The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

[dwndrgn]

The Chronicles of Narnia

Are a lot of you planning on going to see this one? I almost feel bad for not even having an inkling of desire to see it. I never read the books as a kid and only tried much later to pick up The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe and couldn't get through it.

I only (almost) feel bad because I want a continuation of faithful (pretty much) translations of scifi and fantasy to get up on the big screen, so I feel that I should participate in that decision by seeing the movie in the theater. But, I can't even get lukewarm about it.

Although, it is quite possible that I've been turned off by all the Christianity hype revolving around the movie. I really couldn't care less either way, but with everyone and their uncle Charlie harping on about it everywhere...now I'm annoyed by the whole thing. But, I don't think this is really the reason I don't want to go see it. I truly feel that I didn't like the story and therefore won't like the movie. Can I say that if I haven't finished the book?

Anyway, what are your thoughts.

 

[Esioul]

Re: The Chronicles of Narnia

I enjoy the books, so I am looking forward to seeing the film. Maybe start with the first one Dwndrgn and you will get into it more? Personally The Lion, Witch etc is not my faveorite one.

 

[Foxbat]

Re: The Chronicles of Narnia

I'll probably wait and watch it on DVD. I quite like the Narnia stories but I'm generally just a lazy person and the nearest cinema is just too far away

 

[Esioul]

Re: The Chronicles of Narnia

Heh, there is no good cinema here either, so I'm waiting till I get home (only 5 days to go now, I'm so excited!)

 

[Teir]

Re: The Chronicles of Narnia

Very much looking forward to this! Probably see it next week. I love the trialers...if nothing else, this film is gonna have an awesome soundtrack! Ive never read the books but I spose now ill have to . It was about time anyway

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Re: The Chronicles of Narnia

I saw it today and enjoyed it very much. But then, I loved the book.

The sets and the effects and everything that comes under the heading of art direction were beautiful. The young actors playing Lucy and Edmund were excellent. The script was satisfyingly faithful to the book, but it fleshed out the characters a bit more, and the religious elements were actually more subtle than I expected.

My husband and I arrived early -- but not early enough. The theater was already full to bursting with hordes of parochial school kids. We would have had to sit in one of the first rows. Fortunately, it's a large multiplex and there was another showing within the hour and we were allowed to exchange our tickets.

We went straight in and claimed our seats in a practically empty auditorium, which began to fill up fairly quickly. It turned out that they had over-booked the 12:30 showing. So there we were with a room full of excited school children, who, like us, were kept waiting an extra forty minutes. We feared the worst.

But shortly after the movie started the theater became very quiet, and remained so all the way through. I think it's safe to say that the kids were sucked right into the story.

 

[Salazar]

Re: The Chronicles of Narnia

I am so going to see that Narnia this Holidays! I've waiting for a while

 

[Dave]

I saw this today and I think it's very good. Jonathan Ross on 'Film 2005' said that he was disappointed; that it wasn't as good as 'Harry Potter'. I'd agree with that, but not to such a degree.

Ross also criticised that beginning, the costumes and the Queen.

Except for the beginning, the film is quite faithful to the book. Someone who had just re-read the book agreed with this. There are only few extra scenes added to set the background with their father in the war. The book goes straight into the wardrobe after a few pages and in a film that would translate into seconds, so something more is required. I did notice that some children were getting restless during the talking. I also didn't think that the steam train pictures were necessary. I've also travelled on that line near Haworth. It's been in countless films including 'The Railway Children' so it's quite recognisable now.

On the costumes, I think they were just right. Everything about the film had a 1940's retro-look and the costumes were just a part of that.

The special effects were excellent, especially the Beavers (voiced by Ray Winstone and Dawn French), Aslan (voiced by Liam Neeson) and the other animals. Jim Broadbent is hidden under make-uo as Professor Kirke.

Ross said that he couldn't tell that the White Witch Queen was evil and the Aslan was good. He must have seen some other film. She wasn't evil in a pantomime villain way, but she was throughly nasty and manipulating, and throughly evil.

In the USA the film is having 'Passion of the Christ' like advance screenings by Christian groups due to it's strong Christian themes. These are, of course, deliberate:

Aslan the lion, the wise king who created Narnia, mirrors Jesus Christ because he sacrifices his life to save others, then later is resurrected in triumph to save the world from evil.

When the book opens, Narnia is gripped by a curse that dooms it to unending winter -- a parable to Adam and Eve being cast out of the garden of Eden.

Each of the seven novels in The Chronicles of Narnia addresses one of the seven deadly sins, and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe specifically focuses on gluttony.

But I would guess that is all way above the heads of most young film goers. Go along because it is a good story.

 

[PTeppic]

Originally posted by Dave
Each of the seven novels in The Chronicles of Narnia addresses one of the seven deadly sins, and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe specifically focuses on gluttony.

Went over my head too!

It's okay as a film, but definitely aimed at children. The animals are very well done, sfx-wise, especially the fawn and centaurs. though in one or two blue screen moments against the scenery the edges still felt visible, which these days is unacceptable.

For me, coming out of the cinema, the whole thing just felt thin. Kids find secret world, accept they're the missing key in an ancient prophecy (though debate whether to help), each get a gift which they then use at a key moment (very Bond-esque), amazingly (magically?) learn how to use weapons in a day, one of them is tricked briefly but soon sees the true path, all join together in battle, the "dead" coming to the rescue, etc. Straightforward plot, few twists, only a couple of parallel threads.

BUT, Tilda Swinton seemed out of her depth and thoroughly uncomfortable as White Queen, little background on any of the mythology, "deep magic", how they forgot their human families to quickly, Aslan's past etc.

And it all felt like we've seen it before, only bigger, uglier and better. Which of course we have: LOTR. Small people finding their importance in a strange new world, man with a sword gets to be king, dead helping win the final battle etc.

Good, but not great.

 

[Dave]

Re: Re: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

Originally posted by PTeppic
...each get a gift which they then use at a key moment (very Bond-esque) ... it all felt like we've seen it before, only bigger, uglier and better. Which of course we have: LOTR. Small people finding their importance in a strange new world, man with a sword gets to be king, dead helping win the final battle.

Except that 'The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe' was first published in 1950 and 'Casino Royale' in 1961. 'The Hobbit' was first published in 1937, but 'The Fellowship of the Ring' was not published until 1953.

So who copied who? Lewis and Tolkien were contemporaries.

Anyone know why, since they have plans to film the whole series, Disney have begun with this episode? I know there is debate over which book to read first, but in the books I have the publishers say you should read them in chronological order and have numbered them that way. Lewis himself said it didn't really matter, but sided slightly with chronological order.

 

[lizzybob]

Re: The Chronicles of Narnia

I saw this movie this afternoon and its amazing! To start with I was a bit skeptical about the look of the movie as I felt it had loads of aspects that looked like lotr from the trailers I had seen ... but ... turns out it really isn't. I love the use of sound in the movie and Lucy is acted really well. I really really enjoyed it and it just brought back all the memories of my childhood or at least the early parts.

However I do have to say that it is really bugging me how the Christians are taking this movie and making it more overly religious than I see it to be. Yeah ok so Aslan comes back to life but he is not another Jesus and I personally don't feel that he was ever supposed to be a Jesus figure.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Re: The Chronicles of Narnia

He certainly was a Jesus figure in C. S. Lewis's mind when he wrote the book. What the director had in mind when he made the movie is more open to interpretation, since he's never come out and said.

But the story functions pretty much the same way whether one looks at it from a Christian perspective or not. (Since I have been both a Christian and not-a-Christian during the years since I first read the books I think I can speak to that.)

I'm not against anyone enjoying the movie on their own terms, whatever those terms may be, and recommending it to like-minded people on those same terms. I don't see why that should encroach on my own pleasure in any way.

And at least we don't have Christian fundamentalists condemning us to hellfire for our mere interest in fantasy these days. That has to be a good thing. I remember when my children were still in school and the mother of one of my daughter's classmates said to me, "I used to read fantasy, but I can't anymore, because now I'm a Christian."

I thought that was an interesting statement, considering all the great fantasy writers who have also been deeply religious.

 

[goblinQueen]

Re: The Chronicles of Narnia

I just saw this over the weekend too, and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially the scenes with the White Witch. I was disappointed, though, that the picnic scene with the fox was left out. Overall though, it was a beautiful movie!

 

[philoSCIFI]

I liked the film. (I was going to go in depth as to why, but I lost my post when Ascifi decided to do some funky refresh thing on me. )

Anyway, I like that they started with this one first. (Again, would go in depth but had to refresh and lost the post.)

 

[Dragon Goddess]

Re: Re: Re: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

Originally posted by Dave
Except that 'The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe' was first published in 1950 and 'Casino Royale' in 1961. 'The Hobbit' was first published in 1937, but 'The Fellowship of the Ring' was not published until 1953.

So who copied who? Lewis and Tolkien were contemporaries.

*Chuckles.* I think part of the point to Tolkien's Foreword to the Lord of Rings is that his story isn't an allegorical piece like the Narnia books, or George MacDonald's Golden Key. I'm no great fan of LotR, but I've always liked Tolkien's words about a story with "applicability" versus an allegorical story.

Originally posted by Dave Anyone know why, since they have plans to film the whole series, Disney have begun with this episode? I know there is debate over which book to read first, but in the books I have the publishers say you should read them in chronological order and have numbered them that way. Lewis himself said it didn't really matter, but sided slightly with chronological order.

I can think of two possibilities.

1) What exactly is your publisher's idea of "chronolgical order?" You see the publisher of the series when I read it, the producer of the set from which most of my Narnia books comes, published them in the order they were written. That makes The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe the first book by... ah... external chronological order. Lewis didn't write The Magician's Nephew until later. It comes first strictly by the internal chronological order.

2) I haven't read the books in a while, but do any of the other stories feature Santa Claus? Maybe they just picked it as the Christmas story.

 

[Dave]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

Originally posted by Dragon Goddess
What exactly is your publisher's idea of "chronolgical order?"

I have to admit I only read them as a child, a long time ago and I never read the 'Magician's Nephew' as I got bored by that time. I did watch some of the BBC TV series.

I think most people do read 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' first and I did myself, but my children have the books now and in "Book 2" - The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - full colour collector' edition published by Collins in 1980 it lists the books on the second page "In Reading Order".

I also read that CS Lewis wrote a letter to fans in which he said that he slightly came down on that order (which is the chronological order of the events as they happen in Narnia itself), but that it makes the books appear more allegorical than was his original intention.

My point was more that if Disney is setting out to make all seven then why not start with the first. It strikes me that they have gone with the one that will have the biggest box office draw because they are unsure of it's success. If they need to test the water in that way, maybe it is not so certain that they will make the whole series.

As for PTeppic's comments, I would have to agree that the story is a little weak, but it was for kids, and if it was not for Lewis and Tolkien then I doubt there would have been Conan, Elric or any of the packed shelves of 'Fantasy' that now fill bookshops.

 

[Annette]

I've never read any of C S Lewis' books. My daughter has just read The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe and thorughly enjoyed it. We've just been to the cinema to see this film and as a family thought it absolutely brilliant.

I don't understand why people go to the cinema to see films and then pick them to pieces. I go for the enjoyment of seeing a film together with my family.

I've listened to a couple of 'critics' who've slagged the film off and I know its their job to let people know what they think of the film, but at the end of the day isn't that 'peoples choice' to go see the film or not. I think that if we listened to a critics description and took it to heart then most of us wouldn't even bother visiting the cinema at all.

I hope you understand the point I'm trying to get across. I for one would love to go and see the film again. My opinion is that it was good and worth seeing twice.

As for the child actors and Tilda Swinton I think they played fantastic parts. She (the White Witch) came across to me as an evil piece of work.

Thats my opinion anyway.

annette

 

[Dave]

The Odeon free film guide 'Addict' tells us that this is an adaptation of the story by Lewis Carroll. It's not a typo as it appears twice on the page. That just shows you how much these critics know.

 

[Annette]

Thats a good point Dave. I'd heard that The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe was true (or as near as) to the book, so why criticise the way its been adapted on film.

annette

 

[Dragon Goddess]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2

Originally posted by Dave
I think most people do read 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' first and I did myself, but my children have the books now and in "Book 2" - The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - full colour collector' edition published by Collins in 1980 it lists the books on the second page "In Reading Order".

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is "Book 1" in the series as published by Collier Books in 1975, the set I have. It doesn't give a "prescribed" reading order. The original copyright for the Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe is 1950, while the original copyright date for The Magician's Nephew is 1955.

Originally posted by Dave I also read that CS Lewis wrote a letter to fans in which he said that he slightly came down on that order (which is the chronological order of the events as they happen in Narnia itself), but that it makes the books appear more allegorical than was his original intention.

"The chronological order of the events as they happen in Narnia itself," would be the internal chronolgical order of the series. I think it's better to read/watch a series in it's external chronological order, not to mention wishing Lucas would stop rewriting the original Star Wars trilogy. The Magician's Nephew isn't the first book written, it's a prequel moved to number one by people organizing the series by it's internal structure.

Originally posted by Dave My point was more that if Disney is setting out to make all seven then why not start with the first.

And my point was that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was the first book written in the series rather than the later prequel The Magician's Nephew.

Originally posted by Dave If they need to test the water in that way, maybe it is not so certain that they will make the whole series.

It's true that the deal is that they get to make the next book in the external chronological order, Prince Caspian, if the first movie is a large enough success.

Originally posted by Dave As for PTeppic's comments, I would have to agree that the story is a little weak, but it was for kids, and if it was not for Lewis and Tolkien then I doubt there would have been Conan, Elric or any of the packed shelves of 'Fantasy' that now fill bookshops.

Conan predates not only Narnia, and the Lord of the Rings, but The Hobbit as well. Robert E. Howard had already written all of the original Conan stories when he comitted suicide in 1936. The year before The Hobbit was published.