Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Behind the Scenes of Narnia's Special Effects 649

Posted by Hemos from the behind-the-lion's-mane dept.
louismg writes "Walt Disney Pictures' Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe took in more than $100 million at the box office worldwide in its opening weekend, riding the back of special effects powering nearly all the movie's characters, from the lion Aslan to the Gryphon, Minotaur, Centaurs and more. VFXWorld has a series of diaries with the technology geeks at Rhythm & Hues behind the special effects. (Part 1, 2) For the fantasy film's special effects, Rhythm & Hues teamed up with Industrial Light and Magic and Sony Pictures Imageworks to deliver more than 1,400 shots for the film, and used cutting-edge technology from BlueArc, NVIDIA and others to keep the effects' production running."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Behind the Scenes of Narnia's Special Effects More

Behind the Scenes of Narnia's Special Effects

Comments Filter:
  • I liken it to cotton candy; all fluffy and sweet to taste, but melts to nothing when you eat it. The book was much better, probably because I was a kid when I read it, and my imagination was much wilder than it is now. It's definitely a movie for kids, and I recommend it to all parents. It's at least worth a matinee.
    • I think it is because you read the book when you were young. We recently read the book with our kids, so it was pretty fresh in our minds when my wife and I saw it. I was surprised by how closely the film stuck to the book. Of course the book lends itself well to film, I think, as opposed to longer and more complex works.
       
      I think though what you may have missed is a lot of the inner dialogue that you get in the book was not in the film. It downplayed Aslan a bit I think, since we don't get to 'hear' how the children feal about him. They did a decent job I think, acting wise, but I'm not sure a film can display the complex ideas conveyed in the book in that regard. Maybe deviating further from the text would have allowed them to be more true to the ideas, if not the events, I'm not sure.
       
      But I do really think that on the whole the film has most of the books strengths as well as its weaknesses.
      • I agree.
        I read it when I was kid and really enjoyed the book. I read it to my son about a year ago and he loved it. A little of the magic was gone for me since I understood the allegory this time, but its still a great story.

        The movie stayed very close the book, much more than lord of the rings did.
        There was one part where I thought disney was about to ruin it(something to do with the wolf) but it turned out ok.

        The special effects were awesome, and don't let the PG throw you off, it was closer to a PG13

      • Re:Movie was amazing, but I was a tad disappointed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ZaMoose ( 24734 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:26PM (#14239604)
        Part of what was sorely lacking in the film was the presence of a narrator. I understand that a narrator is a bit of a dated concept these days, but one of the charming "features" of the book was the fact that you, the reader, were essentially hearing this story second-hand from an unnamed but affable narrator with insight into the thought processes of the characters. The witty little asides that Lewis managed to slip in at places gave the whole thing a very British flavo[u]r, which I felt the movie essentially lacked.

        YMMV, of course.
        • I think they call this magical literary device the Third Person Omniscient Perspective. It is a wonderful way for the author to relate information that would otherwise be unavailable if the story were to be told in any other perspective...in other words, rather than being limited to a first person view (single character perspective, can only internalize ones own thoughts and relies on five senses to understand everything else that is going on) or third person objective (unseen/uninvolved narrator, but limited to the five senses), you get to know everything. Though it may be a dated concept (as are the other devices), it is historically a very reliable device for fantasy/sci-fi stories.*

          * - trying to be helpful here, not a jerk.

  • Pathetic (Score:2, Informative)

    by ninja_assault_kitten ( 883141 )
    With that kind of doe, you'd like they could at least get the blue/green screening done properly. Quite honestly, I felt the effects in this film were very poorly done.

    One more tidbit. It's interesting that on IMDB the first 20 pages of reviews are all very positive (and submitted before the offical release), yet 80% of the more recent ones (since Fridays US release) are all very poor.

    • Re:Pathetic (Score:2, Interesting)

      by operagost ( 62405 )
      The only problem I had was with the fake-looking "rag doll" physics they used when Peter was unseated from his horse. They really should have used a stunt man. I'm curious: what did you see wrong?
      • #1 There was one scene where all the kids were standing in front of a pictureseque mountain background. It was so clearly a green screen and a very poorly done. #2 The animation of the beavers seemed less realistic than the other creatures. It was like having Donkey from Shrek next to Golem from LOTR. #3 The wolves were terrible in most scenes. #4 Proportions were off, particularly in the battle near the end. The giants looked SO out of place and fake, like a bad photoshop edit.
        • the only one that really stood out to me was the mountain background that you list as #1. I think the tech hasn't really caught up on close-ups with vast back-grounds yet. The rest I didn't notice so much, but I don't have a really critical eye for a lot of that stuff either.

        • Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Rob Carr ( 780861 )
          What is it about the scene with the kids where there's the moutains in the background? It did stick out as badly done, but darned if I know what it is that's wrong. My best guess is the gamma on the kids is dramatically different from that on the scenery -- but then wouldn't that happen sometimes in real life (clouds, etc.)? I still loved the movie, but of course I loved the books.
      • The CG characters didn't bother me, even the beavers, but numerous backdrops (IMO one of the icy river shots was the worst) were painfully obviously greenscreened. Whatever camera crew and SFX team handled them should be fired. Camera focus was sharp on both foreground actors and deep field, but fuzzy in between. Parallax movements sometimes didn't line up correctly. Halo aliasing around parts of some actors. I wouldn't be surprised if there were shadows in different directions. And a complete failure to bl

    • Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xzzy ( 111297 )
      Quite honestly, I felt the effects in this film were very poorly done.

      The entire movie was very poorly done. It's as if the script writer merely made a bulleted list of every major plot point in the novel, and handed it off to the director. There was absolutely no character to the movie, everyone trouped around the countryside methodicly completing task A before moving on to task B. Felt more like they were connecting the dots than telling a story.

      I suppose it merely proves there's something to be said for

      • Re:Pathetic (Score:4, Interesting)

        by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) * <bittercode@gmail> on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:08PM (#14239444) Homepage Journal
        I've been thinking about this since I saw it, and as I've been reading this thread. I liked the film and wouldn't say poorly done, but I think that you have pegged the biggest weakness. By staying so true to the events of the book it loses a little something. The book can narrate a lot of fealing, thoughts and emotions. A film needs to show events to explain that kind of thing.
         
        Interestingly enough the film begins with a scene not in the book at all that does a lot to set up some of how things will work out. But from then on, as you say, you get the books events but not all the book's depth. Now I still liked the film as I've said, and I don't think the books are so deep, that you are missing that much. I think some of the film's weaknesses are the book's weaknesses too. (I've always thought Clive's fiction was his weakest work~ Screwtape Letters excepted)
         
        I think you hit the nail on the head. To have been a better film would have required more deviation from the text. This makes me rethink some of my frustration with the LoTR films. I loved them too, and now maybe I wont be so hard on some of the revisions.

        • Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Xzzy ( 111297 )
          Interestingly enough the film begins with a scene not in the book at all that does a lot to set up some of how things will work out.

          I'm glad you pointed that out. It's been 15+ years since I read the novels, and though it didn't seem right to witness the bombing of London in the opening scenes I couldn't remeber if it had been in the books.

          Those opening scenes were the only ones in the movie that triggered any kind of emotional reaction in me, which is both good and bad. Illustrates the importance of adapti

        • You're showing your age here... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          ...or your ignorance of the context of the original book. When the book was written (1953, I think) for an audience of English children, explicitly retelling effects and experience of the Blitz on children in London (both motivating the move and providing "real" context for the children's experience in Narnia) would have been unnecessary and patronizing. Likewise for those reasonably well read in the history of the time. Similarly, the grab bag of creatures, myths, etc. (including the resurrection of Asl

        • Re:Pathetic (Score:4, Interesting)

          by OwnedByTwoCats ( 124103 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:35PM (#14239679)
          I just started reading The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe with my 7 3/4 (the 3/4 are important to her) year-old daughter. We saw the film Saturday night. The opening bombings were mentioned in passing on page 1 in the book, but not described. The children were sent away because of the bombing. Going back for the picture? The invention of the script writer.

          My daughter loved the movie. I thought it had the frequent problem of stuffing too many pages of a novel into too few minutes on screen. "Bullet Points" is a fitting judgement.

          I noticed the shot of the kids up on the peak and the background screaming "green-screen" to my eyes. I thought the beavers looked fake, but the movement of the wolves was well done. For talking animals, the overall effect was quite a breakthrough.

          I'm thinking that after we finish as many of the Narnia books as we care to, I'll read Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy for balance. She loved the Hobbit, but I don't think she's ready for The Lord of the Rings. We've read Harry Potter 1 and 2, and seen the first three movies together. The opening of Harry Potter 3 is too scary for her even though she's seen the film and understands who the big dog is. So those will have to wait.

          I am surprised at how much I like reading to her. Although the Narnia books are the first that I will be reading to her that I haven't read myself.

          And what is slashcode for an underline? I can see my English teacher's red circles around the book titles that ought to be underlined...

          • Re:Pathetic (Score:3, Informative)

            by lgw ( 121541 )
            Book titles should be italicized, as you've done. Underlining is how you indicate that you'd use italics if you had them.

    • Re:? Making stuff up? (Score:5, Informative)

      by TrappedByMyself ( 861094 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:04PM (#14239399)
      With that kind of doe, you'd like they could at least get the blue/green screening done properly. Quite honestly, I felt the effects in this film were very poorly done.

      One more tidbit. It's interesting that on IMDB the first 20 pages of reviews are all very positive (and submitted before the offical release), yet 80% of the more recent ones (since Fridays US release) are all very poor.

      I didn't see the film, didn't read the books, so I'm not here to defend. But I actually went to IMDB and looked at the user reviews, sorted by date [imdb.com], and they are mostly all positive.

    • rotten tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com] has it at 76% positive reviews.

      Not sure which effects were poorly done.

      WETA [wetaworkshop.co.nz] was involved in this film. The same guys that did Lord of the Rings

      If something like a centaur or minotuar looks fake, it might be because they don't really exist.

  • Anyone seen it yet? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kadathseeker ( 937789 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:43PM (#14239214) Homepage
    I've heard it's made alot of money, but how does it hold up to the novels? I am sick of novels I love being destroyed by two-bit producers who can't invest the little time and energy it would take to do them right.
    • I've heard it's made alot of money, but how does it hold up to the novels? I am sick of novels I love being destroyed by two-bit producers who can't invest the little time and energy it would take to do them right.

      It's been awhile, so I'm not sure if they deviated from the book in any significant ways, but nothing jumped out at me. The lack of blood was a little conspicuous, but they wanted a PG rating and it's already quite violent.

      Overall, I was very impressed, and I hope they make the rest of the series

    • Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:5, Informative)

      by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) * <bittercode@gmail> on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:55PM (#14239324) Homepage Journal
      I have no idea why you've been modded down- it's a valid question.
       
      My wife and I saw a preview showing last Monday. We recently finished reading this book to our kids so it was still pretty fresh in our minds.
       
      The extent to which it is true to the book is pretty great. About the only really big deviation I saw is mentioned in the first response to this question. They really tamed things down in regards to blood and especially so in the sacrafice of Aslan. But looking at the intended audience and the rating this is understandable.
       
      I wrote it up in my journal after we saw it and to sum up my impression, if you liked the book, I think you'll like the film. If you didn't like the book, I doubt you will like the film. If you were indifferent to the book, you might like the film due to all the fantastic creatures. I thought the effects were pretty incredible.
       
      The beginning of the film deviates slightly from the book, but I think it is also a good choice in that, at the time the book came out, the reason for the children leaving London would have been understood. For children today a little explanation is probably helpful.

    • Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:57PM (#14239350) Journal
      I am sick of novels I love being destroyed by two-bit producers who can't invest the little time and energy it would take to do them right.

      Seriously this will never change much, but it is not because of two-bit producers, well not always at least. You have to remember that many books would make a great deal more then just a two hour movie. Look at Lord of the Rings, you have a series of three movies which run over 11 hrs with the extended editions and things still had to be left out.

      In the end, LotR is probably a good example of a book being done fairly right. Yes a few things were left out and some were even changed, but when taking work from literature to film you should expect some change to be necessary. There are some example of very true novel-theater adaptations, but many of those include lots of Director and Writer interaction and even screenplays being written by the original authors.

    • Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pizzaman100 ( 588500 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:01PM (#14239373) Journal
      I've heard it's made alot of money, but how does it hold up to the novels? I am sick of novels I love being destroyed by two-bit producers who can't invest the little time and energy it would take to do them right.

      The story followed the books very closely, much more than (for example) Peter Jackson did with LOTR.

      The movie is what it is - a children's fairy tale. My 9 year old daughter absolutely loved it. But if you can't check your mind at the door, you won't like the movie.

      The Christian allegory is unmistakeable as well. Aslan = Jesus is pretty obvious. Being a Christian myself, I had no problems with that. But the typical more secular slashdotter might not enjoy the movie if they don't ignore the religious parallels.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Anyone seen it yet? (Score:5, Informative)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:17PM (#14239522) Homepage Journal
      I thought it was good. My wife loved it. She had never read it as a child and actually cried in parts. I felt they did a good job of it and I was very pleased they didn't take out the Christian content. The original book was very much Christian in context and to remove it would have been to destroy the intention of the author. I would say if you liked the book you will like the movie.

  • login: slashdot, password: slashdot (Score:5, Informative)

    by igomaniac ( 409731 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:44PM (#14239221)
    Stupid login reuqired to RTFA, feel free to use mine...

  • Great movie (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:44PM (#14239224)
    I loved it. I'm a huge fan of The Chronicles of Narnia. The movie followed very closely to the book. This made me very happy. The actors did a great job, espcially the actress who played Lucy.

    I only have one complaint. The Talking Beasts and Aslan weren't big enough. Especially Aslan. Aslan should have been twice the size he was portrayed in the movie.

    Other than that, I didn't have a problem with the movie. Loved every minute.

  • Better CG graphics (Score:4, Funny)

    by satsuke ( 263225 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:46PM (#14239242)
    The CG effects in this Christian allegory masterpiece are so much better than the ones in that other singing / dancing vegetable / fruit one.
    • LOL!

      Minotaur: "Numbers don't win battles"

      Peter: "No, but I'm sure they help"

      Bob: "Hi! I'm Bob. I'm a tomatoe, and I am here to help!"

      It would not have been any more absurd then Jar Jar...

  • actually, christian messaging is subjective thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by passingNotes.com ( 936024 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:47PM (#14239249) Homepage Journal
    sorry to pull at this thorny issue, but people are complaining about the tie-ins to the religious themes and messages (eg lazarus rising yadda yadda) - however, the movie pays homage to the author's intended delivery - although fans will note that the story, like the books, is being told out of order (remember, there was a re-issue of the original books in the author's original desired order)...at any rate, what do you expect? this was a religous guy, and the film carefully caters to these themes without pushing them down viewers' throats...i do NOT believe that the amazing special effects are going to be tricking kids into buying some sort of christian message if that's your real concern - and hopefully kids under 10 are with older people (parents, siblings etc)- and the impressive effects serve only to wow the audience, period. what i'm eager to see is how the movie is packaged for bus tours and religous groups (again, that is not me, i'm the most secular heeb you're gonna meet, but i loved these books even as a kid - and when i heard that they were going to be edited with an eye toward theme omission, i ran out to get original copies....good lord, what would ray bradbury think?)
    • All I know about religious tie ins for this movie are what I saw on TV and what was at the theater Saturday night.

      CNN had an artical where (at least they found) some preachers that were explaining the alagory elements of the movie and how they were provided exclusive extended-length previews of the movie.

      Disney is trying to drum up buisness ala Passion through the churches.

      As far as if it was working, there were 8+ buses at the local AMC Saturday afternoon, all of them from churches.
    • If you're not already familiar with the Bible and its contents, then the allegory doesn't connect... and you should be able to enjoy the story on its own. The only Christian reference actually in the book/movie is that the humans are called "sons of Adam" and "daughters of Eve". The rest is just allegorical.
    • I'm actually worried that the movie won't have a strong enough Christian/religious theme.

      Now, I'm an athiest, brought up Quaker, with little interest in spreading Christianity or anything.

      But I read the books before I could understand the whole Christian allegory thing. I loved them. I reread them later, understood, and felt betrayed. Then I matured enough to where I could read them a third time and not take it so hard. And I realize that the whole feel of the stories, the idea that they had weight and importance and weren't just some guys who had beef with each other, that came straight out of the religious treatment of the characters.

      If Aslan isn't God, and the White Witch is just some woman who wants to rule this place, the story becomes a cheesy special-effects battle movie. Yay, Dungeons and Dragons. If they can try to instill some kind of reverence and awe, and a feeling that these people are taking part in a larger struggle, that what is happening matters, I think the story can carry itself a lot better.

      If you can get over the fact that it's about Christianity, of course.

      I never saw The Passion, and I don't think it's a great idea for a movie, and so forth. But think how much more pointless a film it would be if the guy who was being tortured and suffering wasn't Jesus.
    • I read that Tolkien took christianity and turned the religion into hidden allegories. I mean, Gandalf descending into the pits of hell, fighting with a flame demon, to be risen as "the white"? That kinda reminds me to Jesus' resurrection.

      And Sauron could be interpreted as Satan. I also read that the orcs were once elves that were turned into evil, wretched beings that hated themselves, and the elves for reminding them what they once where. Couldn't this be an allegory for the fallen angels?

      And taking into account the fact that Tolkien played a key role in Lewis' conversion to christianity (does anyone have details on this?), it's not a mystery that many elements of christianity were embedded in Tolkien's works. And yet, we love Tolkien's works.

      I'm sure that it wasn't Lewis' intention to push down christianity down the readers' throats, perhaps he just wanted to make his writings useful for christians, or to explain parts of christianity somehow.

      I think that people have become seriously disappointed of christians, because of the amount of fundamentalism and zealotry present in today's christian environment. So they reject anything that resembles or includes christianity. But we need to go back to Tolkien and Lewis' environment, and see, from their point of view, that they went to church, where priests were still respected and earned that respect.

      A problem with today's view of religion is that whenever we're mentioned catholicism or christianity, our first thoughts come to either the inquisition or pedophile priests, or religious zealots who promote creationism. But Tolkien's and Lewis' christianity was a relatively quiet part of their environment and society, not the circus we see today in the news.

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SethEaston ( 920552 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:51PM (#14239291)
    I just saw the movie yesterday - LOVED it. Yeah yeah, the special effects were great, but unlike other movies lately that were driven by special effects that totall bedazzled the viewer but had absolutley no character depth (ehem...SW EP III), this movie had it ALL - interesting, WELL-ACTED characters with depth and believability, beautiful cinematography, and a generallty womderful 'feel'. It goes without saying that the plot and story are classics and have true meaning.

    It's not the special effects that made the Narnia books so popular - it was the imagination of C.S. Lewis who gave the story and the characters such meaning and gripped the reader with suspense.

    And yes the effects were quite awesome, but they seemed so transparent in this movie. IMHO, a much better flick about the conflic of good vs. evil than SW EP III ever was. I *REALLY REALLY REALLY* hope they do The Magician's Nephew next!

  • Lots of talent involved . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gasmonso ( 929871 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @12:52PM (#14239297) Homepage

    The film has been directed by Andrew Adamson, who directed both of the "Shrek" movies and supervised the special effects on both of Joel Schumacher's "Batman" movies. Can it really be that bad?

    gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

  • Article summary (Score:5, Funny)

    by Darius Jedburgh ( 920018 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:05PM (#14239403)
    In the making of $MOVIE they used $COMPUTER_BRAND computers to render the images. They used $HDD_BRAND hard drives to store the data. They used a network to connect the computers together. They use some off the shelf software ($SOFTWARE1 and $SOFTWARE2) for some of it and they used some proprietary software for other parts. Simulation techniques devised by $RESEARCHER were used for $EXCITING_SCENE. And $INTERESTING_DETAILS amazing facts that you couldn't actually guess were revealed in the article where INTERESTING_DETAILS<1.
  • I thought at some point WETA Digital was involved in doing the SFX for Narnia?
  • First, the narrative is awkward and clunky. It doesn't flow, and this really kills the mood. What kills the mood more is the terrible dialogue all throughout the film. The cinematography is plain disasterous. Not once did i find myself thinking "wow, what a beautiful shot!" like i do in most films of this nature. The sets all look fake. At least, the ones in narnia do. The make-up is unconvincing and just adds to the "upmarket b-movie" feel emanating from the film. Some of the special effects are dire, ot

  • Imagine (Score:2, Insightful)

    by squoozer ( 730327 )

    Imagine a world where kids need an imagination. Sigh. Perhaps I am getting old but with every passing day it feels like there are fewer and fewer reasons for kids to pick up a book and exercise their imagination. Perhaps I'm horribly off topic but I think I preferred films with poor special effects because it made me fill in the gaps. When I watch things now that I watched as a child I cringe at how bad the effects (and often acting) are but my memory of them is quite different.

    Anyway, I hope they haven't

  • The Magic Is Gone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:14PM (#14239490)
    I remember when calling it "movie magic" was accurate. The sci-fi blockbuster took you where you had never been. I remember watching in awe as Jupiter was eaten in "2010: The Year We Make Contact". I watched in wonder as tie fighters strafed the Millenium Falcon. I saw things that couldn't possibly be real unfold in front of my eyes, and when the magic was good, I believed. Maybe for only 120 minutes, but nevertheless, the suspension of disbelief was often total. But the magic is gone. We walk out of theatres saying things like, "Those special effects were fantastic!" rather than, "Can you believe there was a monster in that cave on the asteroid?" We all know how bluescreens work. We know when image layering is used. Most people have at least some familiarity with how computers are used to generate effects. In fact, DVD extras are working hard to make sure every last ounce of wonder is ripped from our minds and hearts. We're being forcefed the knowledge that will destroy our enjoyment. Magicians have known for centuries that once the wonder is gone, so is the audience. And so they jealously guard their secrets, surrounding themselves in a sense of wonder and mystery. The film industry should have done the same. They should have become a mysterious brotherhood, and kept the secrets, passing them down from mentor to student. Sadly, they didn't. They became so enamoured with how great they were that they began to brag about how it all worked. "Look at the great tools we make! Look at how we put those images on the screen!" We didn't really want to know. Maybe we thought we did, but in the end all that has happened is that we have lost that visceral connection to the screen. We know that there's no danger. So we care far less. The last time I saw a movie during which I really experienced true suspension of disbelief was in 1993. Jurassic Park. For 127 minutes, I believed in the resurrection of dinosaurs. When the snorting Tyrannosaur blew off Dr. Grant's hat while sniffing for him, I was afraid for him. I remember the girl trying to hide in the metal cupboard in the kitchen. When the raptor saw her and began closing in, my heart was in my throat. I wasn't the only one. When the raptor smashed into what turned out to be a reflection, several people screamed. I miss that. Can you imagine what an impact the Lord of the Rings movies would have had if we had not known in advance how it all came together? I'd suggest that the movie industry stop destroying the magic, but that genie isn't going back in the bottle. It's far too late. (A past blog entry)
    • I don't think the magic of special effects is problem. I think the magic of story telling is lacking. All the magic moments you describe occurred because the story enthralled and surprised you.

    • Re:The Magic Is Gone (Score:5, Insightful)

      by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @02:21PM (#14240065)
      So, in other words, you remember when you were younger.

      Jesus dude, get some perspective.

      You are one of those "I remember the good old days," which conveniently works because you forget what actually happened back then, probably because you were young. That's normal.

      I watch THE GOONIES now and cringe at the movie. Just last night I was excited to see Close Encounters of the Third Kind was on, which my (younger) gf had never seen, so I made her watch it. I told her, "This is a classic movie." I hadn't seen it in probably 8 years or so. At the end, we were wondering what the big deal was about the movie. I have no idea.

      You say your suspension of disbelief last occurred in 1993 for Jurassic Park. Before that, you said, "the suspension of disbelief was often total. But the magic is gone. We walk out of theatres saying things like, 'Those special effects were fantastic!' rather than, 'Can you believe there was a monster in that cave on the asteroid?'"

      I find this amusing, because 99% of the discussion of JP when it came out was regarding how fantastic the special affects were. They were indeed groundbreaking.

      The Magic is not gone, you're just too old to see it now. So am I.

    • Re:The Magic Is Gone (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kelson ( 129150 ) *
      I don't know, I've never been the kind of person who can't enjoy a magic trick because I know how it's done. (I guess that puts me in Penn and Teller's target audience.) I can appreciate the skill involved in pulling it off. If I know there are gaps in the linking rings, but the magician manages to hide them, the trick works. If I know the flying guy is on wires, but I can't see the wires, great!

      It's only when something jars me out of my state of suspended disbelief that it bothers me, and that can happ

  • I remember trying to read a C.S. Lewis book (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nido ( 102070 ) <nido56@noSPAm.yahoo.com> on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:18PM (#14239532) Homepage
    Couldn't get more than 20-30 pages into it.

    Tried to read Moby Dick for my 10th grade honors English class... Had something to do with a whale, but that was just the picture on the cover.

    Tried to read The Hobbit several times. Another 20-30 pages...

    Tried to read The Lord of the Rings before I saw the movies. 10 pages before I gave up.

    I couldn't even read Harry Potter.

    I did really well on all those standardized reading tests they make you take in government schools, and I do just fine on magazine article-length pieces, or technical stuff... I never really did any reading for my B.S. degree - went to class, skim-read the texts.

    Finally, a year after finishing my 16.5 years of schooling, I picked up a copy of John Taylor Gatto's [johntaylorgatto.com] A Different Kind of Teacher. In the first chapter, Mr. Gatto talks about how he found that his 7th graders ("at some of Manhattan's best schools, and at some of the worst") were unable to read, beyond for a standardized test. To prove it for his readers, he said to read the first 20 pages of All Quiet on the Western Front (available at just about any library), and then he'd have a question. Well, I read the question first, so I knew the answer. But I didn't read the second question, and even after I had, I still had NO IDEA WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE. I could pass my eyes over the words, but I was incapable of extracting the story from them.

    Mr. Gatto says that the way reading is taught in schools today & for the last 60+ years actually discourages children from visualizing the story as they read it. Which is certainly my problem, and the reason why I couldn't read all those books I gave above.

    While I can't blame school for my inability to visualize, I do resent how they led me to believe that I knew how to read, when that certainly wasn't the case. They wasted 13 years of my life in Elementary, Middle and High schools, and I wasted 3.5 years and a whole lotta $$$ in College. I could've learned so much more if I'd been able to read beyond the level of standardized test.

    (My problem with visualization was due to a medical problem that I am only now resolving, with the assitance of a capable Osteopathic physician in the Cranial Field [cranialacademy.org].)

    So anyways, back to the subject at hand: It's nice that Movie Studios are putting these classic novels on film. This way, since so many of us are incapable of reading complex stories due to our miseducation by the government (ref: books by John Taylor Gatto & others), we can still enjoy the stories our ancestors got from reading the books.

    • While I can't blame school for my inability to visualize, I do resent how they led me to believe that I knew how to read, when that certainly wasn't the case. They wasted 13 years of my life in Elementary, Middle and High schools, and I wasted 3.5 years and a whole lotta $$$ in College. I could've learned so much more if I'd been able to read beyond the level of standardized test.

      It's unfortunate that you graduated reading at what you call the "standardized test" level of accomplishment.

      But, in part, the pr

    • Re:I remember trying to read a C.S. Lewis book (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pHatidic ( 163975 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:53PM (#14239836)
      I kind of disagree with your conclusion that the answer is turning the books into film, but that being said I think Gatto's book has influenced me more than anything else I've ever read. If you liked Underground History, you should definitely check out these video clips [edflix.org] of him talking about the book. He has really expanded his views on what a good primary education should encompass since the book was published, and these video clips are the only place that reflects these ideas as far as I know.

  • Am I the only one who.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:25PM (#14239594) Journal
    Will be boycotting Sony products and productions? Yes, perhaps I'm not fully cogent when it comes to $ony, but I thought there were people on /. that wanted to actively boycott $ony.... and yes, I *AM* aware that there are a lot of products made by $ony.

    So, the part that I don't like about the movie is that $ony had something to do with it.... so naturally, I've not seen it, and won't.

  • Best Looking Beaver (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:28PM (#14239615) Homepage
    If you want to see some really nice beaver, go see Narnia. It had the best looking beaver special effects. You even get to see deep inside a beaver lodge. The beaver chase scene [putfile.com] is pretty amazing.

  • My capsule review (Score:5, Interesting)

    by richardtallent ( 309050 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:34PM (#14239670) Homepage
    0: Geared for a young Harry Potter or Princess Bride audience, nowhere near as dark as LoTR.
    +1: They followed the book closely.
    +1: They didn't butcher the allegory for the sake of over-sensitive non-Christians.
    +1: They didn't play up the allegory for the sake of over-sensitive Christians.
    +1: Effects were near flawless, even though the film had much more daylight than others in the genre (underexposure is SO forgiving).
    -1: The animals in a few scenes near the end seemed to lose a little fur realism. The airplanes at the very beginning seemed too cartoonish as well. Cheetas don't run like that either, IIRC.
    -1: Too much of the beavers.
    -1: Didn't do nearly as good a job as LoTR in giving a sense of "place." Narnia is smaller than Middle Earth, but it felt a little cramped. So did the Professor's house.
    0: Soundtrack was ok.
    +1: Great live and voice casting, other than Titmus, who seemed way too young than I imagined him.
    0: One thing I never liked about the book was the appearance of Father Christmas. An allegory should not be tainted by its own archetype.

  • If the Christian Allegory bugged you... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by killbill ( 10058 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @01:51PM (#14239826) Homepage
    Several of the reviews here say they loved the stories as a child, but have a harder time enjoying them now that they understand the Christian allegories.

    To them I would say that perhaps the Narnia stories are the clearest picture of Christianity they have yet seen. I started with the Narnia books, and proceeded to digest and understand a HUGE amount of Christian literature, both highbrow and lowbrow. I now go back to the Narnian books (and the Screwtape letters, The Great Divorce, and some books by John Eldridge) and find them to be probably the most accurate pictures of Christianity written since the Gospels.

    That you find other pictures of Christianity repellent could be a combinations of three factors.

    1) The "other stories" you are being told are being told badly, or are just plain wrong. God does not approve all articles before publication.
    2) The "other stories" you are being told reveal things in yourself that you are not prepared to deal with yet.
    3) You understand the greater story, and simply wish to align yourself with evil instead of good.

    That's been my life's story anyway. It always seems to come down to one of those three things.

    • Re:If the Christian Allegory bugged you... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CaffeineAddict2001 ( 518485 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @02:27PM (#14240119)
      Couldn't it just be that we no longer find the idealistic Christian view of the world compatable with our experience as adults?

      Maybe we just don't see anything just or right about sacrificing the innocent to save the guilty.

      Perhaps we understand the 'greater story', but we find it inherently evil and decide to align ourselves with good.

    • Re:If the Christian Allegory bugged you... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by demachina ( 71715 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @03:59PM (#14240896)
      I think the problem I have with Christianity today is that many Christians and many Christian institutions have strayed so far from the ideals Jesus espoused in the New Testament that I figure Jesus would be aghast if were alive today and saw the idolatry being practiced in his name. It should also be noted the New Testaments were written LONG after Jesus died and it is completely unknown if they are in fact even close to accurately describing him or his teachings.

      All in all, I don't have a problem with Narnia or the Christian message in the books or the movies. I do have a problem with the people and companies who are trying to exploit the Christian themes in Narnia to:

      A. Make more money by trying to make it in to mandatory viewing for every church goer and their children, just like "The Passion". Disney saw the profit in exploiting the religious obssession overrunning America today and:

      1. Made religious themed kids movie
      2. ????
      3. PROFIT

      I rather doubt Jesus would have been in favor of exploiting his message for profit, he was for example not plussed my the money changers next to the temple profiting off the worship of God.

      B. I also have a problem with the people who are trying to use Narnia as a way to seduce children in to Christianity and they are doing it very blatantly. Come here boys and girls and watch these pretty pictures and this exciting story. Did you like that? Yes, well you should be a Christian now even if you don't know what that means or entails. It teeters on brainwashing in much the same way fundamentalists are up in arms about Harry Potter seducing children to the black arts.

      In my idealized world I think I would like to see Christians, who if they really believe in the things Jesus said to:

      - Abandon their fixation on money and wealth and lead a life where they dedicated themselves to the well being of their fellow man and not to lining their pockets

      - Stop supporting politicians and institutions who are proponents and purveyors of wars and killing. For example the U.S. military (the Air Force academy in particular) is coming to be completely dominated by an officer corps of fundamentalist "so called" Christians who pray on Sunday and kill people with little remorse on Monday. That turns my stomach and I'm sure Jesus would gladly climb on another cross in protest against it.

      Bottomline if you are going to claim the title Christian you should really walk the walk. If your priorities are to get rich at any cost and you are a big fan of wars and killing you should stop dirtying Jesus' name with your false idolatry of him.

  • Christian/Mormon?!? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bob Uhl ( 30977 ) on Monday December 12, 2005 @06:28PM (#14242169)
    BoxOfficeMojo called LtW&tW 'Christian/Mormon.' I'm hoping that this means Christian or Mormon, not 'Type Christian, subtype Mormon.' 'Cause C.S. Lewis definitely wasn't writing anything for Mormons...

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close