The Yak Shack Forum

anyone seen it, what did ye think. i went last night with a group of friends. i loved it but some diden't so its up to the person and all of us had read the books so ugh. i love the witch though. so cool,

 (:D# (:D# (:D#
3/4 pirates

It got a slating from Jonathon Ross - nil pirates out of 4 from him ;)

I've said I'll wait and see it with my family so I can't comment myself yet :( but I loved these books as a small child so I'm looking forward to it. Although the plots of the 7 individual books have all merged into one for me :(

I saw this on Friday and was not that impressed, but I am not exactly sure why  ???

The kids can act, the effects are amazing and it is very true to the book (well more so than GOF).  But at the end of the day I didn't really care that much about the characters.  Without giving anything away several of the characters are put in mild peril *.  But I really didn't care if they survived or not or even if the goodies or baddies won.  

The beginning seemed to drag and the end was rushed.  Some bits, like the mermaids, flashed by so fast that you just thought Oh  :( .  The queen was brilliant, as was Aslan.  And the Harry Potter special effects people should take note of how to do centaurs.

A little warning to anyone going to see this film - stay in your seats when the end credits start.  At my cinema they raised the lights and everyone got up to go.  But there is a little scene that sets things up for future films.  Also there was school trip seeing the film at the same time and although they were good as gold I did hear quite a few "I'm bored" comments (they were about 6-8 years old).

All in all this was no LOTR and I think that is the problem.  Those films set such a high bench mark it is going to be some time before a film can make me come out of the cinema thinking I have seen something special.  I wanted something more from this film but it wasn't there.  Actually I think I wanted it to make be remember reading the book for the first time and how excited I was about going through a magical wardrobe.  For me I just felt a bit disappointed.


_{*This is a phrase that is put in front of kids films to warn the parents it might be a bit scary for the little 'uns but I think it is so sweet  ;D}

I went and saw Narnia last night with my family, and we all thought it was brilliant!!!

I loved all the characters, and thought the kids acted brliliantly!!! Lucy is just the cutest kid EEEEEEEEEEEEver!!! Everytime she cried i kept getting a lump in my throat.... and kept thinking.. STOP crying :) Edmound was played to a tee....

the special effect were awesome.... but what else were we to expect from the makers??

The beavers were great - and it was awesome to spot all the voice -overs as before i went into the movie i had absoluetly no idea who ws doing the voices!!!

Aslan was awesome, the White witch was cruel to the bone but acted beautifully!! Mr Tumnus was great also.

Unlike Sharon the movie DID make me feel like i wanted to go through the wardrobe... and really made me remember the book.. but then i started reading the entire chronicles for the first time about a year ago (having already read LWATW before)  :P

For me 4 out of 4 pirates.... but i'm just a big kid!!!  Loved it loved it loved it!!! Wanna see it again!!!

thoroughly recommend it... go see it!!!

I thought it was OK. The acting was fantastic throughout...Tilda Swinton is great and the girl who played Lucy is quite the actress.
I actually thought the special effects were rather weak at parts...the beavers looked way too animated and even Aslan could have been better (like when he opens his mouth). And there were several scenes where it was so obvious that the background was CG, and not just to the discerning eye. Things like that really take me out of the movie. But it was enjoyable as a nice family film. I'm not planning a repeat viewing though.

My wife and I went and saw Narnia yesterday afternoon.  I had not read the books and only read this thread before seeing the movie.  We both thought it was an outstanding movie from beginning to end.  I really loved the storyline and the acting was great.  This movie has generated my interest to read the books and that is what I am going to do starting tomorrow.   :)

I liked it a lot. All the actors were really ugly though. And the whole Lucy and Mr. Tumnus thing seemed a bit inappropriate at times, if you know what I mean. Overall though it was good, I'm going to read the books again and I'll buy it when it comes out on DVD.

Not meaning to be offending or anything but dont you think that comment about the actors was a little superficial?  :-\
On another note though, I cant wait to see the movie. Got my gold class tickets for the 28th.  ;D

how do you mean i don't get it?

My sister and I both agreed that it seemed a little pedophile-ey (is that a word?) thats all. I know it wasnt meant to, I've read the books. But thats just our opinion.

really i didn't get that at all. i just thought they were friends like in the book

I found Tummnus slightly creepy in that way, but I think his biggest sin is overacting. :rofl: I thought all the kids were really cute though, and good actors too.  A great movie in my opinion, but my 6 year old will only be able to see most of the video, not all of it.  There was no blood, or loss of limbs, and the battle scenes weren't too bad except for the nasty looking characters.  The part that was most disturbing to me was the disgusting looking vampire thingy as Aslan was headed up to the stone table.  The chase scenes would probably be a little too much for Jordan to see in a large theater.  We will definately get the DVD when it comes out.

No doubt media attention of late has warped alot of people's views on this type of thing. In the book Tumnus is ordered by the White Witch to bring any humans forth to her. Tumnus was only doing his job and I cant see how there could possibly be a connection of pedophelia when this is clearly just a children's novel and for that matter a film designed to suit all ages. The behaviour of Tumnus in no way reflects that of a pedophile. Im not having a go or anything I just think alot of people now days are too quick to take offence and to try and make a connection of pedophelia to a film of this sort just seems ridiculous whether it be through the characters actions or james Mc.Avoy's acting.  :)

I saw this film yesterday and thought it was great. I have not read the books and barely remember the original version of the film so I did not know what to expect.

The acting was really good...and the special effects were the same, except in one spot...where lucy is crying an laying over Aslan on the stone table..she was stroking him and he just looked so terribly fake...he just looked like a bit of polystyrene covered with fur...
apart from that part the effects were great...I especially like the ice river bit where it cracks.

Overall it was great and it has made me want to read all the books now

Woah, chill out.  I never said that the book implied anything of the sort.  Of course it didn't or I would never have read it to my litle girl.  C.S. Lewis is an amazing Christian author and I love his work.  I'm just saying that the acting in that scene could make someone think SLIGHTLY that way in the movie.  It was only overacting on Mr. Tumnus' part and I'm sure the director and the actor never meant for it to come off that way.  I still love the movie and I intend to let my little girl see it on video.  I don't think anyone should get blasted for giving thier impression of parts of the movie.  It was only an afterthought for me as in "Hmmm, that was sort of weird", as I was walking out of the theatre.  I don't think Lauren42088 or myself are trying to make a pedaphillia connection to the film as if either director or actor were intentionally doing it.  I'm sure they weren't.  It's just a movie, and a very good one at that.

I have seen the movie twice now, each with an entirely different result that I feel worthy of note. 

Now let me preface this by saying that I am a huge fan of the entire series as well as some of C.S. Lewis's other work.  I have adored The Lion, the witch, and the wardrobe for many years now and was very excited when I heard of plans for the movie.

The first time I saw the film was with five of my good friends who have also read and intensely love the book.  Despite some minor differences (the opening, a few missing words, the ice sequence?? etc.) we all very very much enjoyed the film.  We all agreed that the story was recreated about as consistenly as possible.  Considering there was no direct bloodshed, I thought the action sequences were about as good as possible.  I knew the movie would hinge on the 4 children actors abilities, and they all performed magestically.  I left the theatre thinking 3.5 (:D# out of 4 (:D#.
 
After enjoying the movie so much, I convinced two of my other good friends to come along with me.  They had never read any of the books and had essentially no knowledge of the plot whatsoever.  Throughout the movie they would whisper over to me, consitently asking questions.
Leaving the theatre, both friends remarked that they didnt enjoy it at all.  They noted that they couldn't follow the plot very well and didnt understand many of the character's motivations. 

It seems to me that the movie can be enjoyed without reading the book, but it loses a great deal of the magic and mystery without the reading.  For example, the lamp post didnt really seem to be that big of a deal in the film.  Also, my friends didn't really understand the significance of Santa Claus and didnt really grasp how big of a deal the long winter and eventual warming was. 

But either way, I was very very impressed overall and plan on purchasing the DVD when it is released. 

Isn't the White Witches dwarf Deep Roy who played the Oompa Loompa in Charlie/Chocolate factory?  I meant to post that earlier and forgot.

I think the word to describe Lucy and Mr Tumnus' friendship is 'intense' ... I understood exactly what you meant when you mentioned the paedophilia reference - I'm sure the director didn't intend it to come across like this and would be horrified people thought this way (as would C S Lewis I'm sure!) and I'm sure you're right in saying all of us automatically think the worst because of all the horror stories reported in the media. :-\
This book was set in simpler times when people took you at face value and tended to think only good in those they met, so I honestly don't think it anything more should be read into how they react to each other than as friends. Mr Tumnus was only doing what comes naturally and 'fawning' over her! ::) ... (Sorry! :rofl:)

Anyway I thought his character had some warmth to it and I liked the actor playing him (I'm not bothered if he overacted or not) but I didn't get as drawn in to the film as I hoped I would - Sharon is right in saying that after seeing LOTR you expect other fantasy films to live up to them and not all do.
I found it a little unnerving during the battle sequence to find myself thinking ... 'I've seen this scenery before ... there should be orcs swarming over the brow of the hill any second' and voilà there was the White Witch and her orcs weird beasties! ::) :P
I'm delighted all this beautiful scenery in New Zealand is making such an impact and I only hope Peter Jackson didn't use ALL the best locations so we get a chance to see some other spectacular bits of the country. ;)
It's some years since I read all the books, but I thought they'd chopped/changed the sequence with Edmund and the White Witch in her castle from how I remember it in the book.
My biggest gripe came right at the end when we see the Pevensie's as adults - surely they could have cast four adults who bore at least some facial semblance to the child actors/tresses than the ones they did? You see four people galloping through a dense thicket of wood and wonder who they are to start with ... I'm sorry, those four just did not 'fit' and I was glad they had such a small part in the film.
The other problem with filming any more of the books will be how the children they've used will age too quickly (especially Lucy) ... so I suppose we would have to expect them to use different actors over the course of filming.
Little Lucy was very good (high praise from me as I loathe child actors) and I think they got the other three about right too.
I loved Tilda Swinton as the White Witch and my son said she reminded him of Galadriel ... which I'm sure they were trying very hard not to do! :rofl:
Oh and the centaurs - I agree with Sharon on that one too - Potter ppl please take heed and make Firenze better in future HP films. :D
I don't think I'll be rushing off to see it again at the cinema but I imagine we'll probably get the DVD when it's released.

I didn't notice who played the WW dwarf Kelly - it could well be Deep Roy. ;)

According to trusty ol' IMDB, the actor that played the White Witch's dwarf was in fact Kiran Shah (who interestingly enough was also Elijah Wood's standin double for sizing shots in all the Lord of the Rings films).

However, apparently many people are making the same assumption that the dwarf was Deep Red.   

Oh my goodness. Im so sorry Kelly, I didnt mean to sound so serious, that was completely unintentional. Very sorry.  :)

Me too, Arwen.  I don't always hear the typed words how they were meant to be spoken by the typee.  ::)  It's all good.  ;D

No worries.  ;D
Just got back from seeing Narnia...and I thought it was great! Lucy (Georgie Hensley) is just so cute and her acting is fantastic. Peter, Edmund and Susan were also tops.
Tilda Swinton as the white witch was definetely someone Id consider as the scariest and most imposing villians, her prescence on screen just resonates evil. Arg, I just didnt like Ginabrikk, the white witches helper dwarf thing. His lines just seemed stupid and he came across to me as just a pathetic and snivelling creature, although I assume that was the point.  :rofl:
I thought Liam Neeson was suited as Aslan because there is just something about his voice that seems kindly and in a manner kingly at the same time. This is how Ive imagined aslan to sound. Also Ray Winstone was a hoot as Mr. Beaver.  :P
All in all I think its another great blockbuster film (alongside Potter and Kong) and a nice way to round off my film viewings for 2005.
4/5 from me.  :)

I just saw this movie and was stunned!  Loved it.  I saw the original film years ago (it seems everyone I know didn't even know there was an orignal), so I knew some of the story, but did nto remember it well.  Watching this movie brought it all back to me.  However, the one thing I can not remember, that I know has some sort of significance is the lamp post.  Can someone tell me the significance of that?

Other than that, I thought the actors were fine and everything else great too (except I do agree about the 4 older actors not looking anything like the four cute kids).

And, now, I want to read the book series.  How many are there?  What is the next one called?  Are they making them all movies?

There are seven books in total Sara ...

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Horse and His Boy
The Magician's Nephew
The Last Battle

(I think that's the correct order)
I've no idea if they're planning on filming all seven which is why I had doubts they would be able to use the four younger kids throughout them all.

I think in chronological order it goes - the Magician's Nephew, then the lion the witch and the wardrobe, and then the horse and his boy. After that it's Prince Caspian, then the voyage of the dawn treader, and then the silver chair and finally the last battle.

Well - that's the order in which events occur in Narnia but isn't the order in which he wrote them. I would start now with the Magician's Nephew and you will begin to understand things that they were hinting at in the movie. The hero of this one is the Professor who Lucy, Susan, Edmund and Peterseek shelter with as evacuees (but it is his narnia experience as a young boy) .

If you stayed on for 2 seconds after the credits went up then you see Jim Broadbent revealing this (or at least hinting at it) and it's made quite clear in the books who he is.

Towards the end of the story you see 'the 4 younger kids' grow up - and I think in Narnia now from this point on in the story they are older. But ask me again in a week or two, I have just re-read the first 3 :) (in chronological order). Lucy et al are important characters in the whole of the chronicles of course, but they don't reappear as major characters in the first or 3rd book.

SPOILER

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LAMP POST

is merely that in the Magician's Nephew this is an item that is taken from our world into Narnia at the beginning. A piece of lamp post is taken from outside the Professor's temporary home in London. The piece is put on the ground as Narnia is being created and it 'grows' into an ever shining lamp post, quite out of place in the woods of course.

Thank you.  So he wrote them out of sequence, but you recommend reading them in chronological order?

Between Harry Potter, The Dark Tower Series (Stephen King - I just finished the second book) and Narnia, I got lots of reading to do.

Hee hee it will keep you out of mischief for sure! ;) ;D :rofl:

It's years and years since I read them, so perhaps I ought to be dusting-off my old paperbacks and re-reading them too! :D

I seen The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe last night (very crowded, I was surprised since it was release almost a month ago. We had to sit right under the screen :P. )

SPOILERS (but I'm sure you guys have seen or read it ;) )


I love it, my mom cried when Aslan died, I should have told her, but was so happy when he walked up there :D

I couldn't find a single thing wrong with it. I had just finished the book a few hours before and everything was hit on the head. It was great 8)

I picked up my old paperbacks when I was at my parents. They are only short books and you may find you can read them very quickly and they are certainly captivating, I can't have picked them up for well over a decade, so it's almost like reading them for the first time.

I have always read them in the chronological order. I have the 1980s editions (or maybe early 1990s, let me check - 1988, so I was 8 when I first read this) and each book has the order that I have just described to you in it. (and inside the front cover it says "in reading order"...) so it's probably a good idea to read them in chronological order.

People who say Lewis is just a reshaped Tolkien are totally wrong, apart from the fact that they are both fantasy and have 'creatures' in, I'd say that they were totally different.  I would NEVER have read LOTR as an 8 year old child, Tolkien is still a genius, but he's tough to read through for the first time, and often ends up as a school text (thus mentally scarring children and driving them away from the books forever) :rofl:

I experienced a similar thing between Christmas and New year (28th ish of December??) it was released here on the 8th of December, and we went along for the 4 pm showing, by the time we got to the front of the queue a huge screen was filled and we had to wait until the 4.45 showing - and they had about 10 showings a day at this stage!! I wonder if it has been this popular everywhere (the screening I went to was in Southampton rather than Cambridge (170 miles away), it would be understandable if Lewis' film was popular in Cambridge as of course, he was a resident here ;))

A quick glance at the UK and US box office shows Narnia at the top of both. Kong was released after Narnia (in both places I believe) but it is pipping Kong to the post. I love PJ but I am so glad that Narnia is doing well, it got some slatings by critics here in the UK so I was worried that people would stay away and not see it. With this much box office success I think we may very well see more Narnia movies in future ;D

I just read that Narnia had beaten Kong in the box office this weekend as well (by about 3 million dollars here in the states), which really surprised me.  Kong came out several weeks after Narnia, and I didn't think that either was really a movie to go and see twice in the theatre.  I would be EXTREMELY surprised if we don't see any more Narnia films in the coming years.  I think they are going to have a little trouble with the actors aging and might have to replace them, but after the success of tLtWatW (Ha  :rofl:) I can't imagine they won't at least try.  The nice thing about these movies is that they really do appeal to all age groups and audiences.  I believe that the main 4 (Lucy, Peter, Susan, and Edmond) appear in four of the novels as children.  So they will most certainly have to skip past A Horse and His Boy (which is my least favorite by far anyways) and go right to Prince Caspian if they hope to keep the primary four actors. 


I would definetly recommend reading the books through in chronological order (starting with Magician's Nephew and moving to The Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe second...).  That is how I did it at least, and I found them to be very enjoyable in that order.  However, there are some who believe they should be read through in the order that Lewis wrote them.  They argue that reading Magician's Nephew first takes away much of the magic and mystery of Narnia (where the lamppost came from, where the witch came from, how Narnia came to be...etc...). 

But regardless of which order you choose, you will undoubtably enjoy them all!

We took my 7 year old to see this and everyone loved it! He sat through the entire thing without complaining-  which is HUGE for a kid with Attention Deficit Disorder.

And, funnily enough, I found myself mentioning to Rob that I thought the grown-up versions looked so much like the kiddies that I thougt the casting director was a miracle worker :)

Here here.

Is my (ageing) memory failing me - or are our 4 friends once merely sitting on a railway platform and they find themselves whisked away to Narnia? If so - magic comes from the most unlikely of places. ;D


And indeed where the magic wardrobe came from!

I've only ever read them in chronological order, so I can't really help on this one.

Roz - the infinite nature of memory does often provide for such magical moments.......

SPOILER





.....This event DOES take place at the beginning of Prince Caspian.  As the four children are waiting on a bench at a trainstation, the are suddenly tugged back to Narnia.  It is their first time back since tLtWatW and they have trouble remembering there previous experiance.  But the skills that they aquired return immediately (ie- Susan is excellent with a bow and arrow and Peter regains his prominent leadership abilities).  You might also remember that it is Prince Caspian who escapes from the castle and blows the horn (the same horn that Santa gave to Susan in tLtWatW).  It is the blowing of this horn the causes the 4 to return to Narnia as rescurers, albeit several hundred years after they had left.

I thought the Lucy and Peter grown ups really looked like the kids a lot.  Especailly Lucy.  Grown up Lucy had the same expressions and the same mouth structure as the little girl.  The Susan grown up could pass, but I didn't see Edmund in the man that was playing him at all.

I just got back from seeing it and I thought it was brilliant! Much more impressed by this than Goblet of Fire :P I did feel more attached to Lucy than the others, but I had no problem following the development of the other kids. I thought character development was MUCH better than GoF. May I also add that I had tears in my eyes within the first 15 minutes and then constantly during the movie ::) It was also interesting analysing all the Christian symbolism etc especially in light of the whole kerfuffle about this being the anti-Potter Christian blockbuster. As an 8 year old reading the books, I didn't really take any of that from the books - and I am glad I didn't.  I don't want to start a debate on religion here, but I think its stupid that it has been made out to be some sort of religious battle between the two. Leave the theology out of it and enjoy stories for stories' sake ::)

Did anyone else think that when Aslan was walking to the Stone Table the creatures around him sounded like the orcs from LOTR? Or was it just me?

Brilliant acting by Tilda Swinton as the Witch (was anyone else reminded of Cate Blanchett???) and as others have pointed out, the creatures were very well done (bar Aslan in some bits). I was probably going to be one of the harshest critics of this movie as I grew up with the books as a very young child, and I was very happy that it impressed me so much. Yes, it is less dark and more *childish* than LOTR, but like Roz said, its a different age bracket. Overall, I think its a 9/10 for me.


*SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T READ THE ENTIRE SERIES*



I have always read the series in chronological order... and there is not a huge problem of actor continuity as the Pevensies (as kids) only appear in 3 books - LW&W,  Prince Caspian (the fourth book) and Voyage of the Dawn Treader (fifth book, Lucy and Edmund only) . The other books have other protagonists - the younger Professor Kirke (Magician's Nephew), Shasta and Aravis (Horse and his Boy, set during the adult reign of the Pevensies), Silver Chair and the Last Battle (Eustace - cousin of the Pevensies - and Jill). So not as problematic as Harry Potter there. If they churn out the movies at the rate of one per year like LOTR and Potter (well kind of ;) ), I don't think they would have too many problems. The kids are more grown up in Prince Caspian anyway and even more so in Dawn Treader.

Here's a review that I found very interesting... particularly the discussion re. the four way *battle* between C.S Lewis, Tolkien, JK Rowling and Phillip Pullman:

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

The most striking thing about the dark forces in C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is that they're not dark at all. Their natural habitat is a greeting-card landscape of powdery snow and glittering ice. And presiding over it all is Jadis, the White Witch, one of the most balefully beautiful femme fatales in the world of myth and fairytale.

It is hardly surprising that Lewis, a prominent figure in the fusty male circles formed by Oxford's literary dons of the 1930s and '40s, should have visualised the Devil as a woman. If he'd still been around, however, he may have found it disconcerting to see her brought to life with the scene-stealing glamour that Tilda Swinton brings to the part.

With her height, her hauteur and her translucent paleness, Swinton has a face and figure on which almost any message can be written as long as it has a kernel of seriousness. It is unlikely she'd be up to playing dizzy dames with Goldie Hawn or doing a duet with Bette Midler, but ice queens don't come any classier. And this presents a problem for Narnia's good deity, Aslan, the Great Lion.

Big he may be, but in comparison, he looks pretty creaky. Although he has the velvety resonance of Liam Neeson's voice working for him, he never quite manages to do a King Kong and transcend the fact that he was born of a marriage between computer and puppet maker.

Fortunately, everybody else measures up. It's easy to see why Disney chose to start with The Witch and the Wardrobe. It has all the lineaments of the classical fairytale, being both fresh and familiar. In the adventures of the four Pevensie children, who open an old wardrobe one day to find that it leads to a magical world, there are echoes of Lewis Carroll's Alice, Frances Hodgson Burnett's Secret Garden and E.Nesbit's Bastable books. But Lewis puts his own stamp on the story by peopling it with creatures drawn from his preoccupation with pagan and Christian mythology.

He also makes it a place where the children can influence events. In the real world, the Pevensies - Peter (William Moseley), Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) - are helpless onlookers. It's World War II and they have been evacuated from London to a spooky old house in the country, where all they can do is sit tight and stay safe. But in Narnia, the war between good and evil is one in which they find themselves playing key roles.

The film's New Zealand-born director, Andrew Adamson, who made such gleeful work of spoofing both Disney and the fairytale tradition in the Shrek films, has no trouble playing it straight this time. The film was shot mainly in New Zealand with the British designer Roger Ford and the Australian cinematographer Donald McAlpine bringing a sinister beauty to the wintry Narnia landscapes. And the best animators, model-makers and special-effects people in the business have successfully delivered Lewis's battalions of centaurs, minotaurs, minoboars, cyclops, ghouls and spectres to the screen.

There's charm without cuteness, too, in Ray Winstone's and Dawn French's voicing of the friendly Beavers and James McAvoy's brave faun, Mr Tumnus.

The only real touch of Disneyfication lies in the fact that not a drop of blood is spilled. People and animals fight and die, but they do not bleed.

The story is a transparently Christian allegory - something that caused Lewis's friend J.R.R. Tolkien to dislike it intensely. He resented Narnia's popularity, deplored the haste with which the books had been put together and believed that Lewis had compromised their effectiveness in emphasising their religious subtext.

Today's evangelical right sees the overtness of their Christian message as a good thing. The White Witch and her minions are being touted as an eloquent reply to J.K. Rowling's effrontery in pitching the idea in Harry Potter that there might be benign witches and wizards. And Narnia is part-financed by Walden Media, the production company set up by Republican billionaire Philip Anschutz to invest in films reflecting so-called family values.

So the politics of Fantasyland is a hot issue - one that is bound to become even hotter when Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy comes to the screen. Pullman, who won Britain's Whitbread award with his final volume in the series, is somebody else who cherishes a hearty dislike of Narnia's religious aspects. An atheist, he is against Christian proselytisers of any sort, and the complex plot of His Dark Materials is designed as a vigorous attack on organised religion.

For film-goers, all of this can only be good news. That's if the quality of the adaptations holds up. Regardless of what they have said about one another, Lewis, Tolkien, Rowling and Pullman have written magnificent stories, all displaying one overriding virtue - a reverence for the power of the imagination.

Interesting....I didn't know there was a HP/Narnia battle anywhere.  I think the people who don't like HP have never read the books.  For me it's much more about friendship and the battle of good vs. evil than "learning" witchcraft of any sort.  There are plenty of witchcraft/wiccan cartoons and movies that I won't let my kids watch, but Harry Potter is not on that list.  99.9% of my friends at church feel the same way and we're Southern Baptists if that gives you any idea.  We ARE the evangelical right. :rofl: I really think that the media blows out of porportion the number of Christians against the HP series.  A few loud voices get all the press, but if you ask the actual members of evangelical churches, it's a different story. 
As far as Narnia, sure, you can read the books and not get the Christian message, but I think you would have to be fairly young or not familiar with the story of Christ for it to pass over you altogether.  I don't get why some people (no one here on the boards I don't think) want to take all the Christian aspects out of the movie.  First of all you can't.  It's how C.S. Lewis meant it to be.
Anyway, watching HP won't keep you out of Heaven and watching Naria won't get you in, so I tend to watch what I want and figure out for myself if it's good or bad.
Interesting article, Jo!

You both raise some important points. I must be walking blindfolded but I can't say I can appreciate what the fuss is about Potter. At no point does JK bash Christians, the over-riding message is about 'goodness' and they even celebrate Christmas.

It's light hearted fantasy (with the occasional dark bit) and earthly beings dabbling in what might be described as 'God's work' (Voldie's feeble clinging to life springs to mind) I suppose, that's all.

I'm a cradle christian but love Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Narnia alike. I have even stretched to the pure fantasy of the Da Vinci Code too without being too offended. It's just fiction.

How long are the Narnia books?  A couple hundred pages?  If so, it would be nice to read one in between the other long books I am reading.  Sort of as a refresher period. LOL.

Thank you for that very interesting article.  I'm rather enjoying this thread.   I'm not a religious person by anyone's definition, but I did see the religious undertones in NARNIA. That said, I LOVED the movie, and enjoyed the books as a child.  I don't remember them very well, though. I suppose that comes with being over 35  ;D 

As for SOME evangelicals not liking Harry Potter...I have a niece and a nephew in who live in the southwestern US and their grandmother and uncle on their father's side definitely do not approve of their reading or watching Harry Potter. The same is true with some of their friends.  Obviously, that's not true of every church-going person though.

I think the important thing to remember with Harry Potter and Narnia is that it gets children to READ, rather than sit in front of the TV watching garbage and playing video games. :)

Not just kids, but adults too!  I used to read when I was younger, but as I got older, I just didn't feel I had the time for it.  I watched the first two HP movies, and when the fifth book came out, I heard a big character died, so I ran out and got the books because I just couldn't wait to find out who it was (I also read the first two books).  After that, I was hooked. I now read the Charmed books from the TV show, and branched off to Stephen King, and now, Narnia.  It was a matter of finding something I enjoyed to make me realize that reading realy is an amazing thing and it can bring you to another place if only for a little while.

So I thank those authors for writing amazing stories that get children and adults reading.

And, thanks to JK Rowling, I got so addicted to HP and managed to find many new friends with the same tastes.  If it wasn't for Harry Potter, I would have never found this forum and all these wonderful people.

The books range anywhere from around 100 pages to a little under 200.  Needless to say the type is large (at least in the set that I have) and there are dozens of beautiful pictures which shortens the length considerably. 

I found that with haste, I could finish any book in or under 3 hours.  However, often times, you may find yourself going back and rereading certain passages just to catch all the magic, so it may take longer the first time through.

But all 7 books are extremely quick, light reading and would certain act as a "refresher period" between some of your 'heavier' tomes (by this I mean Stephen King, of whom I am also a big fan!).

Harping back to the Narnia movie for a bit. The servant to the White Witch - the dwarfey type guy. Is it just me or is he Frodo's body double from LOTR? If you have watched the 4 disc sets you'll know this guy has a distinctive thick accent and apparently ordered Viggo around like noboby's business... I'll check that out.

Yep - look at the cast list here

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0787449/

click on

Kiran Shah    ....    Ginarrbrik

and you get

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0787449/

Which (oddly enough) doesn't mention his Narnia role... ho hum ::)

Yea, I mentioned it a few days ago on this thread.  Looking it up on IMDB, which I have found to be for the most part-reliable, it was exactly the same actor that was Elijah Wood's standin.  Good eyes!

I noticed that right away, but I watched the FOTR EE a zillion times. I loved the bits where I saw him ordering VVVvviggo around. A hoot! :rofl:

Now I can't wait to get the Narnia books and see where the story goes.  Time to search  :ebay:

You can get all of them in one softcover book at Wal-Mart for about $15.  ;D

Finally saw the film a few nights ago, and loved it! Was never really a fan of the book; I think it was read to us at school (years ago), but I never quite "got it". The movie however, was fantastic. As I write this Im actually listening to the soundtrack, which I can also recommend...but, I did already like Imogen Heap and Alanis Morissette.
The young girl in the movie (Lucy) was great too...she did quite a good job of making me cry, and more than once too.