Chronicles of Narnia

[schmosef]

*** Warning: Contains Spoilers!
***************************


I saw the first half to three quarters of the movie. Right up to the point where the kids meet the lion for the first time.

I supposed I'll see the rest of it on the weekend.

So far, there's been no pathos developed.

I don't know why the Ice Queen woman is supposed to be so evil. I mean, she's obviously not nice, but evil? I don't know.

I'm not sure why the Lion is supposed to be all that. How do I know he won't end up just like the Ice Queen once he's in power? And where's he been all this time if he's the rightful King and all his subjects have been living under this despot Ice Queen?

What's up with Santa Claus showing up out of nowhere and giving dangerous weapons to little kids? They'd be just as likely to hurt themselves as anyone else if they tried to use them. Seems kind of evil to me...

What's up with all the walking? I know that quests usually involve travel but all these scenes of walking through forests just feel contrived.

And lastly, why's the younger brother such an ****at? I mean really? Does he have to be so selfish? Even if he believed that the Ice Queen didn't want to kill them all, why was he so eager to turn his siblings into "servants"? Loser.

I remember some people here talking about how the movie doesn't necessarily start the story from the beginning of the saga. Maybe I'm just feeling out of the loop in that sense.

Oh well, should I bother watching the rest? Does it get good from here on out?

[Jammrock]

So far, there's been no pathos developed.

The movie is very choppy, especially at the beginning. The ending sets up and answers a lot of your questions. As Gurm would be quick to point out, The Lion/witch/wardrobe was the first book written, but not the first in chronological order, so the big back story isn't there.

I don't know why the Ice Queen woman is supposed to be so evil. I mean, she's obviously not nice, but evil? I don't know.

Just wait ... you'll find out. The Ice Queen is the symbolic representation of Satan, so her evil is sutble at first.

I'm not sure why the Lion is supposed to be all that. How do I know he won't end up just like the Ice Queen once he's in power? And where's he been all this time if he's the rightful King and all his subjects have been living under this despot Ice Queen?

Answered in the second half of the movie. Plus he's the messiah archetype.

What's up with Santa Claus showing up out of nowhere and giving dangerous weapons to little kids? They'd be just as likely to hurt themselves as anyone else if they tried to use them. Seems kind of evil to me...

Lewis liked putting in ALL fairy tale creatures into his stories. Once again, you have to look at the movie from a symbolic standpoint and not a realist standpoint.

What's up with all the walking? I know that quests usually involve travel but all these scenes of walking through forests just feel contrived.

And lastly, why's the younger brother such an ****at? I mean really? Does he have to be so selfish? Even if he believed that the Ice Queen didn't want to kill them all, why was he so eager to turn his siblings into "servants"? Loser.

Think Judas Iscariot ...

I remember some people here talking about how the movie doesn't necessarily start the story from the beginning of the saga. Maybe I'm just feeling out of the loop in that sense.

Oh well, should I bother watching the rest? Does it get good from here on out?

The rest of the movie is better than the first half. The big battle scene occurs, loose ends are tied up, more of the story is revealed, etc. Overall the movie is good, but a bit choppy and very slow at parts.

[Gurm]

Ok multiple thoughts:

1. This is where the series starts. If anyone here DARES to start in with this "oh the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe isn't the first book" BULLSH!T, I will rip your head off and shove it up your butt. Seriously. This is the first book.

2. The movie rocks... if you've read the book. Seriously. Like if you've read the book LOTR was that much better. UNLIKE LOTR, however, this movie doesn't do a lot to stand on its own.

3. Edmund is... just... bitter. Bitter that their father is gone. Bitter that Peter is in charge. Bitter in general. It's middle-child syndrome to the nth degree. He's starved for attention.

4. The movie could certainly have done a better job of portraying the various aspects of Aslan. He is NOT a tame lion. The book says that about 100 times. He's NOT a tame lion, you CAN'T entirely trust him but he IS always good. That's what makes it hard. The Christian allegory is that choosing Jesus is supposed to not always be the EASY thing. The EASY road leads to evil, right? But the movie doesn't mention that he's not a tame lion... until the very end. The kids DO become far too attached to him far too quickly. But then again once they've accepted that Narnia is real, and that the talking animals are real... all the GOOD animals like Aslan and hate the witch.

5. It's not Santa Claus. It's Father Christmas. BIG DIFFERENCE, actually. Lewis is running with the old European archetype, not the North American one. But in general the movie doesn't make as big a deal about the prophecy as the book does. There just wasn't time.

6. Yeah it's a travelogue. Narnia is supposed to be huge. The kids spend ages and ages there. The POINT is that it's a place to escape to when you can't handle the real world. As you'll see at the end of the movie, they aren't the first to go to Narnia, and won't be the last. So we're SUPPOSED to get this sense of "gee this place is f***ing huge".

[Gurm]

Ok just read Jammrock's post and overall I agree wholeheartedly. The second half IS better, Edmund is a sh!t because he HAS to be to make the story work and he's a Judas-figure, the Ice Queen is SUBTLY evil at first, to lure people in.

Think "the Devil's greatest trick was making people believe he didn't exist" sort of thing. It's sort of a foreign concept to Jews, I know.

[schmosef]

Ok multiple thoughts:
4. The movie could certainly have done a better job of portraying the various aspects of Aslan. He is NOT a tame lion. The book says that about 100 times. He's NOT a tame lion, you CAN'T entirely trust him but he IS always good. That's what makes it hard. The Christian allegory is that choosing Jesus is supposed to not always be the EASY thing. The EASY road leads to evil, right? But the movie doesn't mention that he's not a tame lion... until the very end. The kids DO become far too attached to him far too quickly. But then again once they've accepted that Narnia is real, and that the talking animals are real... all the GOOD animals like Aslan and hate the witch.

What do you mean by "he's not tame"? As in, if you stick your hand in front of his face he's likely to bite it? Or if you strike/provoke him he'll not turn the other cheek?

[Gurm]

The movie is very choppy, especially at the beginning.

Oh hell yes. The book starts with them being picked up at the train station by Mrs. McCreedy (sp?). The moviemakers decided that saying "yeah the kids' dad was in the war" in passing in chapter 2 wouldn't work. The other thing to remember is that Lewis' audience for the book was ... 1960's British schoolchildren. They would already KNOW about the war and what had happened in England during that period - it wasn't that long ago to them!

The ending sets up and answers a lot of your questions. As Gurm would be quick to point out, The Lion/witch/wardrobe was the first book written, but not the first in chronological order, so the big back story isn't there.

Ick. Ok so I was a bit crazed just now. Seriously though, LWW is written such that you DON'T know who Aslan is, DON'T know who Jadis is, DON'T know what Narnia is all about. You're SUPPOSED to just be slack-jawed going "wow, that's a really cute little suit of armor that beaver is wear...ing... BEAVER?"

The Magicians Nephew, on the other hand, is written as though you DO know who Aslan is, you DO know who Jadis is, you DO know all about Narnia and the magic and power therein, etc.

So it TICKS ME OFF that some stupid idiot at Ballantine Books decided it would be a good idea to put the stories in Narnian Chronological Order. *spits*

[Gurm]

What do you mean by "he's not tame"? As in, if you stick your hand in front of his face he's likely to bite it? Or if you strike/provoke him he'll not turn the other cheek?

Both. You'll see, in the second half of the movie.

Lewis is OFTEN portrayed as writing a PURE CHRISTIAN allegory. In reality, his Aslan is more of an old-testament God than a Christ-figure. Sure, there's the sacrifice and whatnot, but... he's very much a "oh, you don't WANT forgiveness? Well that means I'm going to MAUL YOU" sort of Lion.

It's NOT a pure Christian allegory, and Lewis repeatedly said as much. It breaks down in a number of places that were necessary to make the story work. Edmund isn't a PURE Judas, Jadis isn't REALLY Lucifer, etc.

His response to little children when they asked about Aslan was NOT to say that he represented Jesus or was Jesus. His response was "well, what do we know about Aslan and who ELSE do you know of who is a lot like that?"

[KvHagedorn]

Anyone who sees the sisters watching Aslan being sacrificed and does NOT think it is glaringly obvious that they are Mary and Mary Magdalene and Aslan is Jesus must have a single digit IQ.

[Nowhere]

You know, the thing about Santa giving sword and bow. things meant for KILLING, is really comical
Made me laugh my ass off...

[Gurm]

Anyone who sees the sisters watching Aslan being sacrificed and does NOT think it is glaringly obvious that they are Mary and Mary Magdalene and Aslan is Jesus must have a single digit IQ.

So wait, which one is Mary Magdalene? 'Cuz, I mean, she has sex with Jesus...

*snicker*

[schmosef]

Ok, so I snuck home (first time since Monday) so I could take a shower and catch the rest of the movie.

I stand by what I said. There's no pathos developed. I just couldn't bring myself to care about the characters, what they were going through, or why they were going through it. I didn't even feel compelled to side with the kids against the Witch woman. Aside from hanging around with a lot of fugly friends, she didn't seem all that bad. I know much worse people in real life.

I suppose I might have liked the movie if I'd read the stories. As it is, I didn't like the movie and it didn't do anything to convince me that I should go read the books.

There's no development of the backstory of Narnia so everything just feels contrived and not held within any kind of framework.

Why was the witch so easily fooled into believing she could kill the lion when the "laws" said she couldn't in that context?

How were the kids able to use their weapons so well having only had them for a day?

How was that older brother kid able to hobble together a battle strategy so quickly?

Where did all the armour come from? Are there iron mines in Narnia?

How is it that the lion had to run such a great distance to get back to the Queen's lakeview timeshare but was able to show up so quickly to the battle?

Where did that huge castle come from? Who built it? Why didn't the Queen live there?

I still dont' understand why the lion didn't show up sooner to get rid of the Queen. He obviously didn't need the kids to fight her for him.

Maybe all this is covered in the books. Without having read them it just seems like a bunch of plot holes.

Was this movie based on the first book of the chronological order of the stories or was it the first book published?

I'm not trying to bash on what is obvious a story that near and dear to a lot of people's hearts. I'm asking these questions to see if there's really any worthwhile to me investing more time to this franchise.

The movie, just doesn't stand by itself very well.

[Gurm]

I stand by what I said. There's no pathos developed. I just couldn't bring myself to care about the characters, what they were going through, or why they were going through it. I didn't even feel compelled to side with the kids against the Witch woman. Aside from hanging around with a lot of fugly friends, she didn't seem all that bad. I know much worse people in real life.

She wanted to keep it winter forever! That's... y'know... BAD and stuff. Winter = BAD/Death, Spring = GOOD/Life. Jeez, didn't you take 7th-grade English when you learned all these basic metaphors?

There's no development of the backstory of Narnia so everything just feels contrived and not held within any kind of framework.

I agree that they did NOT spend enough time going into the backstory. They just gestured and went "hey look there's Cair Paravel" or "we're headed to the stone table".

Why was the witch so easily fooled into believing she could kill the lion when the "laws" said she couldn't in that context?

Actually it's a little more complex than that. She felt that the law was on her side. The problem was that she couldn't conceive that ANYONE was "blameless". Of course, to you and me what Edmund did wasn't really deserving of a blood sacrifice, right?

How were the kids able to use their weapons so well having only had them for a day?

It was some time, actually. Long enough for Edmund to get healthy again. A month maybe? Yeah, it seemed like overnight but really wasn't.

How was that older brother kid able to hobble together a battle strategy so quickly?

Again, it was quite a while. Also he had his kick-ass centaur advisors. Centaurs RULE.

Where did all the armour come from? Are there iron mines in Narnia?

Yes. Narnia is gi-friggin-normous. IIRC the lamppost is unusual because there's no ... uh ... wrought iron? I may be remembering wrong ... in Narnia. But there are mines and jewels and blah di blah blah. Lots of stuff. What _I_ want to know is how they knew to make human sized armor when there hadn't been any humans in Narnia for a long-ass time? Of course a lot of the armor was left-over from the last war, which was hundreds (thousands?) of years prior.

Of course in the next book what will blow your mind is that there ARE humans in Narnia, at least a few, and you kind of go "where the HELL did they come from?" but it turns out that during the 200 year (yeah, 200 years) reign of the 4 children, they made contact with neighboring kingdoms which were populated with people... blah di blah di blah.

How is it that the lion had to run such a great distance to get back to the Queen's lakeview timeshare but was able to show up so quickly to the battle?

Everyone travels more quickly when they're toting an army of frightened, wounded, recently-turned-back-from-stone creatures! (Actually Lucy used her little vial on those creatures too IIRC, but STILL). That is a great mystery to me. The distances are a bit confusing, aren't they? It's one of those "when the lion goes a-walking time don't matter much" things. The book makes mention of it, the movie ... didn't bother.

Where did that huge castle come from? Who built it? Why didn't the Queen live there?

It's been there since the last time Narnia had royalty. Gotta read the other books, man! The queen didn't live there because she was really un-fond of fair weather and sea breezes, and also because anyone but the rightful kings/queens who sits there... I forget, maybe perishes? *shrug*

I still dont' understand why the lion didn't show up sooner to get rid of the Queen. He obviously didn't need the kids to fight her for him.

Honor maybe? Why doesn't God get rid of Satan, thus saving us all from eternal torment? Actually THAT one is a really good question, and gets to some of the roots of the philosophical differences between Christianity and Judaeism. Satan is a Christian concept, and is one of the things that made the Romans so leery of Christianity for so long. "Wait, let us get this straight. Your all-powerful God allows this evil entity to roam the earth at will, corrupting people and thus dooming them to eternal torment?"

Maybe all this is covered in the books. Without having read them it just seems like a bunch of plot holes.

Yeah, it really kinda does. They glossed over a lot, but hey... it's a movie. If you hadn't read LOTR would those movies have been THAT compelling? Maybe - in that I think they were better adapted (Peter Jackson RULES) and better stories in the first place.

Was this movie based on the first book of the chronological order of the stories or was it the first book published?

THE FIRST BOOK. Don't go starting this argument. This is the FIRST STORY. There is one prequel where we get to witness the creation of Narnia.

I'm not trying to bash on what is obvious a story that near and dear to a lot of people's hearts. I'm asking these questions to see if there's really any worthwhile to me investing more time to this franchise.

I don't know. The problem is that most of us read this story when we were 8-10. Therefore it IS near and dear to the hearts of children everywhere, and watching the most beloved story of your childhood unfold on the big screen, so long as it doesn't UTTERLY suck, is pretty magical even if it's not the most compelling movie of all time.

The movie, just doesn't stand by itself very well.

Ahh, I think it's ok. We're just old and cynical.

[Rakido]

She wanted to keep it winter forever! That's... y'know... BAD and stuff. Winter = BAD/Death, Spring = GOOD/Life.

I guess penguins would see this completely different ...

It was some time, actually. Long enough for Edmund to get healthy again. A month maybe? Yeah, it seemed like overnight but really wasn't.

Again, it was quite a while. Also he had his kick-ass centaur advisors. Centaurs RULE.

same problem as in LOTR: you *are* confused how fast things happens in the movie. Afte reading the book you know that months or even years are between two cuts in the movie ...

Ahh, I think it's ok. We're just old and cynical.

We?


Rakido

[schmosef]

I guess penguins would see this completely different ...

or Canadians...

[schmosef]

It was some time, actually. Long enough for Edmund to get healthy again. A month maybe? Yeah, it seemed like overnight but really wasn't.

I didn't realise that he was sick.

He had a scab on his lower lip during the battle. Wouldn't it have disappeared if it took a month before the battle?

Wouldn't dead Aslan have started to smell?

I remember seeing a few reviews of the movie that made reference to Aslan being brought back to life through the power of love, not legal technicality... What were they talking about?