Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Film Unassessed

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Rating

The movie could be rated PG due to many large bloodless battle scenes that are similar to that of Star Wars, however if these large battle scenes get very bloody, the movie would be rated PG-13. -- Ed Telerionus 7 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't have to be blood for a movie to go PG-13. I think we can expect LOTR-type battle scenes, quite a bit of violence but no blood. In this case, we can expect a mild PG-13 rating (after all, it really just means parental guidence stongly suggested), which will not effect the number of kids who will see it.

Am I the only person that doesn't remember tons of kick-ass battle between fantasy creatures in the original? It's a lovely addition if it is an addition...

Template?

Would it be a bad idea to created a link in the Chronicles of Narnia template that links directly to the film? Empty2005 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would lead to inconsistancies down the road. Right now there is only one article on any of the adaptations of the books. I don't know that that will always be the case (a second film would do it too). I can understand the desire to add it. You don't want anyone to miss the fact that there is a seperate entry for the movie, but there are plenty of links to it already from: The Chronicles of Narnia, from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, from each of the character articles (if they are in the movie). I don't think it's going to get missed. Lsommerer 04:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the films religious aspects

Anyone think we should add some of this? Have some links here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1657759,00.html

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051205/SCANNERS/51205001

NuclearFunk 00:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is also heavy criticism over at the Narnia boards on Imdb! Empty2005 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the film actually did a pretty good job of a light-hand on this. To me, the most notable allusion was the mocking Aslan received before being killed. Interestingly, in discussion afterwards, a fairly ardent atheist was annoyed by the *pagan* overtones!! Limegreen 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that either of those links have anything to offer about the movie itself. The Guardian article seems to be more of a critism of christianity than a critism of this movie (read the last paragraph if you don't have time to read the article). And the Ebert link looked like it was mostly quotes from The Guardian (but I didn't read the whole thing). There might a legitimate reason to include a 'Religious criticisms' section, but I don't see it from those articles. Lsommerer 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a further thought, I don't think any religious criticism is particularly unique to the movie, and is probably better discussed at C.S. Lewis and The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe. There is a little on those pages already, and from both my viewing and from that Guardian piece above, I don't see any suggestion that the movie presents a materially different interpretation. Perhaps the presence of a debate could be mentioned, but directed to those pages.Limegreen 01:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maugrim voice?

I confess I haven't seen the film yet, but I wonder if those who have could check on the accuracy of listing Michael Madsen as voicing Maugrim. The official Buena Vista presskit, which reflects the on-screen credits, lists neither character nor actor, and only identifies film editor Sim Evan-Jones as providing "voice of wolf." Thus, the question is, does more than one wolf speak in the film? For while it's possible Madsen is uncredited, it's also possible his dialogue, reported in passing in the making of book only, was shelved or cut for time. Can anyone check on this? Also, again speaking in terms of it as a film, is there a reason only one adult version of the children is listed under "Featured Cast"? I know Wikipedia is not Imdb, but it seems to me, unless her role was unusually significant, that either all four should be listed, or none. (And I also wonder if Father Christmas and Digory Kirke should be added, as much for their significance to the book as to the film, but again, not having seen it and relying solely on press material and billing, I could be wrong). Aleal 22:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely 2 wolves that talk in one of the scenes (Peter's first battle). I'm not sure which one is which, but there's a lot of information out there about Madsen being one of the wolves, although I will not judge their validity. -PK9 02:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I cannot say whether Madsen is credited as being in the film, he is in it (regardless of actual credit), well at least his unmistakable voice is in it. Radagast83 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Adaptation Changes

I added some new information based on reading the "movie storybook" version. As such, I have not seen the film (nor do I intend to; see below), so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

In all honesty however, this film is a violation of C.S. Lewis' creative integrity (besides which, he never wanted a live-action film version, plus this isn't the kind of movie Walt would have made). I personally feel that the 1979 animated TV-movie adaptation, and the 1988 live-action miniseries adaptation are both the "superior" versions (even though in the former, it's Aslan who gives them their weapons instead of Sant..., that is "Father Christmas"; a minor liberty).

I'm all for morals and political correctness, but I don't feel that either was appropriate for this particular film (although It would be grand if viewers learned a thing or two from it). I refer to changing the reason for Aslan's revival (former), and "the unnamed Xmas icon" not telling the girls not to get involved in the battle (latter). Also, I've lived in the U.S. all my life, and have never gone to any other country, yet I've always known that Santa Claus is called "Father Christmas" in the U.K.. For this reason, I consider not naming him an insult to viewers on both sides of the Atlantic (age notwithstanding). Also, we didn't need the "anti-war" talk. I consider this as being a hidden/secret message: "Stop the war in Iraq". I don't like war (or the Iraq situation) either, but I don't feel it was appropriate for this film.

All in all, I feel that this film is only half-faithful to the source material. It was faithful in some places, but in others it wasn't (especially the addition of a completely original character). When it comes to film adaptations, and/or remakes, it's either all or nothing, and this is a half-hearted effort.

That's all I have to say about it.

Oh, and one more thing. I felt the White Witch in this film was a litte bit (I repeat--a little bit) too beautiful.

Ok, first thing's first: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Secondly, you shouldn't really be editing a page concerning the movie if your only experience of it is reading the movie storybook. Although I've not read it myself, these storybooks are often produced independantly of the movie and with only a synopsis of the movie's script to go on - hence, some of the adaptation changes that were (presumably) added by you are incorrect.

In the movie, Aslan states that his resurrection was because of Deep Magic; he explicitly mentions it. Father Christmas not being named, I'll grant you, was probably because of the naming difference between UK and US viewers, but it's unfair to say that just because you, as a US viewer, know that Father Christmas is Santa Claus, every American child will.

In addition, as he gives Lucy her dagger, Father Christmas says that he hopes she won't have to use it, not that girls shouldn't go into battle. This to me is an anti-conflict statement in general, befitting of his benevolent image; he wasn't likely to say "I hope you stab someone with that!". As it stands, the girls hardly "battle" anything, with Susan firing one arrow and Lucy knifing something.

Finally, I didn't feel that the film was a commentary on the Iraq war. The allegories were drawn to the Second World War, and no allusions were made to "present day" conflicts. You're free, of course, to interpret the film in whatever way you want, but to imply that the director or screenwriter is deliberately salting the script with hidden metaphors about current events - even given the already-present Christian allegories that were retained - strikes me as a little ridiculous. CNash 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay. Fine. I get it. However, the film is still a violation of Mr. Lewis' creative integrity (if even partially; in this case, even "partially" is too much).

  Which changes did you find especially repulsive?  you have to realize that no adaptation perfectly matches the author's work, and, realistic, there's room for the director's artistic vision.  in any event, I found the movie unusually faithful as adaptations go.  I was slightly disappointed by Susan's role in the story (my memory of the books is hazy, but i felt the movie didn't give her enough to do) but other than that, iw as pretty good. - Orion