Slashdot Mirror
Behind the Scenes of Narnia's Special Effects
louismg writes "Walt Disney Pictures' Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe took in more than $100 million at the box office worldwide in its opening weekend, riding the back of special effects powering nearly all the movie's characters, from the lion Aslan to the Gryphon, Minotaur, Centaurs and more. VFXWorld has a series of diaries with the technology geeks at Rhythm & Hues behind the special effects. (Part 1, 2)
For the fantasy film's special effects, Rhythm & Hues teamed up with Industrial Light and Magic and Sony Pictures Imageworks to deliver more than 1,400 shots for the film, and used cutting-edge technology from BlueArc, NVIDIA and others to keep the effects' production running."
I liken it to cotton candy; all fluffy and sweet to taste, but melts to nothing when you eat it. The book was much better, probably because I was a kid when I read it, and my imagination was much wilder than it is now. It's definitely a movie for kids, and I recommend it to all parents. It's at least worth a matinee.
sorry to pull at this thorny issue, but people are complaining about the tie-ins to the religious themes and messages (eg lazarus rising yadda yadda) - however, the movie pays homage to the author's intended delivery - although fans will note that the story, like the books, is being told out of order (remember, there was a re-issue of the original books in the author's original desired order)...at any rate, what do you expect? this was a religous guy, and the film carefully caters to these themes without pushing them down viewers' throats...i do NOT believe that the amazing special effects are going to be tricking kids into buying some sort of christian message if that's your real concern - and hopefully kids under 10 are with older people (parents, siblings etc)- and the impressive effects serve only to wow the audience, period. what i'm eager to see is how the movie is packaged for bus tours and religous groups (again, that is not me, i'm the most secular heeb you're gonna meet, but i loved these books even as a kid - and when i heard that they were going to be edited with an eye toward theme omission, i ran out to get original copies....good lord, what would ray bradbury think?)
enjoy life, and Gmail.pro
Perhaps people have chosen to see Christian messages in it, but they were also most certainly put there by the books' author.
And by your tone, it seems that you are condemning someone, but I'm not sure who...
Am I the only one who thinks all these SFX specials are a bit overkill? I mean, do we really need to see the actors running around on a greenscreen set with various harness attached and such for every high-budget movie that comes out?
Have you read the book? How else do you propose they show a group of kids talking to a fawn and a pair of beavers?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
You know, I saw the movie this weekend, and I had to squint to see anything like a "retelling of Jesus Christ". The circumstances of Aslan's death and resurrection are only vaguely like those for Jesus, and there are no other parallels at all.
There is a certain kind of fantasy story where Good battles Evil, and I feel it's a mistake to interpret these in the context of any specific religion, even if the creator's religion influenced their work. I much prefer to take what is there, as it is, and that is easy enough to do with Narnia.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
The film has been directed by Andrew Adamson, who directed both of the "Shrek" movies and supervised the special effects on both of Joel Schumacher's "Batman" movies. Can it really be that bad?
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/I am sick of novels I love being destroyed by two-bit producers who can't invest the little time and energy it would take to do them right.
Seriously this will never change much, but it is not because of two-bit producers, well not always at least. You have to remember that many books would make a great deal more then just a two hour movie. Look at Lord of the Rings, you have a series of three movies which run over 11 hrs with the extended editions and things still had to be left out.
In the end, LotR is probably a good example of a book being done fairly right. Yes a few things were left out and some were even changed, but when taking work from literature to film you should expect some change to be necessary. There are some example of very true novel-theater adaptations, but many of those include lots of Director and Writer interaction and even screenplays being written by the original authors.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Quite honestly, I felt the effects in this film were very poorly done.
The entire movie was very poorly done. It's as if the script writer merely made a bulleted list of every major plot point in the novel, and handed it off to the director. There was absolutely no character to the movie, everyone trouped around the countryside methodicly completing task A before moving on to task B. Felt more like they were connecting the dots than telling a story.
I suppose it merely proves there's something to be said for "adapting" rather than doing a 1 to 1 conversion. Not sticking to the story may piss off the hardcore fans, but at least it produces a watchable movie.
Having read all the books, I can tell you the movie is nothing like it. Yes the books were written for kids, but so was Harry Potter, and that came out pretty good.
I think what you have here is a failure on all levels of the project. From the obviously poor quality effects and crappy sound, to the 'vignette' feeling I got from the last half of the film (like chunks of the film had been removed and the remaining pieces shoddily glued together), this film blew donkey balls.
The casting director at least had a clue, and got people who matched their characters. Young people who, given a chance to work with professionals, might have actually been able to perform quite well.
I think your comment about the story being poor and childish reflects more on the hack job by the filmmakers and not the story itself.
And if you haven't seen it, I would recommend waiting for it's release on free cable, and an exceptionally boring weekend.
Don't use the Troll mod just because you disagree with me.
The story followed the books very closely, much more than (for example) Peter Jackson did with LOTR.
The movie is what it is - a children's fairy tale. My 9 year old daughter absolutely loved it. But if you can't check your mind at the door, you won't like the movie.
The Christian allegory is unmistakeable as well. Aslan = Jesus is pretty obvious. Being a Christian myself, I had no problems with that. But the typical more secular slashdotter might not enjoy the movie if they don't ignore the religious parallels.
Imagine a world where kids need an imagination. Sigh. Perhaps I am getting old but with every passing day it feels like there are fewer and fewer reasons for kids to pick up a book and exercise their imagination. Perhaps I'm horribly off topic but I think I preferred films with poor special effects because it made me fill in the gaps. When I watch things now that I watched as a child I cringe at how bad the effects (and often acting) are but my memory of them is quite different.
Anyway, I hope they haven't wrecked the story. I was never really into childrens stories but I though TLTWATW was actually pretty good.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
The Passion of the Dollar Sign.
So there's no reason, in my opinion, that a "man of science" could not read, enjoy, and even agree with a mainstream Christain author.
Narnia is not immune to the fantasy haters, either.
Dark Reflection
I agree.
I read it when I was kid and really enjoyed the book. I read it to my son about a year ago and he loved it. A little of the magic was gone for me since I understood the allegory this time, but its still a great story.
The movie stayed very close the book, much more than lord of the rings did.
There was one part where I thought disney was about to ruin it(something to do with the wolf) but it turned out ok.
The special effects were awesome, and don't let the PG throw you off, it was closer to a PG13.
"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
I remember when calling it "movie magic" was accurate. The sci-fi blockbuster took you where you had never been. I remember watching in awe as Jupiter was eaten in "2010: The Year We Make Contact". I watched in wonder as tie fighters strafed the Millenium Falcon. I saw things that couldn't possibly be real unfold in front of my eyes, and when the magic was good, I believed. Maybe for only 120 minutes, but nevertheless, the suspension of disbelief was often total. But the magic is gone. We walk out of theatres saying things like, "Those special effects were fantastic!" rather than, "Can you believe there was a monster in that cave on the asteroid?" We all know how bluescreens work. We know when image layering is used. Most people have at least some familiarity with how computers are used to generate effects. In fact, DVD extras are working hard to make sure every last ounce of wonder is ripped from our minds and hearts. We're being forcefed the knowledge that will destroy our enjoyment. Magicians have known for centuries that once the wonder is gone, so is the audience. And so they jealously guard their secrets, surrounding themselves in a sense of wonder and mystery. The film industry should have done the same. They should have become a mysterious brotherhood, and kept the secrets, passing them down from mentor to student. Sadly, they didn't. They became so enamoured with how great they were that they began to brag about how it all worked. "Look at the great tools we make! Look at how we put those images on the screen!" We didn't really want to know. Maybe we thought we did, but in the end all that has happened is that we have lost that visceral connection to the screen. We know that there's no danger. So we care far less. The last time I saw a movie during which I really experienced true suspension of disbelief was in 1993. Jurassic Park. For 127 minutes, I believed in the resurrection of dinosaurs. When the snorting Tyrannosaur blew off Dr. Grant's hat while sniffing for him, I was afraid for him. I remember the girl trying to hide in the metal cupboard in the kitchen. When the raptor saw her and began closing in, my heart was in my throat. I wasn't the only one. When the raptor smashed into what turned out to be a reflection, several people screamed. I miss that. Can you imagine what an impact the Lord of the Rings movies would have had if we had not known in advance how it all came together? I'd suggest that the movie industry stop destroying the magic, but that genie isn't going back in the bottle. It's far too late. (A past blog entry)
I read that Tolkien took christianity and turned the religion into hidden allegories. I mean, Gandalf descending into the pits of hell, fighting with a flame demon, to be risen as "the white"? That kinda reminds me to Jesus' resurrection.
And Sauron could be interpreted as Satan. I also read that the orcs were once elves that were turned into evil, wretched beings that hated themselves, and the elves for reminding them what they once where. Couldn't this be an allegory for the fallen angels?
And taking into account the fact that Tolkien played a key role in Lewis' conversion to christianity (does anyone have details on this?), it's not a mystery that many elements of christianity were embedded in Tolkien's works. And yet, we love Tolkien's works.
I'm sure that it wasn't Lewis' intention to push down christianity down the readers' throats, perhaps he just wanted to make his writings useful for christians, or to explain parts of christianity somehow.
I think that people have become seriously disappointed of christians, because of the amount of fundamentalism and zealotry present in today's christian environment. So they reject anything that resembles or includes christianity. But we need to go back to Tolkien and Lewis' environment, and see, from their point of view, that they went to church, where priests were still respected and earned that respect.
A problem with today's view of religion is that whenever we're mentioned catholicism or christianity, our first thoughts come to either the inquisition or pedophile priests, or religious zealots who promote creationism. But Tolkien's and Lewis' christianity was a relatively quiet part of their environment and society, not the circus we see today in the news.
Interestingly enough the film begins with a scene not in the book at all that does a lot to set up some of how things will work out.
;)
I'm glad you pointed that out. It's been 15+ years since I read the novels, and though it didn't seem right to witness the bombing of London in the opening scenes I couldn't remeber if it had been in the books.
Those opening scenes were the only ones in the movie that triggered any kind of emotional reaction in me, which is both good and bad. Illustrates the importance of adapting even better I think.
Part of what was sorely lacking in the film was the presence of a narrator. I understand that a narrator is a bit of a dated concept these days, but one of the charming "features" of the book was the fact that you, the reader, were essentially hearing this story second-hand from an unnamed but affable narrator with insight into the thought processes of the characters. The witty little asides that Lewis managed to slip in at places gave the whole thing a very British flavo[u]r, which I felt the movie essentially lacked.
YMMV, of course.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
WHAT is so wrong about it, anyway? I mean, if a muslim puts references to Islam in his book, why so many people get so angry? It seems that one is *forbidden* to put references to his own religion in his own book. It's the teenagers' "don't point a gun at me and make me watch your movie" approach.
The Christian-bashing talk is overwhelmingly stupid. I know, I know, it makes you look intelligent. Christian-bashing talk is like a "genius certificate" for teenagers. For me, it's stupid.
...or your ignorance of the context of the original book. When the book was written (1953, I think) for an audience of English children, explicitly retelling effects and experience of the Blitz on children in London (both motivating the move and providing "real" context for the children's experience in Narnia) would have been unnecessary and patronizing. Likewise for those reasonably well read in the history of the time. Similarly, the grab bag of creatures, myths, etc. (including the resurrection of Aslan, recalling Jesus, Mithras, Osiris, or the Corn King of your choice) was all part of the common intellectual baggage of children when the schools' curriculum included heavy doses of Latin, Greek and Medieval European language, literature, religion and history. As well as Lewis' (he was a professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature).
Given the common intellectual baggage of children (and adults) today, I suppose the movie needs some 'splainin' to do.
It's unfortunate that you graduated reading at what you call the "standardized test" level of accomplishment.
But, in part, the problem is that school has been structured to get you through the tests and out the door. The other problem is they can't actually force you to learn. They can put it in front of you, and speak in front of the class, and even threaten you with stuff on your 'permanent record'. But they can't actually force you to participate in the classes, read the books, or learn the stuff you're intended to.
My own memories from early school include a lot of kids who simply had no interest in being taught, and who were actively doing what they could do prevent everyone else from learning anything. (At the time I was a rather advanced reader for my age, and probbaly continue to be.)
I don't think they 'deceived' you into thinking you read well, you managed to get through with the minimum, and are now getting burned by it in later life. The fact that you may have had a learning disability goes to highlight how little teaching is actually taking place, or how much they were keepin gtrack of these things.
Nowadays, it's probbaly even worse since they'll usually end up just keeping on sliding kids onto the next grade, and then it'll be someone else's problem next year. I suspect you're probbaly not that uncommon of a case -- I suspect a lot of people get through at least high-school with no real learning taking place. They teach kids enough to pass the tests and appear competent, but they can't guarantee you'll learn anything.
To hear someone who is college educated complaining they can barely read the opening chapter of a book is quite saddening.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Not even that Polybius defined a monarch as a single ruler acting within the constraints of what tradition and his subjects will allow. By his definition God is a Tyrant.
James P. Barrett
The books are certainly written as Christian allegory -- particularly the first, which is very messianic, and the last, which is essentially armageddon. The allegory doesn't quite track (one doesn't normally associate lions with Christ, for instance), but that's mainly due to the inherent limits of metaphor. Eventually you're going to run into a situation where you realize that no, the Internet isn't like a highway in this circumstance.
There's quite a bit of other stuff going on, though, so to dismiss -- or revere -- the story solely on its allegorical content is to miss quite a lot. Saying "It's Christian, so I don't want to read/watch it" is as silly as holding a prayer meeting during the previews, because it's not the entirety of the work.
As to C.S. Lewis, he had a long, complicated history with his religion. I recommend the play Shadowlands , or the movie made from it for an alternate view.
Couldn't it just be that we no longer find the idealistic Christian view of the world compatable with our experience as adults?
Maybe we just don't see anything just or right about sacrificing the innocent to save the guilty.
Perhaps we understand the 'greater story', but we find it inherently evil and decide to align ourselves with good.
Alternatively, they could read the book and then decide whether or not to see it based on how the story plays out.
You may be too blinded by hate to see that you are every bit as bad as what you claim this guy to be.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Don't be silly. Shortly after Star Wars came out there were 1 and 2 hour TV specials on how the movies were made and how the special effects were done. Heck, there were news reels on how Disney was able to make color animation and how the voices were done. The movie industry has ALWAYS documented and shown the public how the magic is done.
I suggest you don't know how to suspend disbelief anymore. Or refuse to do so. Or are jaded by the current lousy movies that try to make up for their failings with great special effects.
If the movie is well written, well acted and has great effects, knowing how it was made just increases my respect and wonder at the process.
I think the problem I have with Christianity today is that many Christians and many Christian institutions have strayed so far from the ideals Jesus espoused in the New Testament that I figure Jesus would be aghast if were alive today and saw the idolatry being practiced in his name. It should also be noted the New Testaments were written LONG after Jesus died and it is completely unknown if they are in fact even close to accurately describing him or his teachings.
All in all, I don't have a problem with Narnia or the Christian message in the books or the movies. I do have a problem with the people and companies who are trying to exploit the Christian themes in Narnia to:
A. Make more money by trying to make it in to mandatory viewing for every church goer and their children, just like "The Passion". Disney saw the profit in exploiting the religious obssession overrunning America today and:
1. Made religious themed kids movie
2. ????
3. PROFIT
I rather doubt Jesus would have been in favor of exploiting his message for profit, he was for example not plussed my the money changers next to the temple profiting off the worship of God.
B. I also have a problem with the people who are trying to use Narnia as a way to seduce children in to Christianity and they are doing it very blatantly. Come here boys and girls and watch these pretty pictures and this exciting story. Did you like that? Yes, well you should be a Christian now even if you don't know what that means or entails. It teeters on brainwashing in much the same way fundamentalists are up in arms about Harry Potter seducing children to the black arts.
In my idealized world I think I would like to see Christians, who if they really believe in the things Jesus said to:
- Abandon their fixation on money and wealth and lead a life where they dedicated themselves to the well being of their fellow man and not to lining their pockets
- Stop supporting politicians and institutions who are proponents and purveyors of wars and killing. For example the U.S. military (the Air Force academy in particular) is coming to be completely dominated by an officer corps of fundamentalist "so called" Christians who pray on Sunday and kill people with little remorse on Monday. That turns my stomach and I'm sure Jesus would gladly climb on another cross in protest against it.
Bottomline if you are going to claim the title Christian you should really walk the walk. If your priorities are to get rich at any cost and you are a big fan of wars and killing you should stop dirtying Jesus' name with your false idolatry of him.
@de_machina
I find this line of discussion quite flamebait.
If you had the ability and power to create life and set forth the rules of physics and behaviour for said life, how does that define you as "Tyrant"? Would that not define you as "The Creator" of said life?
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I'm not sure why people would feel "betrayed" by the Narnia series due to discovering the Christian allegory. I can understand no longer getting any enjoyment out of it, when they consider that the philosophy of the book may counter their own developed ideas, but betrayal seems to indicate that the books portray themselves as something they are not.
The question is: what were they tricked into? Christianity or admitting that Christian influence isn't going to turn every story into a laughable, droning pseudo-sermon.
There are thousands and thousands of stories that have that have some religious significance or are religious allegory in some way, shape, or form. People have mentioned this series as well as Orson Card's Mormon related stories and you could probably find books indexing of poems, novels, songs and other things that fit the bill as well. How do those betray anyone? Reading Ender's Game or even Homecoming didn't turn me into a Mormon, even though I found some enjoyment reading them. There are tons of other stories that contain Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan allegories in them, which I equally disbelieve, but consider great fun to read. Did you have to believe in the Greek gods to enjoy reading Greek myths? If you regard Christianity as a myth, can't you enjoy the characters and storylines as entertaining myth? Even though the Greek gods were some of the most hypocritical of characters (which mirror's some peoples' impressions of Christianity's workings), the stories can be great roaring fun. The Bible itself, as long as you read a version not written in Jacobean English, is full of interesting characters doing interesting things. So why would Lewis' work be any different? Is it the story's fault or your preference? And if it is your preference, then how can there be betrayal?
Sometimes, a story is just a story, and there's nothing wrong with something different than your own views from making you happy. Nothing I can say will change these negative feelings of people perhaps, but basically, it's the Santa Claus syndrome. You believe in Santa and have fun as a kid. And then when you discover the truth, you have the choice of remembering the fun, or deciding to feel that you were lied to and resent it. I've never known any good to come from resentment, particularly for something that gave me joy, so I don't see why resenting these stories makes any sense.
Two ways to end the war: (1) Kill all terrorists. (2) Convert to Islam. Unfortunately, diplomacy is not a part of either
You post a long defense of Christianity and Christian love (entitled "Mindblowing stupidity"), and then end it with this scary sig? How about what Christ said here:
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:27-31
I believe Lewis responded to a letter once full of the same type vitriol with something along the lines of:
You are a god-hater not an atheist. There is a difference. As a former atheist, I take offense to your representation of one
Not much mention of it has been made here, but Lewis was quite the atheist prior to his conversion. He did an incredible job answering the demythologization argument of the great Rudolf Bultmann. I did some of my graduate work on Bultmann.
In essence, Bultmann argued that the gospels were myth, as any other myth of ancient times, and was totally unbelievable. Bultmann was a renowned theologian having spent his long career in the gospels.
Lewis responded with respect saying, "I have not labored as you in the New Testament, Mr. Bultmann, but I do know something about myth, and the New Testament is not myth." Claiming the NT as myth brought the argument clearly into the territory of the scholarly work of Lewis.
In all his writings Lewis is a very frustrating figure for critics to tackle. His logic is sound, his arguments high-minded and scholarly and his writings readable to everyone and all. His "art of translation" stated that if you cannot state your point clearly for all to understand then you do not much understand it yourself.
Such was the approach he brought to the LW2.
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill