**Comparing Narnia and LotR**

[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.

[Lalaith]

I also thought the acting in Narnia overall was several notches above that in LotR

I totally agree, Bethberry. Firstly, I thought the four children acted the socks off the four hobbit performers in LotR. I find Lewis a "cheesier" author than Tolkien, but the films were the reverse, LotR was I felt often marred by "cheesy" performances, but in Narnia, a lot of the acting was interesting and even subversive. I´m particularly talking about James McElvoy and Tilda Swinton. Swinton´s White Witch was no caricature villainess, at times she verged dangerously close to provoking admiration and even sympathy. (I wonder what her real life children made of her creepy maternal act...) McElvoy created a more complicated Tumnus than the cuddly faun of the books and I liked his performance very much.
The beasts of Narnia were beautifully done and the various monsters better characterised than the grubby rabble of LotR.
However, despite everything, I still prefer LotR. I enjoyed Narnia but I didn´t immediately want to see it again, which was my reaction to LotR.
Of course, I much prefer Tolkien´s work so that could have something to do with it. But I also felt that despite all the flaws there were moments of real grandeur in the Jackson films which the Narnia film, almost, but not quite attained. (The flying battle gryphons were the closest it got, I think.)
A couple of things about both films: I wish I could force any modern film director making a film set or written in the 1940 and 50s, to watch Brief Encounter ten times before he starts the cameras rolling. There was a better attempt to recreate the "stiff upper lip" in this film than in LotR, but there is still too much 21st century emotional incontinence going on. This is especially important in Narnia - a wild and natural country which liberates the Pevensie children from their 1940s uncomfortable and rigid clothes, food, manners and behaviour. Too much was made of the war, not enough of the rigidity.
Also, I think the transition from child to hero, which occurs in both Tolkien and Lewis, was not done convincingly enough in the films.
This was particularly bad with Frodo in LotR, who went straight from child to psycho with very little heroism in between. But the children in the Narnia film were whinging about going home, even in the midst of battle. I´m sure that didn´t happen in the book. I thought of the children, only Peter made a fairly convincing transition, I would have liked to have seen the other children change more, too, in bearing and manner.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I also wondered why the White Witch had to have hair that ressembled the Rasstafarians' way with coils and curls.

I was reminded more of cybergoth hairstyles; look this up on google and you'll see what I mean.

I've also been wondering if Narnia will catch on as a film 'phenomenon'. It seems to lack what it takes to get the youthful 'fanboy' element into the cinema, mainly it has to be said through the nature of the tale itself; the characters are children, which might not be seen as 'cool', sadly. Even Peter is worlds apart from a contemporary youth. I wonder what there is to identify with for the broader teenage market (not including those on the 'downs who of course have impeccable taste ).

However, it seems that Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire was the number one film in the UK in 2005 (which surprised me, even though I thought it was a great film), thus proving that once a series has caught on then audiences will flock to see the latest installment. If Narnia can catch on in this way then there's hope they will make films through to the end of the series. And I have to add that I've seen a lot of kids looking at Narnia books in the shops over Christmas!

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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.

I do have a slight problem, as an adult, accepting 'transition fantasy' such as this. As a child, I firmly believed that if I sat on the rug for long enough then it would turn into a magic carpet or that the old chair would turn into Blyton's Wishing Chair, but nowadays I know that if I spend any time poking around in the back of old wardrobes all I'm going to find is a load of wonky MDF and some nails that want replacing. I just can't help thinking "did they just imagine it all?", which spoils things. I even have this sense with Harry Potter, that there's something about the Hogwarts Express that's too transitional, which is why I think I've enjoyed the later books with dementors in suburbia and the like much more.

I think that's why Tolkien's world is so satisfying. There is no jumping off point, as it's all there from the first page and there is no need to suspend my rational mind. Likewise Gormenghast.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

. . . a lot of the acting was interesting and even subversive. I´m particularly talking about James McElvoy and Tilda Swinton. Swinton´s White Witch was no caricature villainess, at times she verged dangerously close to provoking admiration and even sympathy. (I wonder what her real life children made of her creepy maternal act...) McElvoy created a more complicated Tumnus than the cuddly faun of the books and I liked his performance very much.

Lalaith, I think you are quite correct to see a subversive depiction of the maternal influence there; this would be quite in keeping with Swinton's acting history. As I watched Peter, I found myself thinking of how the teenage boy must dissociate himself from the mother image in order to grow up. And I agree about McElvoy. He shares in the credit for making Narnia so successful, for it is his character which gives not only Lucy but us entry to it.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

A couple of things about both films: I wish I could force any modern film director making a film set or written in the 1940 and 50s, to watch Brief Encounter ten times before he starts the cameras rolling. There was a better attempt to recreate the "stiff upper lip" in this film than in LotR, but there is still too much 21st century emotional incontinence going on. This is especially important in Narnia - a wild and natural country which liberates the Pevensie children from their 1940s uncomfortable and rigid clothes, food, manners and behaviour. Too much was made of the war, not enough of the rigidity.

What a fascinating expression, "emotional incontinence"! One of the most difficult things for adolescents to develope is, I think, a sense of historical perspective and an understanding that in the past behaviour and social decorum had different expectations. But your reading of how the children are liberated from the wartime limitations is very interesting. Makes me think of Tolkien starting his legendarium in response to his own wartime experiences.

Originally Posted by Lal

I was reminded more of cybergoth hairstyles; look this up on google and you'll see what I mean.

Ah ha! Yet I suppose my main point remains. Why must the villainess have dreadlocks, of whatever cultural style? Merely to suggest her rebellion against the right order of things? Or is that part of her attractiveness, that she is unusual?

Originally Posted by Lal

I think that's why Tolkien's world is so satisfying. There is no jumping off point, as it's all there from the first page and there is no need to suspend my rational mind. Likewise Gormenghast.

Exactly. Why should fantasy and imagination be regarded solely as children's play?

I'm going to inerject some randomness here since I didn't have time to read the whole thread....I caught myself comparing Narnia to Lotr, but....it's just not the same story. Yes, Tolkien and Lewis were friends and their writing styles are similar, but Lewis wrote so that people would understand that he was writing from a Christian perspective....Tolkien kinda leaves it up to the reader to figure out the connections with the characters and those characters of religion.

[Cailín]

I don’t think I have much to add, but I’ll give you all my personal opinion (a bit late because the Narnia movie here was not released till the 23rd):

Well, the Narnia movie was certainly interesting. Actually, I loved it. I have seen it twice now and still would not mind seeing it again. It was even better than seeing Lord of the Rings, since I was far more familiar with the Narnia books than I was with Tolkien’s work at the time.

They followed the book very closely – as close as I have ever seen a movie follow a book – which I can only admire. The few additions did not seem over the top or in anyway degrading. The special effects were marvellous. Especially the talking animals greatly exceeded my expectations. I was quite impressed with the performances of all the children, the youngest girl in particular, and found the overall casting very well done. The humour sometimes seemed a little cheesy and I heard many people complaining about the length – two of my friends admitted to being bored during the first half of the movie -, but that did not bother me. I must say I agree with Valesse about some of the costumes. Honestly, that dress was awful.

It is interesting how this movie has awakened a hype in Holland, but I fear it is a hype mostly limited to the fantasy fans and people my age. The books were not very well known here at all and there are still many people who look surprised when I tell them The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe was originally a book. As for the general public, the movie was not well received here. The reviews were pretty bad – some downright awful - and since practically none of the parents knew the book, most were rather apprehensive to take their children to see a movie that might possibly be violent. Of course, I have done my best to promote it – and the books, too, but even my parents rather believe the critics than me.

Compared to Lord of the Rings, I still think Peter Jackson wins. His challenge was far greater, of course, and his movies were revolutionary, whereas Narnia is merely entertaining. But I do feel that Narnia has really shown that a book can be adapted to the screen without doing serious damage to the contents. For example, this adaptation was endlessly superior to the Harry Potter movies, which make me cringe every time I watch them. And of course - as books, Lord of the Rings is far better than Narnia. When reading Narnia, I sometimes feel a little patronised, while in Lord of the Rings - even though it has its own moral - I never feel like someone is trying to force me to think in a certain way.

As to the religious theme: I’m not really a Christian myself – just a little, every once in a while- , but I guess davem used the right quote:

'Jesus to me was just a man in a book, but I could have died for Aslan'

I guess I’m not that surprised that evangelists seize the opportunity to do some promoting, and they have the right to. I fear that they will mostly get puzzled looks from confused children, though.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I usually hesitate in posting in a thread that has been inactive, even for a little while, for fear of just making things drag on and on, when the discussion is really over.
So forgive me if this thread is "dead"...

Anyway...
The movie Narnia did evoke LOTR at times. I remember experiencing a jolt out of the world of the movie (never a good thing) when the White Witch said, "We have work to do" to one of her minions. I was reminded of Saruman in the movies, I admit.
I have never seen a movie stick so close to the book as Narnia did.
That being said, I feel that Narnia was more like popcorn. Sure, it had depth, but...I dunno. There was something about it that didn't evoke as much emotion in me as the LOTR movies did.
Part of it may be the religion. Don't get me wrong, I am christian, but I like my symbolism subtle, when it's there at all. I have the same problem with the books. I also do not agree with many of C.S. Lewis' ideas about the faith: male-dominated, etc. Also, before seeing Narnia, I went back and re-read the series, since I hadn't read them since I was about seven years old...and couldn't BELIEVE that Susan wasn't allowed back into Narnia because she was interested in lipstick and invitations, and is dismissed as always trying to be too grown up. If Narnia is supposed to signify heaven, I guess that most of us are destined for hell, then, because that shift in interests happens to most people. So that and the anti-feminism in the books may have ruined the movie for me.
It was still a good show, but I do disdain allegory now that I'm old enough to see through it.

OK, so enough of my ranting. I guess what I missed in Narnia was the magic. LOTR drew me in, and I could really believe in Middle-Earth. I guess it's more of what other people were saying about transition fantasy. It's not like I had a hard time suspending disbelief (the special effects and acting were amazing, in both movies), it's more that I didn't feel as invested in the story with LWW as I did in LOTR, and the difference may have been that with LOTR there is nothing in between. You open the book and you're there. No transition necessary. Narnia was a mostly fun movie (though the Stone Table scene was downright scary, I do admit), but LOTR felt much more consistantly serious.

And another interesting note about the White Witch's costume... Did anyone else pick up on how she dressed with a lion-like theme at the battle, down to the makeup at the inner corners of her eyes? I thought that was a great costume choice, really rather spooky.

[Firefoot]

All your opinions here have made me really excited to see the movie again... once it comes to the cheap theatre here in town, whenever that is...

and couldn't BELIEVE that Susan wasn't allowed back into Narnia because she was interested in lipstick and invitations, and is dismissed as always trying to be too grown up. If Narnia is supposed to signify heaven, I guess that most of us are destined for hell, then, because that shift in interests happens to most people. So that and the anti-feminism in the books may have ruined the movie for me.

A couple of people have mentioned this now, I believe, and I find it interesting how many people this bothers. I have always taken it a different way, that Susan was not excluded because she was interested only in lipstick and invitations, but because she could no longer believe in Narnia. Perhaps it is put in a bad way, but I don't think that the emphasis is meant to be where it has been put. Susan's problem isn't that she has new interests, but that her new interests exclude the old.

To use a rather unlikely scenario as a comparison, it would be rather like Frodo saying to Sam after the WotR, "Oh, you actually still think about the Ring and Elves and those old stories?" If he didn't care, why would he be allowed to go to the Undying Lands?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

If he didn't care, why would he be allowed to go to the Undying Lands?

Or able to?

[Durelin]

I've always preferred looking at Narnia as encompassing innocence (rather than being 'heaven,' whatever exactly that is), the childlike wonder we have when we enter the world, newly created. And about how we lose that innocence. So saying that Sarah could not return to Narnian because she became interested in 'lipstick and invitations' I think is more of a reference to her losing her childlike interest as she becomes more focused on the 'real world' and its materialistic nature, than any other one. Or, perhaps it is her that she has entered a state of complacency when it comes to the actual nature of the world, and simply lives out her daily life based on more 'trivial' things, which could very well be just about anything we humans busy ourselves with on earth, when we consider the larger picture.

Of course, in using the word 'innocence' I risk so much equivocation that I was reluctant to post.


The other quick point I'd like to make is simply that I believe allegory in itself is only dislikable so long as you read too much of what the author has to say about his/her story, and don't simply enjoy what you'd like to think about it.

-Durelin

[davem]

For those who haven't seen the movie yet:

http://altreligion.about.com/gi/dyna...hronicles.html

Just thought you should all be aware of what you're letting yourself in for if you go & see this dangerous movie

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

For those who haven't seen the movie yet:

http://altreligion.about.com/gi/dyna...hronicles.html

Just thought you should all be aware of what you're letting yourself in for if you go & see this dangerous movie

Ah, but according to the same writer, LotR is also evil: "The Lord of the Rings trilogy comes from the pits of hell and is a clever instructional course in witchcraft disguised as fantasy and entertainment."

[Estelyn Telcontar]

If those two articles were satires, they'd be brilliant. As they are apparently meant to be serious, I can only hope that people reading them will be discerning. I have seldom seen such a threadbare collection of arguments. It also seems to me that this author belongs to those persons who give God's opponent(s) more honour than he/they deserve. The only thing we can do about this kind of "journalism" is to ignore it; the test of time will show what it's worth.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I found the exchange between Edmund and Philip to be pretty funny as well.

I thought it was a perfect little offhand addition, in line with Lewis' themes, understated-- unlike some of the additions that made it into PJ's movies. It was like a foreshadowing of The Horse And His Boy... really well done.

Originally Posted by davem

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).

Heh! Latecomer.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Lal

Ah, but according to the same writer, LotR is also evil:

Those articles evoke nothing so much as pity. I mean, you have to be pretty out of it to think that this little bit of satire is the real deal.

[Thinlómien]

I'm maybe a bit late to comment the Narnia movie, but I hope that it doesn't matter. It's also been a while from the day I saw the movie, so I might do mistakes about the plotline etc.

Generally, the movie was okay, in my opinion. I didn't like emphasizing in every turn, that Edmund was different. The book doesn't do so, why should the movie? I think there were too many close shots from the children crying; they (especially the girls) were crying all the time. It was annoying. Only after seeing Narnia I realised how well had Peter Jackson managed with crying in Lotr movies.

The battle was well made, and after seeing other fantasy or historical movie battle scenes (LotR, Troy, King Arthur etc.) it was really amusing with all the colours and beautiful creatures. The humour (as said before) was also better in the LotR movies. I, too, really liked the Philip-thing. I was also left wondering, why on earth do they hunt the white stag? Didn't animals speak in Narnia and be equals with them? That they were chasing an evil stag, wouldn't be a good theory.

Maybe something about the movie may also tell that when going back home from the movies, I, my sister and my dad were talking about the creatures. I said: "I liked the bat-creature in the scene where Mufasa was killed". You can only imagine how hard they laughed. There were actually very much same in movie-Aslan and Mufasa. And the scene where Aslan tells Peter (they're standing on a cliff) what to do if he won't be there and so on, it's just like the scene in lion king where Mufasa shows his kingdom to Simba and tells about being king. (I'll stop here, because this isn't Comparing Narnia and Lion King -thread...)

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by davem

For those who haven't seen the movie yet:

http://altreligion.about.com/gi/dyna...hronicles.html

Just thought you should all be aware of what you're letting yourself in for if you go & see this dangerous movie

Interesting to compare with ranting of this type (and with the more serious and widely accepted persecution of the Harry Potter series) is this comment about the Morte D'Arthur of Malory by the Puritan preacher Nathaniel Baxter (c.1550-1635)-

"This prophane and frivolous book...details the horrible acts of those whoremasters, Lancelot du Lake, Tristram de Lionesse, Gareth of Orkney, Merlin, the lady of the Lake, with the vile and stinking story of the Sangreal..."

Particularly remarkable is the description of the Lady of the Lake as a "whoremaster", and of the Grail Quest story, a pious, spiritual tale elaborated by Church propagandists, as "vile and stinking."

It seems people like Nathaniel Baxter and Pastor I'm-A-Former-Witch-And-Books-Are-The-Work-Of-Satan have always existed. The same emotions shine through-violently suppressed interest in the works they condemn, prurience, and lack of any understanding or knowledge of their target texts whatsoever...

[Frodo Baggins]

Oh Valesse, you are such a pest at times (thespians can be SO annoying)!

Thinlomion: They were not chasing the stag (who I am certain was a talking stag) to kill it. It was said if you caught the stag it would give you wishes. I assume that after you got your wishes you let the stag free.

Kuruharan said it before I could, Narnia wins hans down as the least stupid plot derivations. I have seen many movies adapted from books and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is by far the most faithful. I say we have dear Douglas Gresham to thank for that.

There were a few derivations but they did not detract that much. My friend Puddleglum and I agree that the white witch did not look right. Her face should have been whiter and her hair black.

The stone table whas what I had the biggest problem with, it looked just not right. To stonehengey not tabley enough. That and the tree people. I thought they were supposed to look more like people and not like blossoms blowing around.

Mr. Tumnus was already a stone when Edmund got there. (I think Edmund saw him did he not?) But Tumnus has always been one of my favourite characters so I liked seeing more of him. And James McCavoy makes an adoreable Faun anyway. (and no that was not a fangirly statement)

I know the children being chased by the witch on the way to Aslan was not in line with the book but it was kind of cool when they thought they were being chased but it turned out to be Father Christmas. I was so caught up in the movie that I had completely forgotten about Father Christmas (even though I had finished the book that morning) and really thought he was the witch until Mr. Beaver said "It's not her!" and then I went "Oh yeah! Of course"!

The humour in the film certainly seemed more natural, less forced than LOTR. Like when Father Christmas says "I have been driving reindeer longer than she has." (Ok that was a paraphrase) Or the Centaur says to Peter "Numbers do not win a battle." and Peter says "No, but I bet they help." The Edmund/Philip excange was priceless.

I'm not that familiar with Liam Neeson, but my mom likes him a lot. I actually thought he was a pretty good voice for Aslan. When Aslan roared I wanted to fall on my knees and cry out "Aslan! Aslan!". It is so moving when he gives himself in Edmund's place. I cried then. And I cried at the coronation too.

As for the battle.....Oh...my....goodness!!! It was so amazing! I won't call it better than LOTR but certainly it had more detail. It was probably one of the best battle scenes I have seen. Certainly it was more optomistic than those of LOTR but as stated before, the people in Narnia had nowhere to go but up while Middle earth was going downhill fast.

There was certainly as much if not more showings of relationships in Narnia, but that may come with the main characters being siblings, although Lucy and Mr. Tumnus become quite close. Being a girl who likes stories where bad guys get their heads handed to them, I still like to see good guys (and girls) in said stories having relationships with each other (comes with being a girl). I am glad there was no unnecessary romance secenes involving rebellious dryads and overprotective fathers.

In all, I just love both Narnia and LOTR, for the same and different reasons. Were I asked to chosse which was better, I don't think I could.

[HerenIstarion]

Just a tidbit - I've got the impression that Professor and Polly and the rest of them thought that Susan would not be allowed into Aslan's Kingdom. They've had good grounds to think so, but for two points: 1. She did not die with the rest of them in the railway accident, so there was still time for her to change. 2. Throughout the books, Aslan always answers questions about others that 'nobody is told anybody's story but their own'. Susan as she was than and there, maybe, but there is no knowing what may have happened/will happen later

[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.

[alatar]

Can't help but post this thought after watching (yet again) the animated version of LWW (soon to be the new version when the Easter Bunny drops off the DVD).

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

• Aslan would have jumped out of the brush a few times at the humans to 'increase tension.'

• The White Witch's sleigh would have been three times as big.

• During the scene where Susan and Lucy grieve over the lifeless body of Aslan, PJ surely would have added a belch (one of the rats, perhaps) to lighten the mood a bit.

• At the last battle, Peter would have faced a four-armed White Witch who'd swing four huge swords.

• During the negotiations over the fate of Edmund, someone would have lost a head.

• Mr. Beaver would have had a drinking contest with the fox.

• Edmund, having slain some minion of the WW, would have defiantly stated, "I AM no overlarge beardless dwarf!"

• "Hand over the humans, He-faun!"

• etc...

[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.

[Parmawen]

This is a similarity I found between the books actually, but it seems to fit in this thread.

In the Magician's Nephew (the first book of the Chronicles of Narnia) the world is created by Aslan singing it into being. I always thought that was incredibly creative: he sang as he thought of the trees, flowers, and people to live there. As well, in the Silmarillion, in the Ainulindalë part, the Ainur sing Arda into creation out of the void.

So I don't know if they both had the idea of singing of creation, or if they discovered it together, but I think it's a really neat similarity. Does anyone else know any myths involving singing to create?

[davem]

Not much time to reply now but certainly the Kalevala has a sung creation.