Chronicles of Narnia Trailer 619
Ant writes "After United States' broadcast debut of the "Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" trailer on Saturday, May 7th during ABC's network premiere of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", Ain't It Cool News posted AOL's link to the QuickTime movie (direct link to download the 56 MB high quality trailer file)." Fix yourself some turkish delight and enjoy.
Another crappy Disney movie (Score:2)
Here's disney's formula
Re:Another crappy Disney movie (Score:5, Interesting)
I never got around to reading LotR - I was completely turned off by all the singing and poetry in The Hobbit and figured there'd be more of it in the trilogy... and I found Sci-Fi to be a hell of a lot more interesting (at least until the rack at Barnes and Nobel started to look more like a bad collection of Heavy Metal cover art)...
If they don't screw it up, they can easily cash in on film adaptations of the rest of the series - there's quite a lot of material to work with.
Re:Another crappy Disney movie (Score:3, Insightful)
Try this: Don't read the poetry/songs. I skipped right over them and never missed 'em.
Film/Book Order (Score:4, Insightful)
If Disney ends up filming each of the Chronicles, how do they manage to continuity? The characters are going to grow up and the boys' voices will predicibly change before they can film the prequels. Or are they going to hire different actors, breaking continuity.
I imagine it was a business decision. Everyone's heard of "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" but "The Magician's Nephew" might not be as well known.
Overall, I'd say the trailer shows promise, though.
Christian propaganda...? (Score:4, Insightful)
I originally liked the stories as a kid, but then I read The Screwtape Letters, and while I thought it was a neat exercise in combining Christian morality with fiction (the story is about one devil advising another devil on how to corrupt a soul), I also got the vague feeling that CS Lewis was out to manipulate the readers. Then THAT got me thinking that maybe he might be trying to do that with a lot more than just TSL...
Anyways, just wondering.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Insightful)
LOTR is subtle where Narnia is obvious, but both advocate their author's views on life, because that is what literature does.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2)
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Insightful)
But neither The Chronicles of Narnia or his space trilogy was written for that purpose. The Chronicles were originally conceived as bedtime stories for his nieces and nephews that eventually poured themselves out into a series of novels. His space trilogy came out as his attempt to get into that new fangled new literary genre.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's an important point. Lewis was writing at a time when being a Christian was the norm. His books were written to put across Christian morality, not Christianity in and of itself.
I remember being upset when I found out that the Narnia books were about Christianity; I felt tricked. But really the parallels are so blatent that there's no way he was trying to sneak anything past anyone. It was just his inspiration for the stories.
As for Screwtape, well, it's a story written as letters from a senior to a junior devil - if you can't spot the possibility of a Christian message there, then you can't really blame the author!
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're missing the forest for the trees (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2)
Christianity is not the only religion it is ok to hate. I find them all equally reprehensible. (Said with tongue only partially in cheek).
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm? The Crusades were a defense of territory historically owned by the Roman Empire peacefully for over a thousand years against its invasion and subjugation by Islamic hordes conquering and plundering their way out of Arabia.
If you think that an empire defending its territory against invasion is "brought about by christianity"
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Crusades were a defense of territory historically owned by the Roman Empire peacefully for over a thousand years against its invasion and subjugation by Islamic hordes conquering and plundering their way out of Arabia.
If you think that an empire defending its territory against invasion is "brought about by christianity" ... you need to learn a little more history there, friend.
Oh my, oh my! For someone to write such historically inaccurate stuff is one thing, and for it to get +5 Insightful is tot
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Informative)
The Byzantine Empire was what the part with historical claims to the region was called at the time. The Crusades came into being because the Byzantine Emperor called for help against the Seljuk Turks' depredations, and he had nothing to call with except an appeal to shared Christian heritage against the Muslim invasions.
Come on dude, this is _trivial_ to look up. If you seriously don't know what the Byzantine Empire is and how the invasion of it is what caused the Crusades, you really should go away and shut up until you have enough basic knowledge to form an opinion that isn't an utter waste of our time.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Insightful)
You shouldn't be ashamed of it.
It was not you who did it. You did not participate in it, nor were you supporting it in anyway.
It was another generation, another time. The motives were not solely religious, although religion played a big role, at least to motivate the masses to act.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2)
Because the christians control the most powerful govt in the world and because the bug red button is under the control of a born again christian fundamentalist.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Insightful)
beyond that, anyone who modifies their behaviour due to religious teaching is a "fundamentalist"
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2)
Why is that Christianity is the only religion it is still ok to hate?
Because it's not the underdog here in the West?
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Like many agnostics and atheists I dislike all religion. Christianity certainly doesn't have any particular prominence in that respect.
What does raise my hackles more than other is prozelysation, though. This of ocurse includes some Christian evangelcal sects and writers, but I am just as annoyed by prozelytising Hindu and Islamic sects as well. Hint: if I'm interested I promise to come over to your church/synagogue/temple/kiva/bloodstained sacrificial altar and discuss it, but knocking on my door, pushing leaflets in my hand or harassing me on the town is making me less - not more - likely to have a kind thought about what you believe in.
Converesly, among religions the one I dislike the least is Buddhism and especially quiet, contemplative variations of it. It tends to be philosophy as much as religion (no father figure in sight), and they never bother you unless you actively want to be bothered.
So no, Christianity is not special at all when it comes to general dislike. If you are Christian, though, you are of course a lot more attuned to criticism towards it than other religions (and more like ly to see it at all) and so it's of course easy to get the impression that it is singled out in some manner.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, even more from some Christian speaking on a religion they know nothing about! What a surprise. Do you get all your comparative religion information from the back of cereal boxes?
Buddhism requires right action, it requires that you live every moment of your life aware that every action you commit, every choice you make, reflects on you and either brings you closer to or further from enlightenment. That is, in many ways, similar to Christianity (in that, if you TRULY believe in God, you would treat others as creations of God, and you would live each day to bring yourself closer to his will through right action).
The difference being, no matter how contrite he is, no matter how TRULY regretful and sorry he is for the evils he causes, a Buddhist will not reach enlightenment until such time as he has actually balanced out his bad acts.
I have no doubt that the genuine deathbed conversion of a Christian would be a painful experience -- TRULY understanding and comprehending the magnitude of how you have offended the Lord would be horrific. Accepting His mercy at still forgiving you, even after your offenses, would be an amazing experience, humbling and painful. But it wouldn't do a hell of a lot of good for all the poor souls you have harmed, and the world will still be left with plenty of pain from your acts.
A Buddhist understands that if he commits an evil against another -- be he man or beast, or even the world itself -- then he will have to atone for it. Not in regret, not in personal suffering, but in action. He will have to MAKE UP FOR the evil he causes, be it in this lifetime or the next.
What it sounds like you're saying is that you can never, not even on your death bed, change your mind. From your point of view, you can't reach "enlightenment" unless you're a perfect individual your whole life. Well, since no one is perfect, I guess you're screwed.
No, on your death bed you can't "change your mind". If you hurt people, changing your mind doesn't unhurt them. If you poison the water, changing your mind and being contrite doesn't purify it, no matter how much you mean it.
Enlightenment doesn't require perfection, it requires recognizing that your actions affect the world and the lives around you, and for the pains you cause you must cause an equal amount of healing. You can be as truly regretful and sorry as you want, but until you get off your ass and do some good in the world, you're going to be stuck.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to pick up your response, though I found the anonymous post to be rather harsh.
A Buddhist understands that if he commits an evil against another -- be he man or beast, or even the world itself -- then he will have to atone for it. Not in regret, not in personal suffering, but in action. He will have to MAKE UP FOR the evil he causes, be it in this lifetime or the next.
This is where Buddhism and Christianity are in exact opposition: Christians don't get what they deserve, because Jesus got what
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2)
Because our government isn't being hijacked by Greek Orthodoxy.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are "Animal Farm" or "1984" any less valid because they are anti-communist propaganda (no my US friends, that isn't meant as flame bait!)?
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Informative)
Note that Orwell hated fascism as much as he did communism. Indeed, Orwell fought in the spanish Civil war on the side of the socialists and communists against Franco. He was a socialist, but one disillusioned with communism (socialism and communism in the twenties and thirties being seen as close to the same thing). "Animal Farm" obviously being a parody (not propagand
You know, it's not like he *hid* that fact... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not out to "manipulate", he's out to convert, and then to improve the behavior of the converted. That might be the same thing as manipulation in the books of many folks, and I can definitely see how you wouldn't want that out of a fantasy series...
But honestly, CS Lewis pretty much wrote Christian propaganda, books on why he's not an atheist, etc...
It's just like complaining that when you went walking in the rain you got wet, is all.
Re:You know, it's not like he *hid* that fact... (Score:2)
Neither Mein Kampf nor 1984 were written for young children.
That said, I do not feel the Chronicles of Narnia are effective propaganda because the enjoyment of the story does not (IMHO) do anything to encourage you to believe in the source material (Xtianity).
Re:You know, it's not like he *hid* that fact... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, someone reading the CoN without a Christian upbringing is unlikely to identify the Christian elements in it without having them pointed out, and is certainly unlikely to find any relationship between the events of the book and modern Christian practice. The message is really that you should have a particular morality, whatever your articles of faith happen to be. The Christian elements serve primarily to make this message more persuasive to Christian readers. It's actually more like complaining that The Fountainhead seems to promote architects than individualism.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not really. I don't believe in censoring those willing to bear the social and monetary cost of bringing a story to life. (Piggybacking on someone else's infrastructure and budget is another matter entirely.)
For example, were I offended by the passionately atheist, I might view Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as atheist propaganda. Although I'm not sure the movie maintains the book's stance, the book was very hard line against religion.
There's certainly room enough in my philosophy for both stories, and room enough on the video store shelves for both movies.
Accuracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Informative)
Some of his most Christian books are so well written, though, that some serious doubters like myself can really enjoy them, particularly Narnia, but also Screwtape. I would really recommend Till We Have Faces, which unfortionately is often overlooked. Lewis thought it was his best novel, and I agree. Interestingly, it is set in a pre-Christian world.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2)
Anybody else get a little creeped out by the possibility that alot of what CS Lewis was doing with his fantasy writings was really Christian propaganda?
No. I mean, WTF? It's damned great reading and I never turned into a Christian because of it. It doesn't creep me out at all.
Then THAT got me thinking that maybe he might be trying to do that with a lot more than just TSL...
This just in: Writers use writing as a way of conveying ideas and beliefs. Get the full news at 11.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the plausible alternative for C. S. Lewis? Authors write things that are true to themselves, be it Christian, Pagan, Materialist, or what not. Any author who tries to be inauthentic to themselves generally turns out garbage; even if you can't put your finger on why, you'll not like it. A lot of young writers make this mistake, by trying to be someone else, instead of themselves.
Was he supposed to write non-Christian stories? But that's not who he was. And it's hardly like the Chronicles of Narnia are blatent propoganda; instead, it's simply that they are set into a Christian framework. I've read things set into Buddhist frameworks, oodles of things in strict materialist frameworks, things set in a Victorian framework, various philosophies, etc. Do you blame any of those authors for their frameworks?
Was he supposed to not write stories, because they bother you?
When it gets down to it, at the level you're talking about, every story "pushes" some worldview at you. Why is it you're only bothered by this one?
The most likely reason is that you don't realize that you're getting many other ones pushed at you, all the time, and you've only been sensitized to this one. In that case, the problem lies with you, not CS Lewis, and you're probably getting yourself nicely manipulated by other people without even noticing it. Everyone has a worldview that colors everything they do and everything they right. (In fact, Christian writings seem one of the best places to pick that up, regardless of how you feel about the rest of them; see Lewis' non-fiction writing and the works of Francis Schaeffer.)
Criticism (Score:2)
So what's wrong with critizing for criticism's sake? There's no need to have a plausable alternative. Criticism helps us decide is something is good or bad.
It certainly helps you save the 10 bucks to go see a sucky movie. And you can always ignore the critics anyway.
Re:Criticism (Score:3, Insightful)
When you are criticizing a movie vaguely, you implicitly have an outcome that you would prefer in mind. Specifically, make a better movie. Generally, your specific criticisms point to how you would improve it; if you complain the directing is poor, you have this idea of what better directing would be. You may not be able to do it yourself, but you know you've seen it. Artistic criticism rarely falls under this.
The topic at hand is one of those rare instances, since the criticism boils do
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2)
It's not just a possibility, it's a fairly widely accepted fact. Both CS Lewis and Tolkien were Christian and attempted to bring a Christian spirituality into a style of romantic story telling that more traditionally was a nature spirituality (what might today be described, inaccurately, as pagan).
Propaganda might be a bit of a strong term, but the underlying currents and messages of the books are pretty strongly Christian.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Informative)
I fail to see how this manipulates the reader.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Informative)
I actually discovered CS Lewis/Narnia through my pastor as a teenager. He made no bones about it being a very christian-based story.
Regardless of it's intentions, it's a great story. I'm sure I would have eventually discovered it later on, but I always thought it was kind of cool that a pastor would know of a novel that was christian, yet borrowe
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2)
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:5, Informative)
Here are his works catergorized as "Christian" in a faq [demon.co.uk] I found:
P.S. "Apologetic" does not mean making an apology for. In this context it means making a formal justification or defense.
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2)
C.S. Lewis (1898-1965) brought a Christian perspective to all his work, and may be the most accessible and appealing of modern Christian apologists. The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics [amazon.com], C.S Lewis Foundation [cslewis.org].
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:2)
I certainly don't think he'd claim that an athiest would be more
Re:Christian propaganda...? (Score:3, Insightful)
He told the kids to use the flat side of the sword so they didn't hurt anyone. And Lewis hadn't yet experienced the feminist movement to know that whenever you write stories for toastgoddess, you have to give "male" responsibilites like war to a few token female characters. And Lewis wasn't attacking women being interested in fashion and men, he was usi
Turkish Delight Isn't All That Good (with recipe) (Score:5, Informative)
Anyways, here's a link to the recipe [thefoody.com]for those that are interested.
Ingredients:
1lt (1¾ Pints) Water
900g (2lb) Sugar
285g (10oz) Corn Flour
225g (8oz) Icing Sugar
1½ tbsp Rosewater
2 tsp Lemon Juice
Red Food Colouring (optional)
Re:Turkish Delight Isn't All That Good (with recip (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Turkish Delight Isn't All That Good (with recip (Score:2)
Fry's Turkish Delight (Score:2)
Fry's are owned by Cadbury's; they also do one under the Cadbury name, but that's more like Turkish Delight-filled chocolate, and not so good IMHO.
Re:Turkish Delight Isn't All That Good (with recip (Score:2)
Re:Turkish Delight Isn't All That Good (with recip (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Turkish Delight Isn't All That Good (with recip (Score:3, Funny)
Mmmm, steak and kidney and liver and entrail pie....
Re:Turkish Delight Isn't All That Good (with recip (Score:2)
Mac? (Score:3, Informative)
You'd think they could figure out it's a linux box not a mac. I guess they just assume since it's not windows it must be a mac.
I'm also sick and tired of browsing through javascript trying to figure out exactly what the link to the actual file is that doesn't plugin correctly. Mplayer deals with the file fine, but the page won't tell me what the URL of the stream is.
Anyone have a torrent up?
Re:Mac? (Score:2)
I was fine downloading it from the direct link - this is what I like to see in my
But I noticed that the Harry Potter trailer is out and I can't get that one on my linux box. I can download the
Torrent (Score:2)
Though last I checked the source site was actually holding up astoundingly well. It gave me download speeds exceeding 300Kb/s.
More reading: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More reading: (Score:2)
That said, I think she was also a better writer than any of them (save Charles Williams whose works I've not read). "The Nine Taylors" is sublime.
Dave.
Re:More reading: (Score:2)
G.K. Chesterton (Score:3, Informative)
My favorite is G.K. Chesterton,
I agree. I may disagree with a lot of what he said (he was a staunch Catholic, I'm not even Christian), but he was one sharp writer. For people who don't want to spend money before having a chance to review his work, click here [dur.ac.uk].
Bye,
Ori
Chesterton wasn't at Oxford (Score:5, Interesting)
Dorothy L Sayers shouldn't be mentioned in the same paragraph. When she was advised that a character in one of her books could be taken as anti-Semitic, she promptly started to write in positive but not over-signalled Jewish characters.
I mention this because one thing that does stand out about the writings of CSL is that, like Sayers, he was a Christian but not a fundamentalist bigot - he was too well educated, well connected and well read for that. In his adult science fiction he started to play with the idea that Christianity was a partial revelation, and that the battle between good and evil was going on in other civilisations elsewhere in the universe. It's a pity he got over mystical and started to bring in the Arthurian legends, because there is stuff in That Hideous Strength which to my mind spoils the book. But I guess no-one will make a film of it anyway, because it is anti-corporatist, anti-Statist and proposes that a small group of activists can and should employ rather violent means to defeat a technocratic dictatorship. In fact, if the Department of Homeland Security is reading this, you might want to investigate who has been reading That Hideous Strength. They might be potential terrorists.
Re:Chesterton wasn't at Oxford (Score:5, Informative)
He didn't believe in Biblical inerrancy; that is to say, although he believed that the 66 books contained in the Bible are in fact divinely inspired, he didn't believe that all of them were historically accurate. He didn't believe, for example, that Jonah actually got swallowed by the whale, or that the earth is only 8,000 years old. They are scriptures in the sense that they are divine teachings, but they are also myth (according to his line of thinking).
God works "in cognito" in other societies where the Christian gospel is not heard in order to promote his values. Lewis agreed that no one could make it to heaven without believing in Christ, but he also believed that many who never crossed paths with a Christian were given revelation about God through their own mythology. After death, according to Lewis, those who rejected Jesus during their lifetime would surely bring hell upon themselves because they really wouldn't want to spend eternity with a God they hated.
I personally wish more men like Lewis would lead the American church today, because in the absence of reason, superstition has become more and more powerful.
Re:More reading: (Score:3, Interesting)
Surprisingly negative portrayal of organised religion, especially Catholisism, in the third book, and I say this despite being an atheist. Still, a breath of fresh air from the religious stuff in Lewis work.
What the heck ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What the heck ? (Score:3, Informative)
How it works... (Score:4, Informative)
Kjella
How will this movie be popular? (Score:5, Funny)
The League of Concerned Satanists will no doubt lambast this movie as Christian propaganda, due to its thinly veiled allegory.
Disney's Big Move (Score:4, Insightful)
If you compare it to any other Disney live action movie, none of the others come even close in terms of scope, story, budget, costume design, sets, CGI, etc. They're putting a lot on this movie.
Since both my wife and I are big fans of Lewis (my wife even more so), I hope Disney's gamble pays off. There's word that they're hoping they can do additional stories from the book series, which makes sense if the movie is profitable.
As for the few people that complain about it being a movie about Christianity, who really cares? Even though I'm considered a "Christian conservative", I still enjoy movies about other religions and cultures. They're not trying to hide what the story is really about, and there's people out there that actually ENJOY movies about Christianity (see the success of Passion of the Christ for an example). Just get off your anti-religious podium for a second and try thinking about it as just a story, similar to how some colleges will read portions of The Bible or Paradise Lost.
Since this is Hollywood, we can do the trailer... (Score:3, Funny)
"In a world of peace, four children are sent to a strange house, where they find a portal to another world of perpetual snow and talking animals."
*Cue gratuitous beaver shot*
"My word, Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve! Come in and and have tea!"
Four children clash hands together and shout "Talking Beavers! Excellent!"
But then one encounters a mysterious woman:
"Yes, dear boy. I am an evil witch! You can tell by my impeccable manners and cut-glass English accent!"
"Uh oh!"
"Like some Turkish Delight?"
"Are they like Hershey Bars?"
"Yes, but not quite as evil and low carb as well"
To be continued...
*sigh*
Pretty Disney Perfection (Score:3, Funny)
Frankly there's no way an old British woman and four children could keep that house perfectly dusted.
Furthermore, what's with the horrible choice of colors? I've never seen so many primary and secondary colors used in costume and set design in my life. If Narnia is so primitive, technologically, wouldn't it make sense that they would have to use natural dyes--frankly you can't get colors that perfect from natural dye.
Disney just isn't selling it.
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, it's a news item about a new fantasy flick. I think that's nerdular enough. I was glad to see the article.
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:3, Informative)
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation +2
50% Informative
Wow! How did you do that? : )
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:5, Insightful)
C.S.Lewis did write some "science fiction", but it was horribly inaccurate in all sorts of details, and like most of his writings it was a religious tract dressed up as a story.
Now that worked brilliantly with the Narnia stories, but in his science fiction (That Hideous Strength) it did not.
Incidentally, while I'm not even remotely religious, I think that his best writing was The Screwtape Letters. They're entertaining and they show his deep understanding of human nature.
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:2)
Since one of the characters of the story was Merlin, I don't think I could plausibly deny you that point.
But still, it irritates me that as a man of letters at Oxford, Lewis had access to some of the most brilliant physicists of his day, yet clearly didn't bother to consult any of them about the basic science of the non-fantasy aspects of his trilogy.
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:2)
On the other hand:
"Any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Clarke.
Clarke's own work is fairly "hard" science fiction, but sometimes has fantasy elements to it. So I'd be hard put where to draw the line. In the end, the quality of the writing is more important than such niceties. It's all fiction.
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:2)
I agree that C.S.Lewis based most of his books on reworkings of bible fabels , his best works were definantly those that worked in the situations to more plausable realitys or reversed the intent(such as the Screwtape Letters), Less moralising more retelling (I am also not a christian , but the screwtape letters was great).
His sci-fi just see
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nerd/tech/science? (Score:3, Funny)
Bwahaha, excellent troll! I salute you sir. Getting modded "+1 Informative" is the icing on the cake.
Re:First book? (Score:2)
Re:First book? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First book? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:First book? (Score:2)
Re:First book? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First book? (Score:3, Interesting)
Disney had no problem distributing The Incredibles, which does not play as a Saturday morning cartoon.
Re:First book? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bad idea there.
The prose is horribly dry. It's written for children - not young adults - children. The spirit of the books is laid out plain as day and easy to see, because the audience is children. To get the same feeling into a movie, all they'd have to do is not change it very much.
Of course, it won't actually be the same as the spirit of the words in your memory or in mine. It'll be what was actually there, which, unfortunately, is much le
Re:Yeah! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:happy happy.....joy joy..... (Score:2)
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
Re:Only four kids? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only four kids? (Score:3, Informative)
Peter, Susan, Lucy, and Edmund are in LW&W, IIRC. Some additional children appear in later books in the series, but not in the first one.
Re:Only four kids? (Score:3, Informative)
In the Narnian Chronicles there was Lucy (the first in the wardrobe), Edmund (the second-youngest, who betrayed them and resulted in the death of Aslan), Susan (the second-oldest, who once she left narnia ultimately turned away from believing in it), and Peter (the oldest).