Slashdot Mirror
Chronicles of Narnia Trailer
Ant writes "After United States' broadcast debut of the "Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" trailer on Saturday, May 7th during ABC's network premiere of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", Ain't It Cool News posted AOL's link to the QuickTime movie (direct link to download the 56 MB high quality trailer file)." Fix yourself some turkish delight and enjoy.
I think the Chronicles of Narnia was the first book(s) that I ever read on my own. I don't think a movie could ever capture the spirit of the words I read years ago.
Anybody else get a little creeped out by the possibility that alot of what CS Lewis was doing with his fantasy writings was really Christian propaganda? I know this sounds terribly like a troll, but it's honestly not meant that way.
I originally liked the stories as a kid, but then I read The Screwtape Letters, and while I thought it was a neat exercise in combining Christian morality with fiction (the story is about one devil advising another devil on how to corrupt a soul), I also got the vague feeling that CS Lewis was out to manipulate the readers. Then THAT got me thinking that maybe he might be trying to do that with a lot more than just TSL...
Anyways, just wondering.
[some] Nerds like Tolkien. Tolkien and Lewis were part of the same gang of lit nerds in Oxford. Therefore Lewis is [somewhat] similar to Tolkien. Therefore Lewis has [some] nerd interest.
Anyway, it's a news item about a new fantasy flick. I think that's nerdular enough. I was glad to see the article.
No, that was Arthur C. Clarke, you idiot.
C.S.Lewis did write some "science fiction", but it was horribly inaccurate in all sorts of details, and like most of his writings it was a religious tract dressed up as a story.
Now that worked brilliantly with the Narnia stories, but in his science fiction (That Hideous Strength) it did not.
Incidentally, while I'm not even remotely religious, I think that his best writing was The Screwtape Letters. They're entertaining and they show his deep understanding of human nature.
--- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
true, the trilogy of "science fiction" novel he wrote should really be referred to as fantasy - probably something like "theological fantasy" at that. Just because it involves other planets, does not mean it has to be called SciFi - but people do that anyways.
That's like complaining that the Fountainhead seems to promote individualism, or 1984 seems down on totalitarianism, or that Mein Kampf seems a touch racist. It's the goal of the author, and it's not hidden.
He's not out to "manipulate", he's out to convert, and then to improve the behavior of the converted. That might be the same thing as manipulation in the books of many folks, and I can definitely see how you wouldn't want that out of a fantasy series...
But honestly, CS Lewis pretty much wrote Christian propaganda, books on why he's not an atheist, etc...
It's just like complaining that when you went walking in the rain you got wet, is all.
If Disney ends up filming each of the Chronicles, how do they manage to continuity? The characters are going to grow up and the boys' voices will predicibly change before they can film the prequels. Or are they going to hire different actors, breaking continuity.
I imagine it was a business decision. Everyone's heard of "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" but "The Magician's Nephew" might not be as well known.
Overall, I'd say the trailer shows promise, though.
Executing believers is "hard line". Jokes implying that believers are deluded are not.
--
make install -not war
*I never got around to reading LotR - I was completely turned off by all the singing and poetry in The Hobbit and figured there'd be more of it in the trilogy.*
Try this: Don't read the poetry/songs. I skipped right over them and never missed 'em.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
The other day on the radio they were discussing Narnia, and how it appears as though it's Disney's big attempt to revitalize itself in the movie industry. They're putting more money into it than any movie they've ever done, and some of the higher-ups at Disney have said they're expecting it to work for the company similar to how The Little Mermaid did.
If you compare it to any other Disney live action movie, none of the others come even close in terms of scope, story, budget, costume design, sets, CGI, etc. They're putting a lot on this movie.
Since both my wife and I are big fans of Lewis (my wife even more so), I hope Disney's gamble pays off. There's word that they're hoping they can do additional stories from the book series, which makes sense if the movie is profitable.
As for the few people that complain about it being a movie about Christianity, who really cares? Even though I'm considered a "Christian conservative", I still enjoy movies about other religions and cultures. They're not trying to hide what the story is really about, and there's people out there that actually ENJOY movies about Christianity (see the success of Passion of the Christ for an example). Just get off your anti-religious podium for a second and try thinking about it as just a story, similar to how some colleges will read portions of The Bible or Paradise Lost.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
You misunderstand.
When you are criticizing a movie vaguely, you implicitly have an outcome that you would prefer in mind. Specifically, make a better movie. Generally, your specific criticisms point to how you would improve it; if you complain the directing is poor, you have this idea of what better directing would be. You may not be able to do it yourself, but you know you've seen it. Artistic criticism rarely falls under this.
The topic at hand is one of those rare instances, since the criticism boils down to "CS Lewis shouldn't be true to himself when he writes" (or at least that's what I'm trying to convince you of), and my point is that there is not an acceptable alternative to that. If CS Lewis had tried to write non-Christian books, that contained a worldview he did not share... well, the person I replied to would never have had an opportunity to criticize, because he'd have never heard of CS Lewis.
(Another artistic example I've seen is when people criticize a movie not for being what it is, but for not being what the author thought it should be; my canonical example of that is this review of Monsters, Inc. in Salon, where the author spends most of it bitching that the movie wasn't "darker". He didn't like Monsters, Inc. not because it was poorly directed, or in fact even a poor movie, but because it wasn't some other completely different movie. Uh, excuse me? This is a little less egregiously wrong since it is at least possible to make the change, unlike a single author which can hardly change his worldview to write one book, but still, it's hardly fair to call that a review of Monsters, Inc... it's more a review of this movie that the reviewer has in their head but none of the rest of us have seen. False labelling, at the least.)
This comes up much more in the political arena, where I apply it much more aggressively. When somebody shrieks about some opposition plan, you need to have a better one to get my attention. Simple negativity is pointless. Sometimes that better plan may even be "do nothing, what you believe is a problem isn't", but still, that may be a better plan. (The party itself often has a "better plan", but the individuals and random people on the street are often just pointlessly critical.)
The real thing I'm getting at here isn't the idea that you shouldn't criticize, it's that when you don't even have a feasible alternative, what's the point? You're just being pointlessly negative (except perhaps in certain teaching situations). What's the point of criticizing somebody who already did the least bad thing they could possibly do, if they had no good choices? (Which isn't what I believe the situation is with CS Lewis, but I suspect describes the original poster's point. What's the alternative that works for CS Lewis?)
[Turkish Delight] was disgusting. ... Anyways, here's a link to THE recipe for those that are interested. (emphasis added)
I think that underscores a common falicy of our day. Saying that there is *one* recipe for a confection that dates back 2000+ years is preposterous, bordering on absurd. There are as many different recipies for Turkish delight as there are grandmas in the Middle East. (Actually, strike that - Mid East grandmas don't need a recipe.) Shucks, even the Joy of Cooking gives at least two.
Conceptually, T.D. is congealed fruit paste. (Think extra thick jelly.) The thickener can be corn starch, but traditionally it's pectin, and some recipes use gelitain. And while Rose and Lemon is one traditional flavor combination, there isn't any limit to it, you could do others.
You might have found one recipe disgusting, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't like others. Without more details, it's hard to say what you ate.
To each his own, but I actually love rose and lemon Turkish delight. Probably the best non-chocolate confection I've had. (The rose flavor is probably an aquired taste - there isn't much precident for it in western cuisine.)