DVDizzy Forum

I have a hard time picturing her as the white witch. I guess I can see her as the white witch at first... but just how evil can Nicole be perceived as?

-Aaron

Nicole Kidman? Sucks.

I've always loved the Chronicles of Narnia, and when I was little I used to wish for Disney film versions. But now.... no. They seem to be doing it for the wrong reasons. To compete with the Lord of the Rings "franchise". And Harry Potter. And the last thing I want to see is Narnia merchandise up the wazoo, making me sick to death of Narnia.

At least it was a relief to hear that Disney's only financing and distributing the movie.... not involved creatively. (How sad is *that*?)

But bad casting could still screw the whole thing up. I can maybe-sorta-kinda see Nicole looking the part of the White Witch. But I don't think she can play the part. And I really don't think they should hire any big name stars. We need a bunch of unknowns to become these characters, in order to get completely lost in the story. Famous faces would be distracting.

Unless I hear a LOT of good things about this movie to ease my mind, I have a feeling I'll skip it. I just love the book too much to see it ruined on the big screen. And I have no faith in current-Disney. (Don't I hide it well though? I bet nobody on this forum ever guessed!)

chrisrose wrote:Nicole Kidman? Sucks.

Thank you for coming along and articulating what I have been trying to tell people for so long now.

Most overrated "actress" ever.

chrisrose wrote:Nicole Kidman? Sucks.

I don't entirely disagree, lol.

chrisrose wrote:They seem to be doing it for the wrong reasons. To compete with the Lord of the Rings "franchise". And Harry Potter. And the last thing I want to see is Narnia merchandise up the wazoo, making me sick to death of Narnia.

I do disagree here, though. I want some of this merchandise! lol. I loved Lord of the Rings AND Harry Potter before they became movies, and the movies were done so well, and now they are exposed to wider audiences. I'd love to see this happen with Narnia as well, so I hope it does compete with these as a major fantasy franchise.

chrisrose wrote:I can maybe-sorta-kinda see Nicole looking the part of the White Witch. But I don't think she can play the part.

Exquisitely stated. However, I won't mind if they use famous people, so long as they fit the part and can "become" the characters. Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Elijah Wood, Alan Rickman, Ian Mckellen... they were all famous (granted, not Hollywood's A-list), but I didn't find them distracting at all.

chrisrose wrote:I just love the book too much to see it ruined on the big screen. And I have no faith in current-Disney.

Yeah, but they did a wonderful job with Holes . I'll definitely see it, but I'm with you in being scared that they *might* mess it up. I was scared with these others that I've mentioned (LOTR, HP, Holes, etc.) and my fears were relieved, so I'm hoping that's the case here again. We'll see in a year and a half from now!

-Aaron

Hey - thanks for the kind response to my post. I was expecting to hear "oh great, chrisrose crankypants is back with more negativity!"

awallaceunc wrote:I loved Lord of the Rings AND Harry Potter before they became movies, and the movies were done so well, and now they are exposed to wider audiences. I'd love to see this happen with Narnia as well, so I hope it does compete with these as a major fantasy franchise.

Are the series really exposed to a significantly larger audience though? I thought the LOTR and HP books were hugely popular already (otherwise the movies wouldn't have been made) -- and these numerous existing fans are the ones who filled the theaters and made the film versions successful too. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking the audience was mostly comprised of fans of the books. But speaking as a member of that "wider audience" who resisted exposure - I started out indifferent to the books, and stayed indifferent to the movies as well. I'm probably in the minority though, so... nevermind.

awallaceunc wrote:However, I won't mind if they use famous people, so long as they fit the part and can "become" the characters. Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Elijah Wood, Alan Rickman, Ian Mckellen... they were all famous (granted, not Hollywood's A-list), but I didn't find them distracting at all.

That makes sense....I guess we're just talking about different levels of fame. In my opinion the ultra-super-famous actors are usually... not the best actors. I mean those really big-name stars tend to have just one screen persona, and very little range. I doubt anyone that famous could be convincing "becoming" the well-known and beloved characters in Narnia.

(Exception - Johnny Depp's pretty famous, but works hard to lose himself in the role and does a great job becoming his characters)

awallaceunc wrote:Yeah, but they did a wonderful job with Holes .

Hmm...I might have to rent it someday and check it out. Isn't that one another case of Disney not being creatively involved...just distributing?


P.S. that Chicken Little and Egghead thing is shocking.

Part of me thinks Warner Bros. should sue... then I remember that when Warner Bros. first started out, their cartoons were influenced by Disney (ie: shameless rip-offs) Check out http://bosko.toonzone.net/characters/foxy/ for instance.

Then again, Warner's excuse is ....they were just beginning and hadn't yet developed their own style. It's understandable, 'cause most people start drawing, or writing, etc, by imitating their favorite artists/writers who came before them. Also I think some of Warner's animators had originally worked for Disney.

But what's Disney's excuse *today*?

I call it laziness and a lack of creativity, plus the arrogance in thinking they can get away with this sort of thing. After all, Disney's been repeating/ripping off their own catalogue of movies for awhile now... (and I won't go into the Ice Age-y moments in Brother Bear... or the way they're trying to copy Shrek's formula in many of their upcoming features)

Sometimes I feel like Chicken Little, crying "Disney is falling! Disney is falling!" while everyone rolls their eyes at me. (I'd much rather be shouting "Eisner is falling!", but he's got the tightest grip ever and won't let go 'til 2006)

Sorry for the long post.. one last thing... does anyone here know more about Disney's upcoming "The Life Aquatic" with Bill Murray? I love him, so I'm curious.... and concerned.

All the pictures look great.
I can't wait to see them in the threater.

chrisrose wrote:Hey - thanks for the kind response to my post. I was expecting to hear "oh great, chrisrose crankypants is back with more negativity!"

Never!

chrisrose wrote:

awallaceunc wrote:Yeah, but they did a wonderful job with Holes .

Hmm...I might have to rent it someday and check it out. Isn't that one another case of Disney not being creatively involved...just distributing?

I've actually enquired as to the specifics of that arrangement in another thread, as I'm not entirely sure... but the same grouping (Disney/Walden) is doing Holes & Narnia, so that's why I drew up the comparison. I'm just hoping they do as well as they did with Holes.

chrisrose wrote:P.S. that Chicken Little and Egghead thing is shocking.

Part of me thinks Warner Bros. should sue... then I remember that when Warner Bros. first started out, their cartoons were influenced by Disney (ie: shameless rip-offs) Check out http://bosko.toonzone.net/characters/foxy/ for instance.

Wow, huge rip-offs! Maybe the two can call it even now. But your point about a lack of creativty and the recycling of everyone's material is well-taken. It doesn't stop at just animation either. Movies in general, and even music (maybe even especially music) is in a rut of producing utter crap (in comparison to prior works, of course), and everything is at least similar to something else. Maybe we' done all there is to do??? I doubt it.

-Aaron