DVDizzy Forum

Escapay wrote:

Kenai wrote:Sweet! I loved the movie a lot. But how come they're not going in order? Isn't the Magicians Nephew supposed to be next in the chronological order?

There are two different orders for the books: The publishing order, and the chronological order.

The Publishing Order:
The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (1950)
Prince Caspian (1951)
Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952)
The Silver Chair (1953)
The Horse and His Boy (1954)
The Magician's Nephew (1955)
The Last Battle (1956)

The Chronological Order: (Real Time/Narnia Time)
The Magician's Nephew (1900/Narnia Begins)
The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (1940/Winter Ends after 100 Years?)
The Horse and His Boy (within TLTWATW)
Prince Caspian (1941/1000 Years Later)
Voyage of the Dawn Treader (date?/Several Years Later)
The Silver Chair (date?/Many Years Later)
The Last Battle (date?/Many Years Later)

Many prefer the publishing order, as that's the order they were written, though others prefer the chronological order . I think first-time readers should go by publishing order, then for re-reads they can do chronological order.

Escapay

I def prefer the publishing order. It's so much nicer to have the reveals in the Magician's Nephew way down the line about the Professor and Jadis.

I am so afraid they are going to tank Caspian... this is my favorite of the series. Although if they do a good job on this one, I am super psyched about what they can do with the visuals for Voyage...

Hopefully, they will give Andrew Adamson the boot as director - for good! The first effort into The Chronicles of Narnia series was just so dumb - uninvolving character arts, yawn-inducing plot, and pedestrian production values at best. The allegorical themes of C.S. Lewis deserve more than a "family film." They need a crew that understands the works first and foremost as enduring literature, the way Peter Jackson and his collegues approached The Lord of the Rings.

Prince Eric wrote:Hopefully, they will give Andrew Adamson the boot as director - for good! The first effort into The Chronicles of Narnia series was just so dumb - uninvolving character arts, yawn-inducing plot, and pedestrian production values at best. The allegorical themes of C.S. Lewis deserve more than a "family film." They need a crew that understands the works first and foremost as enduring literature, the way Peter Jackson and his collegues approached The Lord of the Rings.

I just hope you know that unlike, "The Lord of the Rings", the Narnia series have kids as main characters and is targeted towards kids. Heck, C.S. Lewis dedicated the book to his Godchild.

Oh and I HOPE somebody like Peter Jackson doesn't come in. I don't want to see a movie that lasted DAYS just to give us tiring battle scenes and information non-fans wouldn't understand.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

Prince Eric wrote:Hopefully, they will give Andrew Adamson the boot as director - for good! The first effort into The Chronicles of Narnia series was just so dumb - uninvolving character arts, yawn-inducing plot, and pedestrian production values at best. The allegorical themes of C.S. Lewis deserve more than a "family film." They need a crew that understands the works first and foremost as enduring literature, the way Peter Jackson and his collegues approached The Lord of the Rings.

I just hope you know that unlike, "The Lord of the Rings", the Narnia series have kids as main characters and is targeted towards kids. Heck, C.S. Lewis dedicated the book to his Godchild.

Oh and I HOPE somebody like Peter Jackson doesn't come in. I don't want to see a movie that lasted DAYS just to give us tiring battle scenes and information non-fans wouldn't understand.

C.S. Lewis' books were texts disguised as children's books, but contained deep, philosophical observations about Christianity, politics, and the human character, none of which translated well the screen. Why would Peter Jackson waste his time on a botched franchise, anyway? He's demonstrated his skills with or without the family demographic.

Prince Eric wrote: C.S. Lewis' books were texts disguised as children's books, but contained deep, philosophical observations about Christianity, politics, and the human character, none of which translated well the screen. Why would Peter Jackson waste his time on a botched franchise, anyway? He's demonstrated his skills with or without the family demographic.

Well, I for one think the movie did a tremendous job on adapting the book. It put almost everything that was important from the book to the screen, yet it made some scenes a little longer for more excitment(but THANKFULLY no to the extent of Peter Jackson). What more could you want?

But I assume you'll call me a dunce or philistine with your next reply.

Escapay wrote:

Kenai wrote:Sweet! I loved the movie a lot. But how come they're not going in order? Isn't the Magicians Nephew supposed to be next in the chronological order?

There are two different orders for the books: The publishing order, and the chronological order.

The Publishing Order:
The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (1950)
Prince Caspian (1951)
Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952)
The Silver Chair (1953)
The Horse and His Boy (1954)
The Magician's Nephew (1955)
The Last Battle (1956)

The Chronological Order: (Real Time/Narnia Time)
The Magician's Nephew (1900/Narnia Begins)
The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (1940/Winter Ends after 100 Years?)
The Horse and His Boy (within TLTWATW)
Prince Caspian (1941/1000 Years Later)
Voyage of the Dawn Treader (date?/Several Years Later)
The Silver Chair (date?/Many Years Later)
The Last Battle (date?/Many Years Later)

Many prefer the publishing order, as that's the order they were written, though others prefer the chronological order . I think first-time readers should go by publishing order, then for re-reads they can do chronological order.

Escapay

I guess I read them kind of funny. I read them like this:
The Magician's Nephew, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, Prince Caspian, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Horse and His Boy, The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle How in he world did The Horse and His Boy get to be 2 spots after where it is in the Chronological Order? Oh, well. At least I read them. I think........................

Hmm.... I can't believe I haven't posted in this thread before. Well, count me in for seeing this. My one problem is that I really liked Tilda Swinton in Wardrobe, and the only way I can see her returing is if they make The Magician's Nephew. Ah well, I'll just have to live.

lord-of-sith wrote:Hmm.... I can't believe I haven't posted in this thread before. Well, count me in for seeing this. My one problem is that I really liked Tilda Swinton in Wardrobe, and the only way I can see her returing is if they make The Magician's Nephew. Ah well, I'll just have to live.

Be strong lord-of-sith. Be strong. It will be okay. You just need to reach deep down into those emotions, and bring them out. And if you cry, it's okay, it's okay to shed a tear once in awhile for things that really mean something to you. So just reach deep down and grab those emotions, bring them out and do something with them. Write them out, talk it out with someone, scream/yell it out. It's okay. Be strong, remember you are mighty, you can conquer any obstacles that are in your way. You can do it. Now, how do you feel about that?

Well, I'm glad there's at least some talk as to the possibility of doing The Magician's Nephew; that was one of my favourite books of the series. The Final Battle would be best to do after TMN; and we can probably all do without The Horse and His Boy... relations between the West and Middle East are bad enough as it is.

lord-of-sith wrote:Hmm.... I can't believe I haven't posted in this thread before. Well, count me in for seeing this. My one problem is that I really liked Tilda Swinton in Wardrobe, and the only way I can see her returing is if they make The Magician's Nephew. Ah well, I'll just have to live.

While a long shot, there's some hope she could return as that Green Lady in The Silver Chair... the same actress played both characters in the BBC version of Narnia. It's been suggested that the Green Lady is some kind of reincarnation of Jadis, which might make sense.

C.S. Lewis' books were texts disguised as children's books, but contained deep, philosophical observations about Christianity, politics, and the human character, none of which translated well the screen.

To be fair, I don't think anyone really wants to see that many Christian allegories in the movies (particularly if they're for children). While interesting in the novels, you'd fatally limit the target audience of the films if it was all left in.

TM2-Megatron wrote:

lord-of-sith wrote:Hmm.... I can't believe I haven't posted in this thread before. Well, count me in for seeing this. My one problem is that I really liked Tilda Swinton in Wardrobe, and the only way I can see her returing is if they make The Magician's Nephew. Ah well, I'll just have to live.

While a long shot, there's some hope she could return as that Green Lady in The Silver Chair... the same actress played both characters in the BBC version of Narnia. It's been suggested that the Green Lady is some kind of reincarnation of Jadis, which might make sense.

I did think of that, but just decided not to post it, let us hope.

Oh, and TheSequelofDisney, your sentiments are much appreciated.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

Prince Eric wrote: C.S. Lewis' books were texts disguised as children's books, but contained deep, philosophical observations about Christianity, politics, and the human character, none of which translated well the screen. Why would Peter Jackson waste his time on a botched franchise, anyway? He's demonstrated his skills with or without the family demographic.

Well, I for one think the movie did a tremendous job on adapting the book. It put almost everything that was important from the book to the screen, yet it made some scenes a little longer for more excitment(but THANKFULLY no to the extent of Peter Jackson). What more could you want?

But I assume you'll call me a dunce or philistine with your next reply.

No, because I've never called anyone a dunce or a philistine.

What more could I want? Some hint of intelligent filmmaking, that's for sure. Not to mention someone who has a better handle on hiring makeup artists and first-rate visual effects teams. A better casting director would have also helped, since a lot of the kids' line readings were atrociously lifeless in their emotional delivery. That's just for starters.

Prince Eric wrote:
No, because I've never called anyone a dunce or a philistine.

What more could I want? Some hint of intelligent filmmaking, that's for sure. Not to mention someone who has a better handle on hiring makeup artists and first-rate visual effects teams. A better casting director would have also helped, since a lot of the kids' line readings were atrociously lifeless in their emotional delivery. That's just for starters.

My question is do you EVER, and I mean EVER look at a movie for it's entertainment value alone? I swear I don't think I've ever read any critic that goes into more obnoxious detail about little things that you found to be wrong with a movie than you do. You assume every movie should try to impress the Academy and guess what? Most filmmakers could care less with the freaking Academy!

Oi vey.

lord-of-sith wrote:

TM2-Megatron wrote: While a long shot, there's some hope she could return as that Green Lady in The Silver Chair... the same actress played both characters in the BBC version of Narnia. It's been suggested that the Green Lady is some kind of reincarnation of Jadis, which might make sense.

I did think of that, but just decided not to post it, let us hope.

Oh, and TheSequelofDisney, your sentiments are much appreciated.

I try

DaveWadding wrote:

Prince Eric wrote:
No, because I've never called anyone a dunce or a philistine.

What more could I want? Some hint of intelligent filmmaking, that's for sure. Not to mention someone who has a better handle on hiring makeup artists and first-rate visual effects teams. A better casting director would have also helped, since a lot of the kids' line readings were atrociously lifeless in their emotional delivery. That's just for starters.

My question is do you EVER, and I mean EVER look at a movie for it's entertainment value alone? I swear I don't think I've ever read any critic that goes into more obnoxious detail about little things that you found to be wrong with a movie than you do. You assume every movie should try to impress the Academy and guess what? Most filmmakers could care less with the freaking Academy!

Oi vey.

SERIOUSLY!


The books are geared toward CHILDREN. They are CHILDREN'S books. There really is no underlying symbolism. All the symbolism is pretty much put out there. CS Lewis did this because the books were meant for CHILDREN.

That movie was amazing. The film crew did a fantastic job of adapting the book to the big screen. Adamson did a wonderful job at creating the world without getting too graphic (as the movie was geared towards family and CHILDREN). And the kids acting was superb! I wish they could get kids like that for the HP movies . I thought Georgie Henley's portrayal of Lucy was the best performance of the movie (closely tied with Tilda Swinton).

What exactly did you not like about the movie? The CHILDREN?


CHILDREN!!!!!!!!

I can't wait. The movie sounds like it will be much better than the BBC movies. That was so terrible! Probably because it was made in the 80s. The "special effects" were fantastic. It was beyond anything that I've ever seen in my entire life. The BBC version will totally beat out this new version!

Oh wait............. I'm lying. Oops!



Gideon

TheSequelofDisney wrote:I can't wait. The movie sounds like it will be much better than the BBC movies. That was so terrible! Probably because it was made in the 80s. The "special effects" were fantastic. It was beyond anything that I've ever seen in my entire life. The BBC version will totally beat out this new version!

Oh wait............. I'm lying. Oops!



Gideon

Man, someone has bi-polar taste

DaveWadding and Numba1LostBoy once again prove how NOT to behave on a forum that is supposed to foster different opinions.

First, of all, I have never used the Academy's tastes as a rule of measurement. I think the Academy has been wrong every year this decade except for 2003.

None of my reasons are cause for disagreement. They're perfectly valid reasons for not liking a movie. Anyone who thinks that The Chronicles of Narnia series are just children's fair has not studied C.S. Lewis in depth or read any of the numerous biographies currently in print. His books are interesting, the movie was not. For a story so packed with emotion, the adaptation was pretty lifeless, not to mention boring. The first 2/3 of the movie was spent in background information. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that that is bad pacing. Anything spectacular that happened in the head was watered down by the sloppy introductions. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Prince Eric wrote:DaveWadding and Numba1LostBoy once again prove how NOT to behave on a forum that is supposed to foster different opinions.

Well who's fault is that?

If you don't like the movie, fine. But you often write your opinions in a very demanding way that people feel the need to defend a certain movie.

Also, just out of curiosity, what didn't you like about the adaption? Special effects and makeup aside, you said the film didn't contain, "deep, philosophical observations about Christianity, politics, and the human character", yet from all I see, it pretty much adapted all of that in the book. I really can't recall much from the book the left out.

I have to agree with Timon in that the film covered all of the book's bases and then some. All of the Christian symbolism was there with the exception of the reference to the Emperor Beyond the Sea. Compare this version to the more slavishly faithful BBC film. In the latter's adaptation, the children as characters are all very flat and uninteresting. Lucy is a twit, Edmund's annoying, Peter's boring, and Susan is just...there. The newer film makes each character more rounded. Lucy's naive, yes, but also rather cheeky. Edmund is sullen because of his father away at war at how jerky Peter treats him, Peter is torn between his devotion to his siblings and his devotion to Narnia, and Susan is conflicted between what she thinks and what she feels. Also, you want to talk about too much exposition and introductions? Look no further than the BBC version. The Disney version summed things up neatly, quickly, and entertainingly. The BBC one drags on and on and on. I honestly think the kids spend a good 20 minutes in the beaver's home discussing the prophecy and whatnot. For comparison, the BBC film is 3 hours long, but with a 5 minute battle. The Disney film is slightly under 2.5 hours with a 15 minute battle. The former has much more endless chatter that does little to develop the characters, while the latter balances character development and action set pieces (such as the melting river) very nicely.

I agree with T/P Fan totally and completely 100%.

I also would like to know why you didn't like the movie.

You said earlier that you would have rather them approach it like the LOTR team approached that franchise. I think they did. Heck, even WETA, the same digital effects team that worked on LOTR, created all the Narnia creatures.
How would you have made it better?