Last year, all I had to go on was that original "Magic of Weta" clip and about 22 years of envisioning the story in my head.
Now...less than a week to go.
I am _so_ psyched.
[ December 09, 2005, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: Puffy Treat ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
For those of you who get "The Disney Channel", a 30 minute "Making of" special is on tonight at 8PM EST.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
This just has to be better that the 'Hitchhiker's Guide' movie. I couldn't stand it if they made hideously disappointing movies of TWO of my favourite book series in one year.
But having said that, I even loved the BBC adaptation of Narnia, and that really wasn't all that good. So I'm staying positive! Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Bella, I liked that too.
I have high hopes!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
There is a Narnia cartoon that I enjoyed when I was a child.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
In 1979 the Children's Television Workshop (of "Sesame Street" fame) and the Bill Melendez Studio (best known for the "Charlie Brown" animated specials) made a prime time animated adaptation of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe".
It won an Emmy.
Unfortunately, the DVD release it currently out of print.
Wouldn't the new movie be the perfect time to re-release it?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yep, yep. Posted by aiua (Member # 7825) on :
It'd be nice if they played those specials on a normal (meaning one I have) channel for once.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It is kind of odd that 'they' aren't showing it to celebrate the film coming out, as a way to pique interest in it.
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
I really hope it stays close to the books. Any idea if they'll make more movies in the series?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
If the first film is a success, Walden Media has the film option rights for all of the other Chronicles.
A script for Prince Caspian has already been prepared, and the young actors who played the Pevensies are on standby, should it get greenlit.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
AAARGH.
Disney didn't indicate that the "special" would be interspersed with a broadcast of 1999's "Inspector Gadget" movie! Talk about painful.
Anyway, the stuff I saw was pretty darn cool! There were some dazzling shots of CGI Aslan in action...the version seen in the trailer released back in September looks like a Clayamation (tm) model compared to the finished product!
There was also a look at one of the brand new scenes added to the story in the film: A tense confrontation between the Pevensies and the Secret Wolf Police of Queen Jadis near a thawing river of ice.
Maugrim/Fenris Ulf's voice is perfect...and there were some great character moments with Peter and Susan.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
Eek! I bought my midnight premire ticket tonigh! I'm so excited! ^_^
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I will see it. I just hope it's better than HP4... *Still cross about that movie*
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
...including director Andrew Adamson pretending to be Mr. Beaver. Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I'm pretending to not be excited about it, so when I take my wife I can claim credit to count against that horrible "Sin City" debacle... who knew a movie with Bruce Willis could be that horrible? I too hope it's a great interpretation... I recently read the entire series again, just classic
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love this countdown.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Disney's web-site is providing a special preview of the initial meeting between Lucy and Mr. Tumnus.
Beautifully filmed scene. It not only shows off the lavish special effects budget (those faun legs look seamless and real!) but the talent of the stars.
Georgie Henley _nails_ Lucy...and James McAvoy is a very intriguing Mr. Tumnus.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
By the way, remind me to _never_ read the IMDB message boards. Ever.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Neither of which is compatible with Firefox version 1.5 Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:By the way, remind me to _never_ read the IMDB message boards. Ever.
Fans complaining that Tilda Swinton's breasts aren't big enough?
Posted by BGgurl (Member # 8541) on :
Does it annoy anyone else that some people are turning this movie into a religious issue? I know the Narnia series has religious themes, but COME ON! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think James McAvoy nailed Mr. Tumnus.
The only thing that has me worried still is Aslan voiced by Liam Neeson. It could be great, and I hope it is, but every clip I've heard of him speaking so far has left me with doubts.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by plaid:
quote:By the way, remind me to _never_ read the IMDB message boards. Ever.
Fans complaining that Tilda Swinton's breasts aren't big enough?
No. Suffice it to say, the IMDB posters make the AICN posters look mature and refined. And I'll leave it at that.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Georgie Henley _nails_ Lucy.
I haven't seen enough to make a judgement, but all I can think of whenever I see her is that Lucy was "gay and golden-haired". And I've NEVER seen a blond Lucy in any of the on-screen incarnations. I wonder why that is?
About the religious aspects: once I recognized them in the books I almost couldn't see the story without them ... the whole series is really one big allegory. But it is a little annoying to see Church signs up advertising next week's sermon about "Narnia".
Posted by BGgurl (Member # 8541) on :
I think it's fine to recognize the religious aspects of the series, but this particular story doesn't HAVE to be read that way, at least IMO. Obviously, this is why I think people are being way too sensative as far as the Christian symbolism in it goes.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:Georgie Henley _nails_ Lucy.
I haven't seen enough to make a judgement, but all I can think of whenever I see her is that Lucy was "gay and golden-haired". And I've NEVER seen a blond Lucy in any of the on-screen incarnations. I wonder why that is?
Maybe because original series illustrator Pauline Baynes drew Lucy as a brunette in every single picture featuring the character in the original books?
Anyway, the CTW animated special featured a blond Lucy.
Adamson said that Georgie Henley wasn't given a blond wig because it was decided Lucy's hair color (really, only mentioned once or twice in the book) wasn't a major element of the character.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
BGurl, I agree it "doesn't have to be read that way". I read it as a child and didn't get the "allegory" until I'd read all the way to Book 6 (The Magician's Nephew, at the time). Then I realized that in that book Aslan symbolized Jesus - and then I realized that, "Duh! In all the books he has symbolized Jesus!" And once I realized that, I couldn't believe I hadn't seen it before.
I do agree the heavy advertising by churches could turn off some people who aren't religious, though; they'll think it's another "Left Behind" or something.
Puffy Treat are the original illustrations in color? Because mine are all black & white, and I never paid much attention to Lucy's hair in them.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The original illustrations are in black and white, but Baynes put characters she saw as fair-haired with "blank space" in the hair, dark-haired with solid inky black. Years later when she painted her illustrations for a new edition of the Chronicles, it was confirmed: Her "Lucy" was dark-haired. But then, Lewis gave her much freedom in interpreting how some things looked. Even if they didn't match the text.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Andrew Adamson has commentary on certain elements of the film online now! Have a listen, they're pretty cool.
Over at Narnia.com "Aslan's Camp" can now be visited on the map of Narnia! Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
I've seen it! And I'm really tired! And I'm not good at long reviews anyway! So I'll just say I LOVED it!
There were a few hiccups with the effects (I noticed it most with the centaurs and the reindeer), but nothing so major as some people have been making out. And there was one scene left out from the book that I kind of missed, but no biggie.
Overall, I would say it is a very successful adaptation and I hope the rest of the Narnia movies are treated with as much respect.
I would also like to point out that the midnight premire sold out several auditoriums, so...
Probably no worries in the box office area.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
What scene did they leave out? Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Hollywood puts out yet another "coming out of the closet" movie. Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Tante- Posted by BGgurl (Member # 8541) on :
Who's going to go see it today?
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
Saw it saw it saw it saw it. It was amaaazing. I loved that movie. I was kind of surprised that it was as violent as it was (pleasantly surprised that is, i was worried they'd tone down all the battles for the kiddies, of which there were plenty at my 10:30 AM showing). The effects didn't bother me a bit, I thought they were perfect for the movie.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
24 hrs and ill have seen it.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: What scene did they leave out?
The scene where the White Witch runs into that little part of woodland creatures once the winter begins to thaw out. You get to see the results of it (Peter and Co. now find those particular statues), but not the actual scene...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Did they actually show Father Christmas? That's the only reason I can think of to leave out that scene.
Anyone see what The Colbert Report said last night about LWW?
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
Yep, Father Christmas is still in it.
I would actually like to say that I liked that scene a lot more than I thought I would. I was scared they would have a jolly fat Santa Claus, but nope. I could totally buy that Father Christmas was in Narnia.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Well, a few of the scenes that didn't make the final cut (such as the Coronation Ball, more on the awakening of the Stone Courtyard, more of the members of the camp, etc) are going to be included on the Special Edition DVD due out on May 2006. Whether as "Deleted Scenes" or stitched back into the film is not yet known.
I saw it tonight.
First, let me be clear: Nothing will ever replace the book for me. That remains the definitive version. Always will.
That said, I _loved_ this movie!
More thoughts when I'm less falling-down-tired.
I was unsure at first about making the Fox (at first a member of the Christmas Party turned to stone earlier in this thread) from a bit part to a secondary character, but it turned out to be pretty effective.
And Georgie Henley is the perfect Lucy.
[ December 10, 2005, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: Puffy Treat ]
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
So he actually was a character? I couldn't decide while watching the movie if he was expanded or new...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, he did in the book almost exactly what he did in the movie. Though, he WAS supposed to be wearing a bright red suit. But I don't blame them for leaving that out. Too much like the commonly held notion of Santa would have looked goofy.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: . Though, he WAS supposed to be wearing a bright red suit.
Close. The book describes Father Christmas as wearing a "Holly Berry Red" robe.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ginol_Enam: So he actually was a character? I couldn't decide while watching the movie if he was expanded or new...
Assuming you mean the Fox, yes. There was a Talking Fox in the book. He was even involved in the scene where (Lewis tells us) Edmund for the first time since falling under the Witch's enchantment begins to feel sorry for someone other than himself. Only the Fox was a member of the Stone Christmas party, not a recruiter for Aslan...and he had a _lot_ less lines and never met the rest of the Pevensies.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That was a great movie. I liked it better than HP4. Plus SHE HAD POLAR BEARS DRAGING HER CHARIOT AND THERE WERE GRIFFINS IN IT TOO! IT WAS SOOOOO COOL! Except for some minor things that did not matter to me much.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Narnia-related question: I was talking with some folks about the Narnia movie, and someone said that C. S. Lewis had renounced Christianity (this is what they said they remembered from the Shadowlands movie). I said I was pretty sure he hadn't, that Lewis was such a prominent Christian that if he had done so I would've read about that somewhere... so, Lewis kept his faith, right?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yes, he did. Your friend is wrong.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Lewis was shaken and despairing by the death of Joy Gresham. He did experience doubts.
But...doubting is not the same thing as renouncing.
Ultimately, he remained commited to belief in Christ.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
OSC's review is up now!
While I don't agree that the film is better than the book, I do agree that it's good...and that the kids are a bit more fully dimensional.
(It took Lewis another book or two to get to that point...especially with the girl characters)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think the movie was better than the book. It adds a lot that I think it important, but it also takes away some too, though not much, little things that I found myself missing from the movie.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Saw "Narnia" two days ago.
It's good.
There were things in it that bothered my cinematically snarky side: some of the cuts too clearly made things easier to shoot or were "flinches" to keep the PG from reaching PG-13, and a certain scene with a healing potion that's supposed to be able to heal any injury neglects to heal one really obvious visible wound.
But that, again, is the cynically snarky side of me. By and large, I'd tend to agree with OSC's review. The characters are well drawn, the effects are amazing, the performances are uniformly good (and Tilda Swinton is remarkable), and I think I'm going to have to buy a copy of the soundtrack.
By all means, go. I wouldn't recommend bringing children younger than, say, six. But by all means, hire a sitter and go.
Posted by Ser Bronn Stone (Member # 8759) on :
I actually approve of the cuts and the limits on the violence. We saw the parts we needed to see to know what was happening, and if the majority of it occurred from a distance, that is as far as I am concerned good film storytelling.
The point of the tale is the magic and the family coming together. The battles are not the real story being told, they are just the device that moves the story forward.
Posted by Marc Forrester (Member # 8809) on :
About that Allegory thing: This seems like a good time and place to ask..
Aslan's sacrifice in LW&W always made perfectly good sense to me, it saves Edmund from the bad guys in a very direct and necessary manner. Jesus' sacrifice in the Bible, not so easy. This one, apparently, saves humanity from themselves, for reasons and by means that are not clear at all. Aside from Narnia, all other works of fiction that deal with this event seem to focus exclusively on how nasty the sacrifice was, and just take it as given that you already know what it was for.
So I could really use an explicitly illustrated link between the story of Narnia, which I can actually understand, and the New Testament. Anyone here have a link to an essay along those lines, a book title, or suchlike?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I didn't notice much about the child acting, as I was distracted by the huge teeth.
Aslan was great. I love Liam Neeson's voice. I would have liked Aslan to be... more, though. More magical, or something. It was competent, and I misted up a few times. Better than the book? Probably. I'm sure my imagination supplied a lot when I read it as a young'un.
But I still pretty much agreed with the B rating EW gave it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Marc – as a direct allegory, Aslan’s sacrifice refers to one particular theory of Christ’s death – the Ransom theory, where the blood of traitors belonged to Satan and was “paid” by Jesus instead. It was the most common interpretation for many years, but not followed so much anymore.
Decent brief explanation of the theory and the reasons it fell out of favor here. (Disclaimer – I’m not familiar with the site, I just did a quick google and this one seemed to combine the virtues of reasonable accuracy with reasonable simplicity.)
The various atonement theories are themselves allegories – attempts to explain the significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus using metaphors that people are familiar with – at various times in history ransom, feudal honor, and law courts have been the dominant metaphor.
So the Aslan/Stone table thing is an allegory of an allegory, and it works better if you don’t stretch it too far or try to force fit everything into one-to-one connections.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I didn't notice much about the child acting, as I was distracted by the huge teeth.
Me too! My friend and I had roughly 14 one-liners about British dental care.
I thought it was amazing, though.
The battle scenes bugged me a little bit, though, just from a tactical standpoint. But that's typical, and it didn't make me enjoy it any less.
I didn't care for the performance of Lucy, but I loved Liam Neeson as Aslan. Although I kept calling him Qui Gonn.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:as a direct allegory, Aslan’s sacrifice refers to one particular theory of Christ’s death – the Ransom theory, where the blood of traitors belonged to Satan and was “paid” by Jesus instead. It was the most common interpretation for many years, but not followed so much anymore.
I think this the reason I loved the Narnia books but did not recognize them as Christian allegory until I was in college. The theory of the atonement that I knew was not the one referred to in the books, so when the Deep Magic demanded Edmund's blood, I thought it was plot device, and I was annoyed with Edmund. That whole section didn't really make sense to me, but it's a fantasy novel - they have their own rules.
I also think that the way I thought of God was different from Aslan's character - I was much more aquainted with the Loving Father aspect, so "Not a Tame Lion" didn't ring any bells.
I post this to justify why I didn't recognize the allegory. I watched it with Matt on Friday, and the conversation went like this:
Katie: "I didn't know this was the Christ story when I read it." <Tumnus calls Lucy a Daughter of Eve> Matt: "Really?" Katie: "Yeah, it was a great fantasy, but nothing I recognized." <Aslan is killed for the sake of Edmund> Matt: "Really?" Katie: "There were talking animals! I didn't know it was referring to something real." <Tumnus promises that Aslan will always love Lucy and will come back again someday> Matt: "Really?"
[ December 12, 2005, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Slate has a good article on the christian aspects of the Narnia books.
I tried to summarize it here for about 5 minutes, but I don't have the skill to do it without confusing anyone or misquoting her.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ser Bronn Stone: I actually approve of the cuts and the limits on the violence. We saw the parts we needed to see to know what was happening, and if the majority of it occurred from a distance, that is as far as I am concerned good film storytelling.
The point of the tale is the magic and the family coming together. The battles are not the real story being told, they are just the device that moves the story forward.
Please understand, I'm glad it's PG, and I'm not suggesting that it should be a bloodbath. But my awareness of the reasons for those cuts distracts me from my suspension of disbelief.
And, while I wouldn't include the (fantasy!) Narnia in such considerations, I can't help but wonder sometimes if presenting violence as neat and clean is really that helpful for children. Certainly a lot of movies go way over the top, but in a way a (PG) movie that allows dozens of people to be gunned down bloodlessly doesn't to my mind deserve consideration over a (R) movie that has one person get shot and suffer.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
That last post just reminded me. When the witch kills Fox by turning him into stone, a little 7 year old (or so) girl the row in front of us started crying quite a bit--the scared kind of crying. She obviously hasn't been desensitized enough.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I child in my audience, when Susan and Lucy were stroking the dead Aslan, asked, "Is he going to wake up?"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There were several children in my audience crying and screaming at things they saw in the movie.
Making it G rated would have just been silly. As it was, I think they should have made it PG-13, and included a little bit of blood. I don't mean gore, it's not a horror movie, but I too felt some of my suspension of disbelief washing away a bit.
I found myself indifferent about Aslan's voice. I was expecting to hate it, and while I didn't REALLY hate it, I didn't really like it either. If only James Earl Jones hadn't been Mufasa.
With the exception if certain parts of the battle scenes, I found myself somewhat underwhelmed by the movie. The PotC trailer almost had me more excited at times.
Posted by Marc Forrester (Member # 8809) on :
DKW - Many thanks. Clearly lots of further reading to do, but at least I now know which allegory it's an allegory of. Knowledge of the phrase "Atonement Theory", in particular, is exactly the kind of thing I needed, that's a key that opens up a whole new library.
Off to dig up the paperbacks again - I found out today that there's someone on the planet who's never even seen them. This shall not be permitted..
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
And once I realized that, I couldn't believe I hadn't seen it before. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)