O Hardcore Fantasy Lit Fans... What Did You Think of Narnia?

[XemaSab]

Feel free to opine on the books or the film.

I'll share when there are a few posts. ;)

[MalachiConstant]

1. the books are rather simplistic.

i thought it was interesting that in the film they had to add quite a bit of content to fill a feature length film. whereas, in the lord of the rings and the harry potter films they had to cut stuff out.

i do think that they made much more more of the war than c.s. lewis ever intended. in the text the battle spanned a few pages at most, but in the film this was a major plot element.

[LWolf]

2. I read the series of books once.

Someone gave them to my sons as a christmas gift a dozen or more years ago; I read them because I was suspicious of the gift; I didn't want other adults sending my sons christian "messages."

I thought they were ok. I never read them again, and I don't remember them very well. That says something about my opinion of their literary merits.

I remember the cupboard, the lion, and some kids. I remember that the "white witch" reminded me a little of H.C. Anderson's "Snow Queen."

So we took my grandson to see it yesterday. We saw the first 30 minutes or so, he got sick, we took him home. My impression of the first 30 minutes:

I don't remember the bombing sequences at all. It started slowly. The pagan vs xtian symbolism was there if you were looking for it: the untrustworthy faun, the creatures dancing in the fire, very pan/pagan like, down to playing the pipes. The evil, treacherous, tempting white witch, out to capture the sons/daughters of adam/eve. The legend involving those sons/daughters. How those played out in the larger story I never got to find out. I'll check back here to see what others thought.

[XemaSab]

3. The bombing wasn't in the book

and that's why you don't remember it. :P

[LWolf]

4. lol

No wonder.

What was the point?

[XemaSab]

5. I think it was to explain

What they're doing in a giant house in the country with a random Professor and his random Housekeeper. :shrug:

[robbedvoter]

6. Snow Queen was a great story - about love and time.

It actually created a plausible world.
Not so Narnia - I saw some TV adaptation before - I thought it had all the draw backs of the LOTR (wars and violence) and none of the good stuff. So, I didn't try reading it or enriching jeb's buddy and his RW friends.
yeah, the political circus was one factor (of many) in keeping me away. Still, had I been attracted by the story, I may have looked into it.

[LWolf]

7. Maybe that's why I was reminded;

Snow Queen made a more lasting impression, apparently.

[Pithy Cherub]

8. Saw the Narnia trailers at the movies

and yawned. The books seem mildly interesting. Adaptations rarely live up to the books and the context the written word provides. Narnia holds some mystical power over the religious folks, but it defeats my logic synapse to figure out Narnia magic good vs. Harry Potter magic bad. Narnia isn't worth putting that much time into. Sorry...

It took me 10 years to see ET, probably the same with Narnia.

[XemaSab]

9. I really really enjoyed the books growing up

I'd say that Narnia led into my liking of a lot of other books.

I did a reread three years ago and I still liked them, but Lewis is clearly a Tory and a monarchist.

I thought the film was visually very well done, but the scenes seemed to jump around a bit with little transition, and upon reflection, I think it's because the characters weren't very complex in the film. If I'd had more connection to the characters, the film may have drawn me in a bit more.

Sadly, it seemed like parts of the film were taken from Star Wars, Harry Potter, and LOTR, which is depressing because Narnia predates all of these except LOTR, to which it's contemporary. It confused me a bit that the filmmakers didn't see this coming and try to head off some of it. Like the scene with the kids on the train, for example, which is a scene that isn't even in the books.

Finally, the CGI was really well done, but sometimes almost to the point of distraction, such as in the scene at the stone table. I was more interested in looking at the critters than following the witch's speech.

[semillama]

11. I had the same problem.

I was trying to figure out what all the different creatures were.

I will say for the movie that Tilda Swinton was AWESOME. She stole the movie. I also liked the Beavers a lot.

Everything else was sort of soulless. I didn't really get why they set up Edward in the beginning as needing a father figure, but he goes to the mother figure of the witch. Was the point that he was redeemed by the father figure of Aslan? If so, they botched that.

King Kong had a LOT more soul, in my opinion.

I really enjoyed the books as a kid, but I recall them being sort of sad. I think there was a common thread in them of Lewis pining for something lost that he was trying to recreate in his fantasy world, similar to what Tolkien did (and Tolkien did it way better). I compare the Narnia books more with Lloyd Alexander's Welsh-themed fantasy series, you know, the one that included the Black Cauldron.

[politicat]

10. Dull.

I made it about halfway though the first one as a teenager and quit - now considering that as a teenager, I rarely dumped books, that should tell you something.

I really don't have any interest in trying again. I prefer Lewis' adult work - I adore the Screwtape letters. (Though I definitely root for Screwtape....)