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.
With that kind of doe, you'd like they could at least get the blue/green screening done properly. Quite honestly, I felt the effects in this film were very poorly done.
One more tidbit. It's interesting that on IMDB the first 20 pages of reviews are all very positive (and submitted before the offical release), yet 80% of the more recent ones (since Fridays US release) are all very poor.
I've heard it's made alot of money, but how does it hold up to the novels? 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.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
Stupid login reuqired to RTFA, feel free to use mine...
The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
I loved it. I'm a huge fan of The Chronicles of Narnia. The movie followed very closely to the book. This made me very happy. The actors did a great job, espcially the actress who played Lucy.
I only have one complaint. The Talking Beasts and Aslan weren't big enough. Especially Aslan. Aslan should have been twice the size he was portrayed in the movie.
Other than that, I didn't have a problem with the movie. Loved every minute.
The CG effects in this Christian allegory masterpiece are so much better than the ones in that other singing / dancing vegetable / fruit one.
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
DOH! :)
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...
Your trolling is cute, but the Narnia series has a level of popularity on par with LOTR and C.S. Lewis was not a hack writer.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It's not the special effects that made the Narnia books so popular - it was the imagination of C.S. Lewis who gave the story and the characters such meaning and gripped the reader with suspense.
And yes the effects were quite awesome, but they seemed so transparent in this movie. IMHO, a much better flick about the conflic of good vs. evil than SW EP III ever was. I *REALLY REALLY REALLY* hope they do The Magician's Nephew next!
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/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.
I think it is because you read the book when you were young. We recently read the book with our kids, so it was pretty fresh in our minds when my wife and I saw it. I was surprised by how closely the film stuck to the book. Of course the book lends itself well to film, I think, as opposed to longer and more complex works.
I think though what you may have missed is a lot of the inner dialogue that you get in the book was not in the film. It downplayed Aslan a bit I think, since we don't get to 'hear' how the children feal about him. They did a decent job I think, acting wise, but I'm not sure a film can display the complex ideas conveyed in the book in that regard. Maybe deviating further from the text would have allowed them to be more true to the ideas, if not the events, I'm not sure.
But I do really think that on the whole the film has most of the books strengths as well as its weaknesses.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
With that kind of doe, you'd like they could at least get the blue/green screening done properly. Quite honestly, I felt the effects in this film were very poorly done.
One more tidbit. It's interesting that on IMDB the first 20 pages of reviews are all very positive (and submitted before the offical release), yet 80% of the more recent ones (since Fridays US release) are all very poor.
I didn't see the film, didn't read the books, so I'm not here to defend. But I actually went to IMDB and looked at the user reviews, sorted by date, and they are mostly all positive.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
In the making of $MOVIE they used $COMPUTER_BRAND computers to render the images. They used $HDD_BRAND hard drives to store the data. They used a network to connect the computers together. They use some off the shelf software ($SOFTWARE1 and $SOFTWARE2) for some of it and they used some proprietary software for other parts. Simulation techniques devised by $RESEARCHER were used for $EXCITING_SCENE. And $INTERESTING_DETAILS amazing facts that you couldn't actually guess were revealed in the article where INTERESTING_DETAILS<1.
First, the narrative is awkward and clunky. It doesn't flow, and this really kills the mood. What kills the mood more is the terrible dialogue all throughout the film. The cinematography is plain disasterous. Not once did i find myself thinking "wow, what a beautiful shot!" like i do in most films of this nature. The sets all look fake. At least, the ones in narnia do. The make-up is unconvincing and just adds to the "upmarket b-movie" feel emanating from the film. Some of the special effects are dire, others are great. It's a real pick 'n' mix. overall, i just think it sucked. espcially when it had such a high budget. But the film did give me hours of fun last night arguing with over zealous christians on the imdb.com message boards.
sudo killall humans
The Passion of the Dollar Sign.
The "new" ordering of the books is:
That ordering works because the "Magicians Nephew" is the one where Narnia is created, and "The Last Battle" is the book in which it is destroyed/ascended. The original ordering has "The Lion .." coming first, and the "Magician Nephew" being a followup after the initial success.
Personally I read them in the published order, and the small paperback set I have has them numbered in the "old" order - not a big deal to be honest.
Read a this page for more details on suggested reading order.
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'm actually worried that the movie won't have a strong enough Christian/religious theme.
Now, I'm an athiest, brought up Quaker, with little interest in spreading Christianity or anything.
But I read the books before I could understand the whole Christian allegory thing. I loved them. I reread them later, understood, and felt betrayed. Then I matured enough to where I could read them a third time and not take it so hard. And I realize that the whole feel of the stories, the idea that they had weight and importance and weren't just some guys who had beef with each other, that came straight out of the religious treatment of the characters.
If Aslan isn't God, and the White Witch is just some woman who wants to rule this place, the story becomes a cheesy special-effects battle movie. Yay, Dungeons and Dragons. If they can try to instill some kind of reverence and awe, and a feeling that these people are taking part in a larger struggle, that what is happening matters, I think the story can carry itself a lot better.
If you can get over the fact that it's about Christianity, of course.
I never saw The Passion, and I don't think it's a great idea for a movie, and so forth. But think how much more pointless a film it would be if the guy who was being tortured and suffering wasn't Jesus.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
I'm not sure you went to the end. There are like 20 pages of reviews posted before the US release date.
s tart=1
s tart=350
Begining: (Start here and move forward)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363771/usercomments?
End: (Start here and move back)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363771/usercomments?
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.
The White Witch as an allegory to Satan, The Angel of Light. The temptation of Edmond by appealing to his desire for pleasure (Turkish Delight) and power (The Kingship). The "Deep Magic" requirement for the spilling of blood to "atone" for traitors. The ownership of traitors by the White Witch. The table rock splitting in two after the death of Aslan (Like the veil of the Temple). The feamles witnessing the resurrection of Aslan. Aslan leaving Narnia after the resurrection (The Ascension). Aslan going to the White Witches castle to set the prisoners free (Christ is hell taking the keys from Satan).
I saw quite a few parallels, and I didn't have to squint. It wasn't exactly like the events of Christ's life, but is was much closer to it than Tolkien's books. Perhaps that's why the movie is less well received than TLOTR movies were. Yeah, that and the special effects weren't as good.
-SHPI 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.
1: Lion Witch Wardrobe
2: Prince Caspian
3: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
4: Silver Chair
5: Horse and his Boy
6: Magician's Nephew
7: The Last Battle
New order (chronological for events in Narnia)
1: Magician's Nephew
2: Lion Witch Wardrobe
3: Horse and his Boy
4: Prince Caspian
5: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
6: Silver Chair
7: The Last Battle
I was using the wrong sorting option. Thanks for pointing it out.
Couldn't get more than 20-30 pages into it.
Tried to read Moby Dick for my 10th grade honors English class... Had something to do with a whale, but that was just the picture on the cover.
Tried to read The Hobbit several times. Another 20-30 pages...
Tried to read The Lord of the Rings before I saw the movies. 10 pages before I gave up.
I couldn't even read Harry Potter.
I did really well on all those standardized reading tests they make you take in government schools, and I do just fine on magazine article-length pieces, or technical stuff... I never really did any reading for my B.S. degree - went to class, skim-read the texts.
Finally, a year after finishing my 16.5 years of schooling, I picked up a copy of John Taylor Gatto's A Different Kind of Teacher. In the first chapter, Mr. Gatto talks about how he found that his 7th graders ("at some of Manhattan's best schools, and at some of the worst") were unable to read, beyond for a standardized test. To prove it for his readers, he said to read the first 20 pages of All Quiet on the Western Front (available at just about any library), and then he'd have a question. Well, I read the question first, so I knew the answer. But I didn't read the second question, and even after I had, I still had NO IDEA WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE. I could pass my eyes over the words, but I was incapable of extracting the story from them.
Mr. Gatto says that the way reading is taught in schools today & for the last 60+ years actually discourages children from visualizing the story as they read it. Which is certainly my problem, and the reason why I couldn't read all those books I gave above.
While I can't blame school for my inability to visualize, I do resent how they led me to believe that I knew how to read, when that certainly wasn't the case. They wasted 13 years of my life in Elementary, Middle and High schools, and I wasted 3.5 years and a whole lotta $$$ in College. I could've learned so much more if I'd been able to read beyond the level of standardized test.
(My problem with visualization was due to a medical problem that I am only now resolving, with the assitance of a capable Osteopathic physician in the Cranial Field.)
So anyways, back to the subject at hand: It's nice that Movie Studios are putting these classic novels on film. This way, since so many of us are incapable of reading complex stories due to our miseducation by the government (ref: books by John Taylor Gatto & others), we can still enjoy the stories our ancestors got from reading the books.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Will be boycotting Sony products and productions? Yes, perhaps I'm not fully cogent when it comes to $ony, but I thought there were people on /. that wanted to actively boycott $ony.... and yes, I *AM* aware that there are a lot of products made by $ony.
So, the part that I don't like about the movie is that $ony had something to do with it.... so naturally, I've not seen it, and won't.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
If you want to see some really nice beaver, go see Narnia. It had the best looking beaver special effects. You even get to see deep inside a beaver lodge. The beaver chase scene is pretty amazing.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
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.
0: Geared for a young Harry Potter or Princess Bride audience, nowhere near as dark as LoTR.
+1: They followed the book closely.
+1: They didn't butcher the allegory for the sake of over-sensitive non-Christians.
+1: They didn't play up the allegory for the sake of over-sensitive Christians.
+1: Effects were near flawless, even though the film had much more daylight than others in the genre (underexposure is SO forgiving).
-1: The animals in a few scenes near the end seemed to lose a little fur realism. The airplanes at the very beginning seemed too cartoonish as well. Cheetas don't run like that either, IIRC.
-1: Too much of the beavers.
-1: Didn't do nearly as good a job as LoTR in giving a sense of "place." Narnia is smaller than Middle Earth, but it felt a little cramped. So did the Professor's house.
0: Soundtrack was ok.
+1: Great live and voice casting, other than Titmus, who seemed way too young than I imagined him.
0: One thing I never liked about the book was the appearance of Father Christmas. An allegory should not be tainted by its own archetype.
...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.
Several of the reviews here say they loved the stories as a child, but have a harder time enjoying them now that they understand the Christian allegories.
To them I would say that perhaps the Narnia stories are the clearest picture of Christianity they have yet seen. I started with the Narnia books, and proceeded to digest and understand a HUGE amount of Christian literature, both highbrow and lowbrow. I now go back to the Narnian books (and the Screwtape letters, The Great Divorce, and some books by John Eldridge) and find them to be probably the most accurate pictures of Christianity written since the Gospels.
That you find other pictures of Christianity repellent could be a combinations of three factors.
1) The "other stories" you are being told are being told badly, or are just plain wrong. God does not approve all articles before publication.
2) The "other stories" you are being told reveal things in yourself that you are not prepared to deal with yet.
3) You understand the greater story, and simply wish to align yourself with evil instead of good.
That's been my life's story anyway. It always seems to come down to one of those three things.
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Funny how this thread turned from discussion of visual effects to everyone's personal take on the movie. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; it proves the movie has something more than usual to it.
Spoilers follow...I saw the movie Saturday morning and had mixed feelings about the effects. As some people have pointed out, I never really felt excited at the scenery or any of the landscape. There was a lamppost with lots of snow and some mountains with a huge ice castle that we only see two rooms of. Maybe you can't expect to do that much with ice, but overall it never gave a really powerful expression. The same with the spring settings, green grass and some rocks - yay.
Now the characters looked like they had some more love put into them. All though our fawn friend never has a close up shot from the waist down, the shots done from a distance farther back show great detail and overall great walking motion. The King Lion on the other hand was, well a lion that could speak. The detail of the fur and body motion was top notch, but that was what was expected. The choice of voice was also sub par, no offense to Mr. Neeson, but something deeper and more powerful would have breathed more life into Aslan. From an effects standpoint I would also liked to have Aslan's size increased to showcase more of his stature. The minotaurs were most excellent and almost had me thinking I was watching a live interpretation of WoW.
Now a quick review - How four youths managed to lead an army against an experienced evil queen is beyond me. Yes, there are kids in Harry Potter who defeat the ultimate evil Voldamort but the circumstances are always in their favor. E.g. Harry getting help to complete the tournament from the imposter Moody and surviving the final battle due to his wand being identical, etc. etc. The overall story of Narnia seemed good and grand, but the two girls are underused in the battle and the final confirmation is all too quick with no real struggle or push of emotions. Overall, it's an average movie that I apprieciated more as a book.
Read my sig! That's right, keep reading...
After thinking about it a bit, I believe they downplayed Aslan more for dramatic effect than to steer away from the Jesus angle. I mean, if you know all along that the lion is pretty much God Almighty, there's not a lot of conflict. God always wins, after all. The movie focuses on the kids, and that makes for more dramatic tension --- how are a bunch of kids going to save the world?
Oh, and I don't really think "allegory" is the best word to use. In an allegory, characters and events are symbolic of something. It's easy to see Narnia that way, but the crucial difference is that Aslan is not merely a symbol of Jesus --- he actually is Jesus.
Or so C.S. Lewis said. Of course, C.S. Lewis might have just been trying to explain away the allegory because his good buddy Professor Tolkien hated it ;)
Dear Mr. Coward,
:)
When my mother was growing up, Kindergarten cost extra. Hers was a poor family, and both parents needed to work. They did the math and found that a caretaker was cheaper than the government's Kindergarten, so that's where my mother spent her 5th year.
When she got to 1st grade, her parents were surprised to learn from the 1st grade teacher that their daughter already knew how to read. Surprised, because they certainly hadn't taught her.
What happened? Well - while spending all that time at the caretaker's house, my mother was very bored. So, with a little help from her slightly older sister and the caretaker's kids, she taught herself how to read.
Some 47 or 48 years later, mom says that she doesn't remember getting much help from her sister or others. Which is what John T. Gatto says: when a child is ready to learn, when the motivation is present, learning to read is extremely easy.
My mother could read so well, that after she moved to a new school 1/2 way through first grade, she was getting in trouble for reading ahead. Her family moved every year or two when she was growing up, finally finishing with the last three years of highschool in one place.
Normally, nomadic children don't do so well in school. My mother graduated Valedictorian. She didn't just teach herself how to read while imprisioned at the caretakers - she learned the lesson that if there was anything she wanted to learn, it was her responsibility to teach herself.
Mom didn't know any better, and sent me to Kindergarten, where I learned the alphabet and short words. First grade brought short sentances, 2nd grade was contractions, etc. Education is for learning how to learn, as you put it. But government schools do not "educate". The school system as it exists today is nothing but a "spoon-feeding" process, designed to strip children of responsibility for learning. If johnny ain't learning, school rhetoric says it's because the teachers aren't good, the buildings suck, the technology is outdated, etc. No one knows to inspire children to learn how to teach themselves what they want to know. It is this way by design, otherwise, who would staff the factories and the fast food businesses, if not for an entire population of dumbed-down worker drones?
Yes, I can place the blame entirely on the "education" system. I've been through it, and after reading Mr. Gatto's books, I agree that there is little worth salvaging. Check out Underground History of American Education (available for Free on the website given in the GP post), and it's hard to feel any other way.
Good day.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
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.
Disney did not "bankroll it". The movie was coproduced by Disney and Walden Media, with Walden providing most of the funding. Walden is owned and headed by Philip Anschutz, an oil magnate fundy who is one of the nation's biggest donors to all sorts of anti-gay and pro-censorship groups, plus over 700,000$ to the Republican party and its candidates and runs half a dozen conservative newspapers (he's currently trying to take over Knight-Ridder). The BBC has referred to him as a "corporate vulture" and in 2000 was branded the "Greediest Man in America" by Fortune magazine for his Enron-style ripoff act at Quest (wherein he took steps to try and get employees to buy stock while he sold 6.1 million shares, based on insider info, right before the company collapsed, making himself 200m$ and leaving employees and investors with stock that went from $64 per share to $1.95; he and Quest eventually got out of trouble by a 4.4m$ settlement).
That alone is enough to make me not want to see the movie. Of course, the fact that there are two soundtracks for the movie (one Christian Rock, currently the only one that's out) certainly doesn't help. I'm not going to fund scum just because I want to see pretty CG.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
I think they call this magical literary device the Third Person Omniscient Perspective. It is a wonderful way for the author to relate information that would otherwise be unavailable if the story were to be told in any other perspective...in other words, rather than being limited to a first person view (single character perspective, can only internalize ones own thoughts and relies on five senses to understand everything else that is going on) or third person objective (unseen/uninvolved narrator, but limited to the five senses), you get to know everything. Though it may be a dated concept (as are the other devices), it is historically a very reliable device for fantasy/sci-fi stories.*
* - trying to be helpful here, not a jerk.
"How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
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'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.
The bottom line, the internet wouldn't exist had it not been for Christ's humble teachings 2,000 years ago.
In your face, Al Gore!
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
BoxOfficeMojo called LtW&tW 'Christian/Mormon.' I'm hoping that this means Christian or Mormon, not 'Type Christian, subtype Mormon.' 'Cause C.S. Lewis definitely wasn't writing anything for Mormons...
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