Chronicles of Narnia

[Popeyesays]

Actually, in one of the reviews I read, the reviewer was very down on the lack of backstory. She seemed quite vexed and obsessed by the Lantern Waste in particular. 'WHY is there a lampost in the middle of nowhere?!!'

She must have never read the prequel which explains why the lampost is there and why there is a tree carved on the wardrobe. The backstory is not critical to the first book, but if read after the series it ties up the loose ends.

I have read others of Lewis' book, in particular the Perelandria trilogy which is the story of Adam and Eve retold.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I have to agree with Tolkien. Lewis is vastly overrated both as a theologian and as an author of fiction. What's worse is that the best fiction story he wrote, Till We Have Faces, is probably the most neglected. I can't help but think that if Hollywood wanted to dramatize some children's books by an Anglican author, they would have done better to choose Madeleine L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time series. Of course with Lewis they can count on a huge Evangelical turnout, and I guess the bottom line is the bottom line.

That being said, I've read worse than Narnia. I expect to see the movie eventually, and I expect to like it.

They did a miniseries of Wrinkle, which while it wasn't bad, could have been better.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

She must have never read the prequel which explains why the lampost is there and why there is a tree carved on the wardrobe. The backstory is not critical to the first book, but if read after the series it ties up the loose ends.

The thing is that many theatre going adults expect there to not be any loose ends. And it's not like it's something simple and easy to miss...it's a full sized lampost in the middle of nowhere, and it's on. That's pretty jarring. You have to remember that many adults don't have the ability to suspend disbelief to the same extent as a child does. To a child it doesn't matter why the lampost is there, it just is. Grown ups always want to know why.

 

[Scuba Pete]

LL,

I guess I read and saw through the magical eyes of a kid!

Popeye: which one was the "prequel"?

 

[SoyLeche]

The thing is that many theatre going adults expect there to not be any loose ends. And it's not like it's something simple and easy to miss...it's a full sized lampost in the middle of nowhere, and it's on. That's pretty jarring. You have to remember that many adults don't have the ability to suspend disbelief to the same extent as a child does. To a child it doesn't matter why the lampost is there, it just is. Grown ups always want to know why.

Lewis wrote this book first, and he didn't give any explanation, so it would be wrong to add it into the movie. People need to relax. It is a children's story for goodness sake.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Lewis wrote this book first, and he didn't give any explanation, so it would be wrong to add it into the movie. People need to relax. It is a children's story for goodness sake.

I'm aware of that, but if you recall The Lord of The Rings trilogy, there was no in depth explanation of how the ring came to be in Bilbo's posession...that was in the prequel, which was written after. Peter Jackson managed to fit it in nicely though, I thought.
I'm in no way suggesting they should have had a nice bit of grainy flashback involving Jadis throwing lampost bits around the place, all I'm saying is that the lack of backstory is going to - and already is - prove difficult for some people. Assuming they continue on to make the rest of the books, you're going to end up with a situation like we've had with Star Wars where they're going back and making the start of the story after they've finished telling it.
I don't see why they couldn't have done the somewhat sensible thing and make The Magicians Nephew first. It's a perfectly good starting point in it's own right, and sadly I think the intent of C.S. Lewis is of less interest to a lot of the general public than is the ability to be able to watch a film and understand why there's a working British lampost in the middle of a country full of talking beasties and a decided lack of modern amenities. It is jarring precisely because it doesn't belong where it is...it's a piece of mundane modernity in a land of otherwise complete magic and fantasy.
What can I tell you...people are spoilt. They expect to know why things are and they expect a logical progression from the start of the story.

*Netdoc - The Magician's Nephew was the prequel.

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm aware of that, but if you recall The Lord of The Rings trilogy, there was no in depth explanation of how the ring came to be in Bilbo's posession...that was in the prequel, which was written after. Peter Jackson managed to fit it in nicely though, I thought.
I'm in no way suggesting they should have had a nice bit of grainy flashback involving Jadis throwing lampost bits around the place, all I'm saying is that the lack of backstory is going to - and already is - prove difficult for some people. Assuming they continue on to make the rest of the books, you're going to end up with a situation like we've had with Star Wars where they're going back and making the start of the story after they've finished telling it.
I don't see why they couldn't have done the somewhat sensible thing and make The Magicians Nephew first. It's a perfectly good starting point in it's own right, and sadly I think the intent of C.S. Lewis is of less interest to a lot of the general public than is the ability to be able to watch a film and understand why there's a working British lampost in the middle of a country full of talking beasties and a decided lack of modern amenities. It is jarring precisely because it doesn't belong where it is...it's a piece of mundane modernity in a land of otherwise complete magic and fantasy.
What can I tell you...people are spoilt. They expect to know why things are and they expect a logical progression from the start of the story.

*Netdoc - The Magician's Nephew was the prequel.

It doesn't have to make sense. That's part of the magic of it. There's a lampost in the middle of the woods. That's weird. The animals also talk. Do we need to explain that?

It's been a while since I've read Lord of the Rings, but it seems to me that he writes a bit of the backstory into it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Popeyesays]

LL,

I guess I read and saw through the magical eyes of a kid!

Popeye: which one was the "prequel"?

The Magician's Nephew which was written last.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Ulver]

I'd have to agree with those who say Tolkien was a better writer and overall the Lord of the Rings is just more enjoyable (in terms of books and films)

I saw the film for The Chronicles of Narnia. I enjoyed it, but the religious symbolism stuck out a lot to me. Of course, I am a theology major though.

 

[Bastet]

I saw the film for The Chronicles of Narnia. I enjoyed it, but the religious symbolism stuck out a lot to me. Of course, I am a theology major though.

You don't need to be a theology major for that to happen.

I saw it last weekend, and while I enjoyed it overall (even though I spent the whole movie comparing it to the Narnia BBC tv series from 1988), I was rather peeved that the Professor didn't say his "Once a King or Queen of Narnia" line at the end...that would have tied it all up perfectly, as it is supposed to do. I'm rather at a loss as to why they left it out.

 

[Ulver]

You don't need to be a theology major for that to happen.

I saw it last weekend, and while I enjoyed it overall (even though I spent the whole movie comparing it to the Narnia BBC tv series from 1988), I was rather peeved that the Professor didn't say his "Once a King or Queen of Narnia" line at the end...that would have tied it all up perfectly, as it is supposed to do. I'm rather at a loss as to why they left it out.

I thought they did include that. I think they showed it after the credits.

 

[Bastet]

I thought they did include that. I think they showed it after the credits.

If they did, it must have been right at the very end, because we stayed through nearly all of the credits. Half of the audience had already stood up and walked out when they cut back to a short scene not long into the credits...I suppose they could have had more at the end (a stupid idea for a theatre release IMO). All too often the cinema doesn't even play all of the credits here (there have been several instances where I've wanted to stay and read the credits, and they've shut them off on me :banghead3 ). Guess I'll see when it comes out on dvd.