The Chronicles of Narnia

I've heard that this movie has had some pretty damning reviews.
Honestly, it was always just a cash in on the success of LOTR, using the same effects company, Lewis was a close friend of Tolkien yadda yadda.

Though I've not followed any of the hype, I'm guessing it's just filling the middle ground between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.
 
Saw this yesterday, and was actually pretty happy with the adaptation. Given the fact that this was done by Disney, I was a little concerned, but we didn't end up with anything added that shouldn't have been there, other than the rather heavy "nothing is more important than your family, let's all have a group hug" kind of thing that's become a hallmark of Disney films. This was much more understated in the books.

I also noticed a rather sexist comment was missing from the movie, where Father Christmas remarks that "wars are ugly" and doesn't add "when women fight in them" or whatever the line was in the book. Wars are ugly no matter who's fighting in them. One thing I would have liked to have seen was wolves fighting on Aslan's side as well, as I noticed that bears and various big cats were shown in both armies, and the anti-wolf bias is kind of a personal gripe for me. There were wolves in the big battle scene, but sometimes it was difficult to tell which side they were on.

The special effects on the fantasy creatures were particularly well done (not surprisingly, the effects were done by one of George Lucas's companies). The battle was emphasized more in the movie than in the books, but not to the point of overemphasis as in the second of the LoTR trilogy films. One reviewer over at Rottentomatoes.com complained that it was difficult to take a 12-year-old waving a sword seriously, but I thought this was done pretty well (although I have to say that Peter and Edmund seemed to get really good at sword-fighting really fast! :D ). But of course, it is a fantasy film....
 
I believe the crew recruited human hair from people to make some of the monsters.

I'm seeing this on Christmas Eve.
 
Seldes Katne said:
I also noticed a rather sexist comment was missing from the movie, where Father Christmas remarks that "wars are ugly" and doesn't add "when women fight in them" or whatever the line was in the book. Wars are ugly no matter who's fighting in them.

Sure, all wars are ugly. Some are far uglier than others, though.

Historically, it's true that wars tend to be uglier when women are massively fighting in it. But that's a symptom, not the cause.

It's like this :

Lose 1000 men in a war and one generation later there is little effect on the population. Lose 1000 women and the effect is significant. That's because women have children, not men. Even in cultures with a strong monogamy component, historians have noted that the birth rate isn't significantly lowered by the losses of many young men at war. Even the strictest culture becomes more tolerant of children born out of wedlock in those circumstances.

But lose women and you lose the children they might have had and so a population that has its women getting killed in a war is facing a potential steep decline in coming years.

Nowadays, we are billions on the globe but remember that earth reached its first billion of population only in the 19th century and around 100 AD we were barely 250 million on the whole planet. So for almost all of our history, we've had the reverse problem of maintaining a population strong enough to occupy the territory we were claiming. From the dawn of men to the advent of modern medicine, birth rate was a critical component of a any group's survival.

And that's why every culture has had a strong taboo against women in the military that only now can be safely lifted.

But every taboo can be broken under the right, or in this case wrong, circumstances.

Every single case of women massively joining a fight was when a culture was facing an invasion. Furthermore, for this to happen, either the agressor was bent on extermination or the war had dragged on for years.

And these war are usually uglier than most. During the 20th century, the most striking case of women fighting in a war occured when Germany invaded Russia. And believe me, this was ugly. Over 30 millions Russians were killed on that front alone. Thousands of women fought in the street of Stalingrad. And to this day, I believe every single female ace pilot (A pilot with more than 5 kill on her record) are russian women who fought in WW2. Another famous case of women fighting in the 20th century is Viet Nam. Plenty of Viet Cong were women, as the hero of Full Metal Jacket learnt the hard way. That war, for the viet Cong, started right after WW2 and these guys fought one invader or the other for 30 years. The American were only the latest foreigner to stuck their nose in the mess. One of the ugliest conflict of the 20th century.

So, yeah, usually war is uglier when women are fighting in it.

But it isn't ugly because women are fighting, women are fighting because it is ugly.

When your back is to the wall and all that.
 
Last edited:
The movie rocked. Period. Christian themes are, of course, pretty heavy, but it fits with the book. I'd love for them to do the sequels and prequel.
 
War is even uglier when ugly women are fighting in it.
 
I just saw this and was impressed. The actors that played the children were pretty impressive. I liked it. I'll probaly buy the books now.
 
'Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion'

Children won't get the Christian subtext, but unbelievers should keep a sickbag handy during Disney's new epic, writes Polly Toynbee
Aslan the lion shakes his mighty mane and roars out across Narnia and eternity. Christ is risen! However, not many British children these days will get the message. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe opens this week to take up the mantle left by The Lord of the Rings. CS Lewis's seven children's books, The Chronicles of Narnia, will be with us now and for many Christmases to come. Only Harry Potter has outsold these well-loved books' 85 million copies.
Read more...
 
Last edited:
Narnia = Diet LoTR!!!!! Same great feel....half the plot and action!!!! :sarcasm:



Seriously though....it was a good film. Looking forward to the next film. Liam Neeson voiced Aslan perfectly.
 
Guijllons said:
I've heard that this movie has had some pretty damning reviews.
Honestly, it was always just a cash in on the success of LOTR, using the same effects company, Lewis was a close friend of Tolkien yadda yadda.

Though I've not followed any of the hype, I'm guessing it's just filling the middle ground between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.
I agree.

Granted, this is not saying that Narnia is any less than Lord of the Rings, but that the film is such a blatant cash-in that no amount of advertising and PR can hide.

On the other hand, can people please stop saying that 'it's a kids movie' as if the term was meant to lower our expectations? I'm getting tired of people who disrespect the core essence of what 'family entertainment' and 'kid friendly' is, as if it somehow requires a lack of intelligence.
 
ourchair said:
On the other hand, can people please stop saying that 'it's a kids movie' as if the term was meant to lower our expectations? I'm getting tired of people who disrespect the core essence of what 'family entertainment' and 'kid friendly' is, as if it somehow requires a lack of intelligence.
Thank you, I'll second this.

I'll also stop there, before I start ranting and posting lists of recommended reading materials....
 
ourchair said:
On the other hand, can people please stop saying that 'it's a kids movie' as if the term was meant to lower our expectations? I'm getting tired of people who disrespect the core essence of what 'family entertainment' and 'kid friendly' is, as if it somehow requires a lack of intelligence.
I think that's a problem with 'adult' films more than 'children's' films. I could argue that kids movies are less challenging, but how few mainstream movies force people to consider a new perspective these days.
 
Last edited:
Guijllons said:
I think that's a problem with 'adult' films more than 'children's' films. I could argue that kids movies are less challenging, but how few mainstream movies force people to consider a new perspective these days.
You mean 'adult' as in porn, or as in PG/R cinema?
 
Seldes Katne said:
Thank you, I'll second this.

I'll also stop there, before I start ranting and posting lists of recommended reading materials....
I think what offends me even more is not the suggestion that 'family material' is 'less intelligent' but that it somehow entails less effort to create, that the final product is somehow inferior.

Kids may not be emotionally mature, but they have very different storytelling needs and anyone who claims that that's somehow 'easy' to write for has obviously never written before.
 
Saw it, and enjoyed it. I'm a non-Christian, and you know what, it didn't hurt me to watch it. I'm so sick and tired of the "Liberal Left" pissing and moaning over the heavy Christian overtones in the movie and books. If we (the Left) expect to be listened to and respected, we need to respect others as well. I've read all the books as a child, granted, they weren't challenging books, in the least, but they were still fun bits of fantasy. Yes, there is sexism, even racism at points, veiled behind the story, but this was the accepted norm at the time. We've changed, some say for the better, others for the worse, but seriously, there is nothing wrong with enjoying a simple allegory. Seriously, there wasn't this kind of whining when the Matrix and all of it's Judeo-Christian themes was out. So, here's the deal, if you feel soooo put out there is a touch of religion to a story, don't read/watch/listen to it.

<<message brought to you by everyone's least favorite, lesbian Buddhist>>
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top