Posted on 12/27/2005 11:28:47 AM PST by Bob J
Did they put the boys in armor then?
BTW - ARMOR is a legit spelling for the word.
ar·mor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärmr)
n.
A defensive covering, as of metal, wood, or leather, worn to protect the body against weapons.
A tough, protective covering, such as the bony scales covering certain animals or the metallic plates on tanks or warships.
Your opening is more like how the books started. However, I read something that the makers of the movie felt like today's primary audience (children) wouldn't understand the times that the Narnia children were living in, and they felt like they needed to set that situation up. I think it was good for my children, and I know my son (who has read the books) liked the set up.
He was supposed to be a little creepy. He was going to turn Lucy into the White Witch. However, he had a change of heart.
"One thing to keep in mind is that the setup here is a setup for the whole series, not just the first installment. I personally liked that it built slowly. I liked that the film took the time to establish the characters well before they ever got to the Narnia world. The essential sequence of events would have fallen apart otherwise..."
Good point, I didn't know there would be more movies.
I think you are correct!!!!
Where does the magic the Ice Queen evokes come from?
What were the dancing figures in the fire all about? This was one of those scenes that you want to rewind and play over a couple times...
1 King Kong
2 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
3 The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
the Narnia story is really for 7-12 yr olds, it's probably good to see with the kids or grandkids (my grandkids loved it).
As Harry gets older HP is more and more adult (there's a lot of first-date anxiety in this one)
There are only two reasons for not seeing King Kong a) can't sit for three hours or b) don't like sad endings Kong is the by far the best movie of the year and comes free of any covert message. All three are very good and worth going to see.
"I read something that the makers of the movie felt like today's primary audience (children) wouldn't understand the times that the Narnia children were living in, and they felt like they needed to set that situation up."
See, that's what bothers me about production decisions in this movie. To me, that context is almost meaningless unless Lewis (and the producers) wanted to draw a cororally between events in the film and WWII/Nazis. The film, at least the Narnia part, is timeless and doesn't necessarily require a backdrop to any one period in history...unless it was important to do so.
According to most of the people on this thread, the corallary is the life and death of Jesus Christ. so why the WWII references?
Yep - wasn't that original but both hubby and I liked it. I love Steve Buscemy - he's great and I always like movies he's in for some reason. He's just got that kooky, lovable look to him.
The Ice Queen's magic was a dark magic that came from her original world and existed before time began (prehistory of the prehistory of Narnia). In the magicians nephew, it spells out how she invoked an evil based on hatred, and it consumed her entire world, herself included. It was only by accident that Digby (the Professor in LW&W) and Polly awoke her (she serves as the metaphor of Satan, imprisioned in hell but released to devour whom he may consume).
The staff she uses in LW&W came from her original world, which she had turned completely into stone, including herself - when Edmund destroys her staff he also destroys her ability to conduct magic on Narnia.
This is the epic turning point in the battle, and the difference between the magic of Potter and of Narnia. Even death could not stop the true God, and the battle was won, not with magic, but with the resurrection of the once thought dead God entering the battlefield along with the resurrected saints.
Potter is just a tired repeating cliche of "good" sorcerer performing "good" magic vs evil sorcercers and witchs performing evil magic - and everyone acting on thier own impulses because they have no moral base identified.
You've got to be on medication. There is no way a coherent person would post the drivel you do, for example your last two posts to me.
I am referring to what happens in Narnia as magic so that I can draw distinctions between the two movies. When God performs a supernatural act, I do not call it magic, and as such, what happens in Narnia is not magic, but the supernatural hand of God.
In Potter they celebrate the commercialized humanist Christmas. It is presented as a break from school, not to celebrate Christs birth. I know a lot of people that celebrate Christmas but do not believe in Christ.
If a Christian had "power" to perform "magic", then upon changing allegiances, the power of magic would also change. God does not serve man, man serves God. Before any "magic" could occur, one would have to devote themselves fully to thier God. Potter has numerous characters that perform magic "for good" and something evil happens, or perform magic for evil and something good happens.
The closest you could get to that in Narnia is Edmund, who sins (no magic), and is claimed by the Ice Witch (Satan) because of his sin. God (Aslan) offers himself in his place, is killed and resurrected, and then breaks the gates (castle) of hell and sets the captives (saints that stood up to Satan) free on his way to saving the world. That is a pretty heavy duty line by line comparison to Christianity, that Potter cant touch.
The characters in Narnia speak directly to Aslan (God). In a later books, you will hear Aslan tell the children he was waiting for them to call on him.
CS Lewis wrote additional science fiction books that might be interesting reading for adults. And of course, there is the Screwtape Letters.
It got practicly no support from the studios or hollywood. I think that it's because of... Well, you know what I'm talking about, that makes the hollywood crowd uncomfortable (I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet). The movie has a decidedly life affirming message.
Mark
Mark
Michael Medved said that the new version of 'The Producers' is horrible. I think he added that when it comes out on DVD - - even then don't waste your time. On the other hand, my daughter and I watched (again) the original 'The Producers' a few days ago and, as always, howled with laughter. Why remake a classic movie like 'The Producers'? What, you're going to do it better?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.