I dunno... I've read both book series.. and I plan on seeing both. Although the LWW was SO bad... I am not as excited by the making of it's sequel as i was when i first heard LWW was first in the works.
Ang
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Narnia: Prince Caspian trailer online!
- Thread starter ApplePod17
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I dunno... I've read both book series.. and I plan on seeing both. Although the LWW was SO bad... I am not as excited by the making of it's sequel as i was when i first heard LWW was first in the works.
Ang
I'm afraid to re-read the books because I'll be so severely disappointed with the movie afterwards, at least it'll be better than the other series, not BBC but some very small US company that did it with special effects puppets in the early 90s, anyone know what I'm talking about? I hope not haha.
Atheists like Pullman? He has attacked Lewis on many occasions and called his books "one of the most ugly and poisonous things I've ever read." Most Atheists don't take that kind of position but the Author of The Golden Compass certainly does.
The uproar is justified because his books clearly have an anti Christian theme, packaged for children. A Christian parent naturally wouldn't want to support it. An Atheist may see it as just another story but don't they see all religion as just another story?
I read all the Narnia books as a child. I don't think they'll all translate into films well. Voyage of the Dawn Treader will be brilliant, but I honestly think that's the one to end the film franchise on.
Hollywood being Hollywood of course will only end it when The Silver Chair completely bombs, and even then the Rabid Right will say they're just being Anti-Christian
Hollywood being Hollywood of course will only end it when The Silver Chair completely bombs, and even then the Rabid Right will say they're just being Anti-Christian
They actually pretty much are polar opposites. Lewis was a Christian, and the Narnian books are full of Christian analogies. Pullman is a proclaimed Atheist and and major plot element of the Dark Materials trilogy is the inherent evil of organized religion, and the attempt to bring it down.
If you and your chlidren's beliefs in their own religion were strong enough, I think a simple movie --- one that might make them think about religion (whether that thought is positive or negative --- wouldn't be "harmful". If someone changes their mind and decides that they don't really believe in God anymore, or follow their religion so tightly, then that's their choice, isn't it?
By saying this movie is anti-Christian and boycotting it, the thing Catholics seem most afraid of is the fact that it may make them or their children "think" and see the viewpoint of another religion (assuming Atheism is a form of religion, as it is, in itself, a belief). Or what if their children don't grow up Catholic? Oh my goodness.....that would mean none of the religious "training" worked! By learning about many different viewpoints, they may not choose to be Catholic, so its best to limit their exposure to all anti-religious things and only allow them to watch movies like Passion of the Christ. It's not brainwashing or anything. It's just that "my children WILL grow up to be good Christians, goddamn it!"
But again, you wouldn't see many Atheists boycotting any movie with a strong view on religion, or any movie where religion is a theme. It's not "insulting", nor is it offensive to see a movie being pushed by those "believers" of a God.
So it looks like "The Golden Compass" made about $26 million at the box office, much less than Time Warner had hoped for but still enough to make it first (in an admittedly weak movie opening weekend).
Not very impressive.
Still, it doesn't change my feeling that the "Narnia" sequel won't live up to the original (box office wise).
Not very impressive.
Still, it doesn't change my feeling that the "Narnia" sequel won't live up to the original (box office wise).
Narnia will crush the young atheists of America recruitment tool. Lewis is ridiculously beyond Pullman's league just like Tolkien is. And even George McDonald for that matter. Most children are too young to delight in cynical notions of killing God. That only comes when people grow older (but not necessarily wiser).
If you and your chlidren's beliefs in their own religion were strong enough, I think a simple movie --- one that might make them think about religion (whether that thought is positive or negative --- wouldn't be "harmful". If someone changes their mind and decides that they don't really believe in God anymore, or follow their religion so tightly, then that's their choice, isn't it?
By saying this movie is anti-Christian and boycotting it, the thing Catholics seem most afraid of is the fact that it may make them or their children "think" and see the viewpoint of another religion (assuming Atheism is a form of religion, as it is, in itself, a belief). Or what if their children don't grow up Catholic? Oh my goodness.....that would mean none of the religious "training" worked! By learning about many different viewpoints, they may not choose to be Catholic, so its best to limit their exposure to all anti-religious things and only allow them to watch movies like Passion of the Christ. It's not brainwashing or anything. It's just that "my children WILL grow up to be good Christians, goddamn it!"
Points for the clever pun at the end but I don't think you are looking at this objectively. The controversy isn't about exposing kids to different viewpoints. There is nothing wrong with that,but, is propaganda really the best way to do that? You wouldn't trust a Red Socks fan for an honest opinion of the Yankees would you?
To Atheist its all just fiction right?
How absurd. Lewis wrote some stories, which contain some of his viewpoints. Pullman wrote some stories, which contain some of his viewpoints. Neither is a "recruitment tool." Lewis was a good writer, but not great. I haven't read Pullman, but I've heard a lot of good things, so I'd say it's entirely possible Pullman is a better writer. If you can't deal with someone having a different viewpoint from you, it's time to get out into the real world.
--Eric
I'm sorry, but there is no way Lewis was in Tolkein's league either. To compare the two is a bit laughable.
having read most of tolkien, a good bit of lewis and the pulmann trilogy, i would submit that tolkien is on a different league altogether, where the other two are comparable in terms of storytelling.
and yes, the points of view are different, but in every case it's just obvious fiction.
and the dark material position is certainly against the 'evil organized religion' of the book (the magisterium -which is plainly inspired by the catholic church of the past, but also obviously different from most modern churches) but in my opinion it is not atheist at all, even though the author supposedly is.
It is still permeated by religiosity, and it 'validates' many of the aspects (e.g. existence of angels and afterlife, the reality of magic/miracles, the nature of soul and spirits, the presence of a conscious supernatural essence) of 'classic' religions. It just the underlying philosophy that is different (a positive naturalism vs. a dark negativism).
In that way it appears a lot more 'wiccan' than 'atheist', and is in line with pretty much the entire 'fantasy' genre, where there are worlds with plenty of supernatural and magic and religions and gods that don't fall within the folds of classic christianity.
so what? it's just stories. it only matter how they are told.
and yes, the points of view are different, but in every case it's just obvious fiction.
and the dark material position is certainly against the 'evil organized religion' of the book (the magisterium -which is plainly inspired by the catholic church of the past, but also obviously different from most modern churches) but in my opinion it is not atheist at all, even though the author supposedly is.
It is still permeated by religiosity, and it 'validates' many of the aspects (e.g. existence of angels and afterlife, the reality of magic/miracles, the nature of soul and spirits, the presence of a conscious supernatural essence) of 'classic' religions. It just the underlying philosophy that is different (a positive naturalism vs. a dark negativism).
In that way it appears a lot more 'wiccan' than 'atheist', and is in line with pretty much the entire 'fantasy' genre, where there are worlds with plenty of supernatural and magic and religions and gods that don't fall within the folds of classic christianity.
so what? it's just stories. it only matter how they are told.