I liked it better than the most recent Harry Potter movie, which was surprising. the graphics were really good. I thought since it was based on a children's novel that I would dislike it, but I was def. mistaken.

12/10/2005 9:27:53 PM

like 4 threads down



http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=316591&page=3

12/10/2005 9:41:55 PM

I AM BOYCOTTING IT BECAUSE OF ITS BLATANT CHRISTIAN ANALOGIES!

12/10/2005 10:37:38 PM

Oddly enough, I liked it less than the latest Harry Potter, though I have never read either of the two books in question.

12/10/2005 10:47:16 PM

The graphics were really good?

What movie did you watch?

12/10/2005 11:02:38 PM

LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK

12/10/2005 11:07:15 PM

It was perhaps the worst movie ive ever seen, so slow

12/10/2005 11:53:57 PM

Graphics were most certainly not very good.

I've seen worse, but they were not good.

Like I said in the other thread...acting outside of Swenton and the beavers (particularly Dawn French) was poor. Broadbent was okay but they gave him less than zero to work with. Opening was slow as hell, train shots for minutes on end for no reason, etc. etc, and then in other parts it seemed rushed.

It's an uneven film. It's not bad.

12/11/2005 3:05:51 AM

Lord of the Rings: Jesus Edition

12/11/2005 3:55:21 AM

but that doesnt really work cuz both books were written with Christian overtones (altho Narnia obviously much more) and were written by two strong Christian friends.

12/11/2005 4:09:06 AM

J.R.R. Tolkien HATED allegory and balked anytime anybody mentioned that his books were about either the war or Christianity.

12/11/2005 10:42:25 AM

well then he did it subconciously . and ive read a lot about that stuff too and i know he really hated people saying that it was about the war. i do remember him stating numerous times that he hated allegory. but there are still some blatantly Christian themes (to me) throughout the silmarillion and the trilogy

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 11:15 AM. Reason : ]

12/11/2005 11:12:27 AM

The purpose wasn't to recreate or retell Christianity. The purpose was to restore an English mythology since they had none of their own after the whoevers invaded in whenever and destroyed all the whatever.

And yes, while there are similarities to various Bible stories, I think the overarching context is quite different.

Not to mention the fact that while Tolkien created a vast, rich world, full of depth and history, Lewis creates something about the size of a football field with a witch on one side and a lion on the other.

12/11/2005 11:47:21 AM

oh yea i definitely dont think that was the whole purpose of any of those books at all. that reminds me i should start reading the trilogy. again when i have the chance. and i still read the hobbit about once a year. its such a light read, but one of my favorite books, and it totally changed my life into being a nerd forever when my dad first read it to me

12/11/2005 11:49:38 AM

a truly touching story

12/11/2005 12:50:13 PM

DO WE EVEN HAVE AN ENTERTAINMENT MOD ANYMORE?

12/11/2005 12:53:19 PM

apparently not heh

12/11/2005 1:09:52 PM

Even if a Western author (be it Tolkien or anyone else) hated Christianity more than anything in the entire world, he'd be hard pressed to write a book that doesn't contain some sort of Christian overtone. About 2/3rd of the world's story ideas, if not more, are variations on Bible stories.

The one thing that struck me about Narnia when reading the books, and especially when seeing this film, is that it is a TINY world until it needs to be larger, and that kills some of the believability. The Beavers' house is within quick walking distance of the Witch's castle, but also less than a day's walk from the Stone Table, which is less than a day's walk from Cair Paravel. Then, in the other books, all the sudden there's an ocean and other groups of people and I'm saying to myself, "where were these people when THE BATTLE FOR ALL NARNIA took place?" I got absolutely no sense of scope from LWW.

12/11/2005 1:31:16 PM

Exactly. The kid is like THAT'S SO FUCKING FAR! IT'S GOTTA BE LIKE FIVE MILES!!!

12/11/2005 1:33:15 PM

yea i still enjoy the narnia series but the world isnt developed at all. but they are still a fun read, especially when youre younger. Tolkien's world however...thats a whole different ballgame

12/11/2005 1:49:53 PM

probably due to the fact that one set of books was intended for children

12/11/2005 2:22:09 PM

Quote :

"I thought since it was based on a children's novel that I would dislike it, but I was def. mistaken."

Because Harry Potter is not? Please. . .

12/11/2005 2:28:14 PM

where the fuck is bartleby

woodfoot for entertainment mod

12/11/2005 2:43:54 PM

Agreed.

12/11/2005 3:05:39 PM

OMG CHILDREN AREN'T ADULTS, LET'S DUMB DOWN OUR WRITING FOR THEM!

Kids love Tolkien.

Kids also love *gasp* Finding Nemo, which includes a journey of amazing scope.

12/11/2005 3:16:44 PM

i believe its a bit belated to complain to him now. he's dead.

12/11/2005 5:52:45 PM

You're the one that argued the books being intended for children is justification for their lack of scope and development. I'm just sayin'.

12/11/2005 6:11:25 PM

well i didnt argue it. its clearly dedicated to a child.

i'm just jerking your chain, mostly. i think tolkien spent a lot of time creating this world and knew the world before he created the story. i think lewis just wrote a kids story and the world was secondary to the characters and the story. then he decided to write more and it made the world he had only very minimally created in his mind become even more flimsy than it already was.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 6:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/11/2005 6:32:02 PM

Quote :

"The one thing that struck me about Narnia when reading the books, and especially when seeing this film, is that it is a TINY world until it needs to be larger, and that kills some of the believability."

Narnia doesn't include calormene, archenland, the northern whatsit, or the western somewhere...

narnia is it's own country within that world... the other countries have no interest in fighting narnia's wars for it...

... read the books (again)

12/12/2005 12:05:41 PM

uh oh, dork alert

12/12/2005 3:12:06 PM

yeah... i reread them all over the past couple of weeks and went to see the movie last night.

Even though the movie regurgitated the book pretty well, after rereading all the books it seemed to lack the same feel i got from the books.

I don't know if it's just because it's not the same as what I imagined, or if it's lacking something deeper.

but whatever.. i still enjoyed the books

12/12/2005 3:20:39 PM

if this makes it to two pages

i suggest a new mod with the quickness

12/12/2005 3:22:35 PM

you've suggested a new mod with the quickness for quite some time now

12/12/2005 3:35:01 PM

it was one of the best movies ive seen recently.

12/12/2005 5:04:19 PM

Multiple threads for the same topic are AWESOME.

12/12/2005 6:47:04 PM

well the trailer one got taken over by the actual movie once people started seeing it.. this thread should be more of a discussion about the actual movie...

so there

12/12/2005 7:59:44 PM

helping push for 2 pages

12/18/2005 3:21:06 AM

Once my in-laws come up for Christmas (and watch my two sons), my wife and I will be seeing the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; as well as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

12/18/2005 8:56:56 AM

hey I greatly enjoyed this movie...then again, I'm a sucker for talking animals, lol (well done on the animals' expressions).

12/18/2005 11:22:18 AM

i knew at least one of your kind had to exist since they keep puttin out talkin animal movies. are you also interested in talking babies? thats another one i dont get.

12/18/2005 11:33:32 AM

ahah only in Meet the Fockers...and he didn't really TALK, per se

12/18/2005 12:08:02 PM

ha, yes true. i'm curious who did like look who's talking enough to constitute making sequels

12/18/2005 12:17:05 PM

haha yeah the first was funny...but by the 3rd (is that the one where to dogs talk) I was like ok...its not so funny anymore when their mouths don't even move!

But yeah, Narnia was cool b/c a lot of the speech and facial expressions were still within the limits of that particular animal's true abilities...sure there was a little embellishing, but hey, they ARE animals and can only move their mouths so much...again, very impressed

12/18/2005 12:26:22 PM

not to mention Baby Geniuses

12/18/2005 4:59:23 PM

Quote :

"my wife and I will be seeing the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; as well as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire."

Do you hate your wife?

Do you hate yourself?

If the answer is "no" to either, don't see Narnia.

12/18/2005 5:03:35 PM

^^oh yea, good call...i thought the first one was a flop. it must've been a cliffhanger though since it got a sequel.

12/18/2005 5:06:07 PM

I liked both, but i also like movies

12/18/2005 6:30:32 PM

true, movie fans can enjoy anything that can be labeled as a "movie"

12/18/2005 6:31:42 PM

SNACK ATTACK MUTHAFUCKA

12/18/2005 9:02:46 PM

6^the best part of baby geniuses was the 5 minute montage at the end of clips from the other 60 minutes of the movie.

i never watched all of baby geniuses thank god, but i worked at a theater that was playing it. . .

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 4:05 AM. Reason : 6]

12/19/2005 4:04:55 AM