OT: Chronicles of Narnia

[terpkristin]

I admit it fully, this is one of the movies on my "most highly anticipated" list. Screw Star Wars. Even screw Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I LOVED these books when I was younger, and intend to re-read them prior to the movie release. Yet reading Mark Morford this morning, of the SF Gate, I can't help but worry about how Disney will manage to butcher one of my all-time favorite book series as a kid (Madeline L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in Time" series is my other all-time fave). From http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...905.DTL&nl=fix

Keep Your Foul Paws Off Aslan
Will Disney butcher "The Chronicles of Narnia"? Does Herbie belch and dump in the woods?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Wednesday, June 29, 2005


Let's just all say it together in one big happy slightly jaded frequently disappointed Hollywood-bitchslapped chorus: I hope they don't freakin' ruin "Narnia." Here it is, the first official poster for the big Hollywood movie adaptation of the first chapter (well, technically the second) of the "Chronicles of Narnia," perhaps the greatest series of children's fantasy/lit books ever and yes that includes your precious but strangely soulless Harry Potter, sweetheart. There is little authentic magic there. Sorry, true.

To my mind and the minds of I'm guessing about a billion others, Narnia, despite claims that C.S. Lewis somehow wove his beloved Christian themes into the narrative, remains foremost a source of true, coolly pagan, magical childhood power and if you need proof of this you clearly did not read the books when you were nine and you did not find yourself trekking through your parent's house immediately afterward, searching the basement and poking into their closets and praying to the great god Aslan that you would find a secret doorway leading somewhere other than your mom's private stash of Vicodin.



The good news: If the poster (and teaser movie trailer) is any indication, the Hollywoodized Narnia looks stylish and beautiful and mystical indeed, and they appropriately focused on Aslan the Jesus -- er, lion, and the crazy-assed White Witch, who will be played in the movie by the eternally ethereal and wondrously strange Tilda Swinton, which is a very good sign indeed. I mean, it could have been, you know, Nicole Kidman. Or Hilary Duff. Shudder.

But while the Narnia series is merely, on one level, a children's empowerment fable, it's also one of the most imaginative and potent inner landscapes ever created in children's lit and therefore you hope it's not all decimated and bleached out and diluted by The Bad News, which is that it's being produced and marketed by that ultimate destroyer of nuance and subtlety, Disney.

Yes, Disney. The megacorporate kiss of death when it comes to making intricate, carefully wrought, wickedly imaginative films that don't dumb down the allegories and simplify the good/evil dichotomies and make the characters all wacky or super-cutesy or dopey or completely over-the-top ridiculous or snarlingly obnoxious like Karl Rove in a lizard suit.

Disney. A company that now relies almost exclusively on exaggerated, insufferable celebrity voice-overs and slave-labor animation and cheeseball, saccharine, direct-to-DVD family-fare flicks most of which you can right now be very grateful you've never heard of.

Disney. A company that now seems hell-bent on defiling all of its handmade animated classics by churning out a churm of mediocre sweatshop sequels to their finest works. Witness: "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True." Or "102 Dalmatians." Or "Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure" or "The Jungle Book II." Not to mention unwatchable filmic swill like "Rapunzel Unbraided" or "The Santa Clause 3" or "Mulan II" or "The Princess Diaries II" or -- all right, that's enough. It's sort of like being punched in the imaginative gut, isn't it?

(Click here to see the full list of Disney gristle heading our way, and be sure to filter out the Pixar stuff because Disney merely distributes those flicks and should get exactly zero credit for them, including the actually quite manic and increasingly annoying "Finding Nemo" and by the way, yes, Pixar is doing "Toy Story III," because even Pixar is a whore for damnable sequels that seek solely to ruin the fresh magic of the original).

More bad news: The first "Narnia" episode (I'm assuming Disney will adapt all seven books, if this one hits big) is directed by Andrew Adamson, a guy who has directed exactly two movies prior to tackling one of the most beloved children's books of all time, and they both have the word "Shrek" in the title. Oh, and they were animated. And full of boogers and fart jokes and burping and smart-assed talking animals and were hugely overrated and did I mention they were animated? And that "Narnia" isn't?

The dark clouds of doom, they doth gather.



Perhaps there should be a moratorium. Perhaps we the weakened, hopeless people should pass a law that dictates that, if a kid's book is particularly successful and effective and powerful, if it has depth and reach and touches upon universal truths, if it defines more than one generation of kids and makes them believe in something other than Xboxes or angry paternal war-sucking Gods or pulverized, blood-drenched Jesuses or cute little Hallmark cherub angels, it is strictly off limits to Hollywood (which, thankfully, exempts New Zealand-based Peter Jackson).

And this is doubly true if said book is so deeply burned into your psyche and so much a part of your soul's childhood wiring that if you ever hear that they're discussing making it into a movie featuring voice-over work by Chris Rock or David Spade, someone needs to be shot.

Or, barring a moratorium, let us now hope that, if any of the remaining Great Kids Books do get mauled by Hollywood, that the films fail so miserably, sink so quickly and with such a resounding thud, that the magic and legend of the book are somehow preserved, unstained and intact. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. "The Cat in the Hat" might be forever tainted by the gross fecal matter Hollywood dumped all over it. They really should be ashamed.

What's the official percentage of great children's/fantasy lit that has successfully made the transition to the big screen? Six percent? Three? And most of that belongs to "The Lord of the Rings" and maybe "James and the Giant Peach" and "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"? Did you see how badly they mauled Ursula K. LeGuin's "Earthsea" trilogy on TV? How about Tom Hanks creeping out all children everywhere in "The Polar Express"? Zombie CGI mannequins on blotter acid, is what it was. Someone stop them.

Thankfully, there still exists a large number of astounding and life-altering kids' books from which Hollywood has yet to attempt to suck the enchanted joy. "The Phantom Tollbooth." "A Wrinkle in Time." "Island of the Blue Dolphins." "Where the Red Fern Grows." "From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler." "The BFG." There are, mercifully, plenty more, along with plenty of lesser-known, "minor" literary hits Hollywood will likely avoid simply due to matters of economics and viability. And for that, we can all be grateful.

(Side note: I had "Charlotte's Web" on the list above, but as it turns out, that sweet little book is right now being made into a big-budget Hollywood celeb-fest, with none other than Dakota Fanning as the cute little girl and all the cute animals voiced by everyone from Steve Buscemi to Andre 3000 to Cedric the Entertainer to even Oprah Winfrey herself. And the voice of Charlotte the spider? Julia Roberts. Let us now prepare to cringe and recoil).

But oh, Narnia. I hope it is a towering, magical success, despite the annoying Aslan-as-Jesus insinuations. I hope it reaches new heights of power and beauty heretofore unimagined in fantasy cinema. I hope it makes the books shine even more.

But I have this sinking feeling. We shall have to see. The thing doesn't open until Christmas, a big holiday marketing spectacle doubtlessly slopped over by heaps of tacky product tie-ins and Burger King action figures and Aslan the lion stuck in a commercial with those obnoxious talking M&Ms.

Oh, man. I hope they didn't ruin it. They probably ruined it. Do you think they ruined it? I bet they f--ing ruined it.

Thoughts?

[Peregrine]

I've been worrying about the same thing for quite some time. If there's one company that can ruin a movie badly, it's Disney.

[oliegirl]

I never read these books as a child, but my son found the BBC version of the movies at Blockbuster this week and we've been watching them - great movies! I am planning on getting the books for him and hope we'll have at least the first one read before the big screen version comes out.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I never read these books as a child, but my son found the BBC version of the movies at Blockbuster this week and we've been watching them - great movies! I am planning on getting the books for him and hope we'll have at least the first one read before the big screen version comes out.

I highly recommend them. They were my favorites growing up (and again when I re-read them a couple years ago).

have little hope that the movie wont suck, though...

[Ksyrup]

"I hope it is a towering, magical success, despite the annoying Aslan-as-Jesus insinuations."


I don't mean to take this down a potentially contentious road, but...there are several comments throughout this article about the Christian themes in this book that seem to be completely unnecessary. I can't tell if this guy truly doesn't believe that the book contains elements of Christian allegory, or he's pissed that they do and wants any such references or implications to be removed from the movie.

In my mind, this dual concept is one of the reasons the book works so well, and on so many levels, and I think it would be a shame to see it turned into nothing more than a story about kids escaping into another world through a dresser. A movie verson of this book should be as well-constructed as the story itself, so that it can be enjoyed on the various levels Lewis intended. The Christian theme shouldn't be over-emphasized, but it should be there. And it most certainly should not be stripped of its Christian underpinnings because some people refuse to acknowledge that fact or simply don't want to see the story as it was written because they don't agree with that particular theme. Because it's in there, and quite clear, IMO.

Sorry for the quasi-threadjack...

[Arles]

I loved these books as a kid as well. It's great to see a line of movies like Chronicles to go along with the Harry Potter series. Maybe the two of these will re-invigorate young kids to be interested in the joy of reading books yet again. I could see a lot of kids checking out this series after seeing the Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe (if the movie can be half as compelling as the book).

[Honolulu_Blue]

I can't argue with his fear and loathing of Disney. I feel the same way. They were great back into the day, but have morphed into something nigh unholy over the last 10-15 years or so (perhaps longer).

That said, a lot of what this guy goes into is crap. While I agree trusting this type of film to the director of "Shrek I & II" does sound like a bad idea. I have no idea how directing animation translates to directing live action. However, to assume just because the Shreks were "full of boogers and fart jokes and burping and smart-assed talking animals" that this guy can't direct a more serious movie is crap. Just take a look at Peter Jackson. The author rightfully praises the "Lord of the Rings", but what would he have said after, say, watching Jackson's "Dead Alive"? Just because a director uses certain gags or what not in one film, does not mean he'll use them in another.

Also, does this guy's movie knowledge only go back the last 5 or 10 years? Uh, dude. There are already Hollywood versions of "The Phantom Tollbooth" and "Where the Red Fern Grows."

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"I hope it is a towering, magical success, despite the annoying Aslan-as-Jesus insinuations."


I don't mean to take this down a potentially contentious road, but...there are several comments throughout this article about the Christian themes in this book that seem to be completely unnecessary. I can't tell if this guy truly doesn't believe that the book contains elements of Christian allegory, or he's pissed that they do and wants any such references or implications to be removed from the movie.

well, I completely missed all the religious stuff when I was a kid - I just thought they were cool stories. When I read them more recently, the religious stuff was obviously much more noticeable to me, and a little bit distracting. I don't have any moral problem with it being in there, but I think I would have enjoyed it a little more (today) if it wasn't so prevelant. just my opinion, though, ymmv.

[RendeR]

It doesn't surprise me at all that some people, such as the author of the article, would want to see the christian undertones dimmed if not eliminated. Christianity has sucked the life out of every fable, story and ancient tale throughout history to stick its own very limited spiritual cant to them.

Perhaps it should leave narnia alone. There is nothing wrong with a simple story of children finding a magical world. They don't need christian undertones to be enjoyed as they are.

Not everyone agrees that there are such tones in the stories either, its far easier for my own mind to grasp the idea that christianity wants there to be undertones within the storys and finds allegories and comparitive items within the stories that they can use to make it seem so.

IMHO it was never lewis' intent. So it shouldn't be there.

[terpkristin]

I agree with what others have said, and what I think Morford is implying.
Yes, there are probably some Christian undertones in the book...that said, when I read them when I was in 2nd grade, I sure as heck didn't notice them, and I really don't think the undertones make or break the story. The writing offers many cues for how a movie version can be done (in terms of rich language and painting the scenes), and I think that holding true to the book does not require any further "plumping" of Christian allegories.

That said, when I re-read these books (probably within the next few months), I expect that I'll be seeing much deeper into the book, and maybe I'll notice some Christian allegories (or not). I expect I've grown quite a bit as a reader since I was 7...

/tk

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

I agree with what others have said, and what I think Morford is implying.
Yes, there are probably some Christian undertones in the book...that said, when I read them when I was in 2nd grade, I sure as heck didn't notice them, and I really don't think the undertones make or break the story. The writing offers many cues for how a movie version can be done (in terms of rich language and painting the scenes), and I think that holding true to the book does not require any further "plumping" of Christian allegories.

That said, when I re-read these books (probably within the next few months), I expect that I'll be seeing much deeper into the book, and maybe I'll notice some Christian allegories (or not). I expect I've grown quite a bit as a reader since I was 7...

/tk

And I, as an adult, will be taking my child to see the movie. Both of us can be entertained, on different levels. It's really no different than Finding Nemo - for the kids, it was an adventure about a father trying to find his son, and for adults, a cautionary tale about knowing when to let go. Except here, religion is involved, so all of a sudden, it must be left out.

[BrianD]

Probably some Christian undertones? They aren't exactly subtle.

http://slate.msn.com/id/110460/

What Lewis Wouldn't Do
When you take God out of Narnia, is there anything left?
By Lauren Winner
Posted Tuesday, June 19, 2001, at 12:00 AM PT

Book cover
In his essay "On Three Ways of Writing for Children," C. S. Lewis enumerated "two good ways and one that is generally a bad way" of creating children's literature. To illustrate the latter, he recounted reading a manuscript of a story about a magic machine that a fairy had given to a child. "I had to tell the author," wrote Lewis, "that I didn't much care for that sort of thing. She replied 'No more do I, it bores me to distraction. But it is what the modern child wants.' " Better, Lewis argues, to start with the question "What moral do I need?" and better still "not to ask the questions themselves."

Fifty years later, Lewis is surely looking down from heaven in horror. The New York Times recently reported that his beloved "Chronicles of Narnia" series will soon be supplemented by new, secularized installments; HarperCollins plans to bring us, as the title of Doreen Carvajal's article put it, "Narnia Without a Christian Lion." All the Narnia books, new and old, will be marketed aggressively, and according to a memo obtained by the Times, "no attempt will be made to correlate the stories to Christian imagery/theology."

Continue Article

If this is the case, the new books will differ quite markedly from the originals. "The whole Narnian story is about Christ," Lewis once wrote to a school-age fan. "That is to say, I asked myself, 'Supposing that there really was a world like Narnia and supposing it had (like our world) gone wrong and supposing Christ wanted to go into that world and save it (as He did ours) what might have happened?' " Aslan the Lion, the hero of the "Chronicles," dies, is resurrected, and saves people with his blood. (Lewis figured Christ as a lion because the lion is the king of the beasts, but also because the Bible refers to Christ as the Lion of Judah.) Other characters also recall figures from the Bible or church history. In The Horse and His Boy, for example, Bree the horse suffers from the heresy of Docetism (the heresy, named after the Greek for "to seem," that Jesus only appeared to be human and suffer). Bree muses that when the other Talking Beasts speak of Aslan as a lion, they must be speaking metaphorically—"they only mean he's as strong as a lion. ... If he was a lion he'd have four paws and a tail, and Whiskers!" Aslan then appears to Bree and shows him that he is a "true Beast," not only refuting the Docetist heresy, but also recalling the risen Jesus' appearance to Doubting Thomas in the Gospel of John.

But Narnia's "Christian imagery" goes beyond a sprinkling of biblical allusions; the entire story line mirrors the Christian salvation story. The Magician's Nephew tells the creation story and the way evil seeped into Narnia; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe tells of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ; Prince Caspian tells how right religion was corrupted and then restored; and so on, until the final volume, The Last Battle, where Ape (the Antichrist) tries to take over Narnia, which leads to Aslan's second coming. In addition to all the usual challenges of attempting a sequel to a classic, HarperCollins will have to figure out what it could possibly add to such a complete, iconic tale. Will the publishing house insert amusing anecdotes and preteen adventures amid all the divine revelation?

In fact, this would be strange but not impossible. Despite the series' heavily religious coding, it's far from clear that most children decipher or even notice it. I didn't when I read them in grammar school, and neither did the Jewish and Hindu friends I polled. We just thought we were reading a riveting tale, one in which, as in so much children's literature, good triumphs over evil and a hero brings on a utopian reign of peace. Like all successful religious allegories, Narnia can be read on many levels: The "Song of Songs" can be either an erotic love poem or a description of God's relationship with Israel; the famous medieval unicorn tapestries tell both of the capture and taming of a unicorn and of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Indeed, part of what makes the Narnia series endure is its light touch. (The same goes for other children's classics with Christian casts, such as Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time and J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit.) It's bittersweet to see Lewis' restraint, his lack of preachiness, rewarded with an attempt to make the denizens of Narnia as unchristian as, say, the wizard named Harry Potter.

[RendeR]

Actually if you aren't a christian or have no direct christian background they are all but unnoticable. Which is why they need not be emphasized any further, and sadly, Disney will do just that because Disney caters to the popular followings at any given time.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Probably some Christian undertones? They aren't exactly subtle.

http://slate.msn.com/id/110460/

Lewis said the whole series is about Christ? What does he know. He is only the author.

[oliegirl]

I think you can find religious undertones in almost any book if you look hard enough. Read "The Gospel According to Disney", it's very interesting. Disney was a very religious man but was insistent that his movies not have any religious "lessons" in them because he wanted them to appeal to ALL children. However, the lessons still come through, though they are usually buried and not noticeable unless you find them.

I am with KSyrup - I'll take my son to see the movie, and we'll probably both enjoy it, but for different reasons. If you go into a movie expecting to dislike it, then you will. Not every movie can be an oscar winner, most movies are just there to entertain and give us somewhere to escape to for a few hours. It's doubtful the movie will be completley true to the story - just like the Harry Potter books and movies, some things have to be left out simply because of time. But both the books and the movies are great, just in different ways.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Lewis said the whole series is about Christ? What does he know. He is only the author.

INdeed, but without the author explaining his own intentions, no one is any wiser for it. If Lewis doesn't state the fact, then its a non issue. its pathetic that people can't just leave a good fiction piece alone without dragging their belief systems into it and ruining it for others.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't mean to take this down a potentially contentious road, but...there are several comments throughout this article about the Christian themes in this book that seem to be completely unnecessary. I can't tell if this guy truly doesn't believe that the book contains elements of Christian allegory, or he's pissed that they do and wants any such references or implications to be removed from the movie.

Same- I'm not sure this guy know what he wants. And it seems like he just uses a group of badly clumped together ideas to slam Disney for the rest of the article. How does this guy have a writing job?

SI

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RendeR

INdeed, but without the author explaining his own intentions, no one is any wiser for it. If Lewis doesn't state the fact, then its a non issue. its pathetic that people can't just leave a good fiction piece alone without dragging their belief systems into it and ruining it for others.

You're right. Billy Budd was just a poor sailor who got his ass whipped.

Move along, nothing more to read into it here...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RendeR

IMHO it was never lewis' intent. So it shouldn't be there.

Umm, he has stated they were intended to be religious allegory. You might be able to ignore it in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (although resurrection is an important theme in Christianity, wouldn't you agree) but it pretty much bashes you over the head by the last two (the original last two, The Magician's Nephew and The Last Battle).

By the way, how annoyed is everyone else that they re-arranged the order of the novels. Now, when you buy a set (and perhaps individual books) The Magicians Nephew is labelled as book 1, The Horse and His Boy is book 3 - they follow strict chronological order.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

INdeed, but without the author explaining his own intentions, no one is any wiser for it. If Lewis doesn't state the fact, then its a non issue. its pathetic that people can't just leave a good fiction piece alone without dragging their belief systems into it and ruining it for others.

I don't understand, you think Lewis should have written the books and not explained his purpose in writing them?

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

INdeed, but without the author explaining his own intentions, no one is any wiser for it. If Lewis doesn't state the fact, then its a non issue. its pathetic that people can't just leave a good fiction piece alone without dragging their belief systems into it and ruining it for others.

You failed "Literature" class, didn't you? When an author isn't using symbolism, then it is "reading in" when you create it (such as Tolkien, who has made clear he had no symbolic meanings in his writing), but when the author states that he did have a deeper meaning, it is dishonest to the author's intent to remove it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Samdari

By the way, how annoyed is everyone else that they re-arranged the order of the novels. Now, when you buy a set (and perhaps individual books) The Magicians Nephew is labelled as book 1, The Horse and His Boy is book 3 - they follow strict chronological order.

They did? That's just silly. It's been a while since I've read them (about 15 years now- wow), but didn't you need some of the information from the previous books to attach significance to the events of The Magicians Nephew or otherwise, it doesn't hold nearly as much significance.

SI

[digamma]

One of my closest friends works for GranVia, Mark Johnson's production company that is making the movie. The movie itself is a pretty strict representation of the book, leaving the viewer to draw whatever interpretations from Lewis's overtones.

However, they have been struggling with how to market the movie. They want to be careful not to market it as a "Christian movie" while at the same time not alienating the Passion of the Christ audience.

[Peregrine]

They re-ordered the books? Well, I know there was talk about that a while back, and I think back then you could order some chronological sets and some in published order. LTWATW is such a good lead-in though, they should stick with it.

However, they have been struggling with how to market the movie. They want to be careful not to market it as a "Christian movie" while at the same time not alienating the Passion of the Christ audience.

Well, from IMDB.com news today:

" Motive Marketing, which handled much of the "grass roots" marketing of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, has acknowledged on its website that it has been hired by Disney to design and manage "an extensive Faith and Family Outreach marketing and publicity campaign" for the studio's upcoming The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The film has been described in some publications as "The Passion for kids." In an interview appearing in the London Telegraph last week, Jim Burns, president of HomeWord, a Christian broadcasting network, described the movie as "wonderful from the Christian point of view." He added, "The Christian community will provide opportunities for people to take their kids to this movie through block-booking and church outings and we will be making sure that Christians go in droves.""

[BrianD]

Reading the books at an early age, I didn't pick up on the Christian messages in the books. Rereading them later, I couldn't help but feel that the "undertones" were being applied with a sledgehammer. I still enjoy the books, but my enjoyment is less. Had it been more subtle, it probably wouldn't bother me as much.

I still plan on seeing the movie, and I plan to enjoy the movie...however they handle the religious part.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

They re-ordered the books? Well, I know there was talk about that a while back, and I think back then you could order some chronological sets and some in published order. LTWATW is such a good lead-in though, they should stick with it.

The did reorder the books and The Magician's Nephew is now first. I have gotten into a couple of fights with my wife about this since she always thought TMN was first but I knew it wasn't. Whatever the publishers do or say, I still believe TMN needs to be read 6th since it was written as a prequel and I believe it makes more sense after reading the other books.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't understand, you think Lewis should have written the books and not explained his purpose in writing them?

I was unaware until today of Lewis' actual admonitions regarding this. I stand corrected on my earlier statement regarding his intent.



However:
[quote]
You failed "Literature" class, didn't you? When an author isn't using symbolism, then it is "reading in" when you create it (such as Tolkien, who has made clear he had no symbolic meanings in his writing), but when the author states that he did have a deeper meaning, it is dishonest to the author's intent to remove it.
[\quote]

As I stated before, without actually hearing/reading about lewis' intent, you have no basis for knowing one way or the other, its just another story. I hope Disney doesn't hackney yet another film and expand or try to explain the allegories in question, because that will force me to never allow my children to watch it. They can read the stories, they can do whatever reasearch they wish about them and their author, but no-one outside my home has any place spouting spirituality to my children.

No matter how entitled christianity seems to feel to do so.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by digamma

One of my closest friends works for GranVia, Mark Johnson's production company that is making the movie. The movie itself is a pretty strict representation of the book, leaving the viewer to draw whatever interpretations from Lewis's overtones.

However, they have been struggling with how to market the movie. They want to be careful not to market it as a "Christian movie" while at the same time not alienating the Passion of the Christ audience.

Perhaps they should worry more about alienating the non-passion audience, it might make them some money now and then.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Perhaps they should worry more about alienating the non-passion audience, it might make them some money now and then.

That's the struggle.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RendeR

As I stated before, without actually hearing/reading about lewis' intent, you have no basis for knowing one way or the other, its just another story. I hope Disney doesn't hackney yet another film and expand or try to explain the allegories in question, because that will force me to never allow my children to watch it. They can read the stories, they can do whatever reasearch they wish about them and their author, but no-one outside my home has any place spouting spirituality to my children.

No matter how entitled christianity seems to feel to do so.

How did we go from a discussion of the faithful rendition of a movie with Christian overtones to the entitlement of Christianity to spout spirituality to your children? As I and others have said...the quite clear religious aspects of the story should be no more or less prevalent in the movie then they are in the book.

But...if it's in the book, it's in the book! For that, you can blame the author, or blame yourself for reading it, or blame yourself for subjecting your children to the horrors of a spiritually-themed movie. But don't blame Christianity. I don't even think Disney would be at fault for marketing it, to obvious segments of the population, as whatever it could be viewed as - religious to Christians, fantasy to LOTR types, etc. They're in it for the money, not to convert anyone.

The way I see it, the Christian elements of the movie are akin to a particular sub-plot, scene, or character that can be removed from a story. Sure, the story can be told without the missing element, but it is not faithful to the original story nor gives the movie the same depth without it. And how that changes based on the fact that the element happens to be religion, I just don't understand. The fact that religion and religious people exist doesn't automatically mean it/they are "out to get you."

[RendeR]

I'm not disagreeing that its in the book(especially now that I realize it was intended to be so), my issue is that Disney, in all its assinine glory, will not give a true rendition of the book, but instead to garner favor from the christian right, will emphasize the allegories or even somehow state the biblical context right there in the film.

There is no end to the Disney ability to be pandering.

[st.cronin]

I am afraid to mention that Passion made a TON of money.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But don't blame Christianity.


The fact that religion and religious people exist doesn't automatically mean it/they are "out to get you."

I blame christianity for 95% of the problems this world faces today and history will back up my position on that quite well.


As for them being "out to get me" that is my private issue and I'll hold tight to it until something in my heart tells me otherwise. Christianity is one of the worst cults ever created. Just because its a popular one does not change its true nature.

[Ksyrup]

*Backs slowly out of thread*

[terpkristin]

Yeah, I gotta admit, my purposes in starting this thread were to:
1. say how much I loved the books when I was 7
2. express a fear that Disney would ruin it.

Didn't know about the intent or really, any of the Christian undertones in the books...then again, I read them when I was 7, I'm sure I'd notice them now. The rest, eh, I'm not trying to argue or anything else...

/tk

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I blame christianity for 95% of the problems this world faces today and history will back up my position on that quite well.


As for them being "out to get me" that is my private issue and I'll hold tight to it until something in my heart tells me otherwise. Christianity is one of the worst cults ever created. Just because its a popular one does not change its true nature.

I don't even know where to start with this one. To me the world is a beautiful place, with fewer problems today than ever before, and Christianity, with it's message that I need not fear death and that I am loved by my Creator, is a big part of WHY the world seems beautiful to me. You are welcome in my world anytime, Render.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

the world is a beautiful place, with fewer problems today than ever before

You have GOT to be kidding on that point, right?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Samdari

You have GOT to be kidding on that point, right?

No joke. Of course, there are challenges and problems, many of them quite serious, but compared to any other point in history, this is a wonderful time to be alive.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No joke. Of course, there are challenges and problems, many of them quite serious, but compared to any other point in history, this is a wonderful time to be alive.

There are more benefits, but IMO there are also more problems. FWIW, these are caused by the earth being a closed system of resources, and human nature being to have as large a share of these as possible, individually and/or collectively. Since there are more people than ever, there is more competition for these resources, and more problems.

Rest assured RendeR, if Christianity had not caused all the problems you (IMO, dubiously) ascribe to them, some other individual or group would have.

[Draft Dodger]

this thread becomes much, much more interesting if you (like me) confuse RendeR with revrew.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

this thread becomes much, much more interesting if you (like me) confuse RendeR with revrew.

I did this too.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I did this too.

I'm ashamed to admit I did the same, too

SI

[Eaglesfan27]

This series of books was one of my favorites as well. The first book of the series was also my first play ever too. I was some bit extra in it when I was a 3rd grader.

[Celeval]

I love the books, always have. Can't wait for the movie, as the trailer looked top-notch.

That being said... I knew even as a seven year old that there were heavy Christian overtones in a lot of it. Lewis comes out and states it as close as you can get in Dawn Treader (third book. I don't care what order they say they're in now, it's the third book)

I'm pulling quotes off another web site, not the book, but I'm pretty certain they're correct (away from home, without the book).

[Talking about Edmund and Lucy going back to their own world, and can't come back to Narnia]
Edmund: "Are--are you there too, Sir?"
Aslan: "I am . . . . .But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there"

[End quote]

*sledgehammer*

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I blame christianity for 95% of the problems this world faces today and history will back up my position on that quite well.


As for them being "out to get me" that is my private issue and I'll hold tight to it until something in my heart tells me otherwise. Christianity is one of the worst cults ever created. Just because its a popular one does not change its true nature.

So, your a bigot. Ok, now I know better than to continue this conversation.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not sure I agree with the author on his fears of Disney totally destroying it. And I say that because of one movie, "Pirates of the Caribbean" and that was based on a ride! I think it'll be fine.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No joke. Of course, there are challenges and problems, many of them quite serious, but compared to any other point in history, this is a wonderful time to be alive.

Ah, shades of Voltaire's "Candide"

Not that I totally disagree or anything.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by RendeR

It doesn't surprise me at all that some people, such as the author of the article, would want to see the christian undertones dimmed if not eliminated. Christianity has sucked the life out of every fable, story and ancient tale throughout history to stick its own very limited spiritual cant to them.

Perhaps it should leave narnia alone. There is nothing wrong with a simple story of children finding a magical world. They don't need christian undertones to be enjoyed as they are.

Not everyone agrees that there are such tones in the stories either, its far easier for my own mind to grasp the idea that christianity wants there to be undertones within the storys and finds allegories and comparitive items within the stories that they can use to make it seem so.

IMHO it was never lewis' intent. So it shouldn't be there.

Are we talking about the same books? IMHO, The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe has about the most heavy-handedly obvious Christian imagery i can recall in a "childrens" book. Even my agnostic self finds it a great read anyway, but I think it's damn hard to deny how obvious it is.

[ISiddiqui]

I guess it depends if you are looking for it. I actually read the TLTWTW a year ago and while I knew of Lewis's Christian outlook, I didn't notice anything in the book, though I'm sure there was plenty (I just wasn't looking for it).

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

So, your a bigot. Ok, now I know better than to continue this conversation.

I am NOT a bigot and I am extremely offended that you should insinuate as much. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they choose. *I* too am entitled to believe as *I* choose, just don't come around me preaching the christian goodness because in my 37 years of experience it is nearly impossible to find in any truly honest open and loving way.

Am I Jaded? certainly, and I paranoid? sometimes, yes, and When you're locked in a room with a preacher who brough-beats you for 3 hours at a time that you MUST believe as they do and your told that you're nothing and worthless and going to end up dead or in jail unless I take they'r "saviour" as my own, perhaps i have GOOD fucking reason to be paranoid of christians. I've read accounts of real so-called "cults" that treated their members better.

Are all christians pathetic psycho fucks? No. many are indeed pleasent people. Even so there are people like you who, with no real knowledge of what your spouting off about, immediately call others bigots when they express their feelings for your so-called "religion" for what they believe it to be.

As I stated, I have my own VERY personal reasons for despising christianity and all the damage its caused this world. That does not make me a bigot. perhaps you need to go back to school and study your vocabulary a bit more.

You know nothing of the situation homer, show some of that christian goodness you espouse and keep your ignorance of MY life out of the thread.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm not sure I agree with the author on his fears of Disney totally destroying it. And I say that because of one movie, "Pirates of the Caribbean" and that was based on a ride! I think it'll be fine.

um, yeah, that movie sucked.