**Comparing Narnia and LotR**

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'm sure many of you have looked forward to seeing the Narnia movie! Since this is a Tolkien-themed forum, discussions here must be Tolkien-related. That means you may compare the stories, worlds, and movies - including the effects that come from the same workshop. However, if you wish to discuss only Narnia, please do so at a forum dedicated to that topic. **This is the official Barrow-Downs Narnia/LotR thread.** Please post here instead of starting new threads. Thank you!

[HerenIstarion]

I was completely unaware Narnia was filmed. I'd say I'm mighty curious, but not excited and a bit wary (knowing Lewis' attitude towards filming of literature)

To stand in 'compare with Tolkien' line, I'd say that when LoTR was being filmed, I was mighty curious and aware lo-o-ong way before and excited (despite knowing Tolkien's attitue towards filming of literature)

Since I have just got my new boxed set of Narnia, I'm likely to get back to this topic with more to say later

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Who is the director of Narnia and does he have a
background and (somewhat questionable reputation)
like PJ? After all, PJ (generally) positively surprised
me vis-a-vis what I expected considering his
previously somewhat hyper type of films. If Narnia
is successful might this director be a competitor
with PJ for The Hobbit?

[Boromir88]

Tuor, the director is Andrew Adamson, who hasn't had an extensive career in directing, but he did direct both Shrek movies. So, I think Chronicles of Narnia looks promising, as I think the Shrek movies were absolute masterpieces and breakthroughs when it came to computer animations.
If you are interested, you can check out Imbd.com, for information on the director, cast, anything to do with the movie.

I've seen the TV trailers and I will surely watch this movie. I probably won't go to the theaters, I rarely do anymore. They are just getting so darn expensive it's a lot better to wait to it hits the cheap theaters or out to buy.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

The first of the Narnia movies is a huge Disney production and is showing as of today. Is this not getting the big hype in your country that it is here? Andrew Adamson, co-director of Shrek and Shrek 2 is the director. Weta Workshops were involved, and much of the filming was done in New Zealand. For more information, please check out NarniaWeb.

I would like to save this thread for discussion by those who have actually seen the movie and can compare their impressions, so please check the internet and your local newspapers for information.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

I am a little leary of Disney's having been involved, and hope that they adopted a 'hands off' approach. (So very glad that didn't try to take up LotR!) Still if the White Witch loosens her grip on the countryside here, it is in my plans to make a trip to the theater.

The trailers have reminded me how many different sorts of creatures they had to come up with for this one! I wonder if they will be able to carry them off as well as LotR was able to. I am guessing that they didn't as much time to develop them.

[Firefoot]

I definitely recommend going to see the Narnia movie in theaters. I went to see it today, and I thought it really was fantastic. For those of you who are concerned about Disney involvement, I can't recall any "Disney moments." If I hadn't known Disney was filming it, I wouldn't have been the wiser. The movie was beautifully done.

I'm not going to say whether it was better or worse than LotR - my feeling coming out of the theatre today was definitely comparable to that of when I came out of seeing RotK. Summed up in a word: wow.

I would say that the casting of the Narnia movie was overall better than that of LotR. Just about every single one of the characters I could look at and say "That's Peter" or "That's the White Witch" - as much as I love the LotR movies, I can't say the same thing about Elijah Wood's Frodo or Orlando Bloom's Legolas, for example. The acting was pretty strong all around, I thought (I'm not the greatest judge of acting, though), whereas in LotR I could find definite stronger and weaker performances. The Narnia movie also has a much smaller cast, though, and several of the main characters were animals...

LotR is definitely the more dark in tone between the two (four?) movies, which I suppose is to be expected. While both movies depict a good vs. evil struggle, Narnia isn't quite as dire about it. The danger in LotR feels more... real? evil? Not a better or worse thing, just different. I do think that the humor in the Narnia movie tended to be better done and more fitting in the movie - some of the humor in LotR bordered on too forced or too corny (coughGimlicough).

As for battles. The shivery sort of feeling I got at the charge of the Rohirrim and the charge in the Narnia movie was definitely similar. Again, though, the Narnia battle was more colorful, I suppose. It's not the same sense of smoke, ruin, and war. However, it was still superbly done.

The CG of the Narnia movie was quite good - I'm sure LotR laid the groundwork for much of it. In some ways, I'd imagine it was more complex than LotR's CG (mostly thinking Gollum here) being that they had to blend people and CG for the fauns and the centaurs. Talking animals was one challenge LotR did not have to deal with, but the Narnia movie carried it off excellently. The best way that I can put it is that it worked - and not simply in the "it was adequate" sense.

The biggest difference is probably in my own reaction. Initial reaction is that I like the Narnia movie more than the book, which I last read about a year ago and so am a little fuzzy on the details. I was disappointed by FotR when I first saw it, and while I was completely wowed by the RotK movie, the story had already been complete for me before I saw the movies. For the Narnia story, I enjoyed the books, but the movie brought it to life for me.

[arcticstorm]

As I have seen the movie twice now, I can comment on a couple things as compared to LOTR. Since this movie used the same battle simulation program, massive, as LOTR, I can honestly say, that Narnia showed me a better depiction at what it could do what with over 70 some different types of creature fighting in the battle. I believe that LOTR was the pioneer films that paved the way to these films. Both films are incredible in their own rights. I honestly believe that without JAckson's films, these films would have been a lot more difficult, if not impossible, to make, as some of their techonology had not been tried out yet.
Narnia was a lot closer to the book than any film I had yet seen that was based on a book, but with LOTR they had a lot more material to place in three hours than Narnia had to place in their two. However, their were a few creativce liberties taken as with all films. BUt overall they were good films that I believe C S Lewis and all his inkling frieds would have been proud about.

[Legolas]

some of the humor in LotR bordered on too forced or too corny (coughGimlicough).

This is great news to me. I was very unhappy with the treatment of Gimli and a few other moments in Lord of the Rings because of the forced, corny humor...it's made me worry about other 'epic fantasy' type books-turned-movies. You've calmed my fears.

[Boromir88]

I would say that the casting of the Narnia movie was overall better than that of LotR. Just about every single one of the characters I could look at and say "That's Peter" or "That's the White Witch" - as much as I love the LotR movies, I can't say the same thing about Elijah Wood's Frodo or Orlando Bloom's Legolas, for example. The acting was pretty strong all around, I thought (I'm not the greatest judge of acting, though),~Firefoot

That's interesting, considering I have really heard any well-known names in Narnia (though that doesn't mean they aren't good). LOTR I thought was cast very well, though I do know what you mean in that there were weaker roles and you just think "Hey this isn't Gimli, or this isn't...etc"). I guess I'll have to wait and check it out to see.

[davem]

I'm in two minds about seeing this. I've read some positive reviews (though Metro, while giving it a very good write up overall, did say that the battle scenes were like Peter Jackson's epic recreated with fuzzy felt).

I don't care about the Narnia books in the way I care about LotR, but still, I wouldn't want to see them spoiled. I have read a rumour that rather than doing all 7 books they're planning another two movies covering the main storyline of the rest of the books (so that would probably mean no Magician's Nephew, no Horse & his Boy & probably as with the BBC adaptation some years back Prince Caspian & Voyage of the Dawn Treader run together. The BBC didn't adapt The Last Battle either, I remember.

[arcticstorm]

Originally Posted by davem

I have read a rumour that rather than doing all 7 books they're planning another two movies covering the main storyline of the rest of the books (so that would probably mean no Magician's Nephew, no Horse & his Boy & probably as with the BBC adaptation some years back Prince Caspian & Voyage of the Dawn Treader run together. The BBC didn't adapt The Last Battle either, I remember.

I have checked up on this rumor and I am glad to say that the plan is to make seven films depending on how well they do.
http://www.narniaweb.com/content.asp?id=2

[Kuruharan]

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that in the Avoidance of Stupid and Incomprehensible Plot Deviations category The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe wins hands down.

including the effects that come from the same workshop

It is funny you should say that, but there were some pieces of armor (I'm particularly thinking of the helmet of Aslan's centaur general) that just had LOTR influences all over them. On the whole, I admit that I generally prefer the armor designs in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe as being more in character than some of the stuff that appeared in LOTR (which in some cases was rather silly in my opinion).

I do think that the humor in the Narnia movie tended to be better done and more fitting in the movie - some of the humor in LotR bordered on too forced or too corny (coughGimlicough).

Amen. The Beavers were hilarious...even Maugrim had a bit of a giggle or two. I found the exchange between Edmund and Philip to be pretty funny as well. It was one of those, "Oh yeah, that's right!" moments. (Those who have seen the movie will know what I am talking about.)

LotR is definitely the more dark in tone between the two (four?) movies, which I suppose is to be expected. While both movies depict a good vs. evil struggle, Narnia isn't quite as dire about it.

I think that while Narnia does have a more lighthearted tone, it may also have something to do with Narnia already having suffered the worst and not having any place to go but up. In Middle earth the heroes were trying to preserve and protect. In Narnia the heroes were trying to overthrow an already established tyranny and start fresh.

If there was anything I was “disappointed” about was that Liam Neeson would not have been my choice for the voice of Aslan. I would have preferred somebody with a deeper voice.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

As for battles. The shivery sort of feeling I got at the charge of the Rohirrim and the charge in the Narnia movie was definitely similar. Again, though, the Narnia battle was more colorful, I suppose. It's not the same sense of smoke, ruin, and war. However, it was still superbly done

The charge was the best part of the movie for me, and rivalled (not sure if it beat) the Ride of the Rohirrim. The few seconds before the forces clashed - as the music and sound falls down to almost a silence, as the cheetahs slowly overtake their comrades , and then BANG! the foes clash together at high speed - was Magnificent!

plus I also like the fact that the children aged and spent years in Narnia, forgetting about the 'real' world and finally stumbling onto the Lamp Post. and we got a glimsp of the White Stag which was welcoming.

PS if you haven't seen it yet, hang around for a while after the credits start as there's a little bit more to see after a minute or two.............

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

It was an enjoyable movie, with a different feel than the book for me. FotR was a bit closer that particular mark, but that is all subjective.

If I hadn't known that Disney was involved I don't think I would have guessed, but I am looking forward to any future films. the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is my favorite of this series, and so I am a bit more critical, (just as I was overly critical of the LotR movies), but I think it quite possible that I would like a film version of say the Horse and His Boy, the Silver Chair or Dawn Treader better than the books.

Suprisingly, it did seemed a bit rushed once the characters were in Narnia, unlike LotR where it didn't seem rushed at all. But all this must be taken with a grain of salt, I am rather an Ent...and a critic.

And Essex is right, do stick around after the credits start rolling.

[Morsul the Dark]

the final narnia battle was the best battle ive ever seen now having said that

minotaur captain goes stands on a rock screams and holds up his sword(is it me or is that the orc captain at helm's deep?)

many other similiarities came to me while watching it however i do not recall them at this time

[Lalwendë]

The fact that Disney made the film wouldn't put me off seeing it, after all, they made Pirates of the Caribbean, which was splendid (but does Narnia have Johnny Depp in it? ) and proved that they can 'do' action. There are two things putting me off seeing it right away. Firstly I would like to read the book over again as it's a good twenty years since I last read it. Secondly, I want to wait until the hordes of kids have seen it; I was waiting for the bus this morning and the kids from the local school were all shouting excitedly about going to "see Narnia" later.

I've always found the idea of having a 'white witch' as a 'bad guy' a little strange, and I have to say that the books were spoiled for me as I read them after LotR, and nothing quite matched up to it for a long time, but from what's been said here, I'm quite looking forward to seeing it. Also I'm intrigued to see James McAvoy in a film that's as far removed from Shameless (not recommended for kids) as it's possible to get.

I hope they do all the books properly as that would be a real disappointment - at least they have done this with the Harry Potter films (the latest one was the best). That's been the problem with the previous BBC adaptations, in that they seemed to give up part way through and not make any more, very like the situation with the Bakshi cartoons. I'd rather see something through to completion even if it is not up to what you expected (or hoped for). Maybe if this film is the huge success it promises to be then they will.

[Kuruharan]

I want to wait until the hordes of kids have seen it

For what this is worth (probably not much...)

I went to see an early afternoon showing and it was a mixed audience. No one age group predominated. In fact there was a group of rather venerable citizens there who made about as much noise as anybody with their laughing and cheering (not that it was disruptive or anything...you know what I mean).

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Be advised too that it doesn't totally follow the book, but it is fairly close.

[davem]

What I've found most interesting about the movie so far (I haven't seen it yet) is the way Evangelical Christians have leapt on it as a means to evangelise:
http://nppnblog.blogspot.com/2005/07...-strategy.html
http://store.yahoo.com/biblestudies/liwiandwa.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article...ia.mania/1.htm
http://www.christianitymagazine.co.u...1&arch=f#ideas

Now, I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing. What interests me is the way Evangelicals have grabbed onto Narnia but didn't bother with LotR (ok, some did, but not to any extent in the same way).

From Lewis's own words I'm not sure he would have approved. Is this merely capitalising on 'Art'? Does it 'break the spell' of the secondary world Lewis created? Most importantly, will children be taken to see the movie because 'its good for them'? Will their (our) experience of the movie be enhanced or spoiled by such a close association with 'religion'? Obviously, when we read the book we can see as much 'allegory' in it as we wish to (many readers seem not to have picked up on that aspect of it at all, especially if they read it as children & it wasn't pointed out to them by a 'helpful' adult), but with all this blatant promotion of the movie by Evangelicals as 'a way to get children into Church' will the wonder & magic be lost as 'The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe' is forced to serve another ('higher'?) purpose?

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Hilde Bracegirdle

Be advised too that it doesn't totally follow the book, but it is fairly close.

I put it to you that it is VERY close to the book, seing as I only finished reading it to my son 4 hours before we got to the Cinema!

The 'changes' I can pinpoint at the mo:

We don't have our grown up heroes, saying 'fortwith / alas / perchance' (and other posh long winded words I can't remember) - at the end of the book.

The professor sees them fall out of the wardrobe at the end.

We have a little bombing scene added at the start of the movie but that was only to start setting up edmund's character.

Edmund doesn't meet up with mr tumnus at the castle does he? he's already stone then isn't he?

so what parts were further away from the book for you then Hilde? I can't think of many more, but I'd like to hear your view as I'm not a real Lewis officianado!

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

A few changes that I can think of are:

In the book they never follow Edmund when he dissapears to find the witch's castle. In fact, after he is found to be missing one of the beaver's mentions that Edmund looks like someone who has eaten of the witch's food, (something significant in my mind). Also the children and the beavers have left long before any wolves appear and there is no chase from the beaver dam, like in the movie. The group of travelers are indeed just waking up in a sort of beaver safehouse when Father Christmas turns up. And the witch turns the fox to stone when she comes upon him and others celebrating the return of Christmas, in the book. He is not really defiant, if I remember correctly. (And the movie witch looks like frosted warmth instead of deathly pale with blood red lips. I can't imagine her being THE Jadis of the Magician's Nephew. )

All these though, I can understand. It was like with LotR, they wanted you to be on the edge of your seat, so they heightened the action, but I liked it better in the book when you didn't know exactly how close the witch was and what she was up to.

I do wish that they had more time so that they didn't have to abbreviate the interaction between Aslan and the kids quite so much. But that too is understandable given the young age of some of the viewers.

Edit: And one last thing, the movie implied that Aslan killed the White Witch. Didn't she run off or something in the book? It has been a while since I read it and I might be confusing stories, but I thought there was a discussion about how she would return again.

[luthien-elvenprincess]

by Hilde Bracegirdle:

Edit: And one last thing, the movie implied that Aslan killed the White Witch. Didn't she run off or something in the book? It has been a while since I read it and I might be confusing stories, but I thought there was a discussion about how she would return again.

Then with a roar that shook all Narnia from the Western lamp-post to the shores of the Eastern sea the great beast flung himself upon the White Witch. Lucy saw her face lifted towards him for one second with an expression of terror and amazement. Then Lion and Witch had rolled over together but with the Witch underneath...
and when those who were still living was that the Witch was dead they either gave themselves up or took to flight.

So, yes, Aslan killed the White Witch. However, her body must have been left to be viewed by all...in the movie, she disappeared.


by davem:

Now, I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing. What interests me is the way Evangelicals have grabbed onto Narnia but didn't bother with LotR (ok, some did, but not to any extent in the same way).

From Lewis's own words I'm not sure he would have approved.

davem...what words do you mean. Since Lewis is a very well know Christian theologian, why does it seem so hard to understand why Christians would use his writings as an opportunity to talk with others about their faith?
And why would Lewis have a problem with that?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Luthien Elven Princess

davem...what words do you mean. Since Lewis is a very well know Christian theologian, why does it seem so hard to understand why Christians would use his writings as an opportunity to talk with others about their faith?
And why would Lewis have a problem with that?

I think Lewis position on the Narnia stories was to 'play' with the idea of what would happen if the Son of God had come into a world like Narnia.

There's an interesting article on the Christianity Today website on this subject http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/125/32.0.html. These quotes sums it up:

The danger is that we could prize his image, and what it does for us, more than his message and what he intended it to do. Lewis never wanted to be a symbol. In fact, he questioned whether "little books about Christianity" had much lasting impact. … It's a good guess that he would prefer his own Christian identity to be something for the reader to discover, just as we gradually realize who Aslan is. Tampering with the words of Lewis' books would be a travesty. However, if Lewis is not labeled "Christian apologist," if he's mainstreamed into the community of other writers, it may help him escape the prejudice that traditional Christians face today. It won't limit his message; he'll still be a Christian apologist. Just one who can slip behind otherwise-locked doors more easily.

..."The author almost certainly did not want his readers to notice the resemblance of the Narnian theology to the Christian story," Sayer writes in Jack. "His idea, as he once explained to me, was to make it easier for children to accept Christianity when they met it later in life. He hoped that they would be vaguely reminded of the somewhat similar stories that they had read and enjoyed years before. 'I am aiming at a sort of pre-baptism of the child's imagination.'"

Where I think Lewis would be uncomfortable about the way Evangelicals are using the Narnia movies is that they aren't allowing Children to 'gradually realize who Aslan is', they're 'ramming' the 'Aslan is Jesus' http://aslanisjesus.co.uk/ 'message' down kid's throats. They're not allowing Children to discover Lewis's meaning by coming to Narnia & making their own 'connections' to the Christian story, allowing them the pleasure of reading the stories/seeing the films as works of Art in their own right, but telling them beforehand 'This is about Jesus!' In short, they're telling them what the story means, rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. If Lewis had wanted to write a book about Jesus for children he would have written one in plain & simple language. Children who are taken to see Narnia, or given the books to read, having been told beforehand what they 'mean' will have pre-conceptions about them, & will read/watch them as a 'lesson', a 'sermon' - which is not at all what Lewis wanted.

[Lalaith]

Interestingly, what seems to be happening here in the UK is that the evangelical "grabbing" of Narnia is actually putting people off seeing it. (That, and generally lukewarm reviews) The British general public are very secular in their instincts and don't like anything they suspect to be overtly religious propaganda. (The Passion of the Christ did very badly in UK cinemas) I've heard a fair amount of talk both in the media and among ordinary people regarding "dodgy Christian moralising" in Narnia.
It's the same with the march of the penguins movie. I've heard a lot of people say, disparagingly, "oh, that's that film that all the American Christians really latched on to," (despite the fact that the film-maker himself has disassociated himself from the claims made about the penguins' family values...)
I personally intend to see both films, and make my own judgements.

As for the LotR films, there was also a bit of sneering here when they first came out, but of a different kind. Narnia is held in more general affection than Middle-Earth in the UK - it is considered more mainstream, more people read the CS Lewis books as children, whereas Tolkien (or rather his fans) had a slightly more odd and geeky reputation. It was only when the PJ films began to be seen as a movie event, like the Star Wars films, that the sneering stopped.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Good points, and thank you so much for the insight into how these films are being received else where. The actual movie comes across very much as Lewis would have intended (as stated by davem). It is a shame that people can't form their own opinions of it after seeing it. But I suppose that even then, it will now be hard for them to see it without noticing the elements of Christianity. To me, those parts have always been like finding a jewel or two (if you recognize them) in a story that is prefectly wonderful in its own right. They make you realize that there might be more hidden, if you care to go digging, but it is left entirely to you. It is enjoyable as it is.

And if you excuse the step back a post or two, yes luthien-elvenprincess, you are very right. I had the opportunity to look at the book this morning before switching on the computer, and I found the movie had the end of the witch more accurately than I did!

[Lalwendë]

I think in the UK people as a whole also possess a strange kind of stubbornness, a resistance to anything which has been prescribed as "good for you"; we seem to grumble a lot at the prospect of being told what to do and when, yet paradoxically we also buy newspapers which want to ban seemingly everything which is in any way fun.

The same section of the media which is accusing Narnia of being a sinister recruiting device for the church are currently also crying censorship about Sainsbury's withdrawing DVDs of Jerry Springer The Opera from their shelves. Vice versa, those who are hoping to use Narnia as a way of recruiting for local sunday schools are the ones who were urged by a pressure group to ring the BBC and complain about Jeery Springer The Opera. I wonder how many have seen or read either and are really able to comment?

All that worries me is that as a child I was not unlike most other children and if offered the choice of two entertainments, one chosen as "appropriate" by my parents and one "discovered" by myself or my friends then I would always plump for the latter. For children, fun almost always wins out over educational value. I mean, which Christmas song would you rather have listened to, Wizzard's I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday or Cliff's Millennium Prayer (or Band Aid's Feed The World, to substitute a secular "good for you" entertainment) ?

Fair enough, there is nothing at all wrong with Christians grabbing hold of Narnia and being excited about it and getting people to go and read/see it and so on (after all, the secular world has stolen Christmas, as a Guardian journalist wryly put it the other day); but I am worried that too much promotion of it as being good because of, or even just too much emphasis on, the Christian element of the story might have the opposite effect and turn a lot of kids right off Narnia. Let's see what happens when King Kong opens as to which film gets the bigger audience.

[Rimbaud]

Yah, I'm with Zoe Williams on this one, lal. Those who take the 'Toynbee' route, with their atheistic drum-banging are as bad as some of those whom they decry. I'm faithless myself, but was more than capable of enjoying the books without being overtly sermonised, and surely will be similarly able to view the movies as good ol' capitalistic hubris.

Furthermore, as was mentioned in the same article you reference, other than the resurrection malarkey in LWW, the majority of people wouldn't feel overwhelmed by Christian imagery, as there are fewer people with a working knowledge of Biblical imagery in the audience (another result of Britain's increased secularism).

[Lalwendë]

I can recommend the Narnia film. I saw it today and thought it was excellent - it was even more moving in parts than LotR (especially where Aslan gives himself up ), and the allegorical aspect was not laid on thickly at all.

Acting first. Tilda Swinton played the White Witch well - I don't know how all the proper kids in the sudience felt about her, they were all very quiet indeed throughout, but this big kid was scared by her. ...I think it's because she always reminds me of my aunt.... The young actors were all excellent, particularly the little girl playing Lucy; a lot of child actors can be bit 'wooden' but not in this case. I also liked Liam Neeson as Aslan, though I didn't realise it was him for some time. Did anyone else notice Douglas Gresham in the cast list? This made me think of the addition of Tolkien's great-grandson to the cast of RotK - a link to the books and the imaginations which created these worlds.

The design was very bright, although I didn't think Metro's description of the battles as being like "LotR with Fuzzy Felt" entirely fair. The film is primarily aimed at children, as were the books, and so you would not expect to see terror and gore (there was enough terror with Tilda Swinton). The winter landscapes were particularly beautiful, and the costume for the White Witch was stunning.

I can second Kuruharan that the plot did not end up going off in stupid directions, and it was simplified just enough. The only thing which troubled me was there being mass evacuations after the blitz had started - I don't remember this in the book? Mass evacuation started a good nine months before the blitz. But hey, that's just me being pedantic....

Go and see it, it's good all round. And you might get a better seat than you would for King Kong right now.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Lalwende, did you get the impression that they took the highlights out of Tilda Swinton's eyes? A very disturbing effect, it looked dark and frightening behind those eyes! Stranger than Cate Blanchett's Christmas tree light highlights.

[Valesse]

I just got back from watching the Narnia movie for the first time, and in my opinion it really has nothing on Lord of the Rings. C. S. Lewis' world was quite... original, I'll give it that. The idea of climbing into a wooden wardrobe past a few fur coats and into a snowy forest is something I can see myself dreaming about, but the story and scenes given to us by the film made me feel like taking out a religious text and making a check list.

I know that C. S. Lewis did base the story line on the Bible, but I was rather hoping that the magical wonderland appeal wouldn't be so easily shot down. Lord of the Rings really gave us these... allusions, and by gosh I have been spoiled! Tolkien didn't do any of that. He wrote in a letter, even, that there is no allegory in his series... Middle-Earth was entirely his own creation which made the story seem so purely whole. I didn't find myself searching for anything (other than those pesky deleted scenes, thankyouverymuch PJ).

Moving on: the acting was fine in both -- considering their ages and career lengths, but I couldn't STAND how much just...breathing there was in Narnia. Did anyone else feel like some lines were scraped just so the cast can collectively hyperventalate in the climax for five minutes? Elijah Wood has an interesting squeak on his part, so it never really got boring... just annoying.

Being a thespian I pick up on technical... "issues" a lot and won't put them down. The Witch's dress, for instance, appeared to have been made out of crackling grey/heat sensitive sillyputty in my eyes, and her eyebrows were NEVER made fully apparent. Kate was at least made slightly less repulsive even with her random green-wind scene in Lorien. ...Oh I shouldn't have even started on costumes, I'll rant like a mad woman.

I actually really, really liked the soundtrack for Narnia better than the Lord of the Rings one. Sure, it isn't John Williams (or at least I don't think it is) but there is really something mystic in the hallow notes that spoke to me and gave the world of Narnia it's shape.

In all... I'm not -that- impressed. Lord of the Rings really changed my opinion about the stories... Before I had seen the Fellowship I utterly refused to read anything by Tolkien (this is a super secret confession... thats why its on a public forum) and I really am not kidding when I tell you that two people had to CARRY me into the car to see it. Since then I have obviously been hooked. I really don't see that happening here with Narnia. I might read the books, but it doesn't look all that hopeful. There just wasn't enough "mphft"! here for me.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Valesse

I know that C. S. Lewis did base the story line on the Bible, but I was rather hoping that the magical wonderland appeal wouldn't be so easily shot down. Lord of the Rings really gave us these... allusions, and by gosh I have been spoiled! Tolkien didn't do any of that. He wrote in a letter, even, that there is no allegory in his series... Middle-Earth was entirely his own creation which made the story seem so purely whole. I didn't find myself searching for anything (other than those pesky deleted scenes, thankyouverymuch PJ).
.

Lewis wrote the story (as I mentioned in an earlier post) to 'pre-baptise' children's imagination. The world of Narnia is intentionally a 'fairytale' world, with creatures from the various myths Lewis loved, as well as talking animals - stories of which he loved as a child.

Lewis & Tolkien both believed that Man was created by God with an 'innate' knowledge of what was to come (ie the Incarnation) - this is how they accounted for the presence in so many mythologies of dying & reusurrected gods, etc. Lewis was aware how the knowledge of such 'salvific' stories had been lost, so he wanted to invent a new 'mythology' which would put children in the same position/state as the pagans who were first confronted with Christianity - they would be 'reminded' of their own stories & so would be ready to accept the story of Jesus.

This is why LWW (both book & film) are not going to work very well (imo) as Christian allegories - I can't see anyone coming out of seeng LWW & wanting to run straight into their nearest Church. Lewis wanted children to be caught up in the wonder of Narnia, come to love Aslan, & then when they encountered Christianity later they would experience again that sense of wonder - Christianity wouldn't be about 'going to Church & hearing a sermon' but more to do with 'fighting alongside Aslan' to free Narnia.

What I dislike about the hyping of the movie by Evangelicals is that rather than making Christianity seem like that, they're trying to make Narnia like going to Church.

One of my favourite quotes about Narnia comes from The Western Way by John & Caitlin Matthews. They cite a comment by an unnamed reader: 'Jesus to me was just a man in a book, but I could have died for Aslan'. Lewis wanted to get his child readers to feel the same way about Jesus as that reader did about Aslan, but in order to achieve that he felt that encountering Aslan first as in the book would be most effective. That scene in the movie sums it up - Mr Tumnus says: 'He's not a tame Lion' & Lucy replies: ''No, but he is Good.'' Aslan is not a safe Lion - & that was Lewis's point, what he wanted to communicate - before children got all caught up in the 'theology', hymns & sermons.

That's how you have to approach the Narnia books, I think: like the Pevensey children, with innocent wonder, in a new, unexpected setting. Telling children 'Aslan is Jesus' will actually destroy that wonder, telling them 'Aslan is not a tame Lion, but he is good' will strengthen it.

[Captain Grishnahk]

I saw The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe last Thursday... it was GREAT!!! First, because I am a Christian and the symbolism was so clearly seen. Second, because I was a Narnia fan before I even heard of LOTR. Watching the movie was like a great family reunion. I enjoyed the whole thing, 100% of it. My sisters think that I am insane because I still like LOTR better. The people who worked on LOTR special effects were the same people who worked on Narnia's.

I find them equal, and I also find it so awesome that my two favorite books and movies were written by two best friends.

-Cap


p.s. my mom is making me edit this post because the grammar was not correct...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Hilde Bracegirdle

Lalwende, did you get the impression that they took the highlights out of Tilda Swinton's eyes? A very disturbing effect, it looked dark and frightening behind those eyes! Stranger than Cate Blanchett's Christmas tree light highlights.

Originally Posted by Valesse

The Witch's dress, for instance, appeared to have been made out of crackling grey/heat sensitive sillyputty in my eyes, and her eyebrows were NEVER made fully apparent.

I think that's just how she looks - she's known for taking off-beat parts where they make the most of her unusual appearance (which isn't bad for 45 ), which includes very fair eyebrows, which is why they weren't very prominent. I noticed that the make-up they put on her gave her skin a chalky, dusty quality which was very odd too. The costume was designed so that it would change colour according to how strong her hold was over Narnia (hence why it was black towards the end).

Originally Posted by davem

Lewis & Tolkien both believed that Man was created by God with an 'innate' knowledge of what was to come (ie the Incarnation) - this is how they accounted for the presence in so many mythologies of dying & reusurrected gods, etc. Lewis was aware how the knowledge of such 'salvific' stories had been lost, so he wanted to invent a new 'mythology' which would put children in the same position/state as the pagans who were first confronted with Christianity - they would be 'reminded' of their own stories & so would be ready to accept the story of Jesus.

I always find it odd that not long after I read LotR (and Narnia) I decided to give up going to church; I think that LotR was one of the catalysts in my change of belief at the time. I'm not sure how either writer would take that, but I found that what I was discovering in these works was not something that could be fulfiled by following a creed, more by discovering for myself what was 'truth'. I actually thought that this film brought across a broader, more 'ecumenical' message about goodness and honesty rather than act as a 'recruitment' campaign film, something it most definitely was not.

[Captain Grishnahk]

The witch's eyes were wicked! I'm glad they did not make her wonderfully beautiful, she has more of a dangerous look about her if you follow me.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'd been puzzling for several days over the Witch's familiar look until I finally realized whom she resembles - the Borg Queen in one of the Star Trek films! The pale, unearthly appearance is quite similar.

To compare to LotR's palest female character - Galadriel never looked like that. I wonder if your observation about the eyes and eyebrows might not be a key; I'll have to look more closely.

[Valesse]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The costume was designed so that it would change colour according to how strong her hold was over Narnia (hence why it was black towards the end).

Is that it? I thought that it was changing to reveal her "true" self (IE: dark influences) -- at least thats what I thought. I've already mentioned that I haven't read the series, but... well its kind of an easy assumption.

*cough*

Rather like Gandalf's color scheme! Seeing as he died and returned as they White, reflecting his positive influence and... good-ness and replacement of Saruman.

The Queen's battle armor was reminesent of orkish wear, what with it being covered in Aslan's mane. (I'm pleased to say that I didn't see any 'creative' costume peices on or near her ) ... (Esty, you know what I'm talking about!) I think, along with that wicked looking crown the entire Valkyrie look really took off. Though I doubt orcs look like Valkyries...
_______
Please forgive me if none of this made sense; I had about two hours of sleep last night.

[Captain Grishnahk]

I was a Narnia nut before i saw LOTR... and i must say that it is ASLAN, not Aslar! Come on! Get it right! YOU GET ME SO MAD!!! Get with the program, sista!

Ok, i'm just kidding, my dad calls him Ashlan for crying out loud... it doesn't bother me at all, i thought i might just irritate you.

-Cap.

[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.