Just watched Narnia (Possible spoilers)

[D.Shaffer]

we miss out on the other lion -- the one Edmund drew spectacles and a moustache on. That lion is seen later on, but never heard;!

Actually, I'm pretty sure you DO see Edmund 'draw' on it in the witches 'statue garden' but it's a bit unclear what exactly he's doing with it. You definitely see him doing something to the face of a big cat, in any case.

 

[LostSoul]

I saw the movie last night, pretty good, I rate it a 7.

I would have liked Aslan to be more fierce. And the witch to be more cowardly.

I liked the books better.

 

[Raloc]

C.) I feel the Christian allegory of the movie has been minimized.

Might actually go see it. I dislike most books that exist solely as allegory (which is why I rather disliked the book...).

Honestly, Gandalf's resurrection is more obvious biblical allegory (although Tolkien swears it isn't, what do authors know?) than Narnia is.

I'm much more inclined to agree with Tolkien on this one.

 

[Damon Griffin]

Actually, I'm pretty sure you DO see Edmund 'draw' on it in the witches 'statue garden' but it's a bit unclear what exactly he's doing with it. You definitely see him doing something to the face of a big cat, in any case.

I did see him draw on the cat.

What I missed was Aslan "thawing" that lion (among all the others there) and that lion's subsequent prancing about gleefully because he felt Aslan was singling him out for inclusion ("us lions".)

 

[Damon Griffin]

Eh? What'd they call him in the movie?

Maugrim..and I withdraw my objection: I just discovered that was his original name in the British editions of the books. It was apparently changed to Fenris Ulf in the early American editions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maugrim

 

[John Crichton]

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/675/675387p1.html

Looks like Prince Caspian is almost a go. I may go see LWW again just to vote with my money for a sequel...

 

[Firebeetle]

Looks like Prince Caspian is almost a go. I may go see LWW again just to vote with my money for a sequel...

According to Entertainment Weekly, Walden Media paid $70 mil for books rights to all seven. I really think they'll make all seven. The response we've at the theater really took the owner by surprise, and I've never seen so many church and school groups renting the theater out before.

That church-going "Passion" crowd is hard to beat. Here in rural MO, "Passion" is in a class by itself as highest grossing film of all time in our local box office. At one time we had multiple copies of the film to play in different theaters (a rarity here.) If LWW is getting that church support, it will make money.

 

[John Crichton]

According to Entertainment Weekly, Walden Media paid $70 mil for books rights to all seven. I really think they'll make all seven. The response we've at the theater really took the owner by surprise, and I've never seen so many church and school groups renting the theater out before.

That church-going "Passion" crowd is hard to beat. Here in rural MO, "Passion" is in a class by itself as highest grossing film of all time in our local box office. At one time we had multiple copies of the film to play in different theaters (a rarity here.) If LWW is getting that church support, it will make money.

This one cost ~ $180 to makle in all and Walden has the rights but they'll still need Disney's (or someone else's) backing to get the films made. Either way, looks good to me if someone is going to continue the saga. If church groups get involved (in a good and supportive way) more power to 'em but I don't usually pay attention to that kind of thing. This movie can appeal to anyone looking to get entertained.

 

[Eridanis]

Looks like Prince Caspian is almost a go. I may go see LWW again just to vote with my money for a sequel...

I sure hope so. Those four kids are a treasure, and it will be great to see them return to Narnia. (I just read PRINCE CASPIAN for the first time yesterday, so it's fresh in my mind!)

I admit I had the "vote with my wallet" thing on my mind, too. I made sure I saw it opening weekend, going so far as leaving my four-day-old son home with my wife (with her permission, of course!) to see a late showing with my brother. I'm very glad it's doing well, and I thought it was a fine successor to having the LotR movies to look forward to at Christmastime.

Not sure if I would take my 4-year old daughter to see it. The battle sequence is a little too intense, but would be fine for a five or six-year-old, methinks. I'm sure I'm being a little too overprotective, though...

 

[TanisFrey]

B.) It's very true to the original, I could follow the text in my head and match it to the screen. Conversely, there are numerous additions, expansions, and some omissions to the text. For the purists among us, rejoice. You will have plenty of material to gripe and kvetch about for weeks on these and other boards. There will be plenty of opportunity for you to show how smart you are in your maticulous knowledge of C.S. Lewis. Don't pretend you don't like it.

Most changes seem to be of the cinemagraphic kind, the make the movie flow well or increase drama. Lewis' text is very realistic, with events happening over time. These gaps are usually eliminated for the movie. Other events are rearranged or added to give more drama and emotional tension. The beaver's house is fled while the wolves attack, there is an icy river action scene, etc. These scenes seem fine for what they are.

There are many little omissions. There is no stone knife, no scene of the witch hiding as a boulder, Rumblebuffin in not introduced properly nor does he knock down the gates, Aslan doesn't play with the girls, and I do miss the scene of the animals celebrating Christmas. Which brings me to my next point.

the beavers and childern run in the the celbration after they have been turned into stone.