The Lion, the Witch, and the Whatever

[the_gneech]

lythandra and I finally got to see Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It was an okay movie, but after Lord of the Rings it seemed altogether flat, perfectly-done CGI furries or no. If the editing had been 15% tighter, it would have been a 150% better movie. I've never read the book, but I certainly hope it was better. I got the distinct impression that the centaur was an important character who mostly got edited out; the film sure could have used a lot more characters interacting, and a lot less panning and zooming around snowswept mountain peaks.

Tempo, people! Tempo!

-The Gneech

Comments

[softpaw.livejournal.com]

The centaur got added actually. As did the Mino on the witch's side.

I really recommend the books. IT wont take you but an day to read it. The Chronicles are no where near as thick or hard to get through as the Rings. Heck all 7 of them combined are less reading then just one of the three LOTR books.

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

I have in mind to get it on audio for a road trip some time. :)

-TG

[bauske.livejournal.com]

The audio would be done in an hour or so. XD

Seriously, the books are so short and lacking in detail. They're wonderful, but they're the very basic of a story being told in classic fairy tale fashion. The whole battle between good and evil in the movie? It was like a page or two in the book.

[aatheus.livejournal.com]

Indeed! And they're in one big binding for $20 at Borders!

[kheetor84.livejournal.com]

Well, it distracted me enough while I was in the beginnings of a crohn's flare up (I saw the movie with goodluckfox the day it premiered in theaters). I didn't think about the pain that much.

And...

And....

CHEETAHS! GRIFFINS! CENTAURS! Really, when are we fantasy geeks goin' to see all of those cool fantasy creatures on the silver screen and done well in CGI?

[kesh.livejournal.com]

Narnia's certainly not the epic that LotR was. But I agree, the pacing was a bit off.

[bailiff.livejournal.com]

Actually, C.S. Lewis created the same "epic" feel of TLotR in barely 200 pages... I've often wondered how he accomplished that. Sadly, none of the other Narnia books (besides TLTWTW) accomplished this - though "The Last Battle" came close, but only because it had a big Armageddon plot.

Of course, I may be misremembering the epic feel because I was 12 or so when I first read the series...

[dslartoo.livejournal.com]

The centaur was actually a character invented for the films (rather curiously, since there were plenty of strong characters to concentrate on in the book. Some of them could have used more screen time).

I love the books and the film was.........okay, but not the unmitigated triumph that the LOTR films were for me.

cheers,
Phil

[aatheus.livejournal.com]

I was rather taken to the centaurs, personally. But I could be biased ^_^

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

Well yes, they were certainly very pretty ... but only one of 'em had anything resembling a speaking part! That was my beef. All scenery, no character.

-TG

[aatheus.livejournal.com]

I can't argue with that. Even the speaking centaur didn't have much of a part. Oh well.. at least they were pretty.

[jamesbarrett.livejournal.com]

I thought it was rather well done myself. The story was properly told, events went in the right order and weren't mucked about with, and the creatures were uber cool getting to see them move about on the screen. Since I was only there to really see how well it came out for itself, I didn't lose anything despite the sweeping scenes. In fact, I was more impressed that they got most things right. But I also watch movies differently than you do, so...... -Frisk

[laurie-robey.livejournal.com]

The kids (all of them, I mean) didn't make it into Narnia until 40 minutes into the film. The story doesn't really start until that point. Those first 40 minutes could've been covered in 20, at the most.

[rigelkitty.livejournal.com]

Yeah, when I reviewed the film I said it was basically the prep and climactic battle scenes from LotR - with furries. They might improve with the upcoming sequels, tho.

[stilghar.livejournal.com]

I actually enjoyed Narnia, the movie, as much - or perhaps more, as a lot of detail was added in certain places, than the book.

I know that seems a bit backwards, but in this case, it's true.

I was also thrilled that the effects did the characters justice, unlike the crappy 4-hour-long BBC production of LWW released years ago.

The Centaur Colonel, Oreius, was just flat-out awesome. ;)

And I caught a massive gaydar *ping* off that fox. ;)

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

Well, it was Rupert Everett...

-The Gneech

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

They added detail? Yeeks. I felt like the movie was just skimming the surface (at a very slow pace) as it was!

-The Gneech

[stilghar.livejournal.com]

Yes. The first forty-odd minutes of the film were exrapolated from about half the first chapter. Also, one saw little of the details of Aslan's camp, only that it was there and had all sorts of peculiar-looking people in it.

Note hallan's reply below.

Mind you, I *like* nifty little details like that. It's one of the reasons I love David Weber so much. He fills in a lot of detail, without boring the reader half to death trying to trudge through it. That and he blows stuff up. A lot.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

Indeed, the movies added a lot of detail, and several characters that weren't in the original story. (The original book was quite short; almost perfect for the movie.) All of the important parts of the plot were in the movie... and the acting ranged from good (the kids) to incredible.

I'm still drooling over Tilda Swinton (the White Witch). She not only chewed up the scenery... she stole every scene that she was in.

And Rupert Everett? I can SO see him holding his tail high and saying off-screen to the dogs, "I've been such a NAUGHTY foxie... what do YOU think would be the best punishment for me...?"

[ski-fox.livejournal.com]

While I agree that Narnia was not LotR caliber, I thoroughly enjoyed it nonetheless.

I appreciated the fact that they stayed fairly true to the book, and that the changes they did make were not huge, plot-altering ones.

I think the thing that hooked me the most, though, was the score. Gregson-Willams did a fantastic job with it, but maybe I put more weight on the music than most, being a musician and all.

As to all the landscape sequences, I think maybe they were just trying set up Narnia's geography now so they don't have to bother too much with it in the rest of the films. Hopefully, the next six, assuming of course that they do make all of them, will put a little more emphasis on the story itself and the rapport between the characters.

[grifter-t-wolf.livejournal.com]

I loved the Narnia movie, I had never read the books, but I hadn't read the books for LotR either. Just wish people would stop comparing the two, they're very different genres outside of the fantasy creatures in it and from what I hear they had 7 Narnia books so I'm sure that has something to do with the particular pacing of LW&W

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

Well, they're not that different; Lewis and Tolkien were "writing buddies" and went over each others' work to give feedback and such ... but Tolkien was about language, while Lewis was about getting the kiddies to find God, as I understand it.

-TG

[hallan.livejournal.com]

Tolkien's style was to include as much detail as possible. C. S. Lewis' style was to leave as much detail -out- as possible, and let the reader's imagination fill it in.

Hallan

PS- *awestruck gape* Aslan...

Hee,

[animakitty.livejournal.com]

I've always enjoyed reading about these groups of writers getting together and sharing their work. I hope I'm in a circle like that one of these days. Here's a fun quote from another member of the Inklings.

'Hugo Dyson, a member of the Inklings literary group, as fellow member J R R Tolkien was reading from "The Lord of the Rings":

"Oh no, not another f***ing elf!" '

As far as Narnia goes, my priorities are different. I was supremely miffed that the costumes and props in the movie were so far below the LOTR work, the children's armor and weapons in particular. It looked like they'd used the toys the movie would spawn as the actual props. x,x

[copperwolf.livejournal.com]

I read and loved all seven Narnia books in grade school. In college, my boyfriend gave me the boxed set, and while I still loved them upon rereading, I found that they were much shorter than I had remembered! :)

In my opinion, the movie had too much snarky banter between the children. Yes, it greatly expanded on the part in England, at the beginning. I thought that was rather nice, but the time spent there comes at the expense of something else, I'm sure.

[iamertai.livejournal.com]

I seem to recall reading that Tolkien himself wasn't satisfied with the Chronicles, he thought that Lewis wasn't trying hard enough and was capable of better.

On the other hand, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe was originally meant to be a present for Lewis's Goddaughter (Lucy Barfield,) so perhaps it's understandable if they were all a bit slapdash.

And don't go hating on the BBC versions! They were cutting edge for their time, and they had Tom Baker as Puddleglum the Marshwiggle! Anything that causes Tom Baker to wear a goofy hat is pure genius.

[briarthorn.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is my LEAST favorite children's story I've ever read. Nothing anyone says will change this.

The book itself is flat. The dialogue is clumsy. The kids take there being a secret universe a little too well. The characters are flat (there's the greedy pig, the little sister, and the mature, resourceful older siblings.) It doesn't even work allegorically - Aslan comes back through old magic, the same sort of magic the snow queen uses (would have worked better had he not explained.) And the characters are SO STINKIN' FLAT! It's no wonder the pacing is off - they would have to change SO much to make it a half decent movie.