Film: Chronicles of Narnia: TLTW&TW

[physix]

How can that possibly be the order to read the books when they were not released in that order? 8(

that question would do away with the very concept of
prequels....

what?

so i guess Lucas should have titled the last three star wars
episodes 7, 8, and 9 since it was chronologically released
AFTER 'episode' 4,5 and 6...???


i see now...

the story in THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW takes place BEFORE
L,W&W


by the way michael,

no, that is the chronological order, not the correct order. the fact that it's been bastardized by morons since has little relevance.

it's the order of the stories in respect to the STORYLINE
not the publishing date... so, i think we're saying the
same thing...

by CORRECT ORDER i meant "the correct order of stories
as they have unfolded" not "as they were released to
the public".

that's why i quoted the PUBLISHING DATES, so to let yaw'll
know i understand the difference between the PUBLISHING
DATES and the CHRONOLOGY of the storyline...

i think you and i just used dif't terms to mean the same thing.

 

[Finder]

Ok, physix, by your logic LW&W should not have been read when it was first published. Instead, people should have waited five years in order to read TMN. You know, so they could be read in the "proper" order. Just like people should have waited to watch Episode 1, 2, and 3--that may have never gotten made--before watching Episode 4, 5, and 6.

Regardless of what order the story actually unfolds in is irrelevant. If C.S. wanted the story told in the order you are suggesting he would have written it as such.

 

[physix]

that is absolutely ridiculous assessment of what i was saying...
no, they shouldn't have waited... they didn't know there would
be new stories... hell, LEWIS HIMSELF didn't know off hand that
there would be future stories...

but they are all published now.

so why not read them in the order of the storyline?

that's all i'm saying.

and again, just because an author writes something at a certain time doesn't always mean he MEANT to do it as such... authors decide ALL THE TIME that
"oh, hey, now i kinda need to handle this backstory..." and they don't always
intend to ...

and, even to quote a published letter he sent to a fan

I'm not even sure that all the others were written in the same order in which they were published. (Dorsett & Mead 1996)

but no, i'm not suggesting that you HAVE to read it
chronologically based on its internal story.... but it
flows better, imo.

and no, i'm not stupid enough to propose that the
people of the time grab a crystal ball to determine "hey,
i wonder if they'll be future stories written... better
wait til they're all done and published...."

but if Lewis unsure if the actual order of the books'
creation coincides with the publishing order, and
if HE HIMSELF agrees with the internal chronology
of the story, then that's good enough for me.

and having read the stories in both order, the
internal order makes the most sense.

 

[Finder]

Ok, fair enough. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Banquo]

as stated earlier in the thread, i think The Magician's Nephew has a much fuller context when read as the sixth book. there are concepts to be more easily appreciated and understood this way. it also creates a better appreciation of a non-linear timeline, which is a valuable lesson for young people reading these stories, imo. different strokes for different folks, i guess.

 

[physix]

it also creates a better appreciation of a non-linear timeline, which is a valuable lesson for young people reading these stories, imo.

hrrrmmmmmmm


very good point.

 

[michael]

by the way michael, it's the order of the stories in respect to the STORYLINE
not the publishing date..

no shit, sherlock.

it still doesn't make it the correct order.

 

[physix]

ok, now you're being [difficult]


i was refering to story continuity, [edit],


so i stick by my assessment (both in
the "correct" order of the stories and
that you're a [edited])


nice to know little has changed with
regard to bluelight admin's [edited].


[edit - no name calling, please. -bq]

 

[michael]

i know what you were referring to, einstein. guess what? you're still wrong.

well, you're an [edited] too! i stand by my opinion!

8(

 

[lee harvey]

I really liked it(4 stars) it but was expecting more. Never read any of the books because I'm illiterate. There's some lag time getting the story up and running(I'm more of an action movie type of guy). But the battle's were really cool and the creatures were WAY better then the clunky orcs and trolls in the LOTR trilogy.

I was hoping for more a magical feeling of the Narnia world itself, instead it was kind of a boring environment of just snow and a forest. When it comes to environment it's no Dark Crystal or Labryinth. Still hasn't topped either of those movies in my world. It's more in the vein of Harry Potter.

I was also hoping to find out more about the Professor and his relationship to the portal, but oh well. It's agood movie, but I can't see how anybody would give this thing 5 stars, but then again I'm not into Harry potter movies either.

 

[Banquo]

I was also hoping to find out more about the Professor and his relationship to the portal, but oh well.

the professor's history is covered in The Magician's Nephew, the sixth book in the series -- depending on who you ask. so you'll just have to wait.

...or you could read the books.

 

[cydonorb]

I was dissapponted with this. I thought they softpeddled the Christianity & hard sold the war. In the book the war isn't that long whereas in the film it seems like the main point. It also has the creepy feeling of a miliaristic recruitment film for kids. In this film war is great fun! Anyone with a neat-o sword can particiape! And gee willikers nobody ever really dies! Isn't war just dandy kids?!

Where the film also greatley differs from the book is that good & evil are black & white. In the film Aslan & The White Witch aren't even characters. They're just assigned the tags "Good" & "Evil". The White Witch doesn't really seem all that evil in the movie either--Tilda Swinton plays her like Anne Wintour off her meds. She always looks like she's about to roll here eyes & say something like "OK, I'll stop the winter if you'd all just stop whining!". Aslan likewise has NO character. In the book we are made to understand the great Good that he is as he is a stand in for Christ. In the film he's just a lion with a deep voice.

The film is also hampered by having the most fey & prissy "hero" since Nathan Lane in THE BIRDCAGE. The tenage actor they got to play Peter (the older brother) doesn't even seem like he could get elected president of the drama club, let alone lead troops into battle. Picture a blonde & feminine John Boy Walton & you'll get the idea.

There are two GREAT performances however: the little girl who plays Lucy & the teenage girl who plays Susan are increible & give some of the best performances by childern on film in ages. Both are natural, believable & save the film.

The effcts are pretty good & the cinematography is excellent but I never for a second believed the animals were characters.

Back in 1997 Hiyao Miyazaki released an animated film PRINCESS MONONOKE which he acknowledged was partially inspired by the CS Lewis novels. Miyazaki grafted Shinto religious beleifs into the story yet it is Miyazaki's film that is closer in spirit to Lewis than this "official" film adaptation.

 

[pennywise]

i didnt really like it.

lotr + spy kids +christianity +disney - blood = crap

even the CG stuff wasnt all that good.

The white witch was the only good thing.

 

[L2R]

^^It wasn't funny on purpose but it had me and my friends falling out of our chairs.

Yeah, the theatre i was in felt the same way. Some very unintentionally funny parts. Made me pity the film makers actually.

I dunno, maybe they did a great job and the story is just like that. I haven't read the books, even though they were thrown at my as a child.

Oncel the kids were all in the wardrobe, it just got really boring to me. Full of self rightous nonsense. I nodded off for about 10-15 minutes actually.

~~~~~~~~spoiler~~~~~~~



What's the deal with the resurrection? Okay, if you sacrifice yourself for another, you can beat death, right? Well, the fact that the lion knew of this means that he didn't really sacrifice himself. It seems very self contradictory. Maybe it wasn't explained well in film.

A mate told me of The Magician's Nephew story this morning, and that sounds infinitely more interesting than TLW&TW.

 

[EisForMe22]

^this isn't neccessarily a bad thing, just wondering if any1 else noticed this . . .

i def. noticed and took me about 20 minutes to get past it and pay attention to the movie.

But when i did finally pry myself from the similarities i was very pleased with the movie.

 

[Banquo]

alright...i'm biased in favor of anything having to do with Narnia, since the books were a large part of my upbringing. I must have read them a dozen times in grade school. I also remember finding an old VHS of a TLTW&TW cartoon. It was crappy animation, crappy production, but I was happy just to see a visualization. And now, with a major motion picture, it was practically impossible for Disney to do wrong as far as I was concerned. So it was fun to finally see the story on the big screen. Yes, I wish it was bloodier. No, the Christian allegory was not overused. Hopefully, the films will get darker after this. As far as I can remember this adapation was pretty faithful.

 

[Raz]

I saw this tonight...I haven't gotten around to re-reading the book, so while I was pretty familiar with the broad strokes of the story, it was nice not to know every little thing that was about to happen.

I liked it a lot more than I was expecting to be honest - the head of the secret police was made really scary. Also, Tilda Swinton in particular I thought did an awesome job, as did the kid who played Edmund...it's interesting looking at the subject matter and some of the plot points, and seeing that once upon a time people gave children credit for being able to deal with mature issues..

I did pick up on the weird sexual vibe with the fawn and Lucy as well...I'm glad someone pointed that out already because it makes me feel like less of a prevert for having noticed it..

I also would have liked if the movie had been a bit bloodier and more realistic in its depiction of violence, but that's neither here nor there. I'm surprised they did and implied as much as they did to be honest seeing how it's being marketed as a fluffy kids' movie..

The only complaint really that I have with the movie is that the kids went straight from purely wanting to rescue Edmund and go home to suddenly being all gungho about joining the war. It would have been nice to have seen them change their minds.

One question as well...does anyone know of the Marvel comic called Power Pack? I never realised till tonight just how similar Alex, Julie, Jack and Katie are to the Narnia kids....I was geeking out on it a bit, Power Pack was my favourite comic once upon a time..

 

[Charlie Brown]

I never heard off the books b4...so watching the movie I found it very much suited to small children, as a 29yo i found the story pretty boring and the film put me to sleep...i didnt even finish the movie ! but will watch the second half which may be better !

 

[Strawberry_lovemuffin]

I was thoroughly entertained by this... huge thumbs up.

I thought the movie captured the charm, humour and poignancy of the novel beautifully. The kids weren't as annoying as some child actors can be (loved the littlest girl), and frankly, the religious parallels didn't bother me at all. If you weren't looking for them you wouldn't even notice.

Visually stunning; very well done.

I give it an enthusiastic four thumbs up (I"m using someone elses' thumbs too)

 

[Raz]

^^^I did think the religious parallels stood out like dogs' balls when the beavers were first talking about Aslan with such fervour and telling the kids how they have to believe in him and follow him because he's here for all of us and blah blah blah...

To be honest though that was really the only place in the movie where I felt it was heavy-handed, and even that didn't really bother me so much. It is a major part of the story after all, there's no point remaking it if you're not gonna reference that at some point...

Probably what bothers me more is that (and I think someone else already pointed this out) there doesn't seem to be any message that there are bad consequences to violence and war. A book written half a century ago where primary school aged children get given weapons by Father Christmas with the intent to go to war and use them to kill people might have worked then, but it's a little bit disturbing today, no..?