Douglas Adams, Narnia, and Trailers

A few interesting movie tidbits: Joel Greengrass writes "Final post-production has been completed on the long awaited documentary, 'Life, the Universe, and Douglas Adams.' Narrated by Neil Gaiman, the film is a tribute documentary about the life, loves, and passions, of the greatest sci fi comedy writer ever, Douglas Adams. The film will be available for sale on August 4 at douglasadams.com." Reader The_Shadows writes "Sci-fi Storm and Scfi.com's Scifi-wire are reporting that Walden Media exercised options for feature-length, big screen versions of the Chronicles of Narnia, by C. S. Lewis. They have also found an Emmy award winning writer (Ann Peacock) to adapt the most famous book, 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.'" And finally, there's an interesting piece about the process of turning a two-hour movie into a two-minute trailer.

Comments

How to Make a Trailer:

[superdan2k]

Take all the best parts of the movie. String them together in one 2-minute epileptic-seizure-inducing orgasm of light and sound, preferably with some modern rock/psuedo-metal song in the background. Stick your title on the end in a grunge or techno font along with "This movie has not yet been rated," and a release date between 6 months and a year into the future.

Re:How to Make a Trailer:

[SirSlud]

Dont' forget the part where you make the plot in the trailer seem more interesting and bait-and-twist than the plot of the real movie.

That's a common tactic .. people should go back and watch trailers aftering watching the movie; often they make the 'plot' in the trailer more interesting than the movie.

Re:How to Make a Trailer:

[Golias]

Roger Ebert has often commented that trailors usually sell you the movie that the marketing people wish was made, rather than the actual film. For example, the trailers for "The Royal Tennenbaums" might lead you to believe that it's a wacky comedy in the tradition of "Meet the Parents" and "There's Something About Mary", when in fact it was a ponderous dark comedy like the director's first film, "Rushmore."

I don't mind misleading trailers nearly as much as the ones that give too much away. For example, Disney's "Iron Will", a great flick about a dogsled race. The trailer showed the goddamned end of the race! I realize it was based on a true story, but it was a story that maybe 2% of moviegoers knew, and that's being generous.

Then there are the trailers which both give away the ending, and mislead you about the kind of film it is. (spoiler warning) For example, a trailer for "Cast Away" showed Tom Hanks getting home and being alienated from the world he left behind. Not only was that giving away the ending (grrr!), but it also made it look like the last 2 or 3 reels were about a rescued castaway trying to adapt back to the world, a film that might have been interesting if done well... But, as you hopefully already know if you are reading this after the spoiler warning, that's not what the film was. The whole damn movie is about whether he will survive and be rescued or not, and the part after the rescue is a 10 minute epilogue at the end of a 2 and a half out movie.

Narnia Movie

[DaytonCIM]

A movie version of Narnia? Outstanding! I remember devouring the collection several times as a kid.

Admittedly, I'm a little hesitant about how a filmmaker could bring CS Lewis' vision to the big screen, but I'll still fork over my $8.50 to see it.

If the Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe does well, maybe some conglomerate studio can hire Tim Burton to film CS Lewis' other great book: The Screwtape Letters.

Re:Narnia Movie

[junkgrep]

I suppose one's opinion of his apology work depands on if they think his arguements are much good. Mere Christianity is sort of a split for me: aspects that speak positively about Christian experience are very good and important, but the parts where he makes substantive arguements _for_ Christian beliefs really irritate me, because they are so transparently misleading: making arguements that a brilliant man like Lewis would never take seriously if the conclusions weren't Christian. That's probably why I'd put Screwtape letters well above MereChristianity: it's much livier, and spends much less time trying to push sloppy conversion arguments, instead speaking to the struggles and challenges Christian's faith faces from a unique and entertaining perspective.

Narnia

[I_am_Rambi]

Every movie that comes out does not follow the book. LoTR followed very close to the book, but wasn't quite on target all the time. I have enjoyed reading the Narnia series, but am alittle weary of the movies. C.S. Lewis is a great author, and I would hate to see his books turned into not so great of movie. I just hope that the movies follow the story line very close for me to even think of going to watch/buy them.

Re:Narnia

[goldmeer]

(By banned I mean it was banned from being read in the classroom as part of school work or assignments, students can still check them out from the Library of course, I mean they /are/ damn nearly classics and all. :-D )

Do they use Greek Mythology as part of school work or assignments? If so, I smell a double standard that may need exploration.

Re:Narnia

[tshak]

Narnia has been banned from my local school district do to 'religious' content.

Although there was religious inspiration, there was no religious dogma. The same goes for LoTR. Both Lewis and Tolkien collaborated at times and both were known Christians. And what about Madeleine L'Engle? An incredible author with incredible books, also influenced by Christianity. Also, Atheism is just as much a world view as [Insert Religion Here]. All books are influenced by the authors worldview. The problem comes when these worldviews are taught as "The Right View" in a public school system. I don't think any of the mentioned books are selling a worldview of any sort. It's one thing to study a religious text in class, and then preach it as being the Truth. It's another to read a fictional story that is mearly influenced by the authors worldview.

Re:Narnia

[ruin]

Narnia has been banned from my local school district do to 'religious' content. Pisses me off, had it not been for Narnia there is a good chance that I would never have developed my love of reading.

The funny thing is, when I first read this post, for a second I was vaguely ticked off that someone might ban a book based on its simple religious allusions, but then a little voice in the back of my head said "yeah, right. Nobody banned any 'Chronicles of Narnia.'"

By banned I mean it was banned from being read in the classroom as part of school work or assignments, students can still check them out from the Library of course

A few seconds later, and it turns out that little voice was correct. "Banned" in this case is being incorrectly used to mean "not included in the curriculum." Big deal. Lots of books weren't included in the curriculum. Those crazy liberals! They ban books but forget to like, try to stop anyone from reading them.

People must be reminded that it IS possible to get through schooling without punching and fucking your way from one class to the next

I hate people like this cause they talk about high school like it's one long orgy of drug use, oral sex, compulsory homosexuality, and secular indoctrination. If that's the case, then WHY DIDN'T I GET ANY?

2 minute movie trailers

[maddskillz]

Getting a movie to fit into two minutes shouldn't be too dificult, since it has already been proven you can get five books into a trilogy

Re:Squeezing

[Noofus]

The problem comes when you notice that the story line of the movie being promoted is so thin, that you got the entire story in the 150 seconds. I can think of many movies who's trailer started off convincing me to see the movie, but by the end have told me that I got the whole deal for free, while waiting for the feature.

The few times I ended up seeing a movie after determining its entire useful content was dumped into the trailer, I either walked out due to lameness, or just bitched about it to my movie-going companion the whole way home :)

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

[f00Dave]

I'm betting that they're going to attempt a Harry Potter/LotR of this classic. And I'm also betting that if they don't get precisely the right people, it's going to tank. Hard. My bet's on the tanking.... ;-)

But anyway, it's sort of a shame to see the best literatre of my youth ("'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe', 'Lord of the Rings', etcetera) turned into Hollywood extraveganzas. Where's the imagination? The visualization of the scenes and characters was, for me, the whole joy in those works? Perhaps it's just a sign of our times, that an active imagination is now considered to be a Bad Thing.

Admittedly, a fantastic job has been done with LotR, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Narnia

[Com2Kid]

Great series of books, I read The Magicians Nephew and The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe in second grade, excellent series. C.S. Lewis's science fiction books are also rather nice, though he has a rather nasty habit of starting a series well and then having each successive book get worse and worse (lucky if you can read through the third one. . . .) but it was years ago that I last read C. S. Lewis so my opinions may change should I read those books again.

Narnia has been banned from my local school district do to 'religious' content. Pisses me off, had it not been for Narnia there is a good chance that I would never have developed my love of reading. Liberals /can/ go to far at times. :

And what the hell is wrong with /books/ with religious content? Hell it is OK to read every body elses religiously derived fiction but just not Christian religiously derived fiction? It seems to me that if church and state are to be separate, then the state should not work their asses of concentrating on just isolating out any one particular religion! As it is the removal of Narnia was an obvious attempt at "see we are't being biased, look here, we are removing Christian inspired literature! Yeeesh. That IS called bias folks!!!

(By banned I mean it was banned from being read in the classroom as part of school work or assignments, students can still check them out from the Library of course, I mean they /are/ damn nearly classics and all. :-D )

I do think that some of C. S. Lewis's works should be mandatory reading though if just to show students that things do NOT have to be the way that they are. My word, people cannot even IMAGINE that schools used to not have as much fighting or sex in them! .... Ugh! People must be reminded that it IS possible to get through schooling without punching and fucking your way from one class to the next. :(

Adams

[Skyshadow]

When I read (on /.) that Adams had died, I pulled my leather-bound copy of Hitchhiker down off the shelf, flipped to a random page and started reading.

I happened to open to the bit where they go to see God's final message to his creation. I'm not normally a very emotional person, but when I was reading that I cried like a little kid. For a geek like me, Adams was my John Lennon -- hearing that there just wasn't going to be anymore stories made the world seem gray.

I wonder if the book made up from his notes is worthwhile, or if it'll just seem.. I dunno... wrong.

Re:The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy

[L. VeGas]

Being the funniest sci fi writer is roughly equivalent in status to being the best ballet dancer in Idaho.

Problem with publishers Rant.

[teamhasnoi]

Whoever here has read the Books of Narnia may be interested to know that the publishers in their 'infinite wisdom' :P have rearranged the series so "The Magican's Nephew" is the first book in the series. This is very annoying. Yes, I know that you can just read them in the original order, however, new readers of the series are denied CS Lewis's original vision through ignorance of the change. I fear this change will make it to the movie (plus a ton of Harry Potter-esqe BS that is incongruous with the story).

The series should stay the way it was written, not re-ordered by a focus group and committee. This is what leads to mediocre films, books, and music.

See also: Ren and Stimpy, The Simpsons, NSYNC & Britney (and their ilk), Dr. Pepper Red Fusion, New Coke, any Disney anything, Windows ME, ect.

I know repackaging "content" and the like is a fine way to make an extra buck when the bottom line needs a push and nobody wants to take a chance, but just leave it alone already!

Re:Problem with publishers Rant.

[xA40D]

I first read the Narnia books when I was about 10. They have to be the first books I ever read that I still read today.

When I first expressed an interest in the Narnia books I was told that The Magician's Nephew was the first. But as my Grandparent's copy had dissapeared I was given The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe first, and The Magician's Nephew second (when my constant moaning forced the purchase of a replacement copy). I then read the remainder in chronological order.

Some 20 years later I've just discovered the order I've always thought was correct was wrong. On reflection I'm sure that reading The Magician's Nephew second taught me something valuable about literature. When I discovered that there was a "correct" order I just knew I had to read them in that order.

A quick google lead to this link. Which indicates that there are actually 3 orders, the chronological order, the published order, and the written order. There is also some evidence presented that Lewis expressed a mild preference for the chronological order

So I suppose the "correct" order is the one you believe in. So I think I'm going to go back to thinking as The Magician's Nephew as the "second" book. And then I'll follow the written order.

Re:Problem with publishers Rant.

[EchoMirage]

Actually, Lewis himself preferred the "updated" version of the books. The revised order of the books was originally suggested by a younger relative of Lewis. In his Letters to Children book, he writes to the young boy and tells him that he thinks the new order of the books is more suitable.

More movies I'd like to see (done well) OT?

[teamhasnoi]

By John Christopher (Trilogy;) "The White Mountains" (1967), "The City of Gold and Lead" (1967), "The Pool of Fire" (1968). "The Lotus Caves" (1969).

The House with a Clock in Its Walls (The first book in the Lewis Barnavelt series) (1972) by John Bellairs

and Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles
The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron (got the Disney Treatment :( , The Castle of Llyr , Taran Wanderer , The High King .

Yeah, they're all 'adolescent' books, but all very good, and are worth finding. Besides, didn't everyone read 'The Hobbit' when they were 12?

That's a teaser, this is a trailer...

[isaac]

Take all the best parts of the movie. String them together in one 2-minute epileptic-seizure-inducing orgasm of light and sound, preferably with some modern rock/psuedo-metal song in the background. Stick your title on the end in a grunge or techno font along with "This movie has not yet been rated," and a release date between 6 months and a year into the future.

No, that's a teaser.

A trailer is where you start with some soothing an peaceful scene, when

[Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells"/Sam the Sham & the Pharoahs' "Louie Louie"/Smashmouth's "All-Star"]

starts playing and Don LaFontaine intones the words "In a world

[gone mad/where dreams come true/where shit happens]..."

and some fast paced cuts show the the audience that this movie is supposed to be

[scary/funny/action-packed].

Then Mr. Fontaine tells us about the "one

[man/woman/dog]

[brave/smart/stupid]

enough to

[fight for something/change everything/screw everything up]"

while we see our protagonist looking

[determined/happy/dumb as a sack of hammers].

Then a quick montage of the

[funniest/exploding-est/tear-jerking-est]

scenes interspersed with a voiceover telling us what

[A-list/B-list/C-list]

celebrities have top billing and that the movie is

[based on a book by somebody/based on a true story/based on an older, better movie/from the director of some other movie that made money],

then finally we get the title of the movie and a screenful of tiny text acknowledging all the people who got paid enough to feed a village in Botswana for a

[month/year/decade]

for their work on the film.

This is a standard part of any film school curriculum, you see. Job applications in Hollywood test you on this stuff.

-Isaac

Don't watch The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe!

[nagora]

If, like I did, you remember the Narnia books as being one of the high points of your childhood, for pity's sake leave it like that. Returning to the material as an adult reveals them to be the most hopelessly inept and clumsy stream of the most sickly Christian propaganda ever written. ONLY children could read this stuff without feeling nauseous.

Leave the memory intact is my advice.

TWW

Narnia movies

[Daimaou]

While I love movies and would go see this one, it is a little disappointing to see books like The Lord of the Rings and the Narnia series released as movies.

As a kid I remember reading the Hobbit. It was the first book I ever read outside of school assignments.

The words were hypnotic and the story almost intoxicating to me. It unleashed a power, which ignited my imagination in ways I had never known before. I couldn't put it down. Once I finished The Hobbit, I wanted, or rather needed, more. Dark corners of my mind had suddenly been flooded with wonder and excitement and I could not allow them to dim.

After The Hobbit, I read The Lord of the Rings and then the Narnia series and many other books.

The hobby of reading everything in sight is still with me today; and is not limited to fiction or fantasy. I firmly believe that I learned much more from reading books growing up than I ever did in school.

Books offered me so much it is beyond my capacity to describe the benefits. Movies, while entertaining, are not able to offer the same and it is for this reason I am disappointed. I think many children will see the movie and miss out on the thaumaturgic properties of literature.

Re:Narnia Movie (drifting slightly OT)

[junkgrep]

Your rejection of his arguments seems to me just as likely to be colored by your perspective as his acceptance of them may have been colored by his conversion.

I don't think so. Just because arguements are lousy doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong, and just because I think his apologism is lousy doesn't mean I think all of his conclusions are wrong.

From all available historical accounts, Jesus was respected as a teacher and perhaps even a prophet, even by those who were not his followers. (Both Jewish and Islamic tradition regard him as a very noteworthy ethicist, etc.)

Not sure if you mean this to be your arguement or Lewis', but it is highly misleading. Not all historians agree on this, and certainly not all Jews (and some Muslims, though Jesus IS religiously validated in their tradition). In a way, Lewis is trying to refute exactly these people: that respect Jesus but don't think he's God. But Lewis entirely ignores that many of these people have much more complex reasoning than simply praising Jesus as a great ethical teacher: many, like Jefferson, did so only after rejecting certain aspects of Jesus' claimed teaching and acts that they DID find to be immoral and nutty. In addition, almost none of Christ's ethical teachings are original to him. Indeed, the one major contribution he made has: eternal suffering for unbelief: precisely the teaching that many people who like his other teachings, consider a moral abomination.

Yet, he claimed to be God. Not just "a god," which would not be all that noteworthy. He went into a Monothiestic culture and claimed to be the One-And-Only divine being.

First of all, this is not as obvious as Lewis claims it is. Jesus' claims about his own divnity are controversial, not straightforward, Lewis' reading is hardly the plain or only one.

Now, when somebody makes a remarkable claim like this, there are really only three possible conclusions you can draw:

This set of carefully constrained options is begins the very weak line of argumentation. It's also possible, for instance that he was misquoted, or that he was misunderstood, possibly by later followers who needed to create a new theology about him and his life to rescue his teachings after his death.

Lewis pointed out that anybody who actually believes himself to be God, and isn't, is a complete nut.

Except this relies upon, yet again, a very closeminded concept of sanity. It's perfectly possible that a person could have some brilliant beliefs, and some delusional ones. It's perfectly possible that their views develop over time.

When we examine the record of Christ's words, deeds, and how people and society reacted to him, it looks like the chance of him being a nut can probably be ruled out.

Why? Many people in the Gospels clearly thought he was a nut, and there is plenty of behavior that would most certainly be nutty IF he wasn't in fact god, which would assume Lewis conclusion. The NT gives these interpretation into his actions: but that simply begs the question we are supposed to be considering (for instance, the killing of the barren fig tree, which is certainly loony unless you first assume that its a metaphor for Israel).
The liar arguement works the same way: by pleading ignorance as to why and how someone could possibly do that. And the plain of the matter is that MANY people, even in Christ's time, did that. In fact, the lord/liar/lunatic arguement could be used by anyone to argue that countless other professed gods were real gods, or indeed that countless non-Christian religious phophets were real phrophets.

So, that's the gauntlet that Lewis threw down: Jesus is either Lord, lunatic, or liar.

But the guantlet is a tricked out situation. Most real people, even the greatest, are a mix of lunacy, lying, and powerful insights. Lewis' arguement requires that we forget that, not to mention the usual ignoring of the possibility that Jesus's followers developed their theology of his teachings over time. But regardless of ones opinion on this, the fact that Lewis ignores this possibility invalidates the force of his deductive arguement, even if we grant the fantasy view of human psychology that he thinks rules out the liar/lunatic arguement.

Re:Narnia Movie (drifting slightly OT)

[MAXOMENOS]

Lewis pointed out that anybody who actually believes himself to be God, and isn't, is a complete nut. Charles Manson, for example, is one such complete nut. When we examine the record of Christ's words, deeds, and how people and society reacted to him, it looks like the chance of him being a nut can probably be ruled out.

The problem here is that neither Lewis nor anyone else knows the odds that someone who claims to be God is a complete lunatic. I happen to know several people like this (they all accept the premise that Man is God, and they appear, at least to me, to be sane and honest). Implicit in Lewis's argument is the fourth case where Jesus claims to be God, is wrong, and is not a lunatic -- either because he's actually mistaken, or because he's speaking metaphorically. If I had to weigh these four options against each other, then the mostly-sane-but-wrong option strikes me as the most likely.

Lewis does some impressive hand-waving to try to make us believe the false dillema that he's created, but it's still a false dillema.

Re:Narnia Movie (drifting slightly OT)

[Jeremi]

When we examine the record of Christ's words, deeds, and how people and society
reacted to him, it looks like the chance of him being a nut can probably be ruled out.

This doesn't follow. There are have been many examples of "complete nuts" who were nonetheless very charismatic and influential. Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Richard Stallman... ;^)