Thank you! Someone who agrees with me. . I loved the BBC version. I thought it was good and lol i totally agree about the white witch.

The BBC series are as good as can be expected from a TV series in 1988 regarding special effects, costumes and whatnot. I saw them for the first time in 1989 and that is what most films looked like back in those days so I never once felt they were any bad or crappy. I own all three on DVD as well and I watch them regularly

I compare the LotR film to the latest Narnia film all the time. Not the story however but the look and feel of the film. Most of you complain how poorly the look of the 1988 BBC series was - I complain about the look of the 2005 film version because it's far from being perfect in that sense, and yes LotR was perfect in every single way from all the visual aspects (not talking story here). FotR came out in 2001 and is far more advance in visual effects than the LTWATW film that came out in 2005. Since they're finally taking on such a masterpiece like Narnia you could expect them to put more effort into it because the reason people do remakes is to better any previous versions that have been made, because if you can't bring anything new to the visual table then why do another one, right?!

Again Gwen we can't get into a religious discussion unfortunately, but Narnia was never written as a Christian book series. It was not meant to be allegorical (and neither was Lord of the Rings). What a story means, stands for or hints at is only the reader's interpretation of the story. Lewis has a huge Christian fanbase which is where that interpretation came from. My interpretation of the books is that it's not a Christian story. There's nothing wrong with seeing it as a Christian story (since we're all entitled to interpret stories the way we want to) but since that was not the purpose of the books in the first place I don't see why Andrew should have brought all of that into the film.

_________________


.*+I'VE MET ANTIGONE, MONTANABOHEMIAN, RAIVYNN PHOENIX, BERIADANWEN & PIRATEOFTHERINGS+*.

(¯`•¸·´¯`·._.·[TRUE VAMPIRES DON'T SPARKLE]·._.·´¯`·¸•´¯)

I mostly agree again. But I would have to disagree about the Christian book series comment. I think he did write it, and someone with a Christian perspective could see that. And I think people have chosen to see it as the opposite of what I think CS Lewis was trying to portray. As a Christian myself, I see similar things in the Lord of the Rings. And please, do not shoot me down for that because it's happened before. It's the way I see it. And of course, yes you are permitted to interpert it the way you choose. But if you begin interpreting too much, you begin to loose the real essence of the story and are merely interpreting text rather then enjoying the story. I see it as a Christian film and book series. I mean if you think about it (and are willing to, that is and you aren't lying to yourself) there are a lot of Christian parallels. And I think the director of the latest one saw that and tried to do that to his film. After all, it was HIS movie, just as PJ changed some things in LOTR.

I read some essay somewhere that CS Lewis had written himself where he said Narnia was not meant to be allegorical (meaning a Christian story) when he wrote it, it was just meant to be what it was; a story about 4 kids who enter another world, simple as that. Tolkien used many different types of legends, myths and religions as his inspiration for writing Lord of the Rings, he used mostly Pagan folklore (Celtic and Norse Mythology especially) with a few Biblical touches here and there. But again Tolkien never meant for his story to be allegorical either, as he says in his own introduction to the books.

_________________


.*+I'VE MET ANTIGONE, MONTANABOHEMIAN, RAIVYNN PHOENIX, BERIADANWEN & PIRATEOFTHERINGS+*.

(¯`•¸·´¯`·._.·[TRUE VAMPIRES DON'T SPARKLE]·._.·´¯`·¸•´¯)

I have never read that, but I do not doubt it. But I do not believe it is merely "Bibe touches" as you said. I think it is more a parallel that you have to look for.

I have this book called "Tolkien's Ring" (by David Day I think) which tells exactly what Tolkien borrowed from where and it is mostly from Pagan traditions, mythologies and folklore (anything from the rings, elves, dwarves, trolls to Gandalf, Undying Lands and just the whole concept of Middle Earth is purely taken from Celtic folklore, Norse Mythology and Scandinavian folklore). It's a very cool and interesting book. Christianity is what he drew inspiration from the least actually.

_________________


.*+I'VE MET ANTIGONE, MONTANABOHEMIAN, RAIVYNN PHOENIX, BERIADANWEN & PIRATEOFTHERINGS+*.

(¯`•¸·´¯`·._.·[TRUE VAMPIRES DON'T SPARKLE]·._.·´¯`·¸•´¯)

Yes, I agree that Lewis and Tolkein did not set out to write allegories. Lewis said it wan't. But he also wrote in a letter that to love Aslan was to love Jesus.
And yes, you can interpret it any way you want. I'm just saying that there ARE christian parallels. You don't have to see them, you can ignore them. True, Lewis didn't set out to write the books as an allegory. And they aren't a direct allegory. But even he couldn't deny there were similarities. Whether you choose to see them, that is your decision.
And duh, Tolkein's work insn't anything near allegory. It had Christian similarities as well, but as Eru pointed out, it also has similarities to plenty of other religions. Of course, Tolkein himself was Catholic so that probably affected his work a bit.

_________________
<center> all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us


Thank you for five-plus wonderful years of obsession, friendship and fun

Yeah I know there are elements in Narnia that have similarities with Christianity but for me they are not parallels. The main one I think would be Aslan. I'm just saying, Jesus wasn't the first godlike person or God to die for other people and then resurrect.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

_________________


.*+I'VE MET ANTIGONE, MONTANABOHEMIAN, RAIVYNN PHOENIX, BERIADANWEN & PIRATEOFTHERINGS+*.

(¯`•¸·´¯`·._.·[TRUE VAMPIRES DON'T SPARKLE]·._.·´¯`·¸•´¯)

I really enjoyed Narnia. I think they casted the children really well, as they made the film real. Of course, I'd always prefer the books to a film...but the movie is good too.

Is your meaning that because Jesus wasn't the first to be celebrated for his resurrection that Narnia can have nothing to do with him, or cannot be interpreted with him?


I completely agree with you, VM. The children really looked like siblings!

_________________

^Thanks Gily!
<By Bubble Black

Of course you can interpret Narnia with Jesus if that's what you see when you read the stories but what I meant was that you can clearly also interpret it differently and without any Christian elements whatsoever and also that Lewis might not have thought of Jesus when writing the character of Aslan. That's all I'm saying.

_________________


.*+I'VE MET ANTIGONE, MONTANABOHEMIAN, RAIVYNN PHOENIX, BERIADANWEN & PIRATEOFTHERINGS+*.

(¯`•¸·´¯`·._.·[TRUE VAMPIRES DON'T SPARKLE]·._.·´¯`·¸•´¯)

Yes, I agree.

LOL. I was watching the DVD this evening, with the audio commentary w/ all four of the actors and the director. It was funny! Georgie makes me laugh...

Georgie? Oooh nvm. Yeah I love the commentaries! My friend and I record our own.

I thought Narnia was wonderfully done!

I don't understand why you would be comparing LotR and Narnia as they are two different things.

Narnia's computer graphics were wonderfully done, and the casting couldn't have been better. Of course I was disappointed when I found that a few lines or a scene or two had been taken out or added, but otherwise I thought it was brilliant.

Of course I did notice that it was modernised to an extent, but that can only be expected as this is a very modern world we're living in. The lesson of the importance of family was a tad stretched too as it's the lesson in almost every children's movie. I just ignored that part and tried to focus on the real story at hand. In the end I felt that it was definitely worth seeing, and that it had been wonderfully done.

I've never seen the BBC version... so, I guess I can't say much on that.

Aye, I completely agree with you on that. They left out a lot of the old-fashioned, "great scott"s and "beastly" little sayings from the 40s era as well. The focus on "family-hood" was something that wasn't as strongly emphasized in the books, but I rather liked how the film did that. I kept thinking how much I would like an older brother like Peter.