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.

Comments

Christian propaganda...?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[Anonymous Coward]

And The Lord Of The Rings isn't antimodernist propaganda? A book is going to reflect the author's beliefs in some way unless it's very superficial.

LOTR is subtle where Narnia is obvious, but both advocate their author's views on life, because that is what literature does.

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[brokeninside]

The Screwtape Letters was supposed to be a morality tale. If it disturbed you because it was trying to get across a fairly orthodox Christian point, that's because it was. Lewis wrote a few other `fictional' books with the same idea such as The Great Divorce. That said, I don't think it fair to saying that he was trying to manipulate his readers. It isn't his fault that most readers today aren't cognizant of the original context that The Screwtape Letters originally appeared in. His target audience was fully aware of what he was doing.

But neither The Chronicles of Narnia or his space trilogy was written for that purpose. The Chronicles were originally conceived as bedtime stories for his nieces and nephews that eventually poured themselves out into a series of novels. His space trilogy came out as his attempt to get into that new fangled new literary genre.

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[maczealot]

EVERYTHING C.S. Lewis wrote was about his Christian beliefs. If you didn't realize that then I'd approach whatever school you went to and ask for my money/time back. Again, do a simple google search and you will find that both Lewis and Tolkien wanted to create stories to teach Christian principles to readers through fun stories. The mark of an educated mind is the ability to hold and idea without accepting it. So do you ALSO complain when you read the Illiad or the Odyssey because Homer was *GASP* really writing propaganda for greek religious beliefs!! SAY IT AIN'T SO! Why is that Christianity is the only religion it is still ok to hate?

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[Trillan]

No, not really. I don't believe in censoring those willing to bear the social and monetary cost of bringing a story to life. (Piggybacking on someone else's infrastructure and budget is another matter entirely.)

For example, were I offended by the passionately atheist, I might view Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as atheist propaganda. Although I'm not sure the movie maintains the book's stance, the book was very hard line against religion.

There's certainly room enough in my philosophy for both stories, and room enough on the video store shelves for both movies.

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[Jonathunder]

The possibility? He'd call it apologetics, not propaganda, but it's more than a possibility that nearly all of his fiction promotes Christianity; it's no secret at all.

Some of his most Christian books are so well written, though, that some serious doubters like myself can really enjoy them, particularly Narnia, but also Screwtape. I would really recommend Till We Have Faces, which unfortionately is often overlooked. Lewis thought it was his best novel, and I agree. Interestingly, it is set in a pre-Christian world.

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[Jerf]

Along with the other comments you've recieved to date, I'd like to ask you something: I believe that when a person criticizes someone for something, they should have a plausible alternative in mind. Otherwise they are just whining.

What is the plausible alternative for C. S. Lewis? Authors write things that are true to themselves, be it Christian, Pagan, Materialist, or what not. Any author who tries to be inauthentic to themselves generally turns out garbage; even if you can't put your finger on why, you'll not like it. A lot of young writers make this mistake, by trying to be someone else, instead of themselves.

Was he supposed to write non-Christian stories? But that's not who he was. And it's hardly like the Chronicles of Narnia are blatent propoganda; instead, it's simply that they are set into a Christian framework. I've read things set into Buddhist frameworks, oodles of things in strict materialist frameworks, things set in a Victorian framework, various philosophies, etc. Do you blame any of those authors for their frameworks?

Was he supposed to not write stories, because they bother you?

When it gets down to it, at the level you're talking about, every story "pushes" some worldview at you. Why is it you're only bothered by this one?

The most likely reason is that you don't realize that you're getting many other ones pushed at you, all the time, and you've only been sensitized to this one. In that case, the problem lies with you, not CS Lewis, and you're probably getting yourself nicely manipulated by other people without even noticing it. Everyone has a worldview that colors everything they do and everything they right. (In fact, Christian writings seem one of the best places to pick that up, regardless of how you feel about the rest of them; see Lewis' non-fiction writing and the works of Francis Schaeffer.)

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[MythMoth]

That said, I don't think it fair to saying that he was trying to manipulate his readers

I think that's an important point. Lewis was writing at a time when being a Christian was the norm. His books were written to put across Christian morality, not Christianity in and of itself.

I remember being upset when I found out that the Narnia books were about Christianity; I felt tricked. But really the parallels are so blatent that there's no way he was trying to sneak anything past anyone. It was just his inspiration for the stories.

As for Screwtape, well, it's a story written as letters from a senior to a junior devil - if you can't spot the possibility of a Christian message there, then you can't really blame the author!

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[JanneM]

Why is that Christianity is the only religion it is still ok to hate?

Huh? Like many agnostics and atheists I dislike all religion. Christianity certainly doesn't have any particular prominence in that respect.

What does raise my hackles more than other is prozelysation, though. This of ocurse includes some Christian evangelcal sects and writers, but I am just as annoyed by prozelytising Hindu and Islamic sects as well. Hint: if I'm interested I promise to come over to your church/synagogue/temple/kiva/bloodstained sacrificial altar and discuss it, but knocking on my door, pushing leaflets in my hand or harassing me on the town is making me less - not more - likely to have a kind thought about what you believe in.

Converesly, among religions the one I dislike the least is Buddhism and especially quiet, contemplative variations of it. It tends to be philosophy as much as religion (no father figure in sight), and they never bother you unless you actively want to be bothered.

So no, Christianity is not special at all when it comes to general dislike. If you are Christian, though, you are of course a lot more attuned to criticism towards it than other religions (and more like ly to see it at all) and so it's of course easy to get the impression that it is singled out in some manner.

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

Could it be because C.S. lewis was one of the greatest apologetic Christian writers of modern times? He was also an atheist in his early life and accepted the Christian faith based on logic and reason (with the influence of J.R.R. Tolkien I understand). Yes, for more dissapointment, Tolkien heavily used Christian themes throughout his stories also, although they were more heavily veiled than in the works of Lewis.

Here are his works catergorized as "Christian" in a faq I found:

• The Problem of Pain - 1940
• The Screwtape Letters - 1942
• Mere Christianity - (Probably his most famous)
• The Abolition of Man - 1943
• Miracles - 1947
• Reflections on the Psalms - 1958
• The Four Loves - 1960
• Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer - 1964
• Devotional letters to an imaginary friend
• Christian Reunion
• Christian Reflections
• Fern Seed and Elephants
• First and Second Things
• God in the Dock
• Of This and Other Worlds
• Present Concerns
• Screwtape Proposes a Toast
• Timeless at Heart

P.S. "Apologetic" does not mean making an apology for. In this context it means making a formal justification or defense.

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[feronti]

Oddly enough, when I first heard of the Narnia's ties to Christianity, I felt foolish for not noticing it before. I also found them even more interesting, because of how well written the allegory was. It wasn't so much that it was subtle (it's not) but that the story works well even if you are ignorant of the allegory! That is what I found most impressive about them.

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[Snocone]

look at the crusades if want evidence of the misery and suffering brought about by christianity.

Hmmm? The Crusades were a defense of territory historically owned by the Roman Empire peacefully for over a thousand years against its invasion and subjugation by Islamic hordes conquering and plundering their way out of Arabia.

If you think that an empire defending its territory against invasion is "brought about by christianity" ... you need to learn a little more history there, friend.

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[Snocone]

What empire, Rome had fallen long before.

The Byzantine Empire was what the part with historical claims to the region was called at the time. The Crusades came into being because the Byzantine Emperor called for help against the Seljuk Turks' depredations, and he had nothing to call with except an appeal to shared Christian heritage against the Muslim invasions.

Come on dude, this is _trivial_ to look up. If you seriously don't know what the Byzantine Empire is and how the invasion of it is what caused the Crusades, you really should go away and shut up until you have enough basic knowledge to form an opinion that isn't an utter waste of our time.

Re:Christian propaganda...?

[NMerriam]

This is bullshit, period. Buddhism doesn't "require" anything, except taking a hands off approach to everything in the hopes that things will turn out just fine.

Wow, even more from some Christian speaking on a religion they know nothing about! What a surprise. Do you get all your comparative religion information from the back of cereal boxes?

Buddhism requires right action, it requires that you live every moment of your life aware that every action you commit, every choice you make, reflects on you and either brings you closer to or further from enlightenment. That is, in many ways, similar to Christianity (in that, if you TRULY believe in God, you would treat others as creations of God, and you would live each day to bring yourself closer to his will through right action).

The difference being, no matter how contrite he is, no matter how TRULY regretful and sorry he is for the evils he causes, a Buddhist will not reach enlightenment until such time as he has actually balanced out his bad acts.

I have no doubt that the genuine deathbed conversion of a Christian would be a painful experience -- TRULY understanding and comprehending the magnitude of how you have offended the Lord would be horrific. Accepting His mercy at still forgiving you, even after your offenses, would be an amazing experience, humbling and painful. But it wouldn't do a hell of a lot of good for all the poor souls you have harmed, and the world will still be left with plenty of pain from your acts.

A Buddhist understands that if he commits an evil against another -- be he man or beast, or even the world itself -- then he will have to atone for it. Not in regret, not in personal suffering, but in action. He will have to MAKE UP FOR the evil he causes, be it in this lifetime or the next.

What it sounds like you're saying is that you can never, not even on your death bed, change your mind. From your point of view, you can't reach "enlightenment" unless you're a perfect individual your whole life. Well, since no one is perfect, I guess you're screwed.

No, on your death bed you can't "change your mind". If you hurt people, changing your mind doesn't unhurt them. If you poison the water, changing your mind and being contrite doesn't purify it, no matter how much you mean it.

Enlightenment doesn't require perfection, it requires recognizing that your actions affect the world and the lives around you, and for the pains you cause you must cause an equal amount of healing. You can be as truly regretful and sorry as you want, but until you get off your ass and do some good in the world, you're going to be stuck.

Turkish Delight Isn't All That Good (with recipe)

[licamell]

I remembered being in grade school and watching the movie and craving to try Turkish Delight. Well we had a "party" one time in class and one of the teachers brought it in. It was disgusting! So much for childhood dreams... As you can see, it's mainly just water, sugar and corn starch (corn flour).

Anyways, here's a link to the recipe for those that are interested.

Ingredients:
1lt (1¾ Pints) Water
900g (2lb) Sugar
285g (10oz) Corn Flour
225g (8oz) Icing Sugar
1½ tbsp Rosewater
2 tsp Lemon Juice
Red Food Colouring (optional)

Re:Nerd/tech/science?

[stealth.c]

[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.

More reading:

[stealth.c]

Fans of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia should also look for the work of the other authors that were in the same writing group at Oxford with those two. My favorite is G.K. Chesterton, but there is also Charles Williams and Dorothy Sayers.

Re:Nerd/tech/science?

[MythMoth]

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.

Re:Another crappy Disney movie

[solios]

Yeah, I read "Disney" and groaned. But I watched the trailer and didn't catch Eddie Murphy or Gilbert Gottfried anywhere and Narnia certainly isn't musical fodder, so... it looks more like they're trying to cash in on the current LotR frenzy. Box office has proven people want Big Epic Fantasy, and despite the overt religious themes, Narnia is exactly that. It's Big, it's Epic, and it's Fantasy. In a lot of cases (at least in my home skool district), it was the first fantasy novel(s) read by many, many children. I was reading Voyage of the Dawn Treader while I was still building Construx forts for my Star Wars action figures. Hopefully Narnia makes a decent transition to the big screen, but from the trailer it looks like they're focusing on everything they think made LotR a huge success (eg battle, battle, battle - gods that shit bores the hell out of me. Has since The Phantom Menace).

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... and I found Sci-Fi to be a hell of a lot more interesting (at least until the rack at Barnes and Nobel started to look more like a bad collection of Heavy Metal cover art)...

If they don't screw it up, they can easily cash in on film adaptations of the rest of the series - there's quite a lot of material to work with.

You know, it's not like he *hid* that fact...

[cfalcon]

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.

Re:You know, it's not like he *hid* that fact...

[iabervon]

He's not really trying to convert anyone. The books are written with the assumption that the reader is already Christian of some sort. He is trying almost exclusively to improve the behavior of Christians. For that matter, the last book features fundamentalist Christians destroying the world, and nice pagans going to heaven.

In fact, someone reading the CoN without a Christian upbringing is unlikely to identify the Christian elements in it without having them pointed out, and is certainly unlikely to find any relationship between the events of the book and modern Christian practice. The message is really that you should have a particular morality, whatever your articles of faith happen to be. The Christian elements serve primarily to make this message more persuasive to Christian readers. It's actually more like complaining that The Fountainhead seems to promote architects than individualism.

What the heck ?

[loekf]

Quicktime 6.5.1 for Windows says: couldn't open the file, because the filename was bad. Well... appearently Apple programmer's just can't handle files as: chroniclesofnarniathelionthewitchandthewardrobethe _trlr_01_high_dl.mov Yikes... bad sense at humor at AOL ! Of course changing the file name to a.mov does not the trick.

Chesterton wasn't at Oxford

[panurge]

and was of a completely different style from Lewis. (He was also embarrassingly anti-semitic as was his friend Hilaire Belloc.)

Dorothy L Sayers shouldn't be mentioned in the same paragraph. When she was advised that a character in one of her books could be taken as anti-Semitic, she promptly started to write in positive but not over-signalled Jewish characters.

I mention this because one thing that does stand out about the writings of CSL is that, like Sayers, he was a Christian but not a fundamentalist bigot - he was too well educated, well connected and well read for that. In his adult science fiction he started to play with the idea that Christianity was a partial revelation, and that the battle between good and evil was going on in other civilisations elsewhere in the universe. It's a pity he got over mystical and started to bring in the Arthurian legends, because there is stuff in That Hideous Strength which to my mind spoils the book. But I guess no-one will make a film of it anyway, because it is anti-corporatist, anti-Statist and proposes that a small group of activists can and should employ rather violent means to defeat a technocratic dictatorship. In fact, if the Department of Homeland Security is reading this, you might want to investigate who has been reading That Hideous Strength. They might be potential terrorists.

Re:Chesterton wasn't at Oxford

[GreyWolf3000]

I haven't yet read that series, but I believe your mistaking Lewis' liberal theology with universalism--while his beliefs were, for the most part, mainline Christianity, two beliefs more than any others separated him from todays "fundamentalists."

He didn't believe in Biblical inerrancy; that is to say, although he believed that the 66 books contained in the Bible are in fact divinely inspired, he didn't believe that all of them were historically accurate. He didn't believe, for example, that Jonah actually got swallowed by the whale, or that the earth is only 8,000 years old. They are scriptures in the sense that they are divine teachings, but they are also myth (according to his line of thinking).

God works "in cognito" in other societies where the Christian gospel is not heard in order to promote his values. Lewis agreed that no one could make it to heaven without believing in Christ, but he also believed that many who never crossed paths with a Christian were given revelation about God through their own mythology. After death, according to Lewis, those who rejected Jesus during their lifetime would surely bring hell upon themselves because they really wouldn't want to spend eternity with a God they hated.

I personally wish more men like Lewis would lead the American church today, because in the absence of reason, superstition has become more and more powerful.

Re:Only four kids?

[wvitXpert]

Nope, only four. Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy. There are two other characters that join in later books, maybe thats what your thinking of.

But you're missing the forest for the trees

[brokeninside]

Lewis also stated:

When I started The Lion, Witch and Wardrobe I don't think I foresaw what Aslan was going to do and suffer. I think He just insisted on behaving in His own way. This of course I did understand and the whole series became Christian. But it is not, as some people think, an allegory. That is, I don't say 'Let us represent Christ as Aslan.' I say, 'Supposing there was a world like Narnia, and supposing, like ours, it needed redemption, let us imagine what sort of Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection Christ would have there. From CS Lewis: FAQ

There are two key points here. The first is that when he started writing, he had no idea where the story was going to go. He just took it where his imagination led him. Consequently, it is fair to say that he didn't intentionally make the series `Christian'. The second is that they are a classic example of `what if?' rather than an intentional project to illustrate a theological truth as are The Great Divorce and The Screwtape Letters. In fact, Lewis later did the same `what if?' project with the Pagan myth of Cupid and Psyche in Til We Have Faces.

How will this movie be popular?

[hunterx11]

The League of Concerned Christians will no doubt lambast this movie as Satatnic propaganda, due to its depiction of magic and speaking beasts.

The League of Concerned Satanists will no doubt lambast this movie as Christian propaganda, due to its thinly veiled allegory.