The Chronicles of Narnia

[WampusCat]

The movie is "Shadowlands." I thought it was good, but even better was a version that was made for TV -- BBC, I think -- years earlier.

[Alatar]

The second book has the children returning to Narnia after much time has passed, to set things right.

The third book brings in the next child, Eustace, and is a wondeful ocean voyage. (As the children reach a certain age, they are told they will encounter the Lion as Lamb in this world, but will not return to Narnia.)

The fourth book brings in Jill to accompany Eustace on another mission to set things right.

The fifth book goes back in time to the Golden Age when the four Pevensies reigned; it tells of an adventure in the land of the Calormenes, and a case of a long lost child.

The sixth book goes back further in time to when the Professor was a little boy and he and another little girl are flung into Narnia at the moment of its creation.

The seventh book tells of an imposter as Aslan and the end of the world (this and that).

Just to clarify, CS Lewis recommended reading order is different. He preferred:

1. The Magicians Nephew (6)
2. The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe (1)
3. A Horse and His Boy (5)
4. Prince Caspian (2)
5. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (3)
6. The Silver Chair (4)
7. The Last Battle (7)

[Teremia]

It's true that the marketers (backed up by C.S. Lewis's preferences) now sell the series in the order Alatar describes above.

I think they're wrong, though -- even Mr. Lewis was wrong on this one!

Chronological order is not necessarily always the "best."

The Magician's Nephew works beautifully coming late in the series; there's a wonderful "aha!" moment when you realize where the Wardrobe of the first book comes from, and the creation of Narnia gets so much of its power from our recognition of what's being created ("oh, so THAT's how the Talking Beasts started to talk!" and so on and so on). Plus the last two books (in the order written) deal with the Beginning and then the End of Narnia, and somehow that seems fitting as well.

[WampusCat]

It's true that the marketers (backed up by C.S. Lewis's preferences) now sell the series in the order Alatar describes above.

I think they're wrong, though -- even Mr. Lewis was wrong on this one!

Chronological order is not necessarily always the "best."

The Magician's Nephew works beautifully coming late in the series; there's a wonderful "aha!" moment when you realize where the Wardrobe of the first book comes from, and the creation of Narnia gets so much of its power from our recognition of what's being created ("oh, so THAT's how the Talking Beasts started to talk!" and so on and so on). Plus the last two books (in the order written) deal with the Beginning and then the End of Narnia, and somehow that seems fitting as well.

I agree completely. "The Magician's Nephew" has much more power when read after "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," which is a perfect introduction to Narnia. They shouldn't have messed with the order.

I haven't seen the direct reference to Lewis' preference, but I hope he was simply noting what the chronological order was, rather than suggesting the order in which they should be read. I'm probably mistaken about that, but if so, he was wrong!

[Alatar]

From Wikipedia:

The books of the series, in the order of their publication, are:

1. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950)
2. Prince Caspian (1951)
3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952)
4. The Silver Chair (1953)
5. The Horse and His Boy (1954)
6. The Magician's Nephew (1955)
7. The Last Battle (1956)

The first American publisher, Macmillan, put numbers on the books and used the publication order. When HarperCollins took over the series, the books were renumbered using the internal chronological order, as suggested by Lewis' stepson, Douglas Gresham.

1. The Magician's Nephew (1955)
2. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950)
3. The Horse and His Boy (1954)
4. Prince Caspian (1951)
5. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952)
6. The Silver Chair (1953)
7. The Last Battle (1956)

Gresham quoted Lewis' reply to a letter from an American fan in 1957, who was having an argument with his mother about the order:

"I think I agree with your order (i.e. chronological) for reading the books more than with your mother's. The series was not planned beforehand as she thinks. When I wrote The Lion I did not know I was going to write any more. Then I wrote P. Caspian as a sequel and still didn't think there would be any more, and when I had done The Voyage I felt quite sure it would be the last. But I found as I was wrong. So perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone read them. I'm not even sure that all the others were written in the same order in which they were published." (Dorsett & Mead 1996)

Nevertheless, many fans of the series who appreciate the original order, which introduces important parts of the Narnia universe in the early part of the series and then provides explanation for them later in the prequels, in particular the creation story in The Magician's Nephew, take offense with the reordering. Other arguments for the publication order include that Prince Caspian is subtitled "The Return to Narnia", and that the following fragments of text from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe support it as being the first book in the series:

"None of the children knew who Aslan was, any more than you do."

"That is the very end of the adventure of the wardrobe. But if the Professor was right, it was only the beginning of the adventures of Narnia."

Another argument cited by proponents of the original order is that if the series is first read in the chronological order, the reader can never experience the original order without the knowledge of the prequels. On the other hand, the chronological order can still be enjoyed after first reading the original order.

[Cerin]

Agreeing with Teremia and Wampus, that the publication order is a wonderful order in which to read the books.

[JewelSong]

Well, my son and I saw Narnia last night.

I have to say that I thought most of it was spot-on! The kids were perfect, Mr. Tumnus was terrific, the White Witch was suitably icy and I totally believed in all the other creatures - the Centaurs, the Griffins, the Beavers (LOVED the Beavers)

The only thing...the one thing...that I couldn't buy? Aslan.

He just wasn't....magnificent enough, I guess. There wasn't enough connection between him and the children, and thus there wasn't enough connection between him and me. He was big, and glorious and imposing - but he looked like a big, imposing Lion. And I had always expected him to have some kind of other-wordly characteristic. A glow around him, or something that struck you immediately. Something.

So, I understand yov's confusion about the movie. If I hadn't read the book, I would be wondering why on earth anyone cared so much about Aslan. He just didn't spark the kind of devotion he needed to. (IMHO!)

Be that as it may. The movie, as a whole, was wonderfully and lovingly created. And the wardrobe was just right...(loved the "tag" scene with the Professor and Lucy. I wish we'd seen a bit more of the Professor!)

*goes to re-read the books*

[Alatar]

Just saw it with my 4 year old and 7 year old. Magnificent film. Hit all the right notes, punched all the right buttons. Music was great, visuals superb, acting top-notch. What's to complain about?

Honestly, it was better than it had any right to be. I just read the book to my kids a few months ago and I can safely say the film is a better telling of the story. After reading the book again I found myself wondering how the hell they were going to make it work as a movie. It was a fabulous adaptation, nothing was lost but much was added. A triumph. I far preferred it to Kong. In fact I'd say it's the best live action kids movie in years.

[JewelSong]

Okay, is it just me, or did the White Witch remind anyone else of the Borg Queen in Star Trek: First Contact?

[Mrs. Frodo Baggins]

I also just got back seeing it with my eight year old daughter. Of course we have both read the book already and we both give the movie two enthusiastic thumbs up. During the scene were Lucy and Susan were mourning Aslan's death my daughter said (not too loudly, but loud enough ), "When is Aslan going to raise from the dead like Jesus?" HeeHee! I hope that didn't spoil it for anyone!

I heard a lot of complaints about the music, but I thought is was great. Maybe it was because I was going in with really low expectations, but I thought the score was lovely. I thought all the children were great and I loved Mr. Tummus, I wish we could have seen more of him. I also adored Aslan's army with all of its fantasy creatures come to life.

I totally bought the magic of the movie, just like I do with all the books. Someone on b77 (I think it was Di) said it was like every child's grandest fantasy, and I totally agree. I'm really thankful to have been able to share this experience with my daughter who is old enough to have read the books and appreciate the movie, but young enough to be swept away by the real magic of the movie.

When the moive was over there was applause, which I never hear at my local theater. The theater was filled with children my daughter's age and up and I didn't hear any talking or noise. I think the movie had everyone transfixed. As we were leaving the theater I heard a lot of people saying what a great movie it was and that is always a good sign. In the van my daughter asked me if we could go to Wal-mart and pick up the DVD. It was time to explain about the six month wait between the theater release and the DVD release.

~Sid Baggins

[Pearly Di]

Someone on b77 (I think it was Di) said it was like every child's grandest fantasy, and I totally agree.

Yup, that was me. I think I said it was like Andrew Adamson had put my childhood fantasies right up there on the screen.

Jewel, I didn't think of the Borg Queen at the time but I can see what you mean.

Alatar, the curious thing is that I can understand some of the criticisms - that some of the CGI is poor, that Susan is not quite expressive enough, that Aslan is not quite 'god-like' enough etc. - but it still doesn't spoil the overwhelming I felt during and after the movie. I totally agree with you that this is the best live action children's film in years. So glad you liked it.

PS. (Your avatar, Sid!!! )

[Alatar]

I'd love to know what cgi was considered poor? I noticed nothing although I had several cringe moments in Kong. Normally the things that look fake in cgi are those things that are "real", but this wasn't the case for me. I thought the Wolves were superb, as were the cheetahs, leopards, tigers, polar bears and other "real" creatures. Aslan was wonderful and I really don't "get" the complaints about him. Perhaps thats because I didn't build him up to more in my mind as others have. An oversize Aslan would have looked fake to me.

As it is, I adore the added depth given to the children in particular. Edmunds mistakes are understandable and his lesson hard learned. I almost wept for him when the White Witch shamed him in front of Tumnus. "He turned you in, for sweeties." Where in the books he was simply a brat, here we had a child missing his father badly, resenting his older brother for attempting to fill that gap and suffering the helplessness that all children feel when their world is controlled by others. I asked my 7 year old who her favourite was and she surprised me by saying Edmund. She told me how hard it must have been for him to say sorry after all he did and how brave he was to fight the witch after everything. Smart kid.

Alatar

[Pearly Di]

I'd love to know what cgi was considered poor?

For starters: some of the scenes by the Great River, just after the kids nearly drown ... terrible bluescreening. And the Fox, delightful a character as he was, could have done with a lot more work done on him. And there were a few other bits and pieces ... perhaps I just have a sharp eye for these things. Blame it on PJ.

(Although I'm surprised to hear that there are 'cringe' moments in Kong.)

Yes, the way Edmund's character was handled was excellent.

[JewelSong]

I didn't notice any poor CGI...in fact, I totally bought the magical creatures. Takes quite a bit to make a centaur look real.

Oh, and the GRIFFINS totally rocked my world! the griffins!

[Whistler]

I think one’s assessment of the CGI is largely a matter of whether one “buys” the story or not. I can understand the complaints by some that the CGI was less than perfectly realistic in spots. But does it matter? Narnia is another world, and who is to say how creatures look or move in that world? All that is needed is that they remain true to their own internal logic. If they are just a hair off here and there, I take it as part of the fantasy. I believe in the world I’m visiting, and I accept that in that world everything looks as it should. But if you aren’t drawn into the world it presents, you’re going to react very differently.

King Kong (haven’t seen it yet) is also fantasy, but it takes place in the “real” world. So we must judge it by different, and tougher, standards.

In the end, though, we need to see all of this in perspective. The worst CGI is more realistic than the cut-and-paste effects, and the stop-motion photography, that most of us grew up on. To complain about this magnificent technology shows just how spoiled we (and I include myself) have become. And I remind everyone that a “suspension of disbelief” used to be regarded as an absolute essential in viewing any fantasy of any kind. We seem to have abandoned that concept.

As a side note…I’m an artist, and I was recently involved in a project in which I collaborated for a bit with the CGI company that created Mr. and Mrs. Beaver. They were pretty proud of their work on those two, and rightly so.

[Pearly Di]

As a side note…I’m an artist, and I was recently involved in a project in which I collaborated for a bit with the CGI company that created Mr. and Mrs. Beaver. They were pretty proud of their work on those two, and rightly so.

*swoons for Whistler*

[truehobbit]

I loved the CGI - I'm not an expert, but I've never seen a movie where real, furry things looked so realistic.
I mean, CGI has always been very good at smooth surfaces and inanimate objects, but to make a lion look like a lion is quite something, I think. I thought every bit of his movement and texture of the fur, etc, was great.

My friend, who I went to see the movie with, was particularly thrilled with how you could tell which of the beavers was the Mr and which the Mrs just from the way they moved!

[Athrabeth]

My son and I saw TLTWATW on Saturday (I'm so happy that my big, tall, going-on-14-year-old boy is still willing to go on a movie date with his mom!).

I very much enjoyed the movie. And surprisingly it was the characterizations that struck the most powerful chord for me. I did not read the Chronicles as a child, (I did so first as a teacher and then as a parent), and I suppose I have always considered Lewis's "character workings", especially for the four children, to be rather, well, "flat" from the perspective of an adult reader (although the Beavers always had a nice little "sparkle" to them). Because of this, perhaps, I was really taken by the "fleshing out" of the Pevensies - their little backstories, their motivations, their relationship to each other. These were all revealed in such an effective way.......little moments, quiet and subtle, that were quick, yet really quite powerful.

I particularly remember the scene in the train station, when Peter catches sight of a young soldier, and you can read on his face all the jumble of emotions he must be feeling......too young to be considered a man, too old to be a child, wanting to defend his home and family, to go to war like his father, yet fearful of that terrible unknown, the guilt of being sent to a safe haven, while "boys" not much older than he are being sent to battle..........and all in just a few seconds of screen time. Beautifully acted and directed!

Another moment that comes immediately to mind is the little scene between Susan and Lucy by the river. As a "little sister" myself (I'm seven years younger than my sister.....probably about the same difference in age as the characters) this was such a truthful and meaningful exchange. And it was great to see Susan shed her "oh so grown-up and serious" fourteen-year old persona that she tries so hard to maintain, in order to reach out and connect again to Lucy.

And Jadis was absolutely amazing........every icy, shivering, cold, heartless minute of her performance was a delight to watch.

And I thought Aslan was wonderfully real and "approachable" and empathetic in his portrayal. I think making him more magnificent or "other-worldly" would have taken away from the believability of his death, the humble nobility of his sacrifice. Those moments on the Stone Table are very powerful (yes, in the book as well ), and I think we all have to feel those words, "Despair, and die" right to the very bone in order to make them work. And indeed, they did!

[Pearly Di]

*swoons for Athrabeth*





PS. Oh golly, Jewelsong, yes, the Centaurs. They were FAB.

[sauronsfinger]

Saw it this afternoon and felt is was rather mediocre with no emotional drama of any type. I was not entertained or stimulated nor was it fun. I am no POTTER fan but liked each of those better than this. Please - no more of these in the future.

I felt that it was on the level of the DINOTOPIA TV series.

I must admit I did not read the books as a kid and Lewis is not my cup of tea. So if you have to go through that particular baptism to believe, that may explain it.

Aslan was just there and I did not care about him in the least. His so called sacrifice was no big deal and I shed not a tear ... and I am a guy who loves to cry at movies --- really. If Aslan was so kick-ass, why did he need the kids anyways? That part made no sense.

I absolutely detested the younger boy and wanted to stand and cheer when the Witch stabbed him. Saddest moment was when they saved his life -- the snivelling little snot should had bought the farm right there. Stevie Wonder could have seen where the movie was going when Santa Claus gave the presents to the kids. Gee, did Lewis like the Lothlórien scene or what?

And we had Santa but no Easter bunny? Whats up with that? He would have fit right in with the talking beavers. The last time I saw a talking beaver on screen was in the film CHATTERBOX.

Some of the landscape was gorgeous and the Queen was well played. But contrast that with the weak sets and poor masks of so many creatures that it was inconsistent at best.