Discussion
I've just got back from seeing Narnia with my Wife and sister.
It's a good film, and my wife and sister liked it too, though not perhaps as good as it could have been. It has decent special effects but felt a little rushed. You can feel it is very much a children's film.
As I thought, it is not in the same league as LOTR.
It's a good film, and my wife and sister liked it too, though not perhaps as good as it could have been. It has decent special effects but felt a little rushed. You can feel it is very much a children's film.
As I thought, it is not in the same league as LOTR.
Oddly enough, we were disappointed with Narnia! We watched Kong last night, and whilst enjoyable, I do feel that the CGI are now being too relied upon, a few scenes were very silly, like the dinos rolling about, and the heros escaping injury, and the bi-planes which flew not like proper old slow planes, but like CGI planes, that, I guess was also disappointing, too many film makers resting on their technology and CGI laurels, and its getting boring, tbh!
.. snigger
Agree with you there. No real character development I felt, the plot and film felt very rushed and you could see Disney had their paws on it. It felt devoid of 'magic'. The CGI battlescenes were pretty poor IMO. I suppose the kiddies rating ruled out the use of blood and hard hits, but it made the fights very stale and unconvincing.
All in all, very linear and very derivative. I feel these sorts of films (LOTR, Narnia etc.) are just ploughing the same furrow. Some massive shots of massive NZ landscape, some 'hilarious' comic relief characters and the same hackneyed "Gladiator" set-piece style fight scene.
After reading the book as a child I actually looked in the back of the wardrobe for a secret fantasy world (I was rather simple). Not sure many kids will be doing so now.
On a side note, I found the apportioning of 'good' and 'evil' animals to be most unfair. Why are polar bears evil just because they are white? The brown bears are good. That's just positive discrimination
All in all, very linear and very derivative. I feel these sorts of films (LOTR, Narnia etc.) are just ploughing the same furrow. Some massive shots of massive NZ landscape, some 'hilarious' comic relief characters and the same hackneyed "Gladiator" set-piece style fight scene.
After reading the book as a child I actually looked in the back of the wardrobe for a secret fantasy world (I was rather simple). Not sure many kids will be doing so now.
On a side note, I found the apportioning of 'good' and 'evil' animals to be most unfair. Why are polar bears evil just because they are white? The brown bears are good. That's just positive discrimination
Highway Star said:
Agree with you there. No real character development I felt, the plot and film felt very rushed and you could see Disney had their paws on it. It felt devoid of 'magic'. The CGI battlescenes were pretty poor IMO. I suppose the kiddies rating ruled out the use of blood and hard hits, but it made the fights very stale and unconvincing.
All in all, very linear and very derivative. I feel these sorts of films (LOTR, Narnia etc.) are just ploughing the same furrow. Some massive shots of massive NZ landscape, some 'hilarious' comic relief characters and the same hackneyed "Gladiator" set-piece style fight scene.
After reading the book as a child I actually looked in the back of the wardrobe for a secret fantasy world (I was rather simple). Not sure many kids will be doing so now.
On a side note, I found the apportioning of 'good' and 'evil' animals to be most unfair. Why are polar bears evil just because they are white? The brown bears are good. That's just positive discrimination
I would agree that Narnia felt derivative of LOTR in parts.
As for why some animals are good some bad in the film, polar bears live in cold climates, whereas many of the animals opposing the white witch liked hot climates.
If you rate LOTR as a piece of writing it's not actually that good, rambling plot, lack of meaningful female characters, characters such as Tom Bombadil that are painstakingly constructed for no reason.
If however you rate it as a story, it's absolutely fantastic, which is why it has and will continue to endure as one of the major works in the English fiction canon.
The Narnia books are much better written, IMO, apart from Last Battle, which feels a bit too much like a plot wrapper-up.
Lewis's best works are of course Out of The Silent Planet, Voyage to Venus and That Hideous Strength, Christian allegories that can be read purely as cracking works of fiction.
If however you rate it as a story, it's absolutely fantastic, which is why it has and will continue to endure as one of the major works in the English fiction canon.
The Narnia books are much better written, IMO, apart from Last Battle, which feels a bit too much like a plot wrapper-up.
Lewis's best works are of course Out of The Silent Planet, Voyage to Venus and That Hideous Strength, Christian allegories that can be read purely as cracking works of fiction.
Yugguy said:
If you rate LOTR as a piece of writing it's not actually that good, rambling plot, lack of meaningful female characters, characters such as Tom Bombadil that are painstakingly constructed for no reason.
If however you rate it as a story, it's absolutely fantastic, which is why it has and will continue to endure as one of the major works in the English fiction canon.
The Narnia books are much better written, IMO, apart from Last Battle, which feels a bit too much like a plot wrapper-up.
What about Éowyn?, she is a fascinating character.
I agree that some criticism for rambling could be levelled at the 1st book, including the Tom Bombadil interlude, but it is a made up world and such digressions helped to build up it's back story.
And there is no such rambling in the other two books.
I would disagree that Narnia is better written, it is after all a children's story, CS Lewis's Hobbit if you will.
Aye, I'll give you that, Eowyn does have some dramatic purpose as well.
Are children's books inherently written worse than adult's books?
Worst thing about LOTR films was no scouring of the shire, my favourite part of the whole three books.
>> Edited by Yugguy on Monday 19th December 09:03
Are children's books inherently written worse than adult's books?
Worst thing about LOTR films was no scouring of the shire, my favourite part of the whole three books.
>> Edited by Yugguy on Monday 19th December 09:03
Yugguy said:
Aye, I'll give you that, Eowyn does have some dramatic purpose as well.
Are children's books inherently written worse than adult's books?
Worst thing about LOTR films was no scouring of the shire, my favourite part of the whole three books.
>> Edited by Yugguy on Monday 19th December 09:03
A transition from book to film will always mean the loss of some parts of the book, even if you make extended versions which are 4 hours long.
I agree entirely with what they omitted in the first film and in fact in that case the film may even exceed the book.
Return of the King was the film that got the greatest plaudits, and finally brought the trilogy a best picture Oscar, but in my opinion it was the most flawed in terms of transition from book to film. It is still a very good film, but it is based on the great book and they could have done better. The scouring of the shire would have added at least 20mins to an already very long film, it just couldn’t have been done realistically. Which is a shame becuase it makes a very powerful statement.
The major problem I have is with the situation in Gondor, in particular Denethor. He becomes some sort of cartoon villain in the film, when in the book he is far more subtle, a proud man twisted by grief and despair. What was that nonsense with the beacon about? or that stupid cavalry charge on Osgilith(?). The men of Gondor were not idiots they were the finest of all the races of men, facing destruction because of the overwhelming odds they faced.
>> Edited by Jaglover on Monday 19th December 09:57
Yugguy said:
I thought it was pretty rubbish, the childrens characters lacked depth, and LOTR is miles better in every aspect, plus the whole Aslan / Jesus thing is a bit stomach churning.
You can't remove this, the whole book is an allegory of the Christian story.
Which IMHO is the underlying flaw in all of Lewis' work, he just wouldn't let it lie.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff