Just saw The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

[FoxyKaye]

...I'm hoping they toned down the rampant christianity in the movie cause some of the effects look good.

Not in the least - if anything, it's magnified. Still a good movie to see in theaters, though, since the SFX are indeed amazing. It's also fairly true to the book, with only several scenes altered or omitted (Mr. Tumnus being *sooo creepy* in the movie, for one). I'd say read the book first, it's a quick read (read it in an evening), and will give you a bit richer perspective on the movie. Incidentally, they totally set up for sequals - Prince Caspian & Dawn Treader, The Magician's Nephew, The Last Battle - the elements are all there if you look for them, right down to the replica silver apple snuff box on the professor's desk (which will only have meaning if you've read The Magician's Nephew).

 

[rickvanr]

I went and saw it yesterday afternoon (I'm holding off on King Kong until next week). The theatre was surprisingly full for a Thursday afternoon.

I thought it was a really good movie, it followed the book fairly well. They left out a few parts I wish they didn't, but they weren't plot intensive parts. I didn't really notice too many Biblical references. Sure Aslan's resurrection was obvious, but I don't really know the Bible that well, so I didn't pick up on the rest.

The effects were amazing, the only part I felt looked extremely cheesy were the giants in the White Witch's army.

 

[Kobushi]

the cyclopses kinda reminded me of Krull.

I might have to break down and read the book. It seems interesting enough.

 

[rickvanr]

the cyclopses kinda reminded me of Krull.

I might have to break down and read the book. It seems interesting enough.

Read the book, it's 200 pages with pictures. It'll take you a couple hours tops.

 

[XIII]

Hmm. Saw this a few days ago, and thought it was a 5/10 film. King kong blew it away in terms of fun watching.

The white witch seemed too nice to me.. she was never really, really cruel, and she always seemed to have a smile on her face!

I dunno.. just not as great as I thought it could've been, overall.

 

[devilot]

I haven't seen King Kong yet...

But like others have mentioned; I was surprised that the animals' talking/motions weren't horrible. I thought it was a fun movie, more fun than any I've seen in the theater for awhile now.

 

[Eric5h5]

Technically: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was written first, but Lewis wrote "The Magician's Nephew" later as a prequel to it, and specified that it should be the first one in the series.

Technically, Lewis never specified that "The Magician's Nephew" should be first; Lewis's nephew did. Lewis himself once expressed a vague opinion that maybe it should be first, but that's from the perspective of the author naturally quite familiar with his own works. From a newbie perspective, "The Lion Etc." contains language addressing the reader which only makes sense if you read it first, and "The Magician's Nephew" makes more literal sense if you read it after the others (excepting "The Last Battle" of course), even if chronologically it's the first.

--Eric

 

[Eric5h5]

On the other hand, Tolkein also made it very plain that LOTR was NOT an allegory, even going so far as to say that he really didn't like allegories (even though he and Lewis did indeed read and critique each other's work).

Tolkien's dislike of allegories stemmed from the fact that LotR was frequently accused of being a WWII allegory. Really not a Christian allegory at all.

--Eric

 

[joker2]

From a newbie perspective, "The Lion Etc." contains language addressing the reader which only makes sense if you read it first, and "The Magician's Nephew" makes more literal sense if you read it after the others (excepting "The Last Battle" of course), even if chronologically it's the first.

True. I did read the "The Magician's Nephew" after having read "The Lion (etc)" many years ago, having picked up the whole thing in a single bound book this year. And granted, it did have a bit of an 'ah ha' factor as to where things came from in "The Lion (etc)" and perhaps why most still recommend reading "The Lion (etc)" first would be best.

I need to go see the movie sometime soon

 

[danny_w]

Tolkien's dislike of allegories stemmed from the fact that LotR was frequently accused of being a WWII allegory. Really not a Christian allegory at all.
--Eric

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that LOTR was considered a Christian allegory. An allegory can be over any subject, and is not limited to Christianity by any means.

 

[rickvanr]

Technically, Lewis never specified that "The Magician's Nephew" should be first; Lewis's nephew did. Lewis himself once expressed a vague opinion that maybe it should be first, but that's from the perspective of the author naturally quite familiar with his own works. From a newbie perspective, "The Lion Etc." contains language addressing the reader which only makes sense if you read it first, and "The Magician's Nephew" makes more literal sense if you read it after the others (excepting "The Last Battle" of course), even if chronologically it's the first.

--Eric

The Magician's Nephew tells you how the White Witch gets in Narnia, it shows everything being created from nothing. How could you not say it's the first in the series. Diggory is the Professor.

 

[jelloshotsrule]

pleasantly surprised with the quality of the effects and talking animals. the scale/scope of the story was not as a big as lord of the rings, and that is fine; however it's a safe bet that it will always be compared to it for multiple reasons. the people i saw it with weren't as excited about it, though they liked it enough.

are there any specific plans of sequels or are they going the wait to see how this one does and then move from there route?

 

[Stampyhead]

And why still does Disney portray Wolves as mean, viscous and evil creatures?

Because that's how they are in the book. I would hope that Disney wouldn't try to change the story just to be politically correct...

 

[AP_piano295]

Yes, it's a new thread to talk about seeing the movie...

It was great! The story kept you on edge (as does the book), the scenery and costumes were wonderful. The battle scenes were gripping, but no blood and gore was required to 'make it better'. The Christian references weren't overwhelming. I mean, you have to really know what you're looking for. If you're a little kid, you're going to love the movie without analyzing it for religious themes.

It's also the first time in a long time I've heard the audience clap when it was over.

Good soundtrack, too.

I'll probably go see it again.

EDIT: There was a pretty good preview for another Pirates of the Carribbean movie, too!

You want clapping go se Kind Kong... I almost cried

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Mr. Tumnus being *sooo creepy* in the movie.

I got the same vibe there too....they cast him too young. I was thinking more along the lines of the Puck character from A Midsummer Night's Dream (the version with Kevin Kline).

Overall a pretty good film - I think Lewis would have overall been satisfied, especially with the wonders of CG.

Tolkien's dislike of allegories stemmed from the fact that LotR was frequently accused of being a WWII allegory. Really not a Christian allegory at all.

Even so, Tolkien could not avoid some slight (though very tangential) Judeo-Chrisitan religious undertones in his writing. But I don't think he meant it to be there, it's just a result of his background that the mythology of Middle Earth would be a conglomeration of his interests and beliefs, particularly Finnish/Norse mythology and a tiny dab of Christianity.

But I agree that looking for religious allegory is not the proper way to approach Tolkien's writing, since that wasn't the author's intent to begin with.

And the idea that the Lord of the Rings was an anti-WWII allegory is silly in light of the fact that he had sketched out pretty comprehensive plot outlines before the war began. Tolkien has also specifically denied the stories being an anti-WWI allegory.

 

[kretzy]

I must admit, I was really looking forward to this film, but when I saw it today I was somewhat disappointed. There was just something wrong with it that prevented it from being a really good movie. I thought some of the special effects were poorly done, considering they spent $230 mil, you'd think they'd get bluescreen right. I kept getting the feeling that it wanted to be like LoTR in it's cinematography and epicness. The other thing that I really didn't like were a few moments of cringeful script/acting....particularly when Peter yells "for Narnia" just before charging into battle. I'd give it about 3/5 stars.

 

[weckart]

I consider myself an anthropomorphics fan (Like you can't tell that from my avatar.)

Not sure how anyone could infer that from your avatar - or has the Intel logo taken on a life of its own?