesus' incarnation in the universe of Narnia. He leaves a lot of the time, to go do things in other dimensions or whatever, and eventually comes back and does crazy magic and saves everybody.
Well, that is strongly hinted at, but never explicitly stated, and I think calling him a representation or a Christ figure is quite appropriate.
Doesn't he kill people, though? Or at least, incite others to kill? It's been a while since I've been in church, but I seem to remember J-Dog being against that kind of thing. ;)
QuoteDoesn't he kill people, though? Or at least, incite others to kill? It's been a while since I've been in church, but I seem to remember J-Dog being against that kind of thing.
In the books, Aslan only kills the witch. There are wars in the first two books, which always involve killing which Aslan is in favor of in order to free an oppressed and enslaved people. From what I hear, there is FAR more killing in the new movie than in the book. In fact, they seem to have pushed to violence up to crazy levels.
Plus, you've made a critical mistake with the Biblical God and Jesus, who is not just a God of love (although he is) but also of judgement, justice and vengeance. So no, nothing inconsistent here.
Oh and please don't use such a disrespectful term for Jesus. Somehow if members of certain other religions have riots in the streets over there prophet being disrespected, the disrespecter is wrong, but it's okay to be insult toward the Christian faith. I have a problem with that.
Aslan is pretty explicitly Jesus, which is made particularly clear by the later books. Lewis came to Christianity later in life, and I personally believe Aslan being a lion in general is in response to an issue he had with the religion - that Jesus was pretty unassuming in life. Neil Gaiman linked to an interesting article on this subject a while ago, how a lion isn't a great symbol to represent Jesus (as well as writing an interesting short story from the point of view of Susan, a character who gets one raw deal in these stories).
Linky: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/21/051121crat_atlarge (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/21/051121crat_atlarge)
As to the trees coming to life, that's hardly unique to Tolkien or Lewis, though if you've got to give it to one of them first, Tolkien started writing Lord of the Rings long before the Narnia books saw the light of day, but simply took him a lot longer than Lewis to finish.
Well, you may be right there. Lewis was known for blatantly ripping of Tolkien's ideas. He had done so many years before.
While Aslan is clearly paralleled to Jesus, that was not originally planned, it just sort of ended up that way, although Lewis did have this in mind for his later books.
Well, it may have not been originally planned. I know Lewis wasn't a Christian until later.
I was referencing what I had heard, is all. Apparently, the Aslan is Jesus thing was from a letter he had sent to a child fan, not from the actual texts themselves. You actually may know more about it than me, though, cat. You do seem to have your head on about this stuff.
Regardless... as a child I loved the BBC versions of these, but I will admit I haven't read beyond the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Well, I swear I've read the Magician's Nephew, but it's really vauge to me, and I can't be 100% sure I'm not mixing it up with other things.
Still, I did enjoy the first movie and I will see this one. Hopefully I won't be quite as dissapointed, or at least they can make up for it in subsequent installations.
QuoteWell, it may have not been originally planned. I know Lewis wasn't a Christian until later.
Actually, he was a Christian long before he began writing the Narnian chronicles. He said himself that he never intended to write a Christian series. He stated, I believe at some point before the Narnian books began, that he disliked the whole Christian novel movement. It wasn't that he set out to write a Christian story--he set out to write a good story and elements of his faith naturally seeped in. That includes Aslan, who had nothing to do with the original idea.
QuoteI was referencing what I had heard, is all. Apparently, the Aslan is Jesus thing was from a letter he had sent to a child fan, not from the actual texts themselves. You actually may know more about it than me, though, cat. You do seem to have your head on about this stuff.
I know the letter of which you speak, but again, he never says it, only very strongly hints at it. This was also some time after he started writing the books. Now, you could state that Aslan is the Christ figure of this world, but he is a fictional version, so I wouldn't say he actually is Jesus.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on May 17, 2008, 03:37:32 PMOh and please don't use such a disrespectful term for Jesus. Somehow if members of certain other religions have riots in the streets over there prophet being disrespected, the disrespecter is wrong, but it's okay to be insult toward the Christian faith. I have a problem with that.
What have you been reading or watching that makes you think it's the cartoonist the one who's considered wrong in that case? Everyone I've spoken to or heard seems pretty unanimous on the fact that that was the biggest overreaction of modern times.
Person A flipping out over Person B's expression = Person A's malfunction.
No doubt it was an over-reaction, but everyone jumped to apologize and make excuses and such. Yeah, I guess the common man has a little more sense, but the media folks at least acted like it was the paper that was at fault.
The being said, it is very bad form to show disrespect or flippancy toward things that people hold as very sacred. At least as much as possible.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on May 17, 2008, 09:47:48 PM
Eh? I don't recall any giant River Gods in LoTR. Although he doesn't play quite as dramatic a role in the book. The bridge was removed long before the battle, although it was done FOR the River God, not BY him. It still trapped the soldiers, though.
You're talking about an entity that RESURRECTED HIMSELF and turned stone into flesh? You're kidding, right? Throughout the books, he pretty much can do whatever he wants to do, shapeshifts, appears and disappears, undoes enchantments, opens dimensional doors and even creates the entire world.
The river god wasn't an exact copy from LotR, no, but the idea is still the very same. Enemies chase good guys across river. Someone summons something magical (in LotR's case, Arwen summons those water horse things, and in Narnia the water Jesus) and the bad guys are drowned out. I understand that the movie is probably just following the books events, as it probably should, but in this regard it's so very hard NOT to compare this movie to the LotR movies when so much of the pivotal events are practically identical.
and as for Aslan, I know he's representing Jesus and all that, but that's not the point I'm making. Yes, I remember his display of holy power from the first movie, but I also remember he wasn't exactly portrayed as a demi-god that could do anything he wanted. I understand this is probably just playing up the whole Jesus angle, implying that Jesus COULD do whatever he wanted, like calling on angels to save him, but chose not to for the sake of the people and that sort of thing, but this doesn't make for a particular interesting fantasy movie to me. Furthermore, why did Aslan find it appropriate to display more power in this movie for offensive purposes than he did in the last movie? In other words, the movie really didn't go into any detail at all on Aslan or his motives.
And yes, I know this is all from the books and the books did it first. I'm not an idiot. But in terms of the MOVIE, most of it felt like a complete rehashed and watered down version of things we've all seen three times before in other fantasy movies. It wasn't terrible, and certainly watchable, but for a highly anticipated sequel like this, I didn't think it quite lived up to what it should be. And that honestly could very well not be the movie's fault, but the source material's.
As I said, Aslan doesn't really do anything offensively in the book. It sounds like they did ramp the violence WAY up. The closest he does is wake up the trees, who push the enemy soldiers back mostly through fear. Aslan spends most of the book gathering followers in what amounts to a roving party.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on May 18, 2008, 12:47:27 PM
Aslan spends most of the book gathering followers in what amounts to a roving party.
Or perhaps.... a fellowship?
:P
No, wrong kind of party. You know, food, drink, entertainment, the whole bit.
i dont go that deep into a movie.i liked it or i didnt like it.
I for one, will petition the Holy See to change Jesus' name to J-Dawg in all the Gospels. its brilliant.
Saw it, loved it, that is all.
I quite liked it with one reservation
[spoiler]
Knowing the books, this is essentially the last time Susan sets foot in Narnia. So the whole thing was colored with a tinge of sadness for me, as she's my favorite character. (What, I have a soft spot for girls with bows); and yes, I acknowledge that that is the fault of the source material, not the movie.
[/spoiler]
Brilliant movie though..sure to be one of the best of the year.
I realize I'm probably going to be in the minority here :doh: but perhaps I've just seen way too many movies. The way I feel about this movie was the same way I felt about Mission Impossible 3. It was entertaining, but a good majority of the film I felt I had already seen in other movies, and therefore not nearly as entertained as I wanted to be. Oh well. Perhaps it's one of those movies I might like after a second viewing.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on May 17, 2008, 09:47:48 PM
The being said, it is very bad form to show disrespect or flippancy toward things that people hold as very sacred. At least as much as possible.
I'd agree with that, except that expecting reverence from unbelievers is just not realistic. Expecting it from Spud probably qualifies as insanity. I'm not trying to rip on Spud here... but I also recognize he is who he is. Nuff said. Let's move along, shall we? Oh, and tread lightly, as any serious discussion of religion is regrettably contrary to forum rules.
Regarding the whole Aslan/Jesus thing... Aslan is not Jesus. Aslan is one man's fictional creation, and obviously so. If he is meant to represent Jesus as 'the Lion of Judah' in some ways, that's the prerogative of the writer. If you want to know what C.S. Lewis thought about Jesus, then I'd recommend reading "Mere Christianity" for starters. If you want to know what C.S. Lewis thought about Aslan, read ALL of the Chronicles of Narnia. One thing is for sure: Lewis didn't regard either of them as wimps.
By the way, Narnia != (not-equals) Middle-Earth. There are token (or Tolkien) similarities, true, but if you read the Chronicles as a whole they are very, very different. The history is very different, Middle-Earth didn't have all that much in the way of Talking Animals, and the ending is very different. The tone of the books is very different. LotR deals with one epic quest supported by several related side-quests, while the Chronicles are really a series of quests one after another. The Chronicles are also (mostly) more geared toward children than LotR is. The Chronicles generally have more blatant moral lessons than LotR did.
From a literary standpoint, few writers ever did 'epic' nearly as well as Tolkien. He's the master. I like C.S. Lewis, but as far as fictional works are concerned they aren't in the same league. On the other hand, Lewis had a mind like a steel trap and it is his other non-fictional writings that are more interesting. He was an intellectual and philosopher of the first caliber, and more than that. Very few writers were or are in HIS league, and nothing written by Tolkien was nearly so profound. But we won't be seeing the Disney version of "The Problem of Pain" anytime soon.
Quick question, does the witch appear in the book? I actually read it...but it was a long time ago when I was just a kid. If the witch in the ice scene wasn't in the book...I for one don't mind. I loved it and thought it added well to the plot.
Btw, Lewis was a devout Christian by the time he wrote series. And it is also accurate to say that he did not intend the stories to be a a strict allegory for the story of Jesus. He quipped in one interview that it was a "supposary". That is to say, he mused what a Christ like figure in another more fantastic world might have been like. And it's probably fair to say that, like his good friend JRR Tolkien, his faith naturally informed his work (though as Blue Bard points out...the worlds are dramatically different).
Bredon,
your spoiler is only half right.
[spoiler]While it is the last time she will step foot in Narnia, it is not the last time we will see her there. The actress playing Susan will have a cameo in the third movie. The character of Susan plays a role in "A Horse and His Boy" though not a large one. Regarding the "Problem of Susan", there is a Neil Gaiman story of that same name that addresses what happened to Susan. I've always looked at the matter differently than he did. But that is a debate for another time. [/spoiler]
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on May 19, 2008, 05:38:22 PM
Bredon,
your spoiler is only half right.
[spoiler]While it is the last time she will step foot in Narnia, it is not the last time we will see her there. The actress playing Susan will have a cameo in the third movie. The character of Susan plays a role in "A Horse and His Boy" though not a large one. Regarding the "Problem of Susan", there is a Neil Gaiman story of that same name that addresses what happened to Susan. I've always looked at the matter differently than he did. But that is a debate for another time. [/spoiler]
Slightly possible book spoilers
[spoiler]Is Horse and Boy confirmed as the next movie? I wasn't sure what order that one would come in if they made a movie of it at all. That seems like a really random spot to put it in. And how will she play a grown-up Susan? I guess she might could, but it'd be harder for Lucy. If that is the next movie, I won't mind at all but I was really excited to see the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, that one is probably the weirdest of all, if not The Silver Chair.[/spoiler]
The cameo he refers to is in Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Susan is seen briefly in Lucy's encounter with a book of magic.
Dawn Treader, by the way, after several delays, is suposed to begin filming October.
Are they even doing Horse and his Boy or Magican's Nephew?
I thought they were only doing the ones that featured the Pensieves (sp?)
No, Disney officially announced their intentions to do all 7.
But the ones with the kids have to be done first, due to them growing up and all. This also coincides rather nicely the publishing order, which I think is pretty much the order they are making them.
The one exception is "The Last Battle" . . . the one that creates the infamous "Problem with Susan".
I can't see them being able to wait too long to film it. Unless they just go with the ages of the kids at that point. Less a problem with the kids playing Lucy and Edward and more of a problem for the kid playing Peter.
Peter is described as being a fully mature man during The Last Battle, so that is no problem. In fact, all four Pevensies are described as adults then.
I wouldn't have a terrible problem if they changed the thing with Susan.
The only thing I would like to see is the reason put into words better and for the kids (since they are adults) not to act like immature kids about it.
[spoiler]In the end, Susan lives and Edward, Peter, and Lucy died in our world. At least, that's always been my opinion of the matter. The fact that Susan didn't not go back to Narnia is a moot point if you consider that she is still redeemable the same way Edward was in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. [/spoiler]