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'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.
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.
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
What you are looking for is "The Magician's Nephew", the sixth book in the Narnian series that is actually a prequel to the entire series. It explains where the witch came from, what the professor knows about Narnia, and who Aslan is (as well as what is up with the lightpost :-) ). These questions were all mysteries in the original books (in their original order) that were not answered until the second to the last book, and with the possibility of making all seven books into movies, they must have decided to keep them mysteries now as well.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
I've been thinking about this since I saw it, and as I've been reading this thread. I liked the film and wouldn't say poorly done, but I think that you have pegged the biggest weakness. By staying so true to the events of the book it loses a little something. The book can narrate a lot of fealing, thoughts and emotions. A film needs to show events to explain that kind of thing.
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. But from then on, as you say, you get the books events but not all the book's depth. Now I still liked the film as I've said, and I don't think the books are so deep, that you are missing that much. I think some of the film's weaknesses are the book's weaknesses too. (I've always thought Clive's fiction was his weakest work~ Screwtape Letters excepted)
I think you hit the nail on the head. To have been a better film would have required more deviation from the text. This makes me rethink some of my frustration with the LoTR films. I loved them too, and now maybe I wont be so hard on some of the revisions.
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?
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?
She's evil. There are more details in another Narnia story, 'The Magician's Nephew.'
He is ruler of many countries, so he was off visiting them.
That's detailed in 'The Magician's Nephew.'
'Magician's Nephew'
Other countries to rule.
His Father is the Emperor over the sea and always has been. It's a bit like asking who put God in charge of everything. This is more apparent in the other stories.
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.
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!"
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.
I just started reading The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe with my 7 3/4 (the 3/4 are important to her) year-old daughter. We saw the film Saturday night. The opening bombings were mentioned in passing on page 1 in the book, but not described. The children were sent away because of the bombing. Going back for the picture? The invention of the script writer.
My daughter loved the movie. I thought it had the frequent problem of stuffing too many pages of a novel into too few minutes on screen. "Bullet Points" is a fitting judgement.
I noticed the shot of the kids up on the peak and the background screaming "green-screen" to my eyes. I thought the beavers looked fake, but the movement of the wolves was well done. For talking animals, the overall effect was quite a breakthrough.
I'm thinking that after we finish as many of the Narnia books as we care to, I'll read Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy for balance. She loved the Hobbit, but I don't think she's ready for The Lord of the Rings. We've read Harry Potter 1 and 2, and seen the first three movies together. The opening of Harry Potter 3 is too scary for her even though she's seen the film and understands who the big dog is. So those will have to wait.
I am surprised at how much I like reading to her. Although the Narnia books are the first that I will be reading to her that I haven't read myself.
And what is slashcode for an underline? I can see my English teacher's red circles around the book titles that ought to be underlined...
How did Aslan become king?
His Father is the Emperor over the sea and always has been. It's a bit like asking who put God in charge of everything.
Well I didn't vote for 'im.
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.
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 ;)
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
Hey, you didn't see any eligible warlocks in the movie, now did you? A few thousand years without getting laid, you'd be an icy bitch too.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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)
How did Aslan become king?
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excaliber from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that Aslan, the Lion, was to carry Excalibur! That is why Aslan was King!
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
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.
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