**Comparing Narnia and LotR**

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I was struck by how much more Narnia was consistent
with the book then PJ's LOTR. But the brief battle
scene at the end didn't seem to have much "oomph."
And, presumably because LWW is aimed at a younger
audience, it was interesting to see the way they cut away
just before graphic violence, such as the witches'
death, which are implied more then seen- as opposed to
PJ's not infrequent over the top shots going a bit too
much the other way.

Btw, it's been a while since I read them, is the
professor Eustace Clarence Scrubb?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

... is the
professor Eustace Clarence Scrubb?

Nope, it's Digory, the Magician's Nephew, IIRC.

[Lalaith]

always find it odd that not long after I read LotR (and Narnia) I decided to give up going to church

Interesting. I have to confess I found Narnia - or at least the Last Battle - rather alienating. I really enjoyed the story but I was appalled at Susan being excluded from Aslan's kingdom because as a young woman she was too interested in "lipstick, stockings and invitations." Even though I was still a child, I suspected that I too would be very interested in these things pretty soon, saw nothing wrong with that and felt the author's religious viewpoint was extremely unreasonable. (Also one of the examples Eustace's parents' silliness was their support of feminism...I was a very emancipated little girl and this made me cross )
I never felt 'distanced' by Tolkien and Middle Earth in this way.

Anyway, I shall be seeing Narnia on Boxing Day, and looking forward to it, especially comparing the battle scenes which I always found the most thrilling part of LotR. Tilda Swinton is an extremely interesting actress, the parallels with Cate Blanchett are valid, I think, and I'm intrigued to see what she makes of Jadis. I also wonder how the film compares to an RSC stage production of Lion, Witch and Wardrobe I saw in London few years ago, which was excellent...

[Elu Ancalime]

I havent had time to read every post, so if i repeat something, forgive me. I find it interesting of the christian related hype. The Chronicels of Narnia do have the christian themes, obviously, but credit goes to Tolkien also.
CS Lewis and Tolkien were in the same 'book' group', of authors that compared their storys. I belive this was before they were 'huge' successes. Tolkien was a christian, and Lewis was an athiest. Lewis became a christian, party with his affiliation with Tolkien, and became one of the biggest christian childrens story authors. What i suppose was never mentioned to much or just over looked were the christian themes in LotR.
-Mordor is seen as a hellish place that 'none return from', and those who enter suffer.
-A dark lord who corrupts men against the true Powers (substitute Eru for God, although that is not a true comparison between them)
-The Return of the King" Jesus could be seen as Aragorn returning to the 'throne' to unite the ppls against the dark power, in a time of apocolyptic destruction.
-Gandalf, as a physical representation of Jesus. He,, as a wizard, seem slike a great physical appearance of Jesus, even though he was crucified in his thirties. Gandalf sacrificed his life to save others(balrog-fellowship) and was sent back by (God-Eru)
-The Dagor Dagorath. The Last battle in which Melko will be defeated for the last time by Manwe, and the world of Arda will be broken. agsain seen as the apocolypse.
-Ar-Pharazon. Leading his people against the (Valar-God), but only because of the (corruption of sauron-temptation of Satan)
-Aman and Heaven. This is Vauge like Eru-God relationship, but can be seen, as no mortals enter it. (as in you die before you can enter heaven)
-The Gospel According to Tolkien explains this well

Since this is a religous post, i expect a lot of contrversy and negitive feedback. I myself am a methodist, which is cristian, so my post might be biased. This isnt agsint any religoin, or to promote chritianity, but what i've observed in Tolkiens works. I dont belive everything the bible says; i just havent decided. However this my bias my post.....Many books have cristian themes such as good vs evil, or a hellish dark lord vs a savior fo peple, but i think there is a lot of symbolism in the books. Tolkien meant to create his own literary world, and while his books have christian allusions in them, he did not intend for them as directly as Lewis did. I assume because he was christian, he was biased all the same in a way he might not have realized until after writing hisbooks; he just wrote his won works, with what e had been taught.

Other than that, i am interested in what you think of this. Sorry if it might be off topic.
________
Ferrari 312 Specifications

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Elu Ancalime

Since this is a religous post, i expect a lot of contrversy and negitive feedback. I myself am a methodist, which is cristian, so my post might be biased. This isnt agsint any religoin, or to promote chritianity, but what i've observed in Tolkiens works. I dont belive everything the bible says; i just havent decided. However this my bias my post.....Many books have cristian themes such as good vs evil, or a hellish dark lord vs a savior fo peple, but i think there is a lot of symbolism in the books. Tolkien meant to create his own literary world, and while his books have christian allusions in them, he did not intend for them as directly as Lewis did. I assume because he was christian, he was biased all the same in a way he might not have realized until after writing hisbooks; he just wrote his won works, with what e had been taught.

I think the essential difference is that Tolkien explicitly states that LotR is not allegorical. We might find elements of Christian symbolism in it (equally we might not), but they are not there in order to tell us anything about Christianity, they are simply there. After this matters start to get muddier. Whether they are included intentionally and what they might suggest to us are controversial - and we can argue about this. But in the work of CS Lewis such symbols are much more clear and are there to tell us something about Christianity.

So I think its a case of rather than the Christian 'themes' in LotR being overlooked, they are debatable in the first place, while in Narnia they are much more explicit and they are intended to be taken that way. I suppose the way I look at it is that while a writer may be a devout Christian, it does not necessarily follow that his or her work all includes a 'message' about Christianity. The work of Lewis does include that, but I think the work of Tolkien is more influenced by that.

[Elu Ancalime]

[QUOTE=Lalwend?]The work of Lewis does include that, but I think the work of Tolkien is more influenced by that.
QUOTE]

Exactly was I was trying to say,heh, but couldnt put in one sentence.
________
Bmw motorcycle owners of america history

[Parmawen]

First off, I'm SO glad to see this thread, because since I saw Narnia for the first time I have been dying to talk about this!

A major thing I noticed was the whole horn idea. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were friends, correct? I remember reading that they were, and maybe they bounced ideas off each other? I'm not sure but I did notice a symmetry in Boromir's horn and Susan's horn. Both were supposed to bring help in times of need, and in the movie they sounded pretty similar. Plus there was the whole gift-giving sequence with Santa Claus that was very reminiscent of Galadriel's gifts.

And is it just me, or is the little gnome guy serving the witch (Kiran Shah or something like that) the stunt double for Frodo in LOTR? I thought I recognized his voice and face from those behind-the-scenes documentaries.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

And is it just me, or is the little gnome guy serving the witch (Kiran Shah or something like that) the stunt double for Frodo in LOTR?

Ah ha! I knew he seemed familar!

[Parmawen]

Okay I looked it up at IMDb.com and Kiran Shah is definetely Ginarrbrik in Chronicles of Narnia, as well as Frodo's stunt double in Lord of the Rings!

[Elu Ancalime]

This is late for the whole religous concept of Narnia and LotR, but i realized Deagol and Smeagol were Old English names for Cain and Abel, opesed to Narnia's Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve
________
Vaporizers

[Bêthberry]

Well, I have seen Narnia and so now I can commit an actual comparison of it with LotR on Estelyn's thread. And if, in attempting a coherent view, I go over ground already covered, please overlook the repetition.

Narnia is visually intoxicating. It is beautiful as LotR is beautiful visually, but more consistently so. I also really appreciated how the movie is, as best a movie can be, faithful to the tone and style of Lewis's work, which Jackson's LotR was not. imho. I came away wishing that LotR was more Tolkien and less Lucas or perhaps that should be, more consistently Jackson's own vision rather than piecework.

I also thought the acting in Narnia overall was several notches above that in LotR. I didn't sense any miscues as happens in LotR, with silly jokes at Gimli's expense. The humour is in keeping with the aesthetic vision of the movie. Nor did I feel there was a host of unnecessary plot/character changes. (I am not impressed with the Arwen/Aragorn dynamic in LotR and the horse snogging.) Tilda Swinton was magnificent as the White Witch; I never once was reminded of her other more iconoclastic roles such as in Orlando, but often thought of how much the character reminded me of Bodeacia, the ancient British queen. For me, she carried the role more convincingly than Kate Blanchett did Galadriel.

So, a stunningly beautiful re-creation of Lewis' work. There were times, however, when I felt the pacing could have been swifter--extended camera pans of the children's faces to mark their emotional reactions after awhile became tedious and I found myself ruminating upon the shape and form of children's dental development. I also wondered why the White Witch had to have hair that ressembled the Rasstafarians' way with coils and curls.

That said, the movie could not escape some of my regrets over Lewis's work--and this is a matter of personal taste. Like Tolkien, I dislike the style and form of the allegory, both in terms of some the direct 'meaning' and in terms of some of the symbols chosen for various representations. I understand that most members of the audience would need some historical background to explain why the children are shipped off from their mother but the context of the war with the Nazis has a particularly unpalatable effect of providing a historical context which I wouldn't support--and one which Tolkien himself clearly disagrees with. Secondly, why winter has to be something terrible I can't understand. Perhaps this is natural for an Englishman, but the Canadian in me knows it is part of the natural order of things so why should it become a fixture of the evil witch? I wouldn't want to live in an endless spring or summer; it is the variation which is valuable.

Similarly, I found myself wondering why foxes were good but wolves--wargs?--are bad. Farley Mowat trumps Lewis here as far as I am concerned. Nor can I accept as a condition of movie belief that the male god Aslan must triumph over the female goddess. Yes, I understand that this is a feature of Lewis's ideology but it is one which limits the books for me and thus the movies. Tolkien's books are not so limited as they eschew such a direct alleogorical interpretation.

I also question the concept of putting a medieval world with colourful banners and gorgeous tents and kings and queens and lovely gowns into the context of children's fantasy world, one distanced from the real world they live in. Don't get me wrong--I love the idea of a wardrobe full of adventure--but ultimately the fantasy is diminshed by it being something outside the children's real world, despite the Professor's willingness to listen. It is dressup. This does not happen with Tolkien's fantasy world because of how he has placed it as historically prior to our time.

All this said, I wonder if Narnia will lack the wide ranging audience which LotR was able to grab. There were a good many families with children in the theatre with us and fewer adolescents or adults there on their own.

[Caunwaithon]

I'd like to point out, that C.S. lewis, an aethiest, designed the " sons of adam- and daughters of eve" story-

And that J.R.R. Tolkien, a stalwart catholic, created the whole christian like religion that is LOTR.

And the two were close companions, the would go to cafes and get coffee together.

I have a question, however-

Both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis belong to a society of writers. I remeber this, but I do not remeber the name of it. There were (I think) around 12 members.

If you get this, could you PM it to me?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

At the time C. S. Lewis wrote the Narnia books, he was no longer an atheist. Tolkien was instrumental in his decision to become a Christian. Both were members of the Inklings, a literary society. You can find out more on this forum by using the search function for 'Inklings', or from other sources by googling the word.

[Caunwaithon]

AH! The Inklings! Thanks.


And I never knew that C.S. lewis became christian. Cool fact there.

[alatar]

Finally saw LWW. We'd taken the kids to an indoor waterpark, and, as is our tradition, we rent a movie for them to see while in the hotel. The kids had seen the animated version of LWW more than a few times, and so the story, characters, etc needed little explanation. Note that my children, being my children, all have watched the LotR PJ films. Also note that I read LWW somewhere back in the depths of time, and am not a big fan of Narnia.

Some points of interest (or not ):

• The kids thought, when the movie started with the Blitz, that it *was* LotR. No clue.

• Mr. Tumnus creeped me out. Not sure if it's his resemblance to Elijah Wood's Frodo or the fact that he wanted to kidnap Lucy.

• The kids liked the beavers and other talking creatures.

• Edmund seems to be beat up a bit, and to me is more sympathetic. Older brother Peter could be a bit more understanding and wise, and even when these two siblings reconcile at the end, I would have preferred a 'hug' or a shoulder slap to the joking comment.

• The death of Aslan wasn't as scary as the cartoon version.

• With the exception of the "jump-out-and-scare-you" things, my children, aged 6 years and less, didn't find the film spooky at all. No nightmares, which was a plus.

• Lucy receiving a dagger was saddening.

• I too got a bit fixated on the gapped teeth.

• The battle scene at the end was whitewashed, unlike TTT and RotK, but as I guess that this film is aimed at children, that would be expected. It wasn't as good (well shot or emotional) as in LotR, but that could be because I'm not a child and that we never really 'zoom in' to the battle. For example, I couldn't care less if that centaur dude got stoned by the White Witch, but Haldir's death still saddens me.

• Although already noted, I too saw 'Uruk at Helm's Deep' in the minotaur at the last battle.

• Did anyone else think about the "Footprints" Jesus parable when Aslan walks up the beach at the end?

• The coronation at the end was anti-climatic. The girls of the house would like the crowns and the dresses, but the ceremony meant nothing to them. My one daughter would have preferred a marriage ceremony. And, of course, the boy would have stayed at the battle playing with swords.

• I noted that when the Witch Witch fights Peter, using two swords after her wand/spear is destroyed by Edmund, that she really looks like she can swing the swords and that was cool.

• I found Santa Claus unexpected (forgot that) and inappropriate. Talking horses and beavers and witches and swords, and now for something that not only is pretty pedestrian (Santa sells cars) but slowing to the film.

LWW is a good film, but it's not as good as PJ's LotR, but it's apples and oranges.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

So are more Narnia films planned? PJ wisely did all
three at once, and I assume the HP movies continue
because of the books and movies success.

As for LWW, it was overall much more consistent to
the book then I expected, including Santa Claus, which
could have been cut but presumably wasn't for young children.
And if the White Witch was so evil, why didn't she have her
minions cut up/blow up the good guys when they were stones?
It didn't seem all that much scary. I thought the ruined/deserted
palace in Willow was scarier.

[Samwise]

Personally, having read all 7 books, (though not in a long time) I thought Narnia was great as a movie. I enjoyed it thouroughly. Watching it, as I did LOTR, I found myself thinking that many things were just as I would have imagined them to be. Granted, they cut the end part a bit short because of time, but other than that I thought it was quite good.

edit: Thankfully, alatar, PJ did NOT.

[Kuruharan]

Knowing what I know about PJ, having watched his take on LotR, I just shudder to think what he would have brought to LWW

Don't forget that prior to the battle, the Dufflepuds would have miraculously arrived to assist the Narnians and even out the numbers a little!!!

Of course, in order to highten the dramatic tension of this duffer ex machina, all the good creatures would have to be cut from the movie so that Peter and Edmund could face the Witch's army all by themselves.

The Beavers would have taken the children on a little side trip to Calormen so that they could...actually, we don't really know why.

Okay...I must stop before I get really carried away...

[Ellewen]

Few words, Like like niether better than the other... I think Narnia is less "dark" in more ways than one. LotR has cooler swordfights, and Narnia has cooler creatures... In my opinion at least...

[alatar]

Not sure how I forgot to add these:

• After his resurrection, the new Aslan leans more on Peter, ever asking his advice and also hopes to glean information from the Witch's dwarf, and almost does get the deep magic information that he needs but at the last is thwarted as the dwarf meets an untimely end on a spikey lamp post.

• The returned Aslan cowers when confronted by the Witch-Queen, and it's only the horns of the centaurs that save his mane.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

But you've forgotten PJ's having Peter being shoved
into the river by the wolves, drifting down unconscious
and being awakened by a unicorn!

(While some PJ changes were understandable, I
think he would have been better served staying, as was
frequently possible, more to the book. It would have
meant the movies standing up better in the long run,
as FOTR does more then the two other films).
And as I suspect the LWW will.