Behind the Scenes of Narnia's Special Effects 649
louismg writes "Walt Disney Pictures' Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe took in more than $100 million at the box office worldwide in its opening weekend, riding the back of special effects powering nearly all the movie's characters, from the lion Aslan to the Gryphon, Minotaur, Centaurs and more. VFXWorld has a series of diaries with the technology geeks at Rhythm & Hues behind the special effects. (Part 1, 2)
For the fantasy film's special effects, Rhythm & Hues teamed up with Industrial Light and Magic and Sony Pictures Imageworks to deliver more than 1,400 shots for the film, and used cutting-edge technology from BlueArc, NVIDIA and others to keep the effects' production running."
Movie was amazing, but I was a tad disappointed... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Movie was amazing, but I was a tad disappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
I think though what you may have missed is a lot of the inner dialogue that you get in the book was not in the film. It downplayed Aslan a bit I think, since we don't get to 'hear' how the children feal about him. They did a decent job I think, acting wise, but I'm not sure a film can display the complex ideas conveyed in the book in that regard. Maybe deviating further from the text would have allowed them to be more true to the ideas, if not the events, I'm not sure.
But I do really think that on the whole the film has most of the books strengths as well as its weaknesses.
Re:Movie was amazing, but I was a tad disappointed (Score:3, Insightful)
I read it when I was kid and really enjoyed the book. I read it to my son about a year ago and he loved it. A little of the magic was gone for me since I understood the allegory this time, but its still a great story.
The movie stayed very close the book, much more than lord of the rings did.
There was one part where I thought disney was about to ruin it(something to do with the wolf) but it turned out ok.
The special effects were awesome, and don't let the PG throw you off, it was closer to a PG13
Re:Movie was amazing, but I was a tad disappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
YMMV, of course.
Re:Movie was amazing, but I was a tad disappointed (Score:4, Informative)
* - trying to be helpful here, not a jerk.
Re:Movie was amazing, but I was a tad disappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
After thinking about it a bit, I believe they downplayed Aslan more for dramatic effect than to steer away from the Jesus angle. I mean, if you know all along that the lion is pretty much God Almighty, there's not a lot of conflict. God always wins, after all. The movie focuses on the kids, and that makes for more dramatic tension --- how are a bunch of kids going to save the world?
Oh, and I don't really think "allegory" is the best word to use. In an allegory, characters and events are symbolic of something. It's easy to see Narnia that way, but the crucial difference is that Aslan is not merely a symbol of Jesus --- he actually is Jesus.
Or so C.S. Lewis said. Of course, C.S. Lewis might have just been trying to explain away the allegory because his good buddy Professor Tolkien hated it ;)
Re:Movie was amazing, but I was a tad disappointed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Movie was amazing, but I was a tad disappointed (Score:3, Insightful)
Alternatively, they could read the book and then decide whether or not to see it based on how the story plays out.
You may be too blinded by hate to see that you are every bit as bad as what you claim this guy to be.
Pathetic (Score:2, Informative)
One more tidbit. It's interesting that on IMDB the first 20 pages of reviews are all very positive (and submitted before the offical release), yet 80% of the more recent ones (since Fridays US release) are all very poor.
Re:Pathetic (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pathetic (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pathetic (Score:2)
Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice Critters, Pathetic Backgrounds (Score:2)
Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire movie was very poorly done. It's as if the script writer merely made a bulleted list of every major plot point in the novel, and handed it off to the director. There was absolutely no character to the movie, everyone trouped around the countryside methodicly completing task A before moving on to task B. Felt more like they were connecting the dots than telling a story.
I suppose it merely proves there's something to be said for
Re:Pathetic (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly enough the film begins with a scene not in the book at all that does a lot to set up some of how things will work out. But from then on, as you say, you get the books events but not all the book's depth. Now I still liked the film as I've said, and I don't think the books are so deep, that you are missing that much. I think some of the film's weaknesses are the book's weaknesses too. (I've always thought Clive's fiction was his weakest work~ Screwtape Letters excepted)
I think you hit the nail on the head. To have been a better film would have required more deviation from the text. This makes me rethink some of my frustration with the LoTR films. I loved them too, and now maybe I wont be so hard on some of the revisions.
Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad you pointed that out. It's been 15+ years since I read the novels, and though it didn't seem right to witness the bombing of London in the opening scenes I couldn't remeber if it had been in the books.
Those opening scenes were the only ones in the movie that triggered any kind of emotional reaction in me, which is both good and bad. Illustrates the importance of adapti
You're showing your age here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pathetic (Score:4, Interesting)
My daughter loved the movie. I thought it had the frequent problem of stuffing too many pages of a novel into too few minutes on screen. "Bullet Points" is a fitting judgement.
I noticed the shot of the kids up on the peak and the background screaming "green-screen" to my eyes. I thought the beavers looked fake, but the movement of the wolves was well done. For talking animals, the overall effect was quite a breakthrough.
I'm thinking that after we finish as many of the Narnia books as we care to, I'll read Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy for balance. She loved the Hobbit, but I don't think she's ready for The Lord of the Rings. We've read Harry Potter 1 and 2, and seen the first three movies together. The opening of Harry Potter 3 is too scary for her even though she's seen the film and understands who the big dog is. So those will have to wait.
I am surprised at how much I like reading to her. Although the Narnia books are the first that I will be reading to her that I haven't read myself.
And what is slashcode for an underline? I can see my English teacher's red circles around the book titles that ought to be underlined...
Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Informative)
What you are looking for is "The Magician's Nephew", the sixth book in the Narnian series that is actually a prequel to the entire series. It explains where the witch came from, what the professor knows about Narnia, and who Aslan is (as well as what is up with the lightpost :-) ). These questions were all mysteries in the original books (in their original order) that were not answered until the second to the last book, and with the possibility of making all seven books into movies, they must have decided to keep them mysteries now as well.
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, you didn't see any eligible warlocks in the movie, now did you? A few thousand years without getting laid, you'd be an icy bitch too.
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excaliber from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that Aslan, the Lion, was to carry Excalibur! That is why Aslan was King!
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Informative)
She's evil. There are more details in another Narnia story, 'The Magician's Nephew.'
He is ruler of many countries, so he was off visiting them.
That's detailed in 'The Magician's Nephew.'
'Magician's Nephew'
Other countries to rule.
His Father is the Emperor over the sea and always has been. It's a bit like asking who put God in charge of everything. This is more apparent in the other stories.
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
How did Aslan become king?
His Father is the Emperor over the sea and always has been. It's a bit like asking who put God in charge of everything.
Well I didn't vote for 'im.
Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even that Polybius defined a monarch as a single ruler acting within the constraints of what tradition and his subjects will allow. By his definition God is a Tyrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:? Making stuff up? (Score:5, Informative)
One more tidbit. It's interesting that on IMDB the first 20 pages of reviews are all very positive (and submitted before the offical release), yet 80% of the more recent ones (since Fridays US release) are all very poor.
I didn't see the film, didn't read the books, so I'm not here to defend. But I actually went to IMDB and looked at the user reviews, sorted by date [imdb.com], and they are mostly all positive.
Re:? Making stuff up? (Score:4, Informative)
Begining: (Start here and move forward)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363771/usercomments?
End: (Start here and move back)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363771/usercomments?
YOU ARE RIGHT! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pathetic (Score:2)
Not sure which effects were poorly done.
WETA [wetaworkshop.co.nz] was involved in this film. The same guys that did Lord of the Rings
If something like a centaur or minotuar looks fake, it might be because they don't really exist.
Re:YOU FAIL IT (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pathetic (Score:2)
because aslan is god [guardian.co.uk] and god is perfect.
i mean, duh!
Anyone seen it yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:2)
It's been awhile, so I'm not sure if they deviated from the book in any significant ways, but nothing jumped out at me. The lack of blood was a little conspicuous, but they wanted a PG rating and it's already quite violent.
Overall, I was very impressed, and I hope they make the rest of the series
Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:5, Informative)
My wife and I saw a preview showing last Monday. We recently finished reading this book to our kids so it was still pretty fresh in our minds.
The extent to which it is true to the book is pretty great. About the only really big deviation I saw is mentioned in the first response to this question. They really tamed things down in regards to blood and especially so in the sacrafice of Aslan. But looking at the intended audience and the rating this is understandable.
I wrote it up in my journal after we saw it and to sum up my impression, if you liked the book, I think you'll like the film. If you didn't like the book, I doubt you will like the film. If you were indifferent to the book, you might like the film due to all the fantastic creatures. I thought the effects were pretty incredible.
The beginning of the film deviates slightly from the book, but I think it is also a good choice in that, at the time the book came out, the reason for the children leaving London would have been understood. For children today a little explanation is probably helpful.
Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously this will never change much, but it is not because of two-bit producers, well not always at least. You have to remember that many books would make a great deal more then just a two hour movie. Look at Lord of the Rings, you have a series of three movies which run over 11 hrs with the extended editions and things still had to be left out.
In the end, LotR is probably a good example of a book being done fairly right. Yes a few things were left out and some were even changed, but when taking work from literature to film you should expect some change to be necessary. There are some example of very true novel-theater adaptations, but many of those include lots of Director and Writer interaction and even screenplays being written by the original authors.
Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
The story followed the books very closely, much more than (for example) Peter Jackson did with LOTR.
The movie is what it is - a children's fairy tale. My 9 year old daughter absolutely loved it. But if you can't check your mind at the door, you won't like the movie.
The Christian allegory is unmistakeable as well. Aslan = Jesus is pretty obvious. Being a Christian myself, I had no problems with that. But the typical more secular slashdotter might not enjoy the movie if they don't ignore the religious parallels.
Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Chris Mattern
Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:4, Informative)
The author of the above piece even gives some pretty good analysis on why we don't seem to remember the religious over/undertones from our childhood readings.
Also interesting to discover that Lewis was a contemporary of Tolkien, and that perhaps this relationship with Tolkien kindled the Christian influences in his writing.
Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:3, Informative)
Aslan is also the son of the Emperor over the Sea, who rules a great many lands ("In my father's house, there are many mansions").
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:5, Informative)
login: slashdot, password: slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Great movie (Score:4, Informative)
I only have one complaint. The Talking Beasts and Aslan weren't big enough. Especially Aslan. Aslan should have been twice the size he was portrayed in the movie.
Other than that, I didn't have a problem with the movie. Loved every minute.
Better CG graphics (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Better CG graphics (Score:3, Funny)
Minotaur: "Numbers don't win battles"
Peter: "No, but I'm sure they help"
Bob: "Hi! I'm Bob. I'm a tomatoe, and I am here to help!"
It would not have been any more absurd then Jar Jar...
actually, christian messaging is subjective thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:actually, christian messaging is subjective thi (Score:2)
CNN had an artical where (at least they found) some preachers that were explaining the alagory elements of the movie and how they were provided exclusive extended-length previews of the movie.
Disney is trying to drum up buisness ala Passion through the churches.
As far as if it was working, there were 8+ buses at the local AMC Saturday afternoon, all of them from churches.
Re:actually, christian messaging is subjective thi (Score:2)
Re:actually, christian messaging is subjective thi (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I'm an athiest, brought up Quaker, with little interest in spreading Christianity or anything.
But I read the books before I could understand the whole Christian allegory thing. I loved them. I reread them later, understood, and felt betrayed. Then I matured enough to where I could read them a third time and not take it so hard. And I realize that the whole feel of the stories, the idea that they had weight and importance and weren't just some guys who had beef with each other, that came straight out of the religious treatment of the characters.
If Aslan isn't God, and the White Witch is just some woman who wants to rule this place, the story becomes a cheesy special-effects battle movie. Yay, Dungeons and Dragons. If they can try to instill some kind of reverence and awe, and a feeling that these people are taking part in a larger struggle, that what is happening matters, I think the story can carry itself a lot better.
If you can get over the fact that it's about Christianity, of course.
I never saw The Passion, and I don't think it's a great idea for a movie, and so forth. But think how much more pointless a film it would be if the guy who was being tortured and suffering wasn't Jesus.
We need to look at the context in here... (Score:5, Insightful)
And Sauron could be interpreted as Satan. I also read that the orcs were once elves that were turned into evil, wretched beings that hated themselves, and the elves for reminding them what they once where. Couldn't this be an allegory for the fallen angels?
And taking into account the fact that Tolkien played a key role in Lewis' conversion to christianity (does anyone have details on this?), it's not a mystery that many elements of christianity were embedded in Tolkien's works. And yet, we love Tolkien's works.
I'm sure that it wasn't Lewis' intention to push down christianity down the readers' throats, perhaps he just wanted to make his writings useful for christians, or to explain parts of christianity somehow.
I think that people have become seriously disappointed of christians, because of the amount of fundamentalism and zealotry present in today's christian environment. So they reject anything that resembles or includes christianity. But we need to go back to Tolkien and Lewis' environment, and see, from their point of view, that they went to church, where priests were still respected and earned that respect.
A problem with today's view of religion is that whenever we're mentioned catholicism or christianity, our first thoughts come to either the inquisition or pedophile priests, or religious zealots who promote creationism. But Tolkien's and Lewis' christianity was a relatively quiet part of their environment and society, not the circus we see today in the news.
Re:actually, christian messaging is subjective thi (Score:5, Informative)
The "new" ordering of the books is:
That ordering works because the "Magicians Nephew" is the one where Narnia is created, and "The Last Battle" is the book in which it is destroyed/ascended. The original ordering has "The Lion .." coming first, and the "Magician Nephew" being a followup after the initial success.
Personally I read them in the published order, and the small paperback set I have has them numbered in the "old" order - not a big deal to be honest.
Read a this page for more details on suggested reading order [demon.co.uk].
Re:actually, christian messaging is subjective thi (Score:3, Interesting)
1: Lion Witch Wardrobe
2: Prince Caspian
3: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4: Silver Chair
5: Horse and his Boy
6: Magician's Nephew
7: The Last Battle
New order (chronological for events in Narnia)
1: Magician's Nephew
2: Lion Witch Wardrobe
3: Horse and his Boy
4: Prince Caspian
5: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6: Silver Chair
7: The Last Battle
Re:actually, christian messaging is subjective thi (Score:2)
The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
The Horse And His Boy
Prince Caspian
The Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle
Imagination is more important than knowledge (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not the special effects that made the Narnia books so popular - it was the imagination of C.S. Lewis who gave the story and the characters such meaning and gripped the reader with suspense.
And yes the effects were quite awesome, but they seemed so transparent in this movie. IMHO, a much better flick about the conflic of good vs. evil than SW EP III ever was. I *REALLY REALLY REALLY* hope they do The Magician's Nephew next!
Lots of talent involved . (Score:3, Insightful)
The film has been directed by Andrew Adamson, who directed both of the "Shrek" movies and supervised the special effects on both of Joel Schumacher's "Batman" movies. Can it really be that bad?
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Article summary (Score:5, Funny)
WETA Digital (Score:2)
I thought it was pretty terrible. (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine a world where kids need an imagination. Sigh. Perhaps I am getting old but with every passing day it feels like there are fewer and fewer reasons for kids to pick up a book and exercise their imagination. Perhaps I'm horribly off topic but I think I preferred films with poor special effects because it made me fill in the gaps. When I watch things now that I watched as a child I cringe at how bad the effects (and often acting) are but my memory of them is quite different.
Anyway, I hope they haven't
The Magic Is Gone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Magic Is Gone (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Magic Is Gone (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus dude, get some perspective.
You are one of those "I remember the good old days," which conveniently works because you forget what actually happened back then, probably because you were young. That's normal.
I watch THE GOONIES now and cringe at the movie. Just last night I was excited to see Close Encounters of the Third Kind was on, which my (younger) gf had never seen, so I made her watch it. I told her, "This is a classic movie." I hadn't seen it in probably 8 years or so. At the end, we were wondering what the big deal was about the movie. I have no idea.
You say your suspension of disbelief last occurred in 1993 for Jurassic Park. Before that, you said, "the suspension of disbelief was often total. But the magic is gone. We walk out of theatres saying things like, 'Those special effects were fantastic!' rather than, 'Can you believe there was a monster in that cave on the asteroid?'"
I find this amusing, because 99% of the discussion of JP when it came out was regarding how fantastic the special affects were. They were indeed groundbreaking.
The Magic is not gone, you're just too old to see it now. So am I.
Re:The Magic Is Gone (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only when something jars me out of my state of suspended disbelief that it bothers me, and that can happ
I remember trying to read a C.S. Lewis book (Score:4, Interesting)
Tried to read Moby Dick for my 10th grade honors English class... Had something to do with a whale, but that was just the picture on the cover.
Tried to read The Hobbit several times. Another 20-30 pages...
Tried to read The Lord of the Rings before I saw the movies. 10 pages before I gave up.
I couldn't even read Harry Potter.
I did really well on all those standardized reading tests they make you take in government schools, and I do just fine on magazine article-length pieces, or technical stuff... I never really did any reading for my B.S. degree - went to class, skim-read the texts.
Finally, a year after finishing my 16.5 years of schooling, I picked up a copy of John Taylor Gatto's [johntaylorgatto.com] A Different Kind of Teacher. In the first chapter, Mr. Gatto talks about how he found that his 7th graders ("at some of Manhattan's best schools, and at some of the worst") were unable to read, beyond for a standardized test. To prove it for his readers, he said to read the first 20 pages of All Quiet on the Western Front (available at just about any library), and then he'd have a question. Well, I read the question first, so I knew the answer. But I didn't read the second question, and even after I had, I still had NO IDEA WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE. I could pass my eyes over the words, but I was incapable of extracting the story from them.
Mr. Gatto says that the way reading is taught in schools today & for the last 60+ years actually discourages children from visualizing the story as they read it. Which is certainly my problem, and the reason why I couldn't read all those books I gave above.
While I can't blame school for my inability to visualize, I do resent how they led me to believe that I knew how to read, when that certainly wasn't the case. They wasted 13 years of my life in Elementary, Middle and High schools, and I wasted 3.5 years and a whole lotta $$$ in College. I could've learned so much more if I'd been able to read beyond the level of standardized test.
(My problem with visualization was due to a medical problem that I am only now resolving, with the assitance of a capable Osteopathic physician in the Cranial Field [cranialacademy.org].)
So anyways, back to the subject at hand: It's nice that Movie Studios are putting these classic novels on film. This way, since so many of us are incapable of reading complex stories due to our miseducation by the government (ref: books by John Taylor Gatto & others), we can still enjoy the stories our ancestors got from reading the books.
Re:I remember trying to read a C.S. Lewis book (Score:3, Insightful)
It's unfortunate that you graduated reading at what you call the "standardized test" level of accomplishment.
But, in part, the pr
Re:I remember trying to read a C.S. Lewis book (Score:4, Interesting)
on the purpose of school (Score:3, Informative)
When my mother was growing up, Kindergarten cost extra. Hers was a poor family, and both parents needed to work. They did the math and found that a caretaker was cheaper than the government's Kindergarten, so that's where my mother spent her 5th year.
When she got to 1st grade, her parents were surprised to learn from the 1st grade teacher that their daughter already knew how to read. Surprised, because they certainly hadn't taught her.
What happened? Well - while spending all that time at
Re:I remember trying to read a C.S. Lewis book (Score:4, Informative)
I think the main problem is that schools are teaching at the lowest common denominator (the slowest kid in the class) instead of challenging everyone.
Re:I remember trying to read a C.S. Lewis book (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I remember trying to read a C.S. Lewis book (Score:4, Interesting)
I realized that something wasn't right about 7 years ago, a quarter of the way through my last year of High School.
I see you pointing the finger at your teachers, the government, and a medical problem.
I don't blame the teachers - they all meant well by me. But the government is the institution that enforces a system that "doesn't teach the way children learn best" (to paraphrase Mr. Gatto).
But nowhere in there do you actually take it on yourself to learn to do something that might be a bit difficult.
This is what I've spent the last seven years on - six years bumbling around in a cloud of confusion (learning to define the problem I had), and another year after I realized my problem was biomechanical in origen.
And as for the medical problem: Imagine you're trying to learn how to shoot a basketball. You spend years trying to learn, but never advance to the level of others. "Just the way I am". Then one day you realize that, "the reason I can't shoot a basketball very well is because my left arm just flops around with no muscle control. Other people can shoot a basketball well because they can use both hands." Then the question becomes, why doesn't my arm work? You bump from M.D. to M.D.: "your arm is fine", "just need to exercise more", "go to this chiropractor", "need to stop doing _____ so much", "gonna need surgery", etc. Finally you say "phooey on them", and start the "alternative" medical rounds.
Then one day you finally happen across an Osteopathic Physician in Andrew Taylor Still's tradition ("structure and function are interrelated"). He says, "well, your left arm doesn't work very well because the nerve that controls it is pinched at the spine, and that vertebrae is being pulled out of place by this, this and that muscles, which are locked in spasm." Which is a gross simplification of what Dr. D's done for me, but hopefully it gets the point across.
Or maybe a better analogy is trying to sprint with ankle braces. No matter how much you train, you won't be as fast as you could be without the braces.
See also another of my replies in this thread, on how my mother learned to read [slashdot.org].
Am I the only one who.... (Score:4, Informative)
So, the part that I don't like about the movie is that $ony had something to do with it.... so naturally, I've not seen it, and won't.
Re:Am I the only one who.... (Score:3, Funny)
and boycotting anybody is fun.
Best Looking Beaver (Score:4, Funny)
My capsule review (Score:5, Interesting)
+1: They followed the book closely.
+1: They didn't butcher the allegory for the sake of over-sensitive non-Christians.
+1: They didn't play up the allegory for the sake of over-sensitive Christians.
+1: Effects were near flawless, even though the film had much more daylight than others in the genre (underexposure is SO forgiving).
-1: The animals in a few scenes near the end seemed to lose a little fur realism. The airplanes at the very beginning seemed too cartoonish as well. Cheetas don't run like that either, IIRC.
-1: Too much of the beavers.
-1: Didn't do nearly as good a job as LoTR in giving a sense of "place." Narnia is smaller than Middle Earth, but it felt a little cramped. So did the Professor's house.
0: Soundtrack was ok.
+1: Great live and voice casting, other than Titmus, who seemed way too young than I imagined him.
0: One thing I never liked about the book was the appearance of Father Christmas. An allegory should not be tainted by its own archetype.
Re:My capsule review (Score:3, Funny)
Can you ever have too much beaver?
If the Christian Allegory bugged you... (Score:5, Interesting)
To them I would say that perhaps the Narnia stories are the clearest picture of Christianity they have yet seen. I started with the Narnia books, and proceeded to digest and understand a HUGE amount of Christian literature, both highbrow and lowbrow. I now go back to the Narnian books (and the Screwtape letters, The Great Divorce, and some books by John Eldridge) and find them to be probably the most accurate pictures of Christianity written since the Gospels.
That you find other pictures of Christianity repellent could be a combinations of three factors.
1) The "other stories" you are being told are being told badly, or are just plain wrong. God does not approve all articles before publication.
2) The "other stories" you are being told reveal things in yourself that you are not prepared to deal with yet.
3) You understand the greater story, and simply wish to align yourself with evil instead of good.
That's been my life's story anyway. It always seems to come down to one of those three things.
Re:If the Christian Allegory bugged you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we just don't see anything just or right about sacrificing the innocent to save the guilty.
Perhaps we understand the 'greater story', but we find it inherently evil and decide to align ourselves with good.
Re:Mindblowing stupidity (Score:4, Funny)
In your face, Al Gore!
Re:Mindblowing stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
You post a long defense of Christianity and Christian love (entitled "Mindblowing stupidity"), and then end it with this scary sig? How about what Christ said here:
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your
Re:If the Christian Allegory bugged you... (Score:5, Insightful)
All in all, I don't have a problem with Narnia or the Christian message in the books or the movies. I do have a problem with the people and companies who are trying to exploit the Christian themes in Narnia to:
A. Make more money by trying to make it in to mandatory viewing for every church goer and their children, just like "The Passion". Disney saw the profit in exploiting the religious obssession overrunning America today and:
1. Made religious themed kids movie
2. ????
3. PROFIT
I rather doubt Jesus would have been in favor of exploiting his message for profit, he was for example not plussed my the money changers next to the temple profiting off the worship of God.
B. I also have a problem with the people who are trying to use Narnia as a way to seduce children in to Christianity and they are doing it very blatantly. Come here boys and girls and watch these pretty pictures and this exciting story. Did you like that? Yes, well you should be a Christian now even if you don't know what that means or entails. It teeters on brainwashing in much the same way fundamentalists are up in arms about Harry Potter seducing children to the black arts.
In my idealized world I think I would like to see Christians, who if they really believe in the things Jesus said to:
- Abandon their fixation on money and wealth and lead a life where they dedicated themselves to the well being of their fellow man and not to lining their pockets
- Stop supporting politicians and institutions who are proponents and purveyors of wars and killing. For example the U.S. military (the Air Force academy in particular) is coming to be completely dominated by an officer corps of fundamentalist "so called" Christians who pray on Sunday and kill people with little remorse on Monday. That turns my stomach and I'm sure Jesus would gladly climb on another cross in protest against it.
Bottomline if you are going to claim the title Christian you should really walk the walk. If your priorities are to get rich at any cost and you are a big fan of wars and killing you should stop dirtying Jesus' name with your false idolatry of him.
Christian/Mormon?!? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Jesus=money (Score:4, Insightful)
And by your tone, it seems that you are condemning someone, but I'm not sure who...
Re:Jesus=money (Score:5, Insightful)
The Passion of the Dollar Sign.
Re:Jesus=money (Score:4, Insightful)
You are a god-hater not an atheist. There is a difference. As a former atheist, I take offense to your representation of one
Not much mention of it has been made here, but Lewis was quite the atheist prior to his conversion. He did an incredible job answering the demythologization argument of the great Rudolf Bultmann. I did some of my graduate work on Bultmann.
In essence, Bultmann argued that the gospels were myth, as any other myth of ancient times, and was totally unbelievable. Bultmann was a renowned theologian having spent his long career in the gospels.
Lewis responded with respect saying, "I have not labored as you in the New Testament, Mr. Bultmann, but I do know something about myth, and the New Testament is not myth." Claiming the NT as myth brought the argument clearly into the territory of the scholarly work of Lewis.
In all his writings Lewis is a very frustrating figure for critics to tackle. His logic is sound, his arguments high-minded and scholarly and his writings readable to everyone and all. His "art of translation" stated that if you cannot state your point clearly for all to understand then you do not much understand it yourself.
Such was the approach he brought to the LW2.
Re:Now Really... (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you read the book? How else do you propose they show a group of kids talking to a fawn and a pair of beavers?
Re:Now Really... (Score:2)
Tim
Re:Mere Christianity (Score:2)
When their political viewpoints influence their writing. If they have stupid viewpoints but their books don't reflect that, then it doesn't matter. The problem is that anyone who feels pasionately about something is going to let that leak into the rest of their life. You usually have two or three good books out of an author before his/her politics starts
Re:Mere Christianity (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a certain kind of fantasy story where Good battles Evil, and I feel it's a mistake to interpret these in the context of any specific religion, even if the creator's religion influenced their work. I much prefer to take what is there, as it is, and that is easy enough to do with Narnia.
Re:Mere Christianity (Score:2, Informative)
You know, I saw the movie this weekend, and I had to squint to see anything like a "retelling of Jesus Christ". The circumstances of Aslan's death and resurrection are only vaguely like those for Jesus, and there are no other parallels at all.
The White Witch as an allegory to Satan, The Angel of Light. The temptation of Edmond by appealing to his desire for pleasure (Turkish Delight) and power (The Kingship). The "Deep Magic" requirement for the spilling of blood to "atone" for traitors. The ownersh
Re:Mere Christianity (Score:3, Insightful)
There's quite a bit of other stuff going on, though, so to dismiss --
Re:Mere Christianity (Score:2)
I like the other Narnia books better than this one; I hope this movie does well enough that the others get made.
Re:Mere Christianity (Score:2)
Re:Mere Christianity (Score:5, Insightful)
So there's no reason, in my opinion, that a "man of science" could not read, enjoy, and even agree with a mainstream Christain author.
Narnia is not immune to the fantasy haters [balaams-ass.com], either.
Re:Mere Christianity (Score:2)
I'm a man of science myself, but that has no bearing on my taste in music, interest in history, my relationships with other people, or my faith in God. Science only has bearing on a tiny part of our lives and is wholly incapable of saying anything about the supernatural, by definition. How does being a man of science equate to you not being able to come to terms with the books? It seems to be
Re:Mere Christianity (Score:2)
Re:No thanks. (Score:3, Informative)
Your trolling is cute, but the Narnia series has a level of popularity on par with LOTR and C.S. Lewis was not a hack writer.
Re:No thanks. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what you have here is a failure on all levels of the project. From the obviously poor quality effects and crappy sound, to the 'vignette' feeling I got from the last half of the film (like chunks of the film had been removed and the remaining pieces shoddily glued together), this film blew donkey balls.
The casting director at least h