The Chronicles of Narnia DVD

I just finished watching LWW for the first time (no I didn't go see it at in the theaters).

I thought it was true enough to the book. I'm glad they kept the Biblical allegories. On the down side I wish they could have found a way to make Edmund's second trip to the White Witch more in line with what he was really going through on the inside, because without knowing what he was thinking, drawing on the stone lion made little sense.

But all in all I liked the movie. The commentary with the kid actors does get a little annoying when Georgie Henley (Lucy) wont stop going on, and on, and on. At first it was kind of cute. But it got to a point where director Andrew Adamson had to cut Georgie Henley off and ask her "Is this story going anywhere?"

I haven't seen the Collector's Edition, but both running times are 134 minutes. So I would gather that there is nothing add or put back in to the film.

Anyways, if you haven't seen LWW yet, I'd say it's at least worth the price of a rentel fee.

Moved to Non-B5.....

It was ok. I haven't read the books in forever so I couldn't tell you just how true to the source it was. The one thing I did remember from the books that I wished they had kept was Aslan snapping at Lucy when she gets caught up in her brother's well-being when so many others lay dying. I think they mentioned that in one of the commentaries but I only had them on as background noise so I'm not sure. The movie is a little childish for my tastes but worth seeing once.

I certainly wasn't going to go see it at the theater but netflix is made for such things.

It would've been better if the two girls weren't crying and complaining throughout the entire movie. Why did they even bother giving them weapons?

I've never read the books (Or seen previous versions), so for me, it was a nice introduction to the world of Narnia. I actually found that I enjoyed it more than I expected to.

I've never read the books (Or seen previous versions), so for me, it was a nice introduction to the world of Narnia. I actually found that I enjoyed it more than I expected to.

Click to expand...

That being the case I should for warn you that The Chronicles of Narnia aren't written in chronological order. And there's been some debate over which one you really should watch/read first.

Chronologically it goes like this:
The Magician's Nephew
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Horse and His Boy
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle

Publication order (the right way IMNSHO) however goes like this (which is how Disney is making them):
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Horse and His Boy
The Magician's Nephew
The Last Battle

Yea, I'd heard that, but, Babylon 5 "In the Beginning" is chronologically before The Gathering, but, produced afterwards, and isn't as good without seeing up to Season 4 first.

Likewise, you couldn't chronicalize LOST flashbacks, as you need them in the order they are produced.

Prequels sometimes just don't belong at the beginning of the story.

So, in the Narnia world, is it better to see/read them in published order or Chronological order?

I'd definitely read in the publication order .. except for The Final Battle. That I advise not reading at all

Well again, I'm of the school of thought that the publication order works better.

One reason I say that is it adds some mystery and raises lots of questions that the "earlier" (chronologically earlier) books answer. For example(s), why in the bloody heck a lamp post is growing out of the ground in LWW is answered in TMN. Or where did the White Witch come from? (BTW in the Book LWW you are told that the White Witch was Adam's first wife but she isn't human) What's this "deep magic"? Why/how do the "people" of Narnia know about humans, much less Adam and Eve? And so on. These and other questions are all answered in TMN.

Reading The Chronicles of Narnia for the first time in chronological order to me is a bit like knowing what's inside your presents before you open them. Kind of takes the fun out of it.

I'd definitely read in the publication order .. except for The Final Battle. That I advise not reading at all

Click to expand...

Funny you should say that. Because that's the only one I couldn't finish.

Something about a book that starts off with a old ape talking to a donkey who doesn't know his "ass" form a hole in the ground just lost something on me.

It would've been better if the two girls weren't crying and complaining throughout the entire movie. Why did they even bother giving them weapons?

Click to expand...

I haven't seen the movie but it sounds as if they're bieng true to the books in this respect. Remember these were written and set sixty years ago. In those days girls weren't expected to fight or stand alongside boys. Giving them weapons at all was a major break with stereotypes.

They played up the "just kids" aspect a bit in the movie, but it seems that the first time any people from "our world" are in Narnia they still act pretty much as they were to begin with. The second time they come, they take a little time to adjust and then they're pretty much Narnian (good with weapons and less whiny). While Edmund and Lucy are the only ones who made it three times, I think, their third turnaround was faster yet and they were Narnian by the end of the first day. So in the sequels they'll pretty much snap into things a lot faster, or at least they should.

My main problems with the movie usually came where the movies departed from the books, for it (like the LotR movies before them) had a tendency to get very overdramatic. The exception being the badass centaur who's essentially running the army for the kids. While he's a bit cardboard, his character fit pretty well. Also any reference to Finchley was amusing.

Last of all, Liam Neeson was a pretty good choice for Aslan's voice, but somehow I felt it wasn't deep enough and resonant enough. I was thinking more along the lines of James Earl Jones. For Aslan you really want a voice that makes people sit up, take notice, and very much respect.

Why did they even bother giving them weapons?

Click to expand...

Maybe they were hoping there'd be some unfortunate accident and they'd lose both of them? (Just got my copy on Saturday and haven't had time to watch it, but I do recall the younger girl especially being a bit whiny in the first book.)

Regards,

Joe

I'm just loving a book / film with a protagonist called Edmund, which is my forename! its a rarity...

I'm just loving a book / film with a protagonist called Edmund, which is my forename! its a rarity...

Click to expand...

Try reading King Lear...

In the movie I found the older girl to be unnecessarily whiny.

One thing I do remember about the books the last time I flipped through them, they're still on the shelf but I only read them in elementary school, was being shocked that they were more sexist than I remembered. I think in the first book Santa having a line about girls not being up to things like battle.

Lewis gradually improved -- but there's no denying he had a pretty male-oriented view of the world, even after his improvement.

Actually, I found the last book of the series - The Final Battle - to be the most sexist of the lot. Though not the only thing that bugged me about that book, it did bug me .. especially the attitudes towards Susan in that book really gave me the impression that Lewis just couldn't handle women. Which, I found out with peaking at his biography, he really couldn't. I'm wasn't really surprised.

One thing I do remember about the books the last time I flipped through them, they're still on the shelf but I only read them in elementary school, was being shocked that they were more sexist than I remembered. I think in the first book Santa having a line about girls not being up to things like battle.

Click to expand...

You have to put it into the context of the time when it was written. At that tme it wasn't sexist, it was normal. That doesn't make it right of course.

Today I heard an item on the news about a 91 year old woman who today was given her 'wings' to recognise the fact that she parachuted into France at the end of WW2.

She was supposed to be a courier, but ended up commanding 1,500 French Resistance fighters in the last days of the war. After the war they wouldn't give her a military cross solely because she was a woman and they didn't give women military medals. She refused to accept an MBE that she was offered, and who can blame her?

But those were the way things were done then. Not right, but we can't change the past. Put Lewis' writing and characters into the context of that level of acceptance of women in society, and it's pretty amazing he had the girls fighting at all.

And just in case you think this is ancient history, when I started working 30 years ago, I was paid 90% of the rate a man was paid for doing the same job. That was the norm.

quote]At that tme it wasn't sexist, it was normal.

[/quote]
The one does not imply the other.

The fact that it was the norm at the time does not mean that it wasn't sexist. It just means that society as a whole was sexist at the time.

I *do* agree that Lewis (or others) need to be judged with an eye toward the norms of their times. A person should get some credit for being less sexist than the society that they lived in. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't also fair to point out that the person was still somewhat sexist.

I remember similar discussions about Tolkien, Eowyn, and the "killed by no man" issue, back whenthe movie of Return of the King came out.