Tonight my cousin, a friend, and I set out to see Narnia. Whenever there's an "event" movie like that, we always go to a theater in Hoopeston, which is about 60 mi from here, because it's got such a great sound system and so forth. Only about the first 10 miles are interstate highway, and it's just 2-lane highways after that. We'd gotten about 6" of snow Thursday, but in town here, the roads were clear, and the interstate was clear, so we didn't think too much about any driving condition problems. Once we got off the interstate and onto the 2-lane highway, the road started to be not quite as good--some parts clear, some snow-packed, but driveable. We were about 2/3 of the way to Hoopeston when we started getting into a stretch with more snow on it. We were going only about 40 mph, but it seemed fine. Then we hit a stretch where the snow was a little deeper, and the car slowly and gently started drifting toward the edge, in spite of my cousin's efforts to control it. Just like we were floating on water, we smoothly and gently glided off the road and into the ditch. And there we stayed--there was no way we were getting out of that unassisted. So my cousin pulls out his cell phone, and ... no signal. We were in the accursed stretch where the reception is poor. Fortunately, after a minute or so, we got a signal and called the police. Eventually, they showed up, along with a tow truck. An hour and a half and $70 later, we were back in motion--going home.

Thus, I didn't make it to see Narnia tonight--maybe I will have better luck tomorrow (staying in town, this time!). In any case, I got home safe and sound, with a better story to tell than "I saw a movie," in case anybody asks me what I did Saturday night.:rolleyes:

Well, good to hear that you are safe at home Olorin. Hopefully the movie will be worth this misadventure

~wormtongue

Quite an adventure! Glad that you and everyone are okay though... thats the main thing.

It just goes to show you... you can go anywhere and find the une xp ected... of if you will... you can open any door and walk into a land full of snow.

This just reinforces my feelings about snow: great to watch it fall from inside your window at home, or even to go play in for a bit... but if you have to get out to drive in it during rush hour to get to work then NO, THANK YOU!

Luckily, I live in what is probably the mildest part of Canada, so snow is a rarity here, but we've had our moments over the years.

Glad you made it home safely with your friends, Olorin, that's what counts. Narnia will be in theatres for a a long time. I myself won't be going until the last week of December (waiting for my girlfriend to arrive back in town so we can go together.)

Thorin wrote:It just goes to show you... you can go anywhere and find the une xp ected... of if you will... you can open any door and walk into a land full of snow.

I made a comment while we were stranded about the irony of missing a movie about a land locked in winter....

While we were stranded, the wind was howling, snow was drifting, and occasionally new snow was coming down.

A decent review here:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/reviews/narnia-n.php

Having read hundreds of Garth's reviews, I don't think he would make such a comment unless there was a need for it. Though I agree that it is more than a little unsettling to hear such a comment in connection with a movie adaptation of a beloved children's tale, I think the observation is an astute reflection of the sad and disturbed reality of the world we live in today. I don't think the reviewer meant to impress upon us that that is how he interpreted the subtext of that scene, but rather how given e xp osure to this sort of thing in today's moviegoing audience and society in general, how it could be taken to task for representing something potentially unwholesome.

I hate to say it and see it everyday, but some people just love to read way too much into the simplest of things, and corrupt it into something else other than the authour's original intent just for their own preverse amusement, and denoting an abundance of time on their hands. One good example (and I really don't wish to make a debate out of this, but I saw it rear its ugly head many times recently,) was the implication that in LOTR, Frodo and Sam's love and devotion for one another could only have its source in a repressed homosexual attraction: a comment that completely misses the spirit of Tolkien's tale, only points to one's own insecurities by making said comment, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding between the bond of loyalty and sacrifice that two men can share without ever going into the realm of sexuality.

Anyway, again... I merely think Garth was pointing out our own moral deficiencies in how that scene could be interpreted, rather than saying that the director intentionally placed such innuendo in there for kicks.

Sorry to derail your thread, Olorin.

Since we didn't really have a Narnia thread, none of this can really be considered derailing this one, as long as it pertains to Narnia.

I've never read the books (and haven't read that review yet), but it's entirely possible that the director or scriptwriter wanted to interject a suggestion of pedophilia. I'm guessing that would be something outside Lewis' intent, but it seems common today that movie-makers feel a need to present things in a more "modern" (read, sexualized) context. They think it's not enough for a character to be generically "bad;" they have to imply that they molest children also, to make an audience connect more viscerally.

Frodo and Sam.... This one never quite goes away. Here's my take on it. Both making an "accusation" that there's a homoerotic subtext and "defending" the story by saying there's not, may proceed from the position that same-sex attraction is wrong. I don't approach it from that position and therefore don't need to condemn or defend it. I simply don't read homoeroticism into it because I know that that was not Tolkien's intent.

Tolkien was just about more Catholic than the Pope (if he'd been any more fervent, he'd had to have become a priest--as one of his children did). If you've read his "Letters" book, you may recall a letter he wrote to one of his sons warning him of the dangers of lust, in which he stops just short of declaring all women to be succubi unless they're pure, chaste, and demure. In that light, you can only imagine what he must have thought of gay relationships--if such a thing was even on his radar. He certainly would never have intended such an interpretation of the relationship between his heroes.

In addition, Tolkien was a veteran of the trenches of World War I. The closeness between the hobbits probably stems from Tolkien's own e xp erience of the close bonds that develop between soldiers in a terrifying war.

Either of those two reasons alone is fully sufficient to show that homoeroticism was NOT what Tolkien depicted between Frodo and Sam, and taken together, I'd say they are beyond conclusive. And that is essentially what I tell people who snicker about Fordo and Sam.

For all Peter Jackson's other changes in characterizations, at least that's one he didn't attempt.

Valkrist wrote:A decent review here:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/reviews/narnia-n.php

I'd have to say that that review damns with faint praise.

It occurred to me while reading it that should Star Trek ever need a new Borg Queen, Tilda Swinton would probably make a good one.

I found it to be honest and to the point, and no matter how much we may want Narnia to succeed on the big screen, the reviewer makes no qualms about stating the obvious: the LOTR and Harry Potter movies have set the bar very high for fantasy movies, so Narnia had its work cut out from the go. I have a feeling it will be a very long time before movie audiences that are fans of these types of films will ever be as satisfied again, so Garth's detracting comments are made in that spirit.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I don't think that you can compare one movie to another. Everyone does it... i've been guilty of it before. But really. What does it matter that its different... thats the whole point right? Make it different so that its not boring. That said... the movie review should be based entirely on its own... not in the shadows of those that have come before it.

Valkrist wrote:I found it to be honest and to the point, and no matter how much we may want Narnia to succeed on the big screen, the reviewer makes no qualms about stating the obvious: the LOTR and Harry Potter movies have set the bar very high for fantasy movies, so Narnia had its work cut out from the go. I have a feeling it will be a very long time before movie audiences that are fans of these types of films will ever be as satisfied again, so Garth's detracting comments are made in that spirit.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply I thought it was a bad or unfair review. I found it interesting that while liking the movie, it didn't really pull any punches, and was very surprised when it essentially said the book was pretty lightweight compared to LOTR. I've never read Narnia and haven't really read much about it, so I had no idea how it compared on a literary merits level.

You have no idea how hard this is to type--one of my cats is insistent on lying on my HANDS.

I've not read Narnia either, but have spoken with some who have, and the main things I've understood is that the series is indeed fairly light and straightforward, mainly for children, and more on a level with Tolkien's The Hobbit, than Lord of the Rings, insofar as complexity and depth are concerned.

This isn't to say this is a bad thing. Harry Potter was written for a younger audience as well, and look at the success it has enjoyed. When I say that LOTR and HP have set the bar very high, I'm not saying that means that Narnia can't be measured on its own merits and can only pale by comparison, because the stories are indeed different, and as such have a value all of their own that really can't be measured against one another. What I do speak of are other things outside of that, mainly the host of technical aspects that make up a movie, all the way from the production values and casting, right down to the editing, effects, and musical score. A movie like Narnia can be as slavishly faithful to the source material as humanly possible, but if one or more of those elements are weaker than they should be, then inevitable comparisons will be made to other movies that have triumphed in those respects within the category of fantasy.

Like it or not, we have become very spoiled by movies these days, and we demand more and more from what is put forth across the screen. Some will hold LOTR as a series of movies that will be impossible to beat, some as a grail to achieve, and some simply won't care. Though I've not seen it yet, every indication tells me that Narnia will not disappoint me, and I will judge it on its own... but to say it can't be compared to another movie is a bit silly because it is in fact just that, a movie... and that is what people do: compare movies.

ash_nazg4321 wrote:i'm sorry if i sounded like i was comparing these movies, i really wasnt. i was simply stating which one i enjoed more and which one affcted me emotionally the most.

And that is perfectly fine, no apology necessary as I wasn't really arguing against that, quite the contrary, in fact. What I'm saying is that no matter which movie we prefer in the end, be it Narnia or LOTR, it all comes down to a matter of taste, but comparisons, like them or not, are as inevitable as you and I drawing breath to live.

Oh no no... you have that right... I compare movies all the time. It was just a general statement about over-hearing peoples conversations at school and even on-line. They thought this movie was better than another. To me... I just don't see how you can... not compare.... judge! one movie to another. Oh sure, LoTR's was great... but we can't keep looking back on it and judge each movie after it the same as it. It was not directed at you in anyway and i'm sorry if it came across that way.

What that reviewer wrote is probably quite true.. he did do a profession job too. Backed up all of his claims with supporting evidence. But, I think we should take the movie for what its worth... not critize it for not being what it could. (Do not get me started about Harry Potter 3 - TPoA. That was THE worst movie I have ever seen and the ruined one of my favourite novels...). Sorrry... got side-tracked. The book was written for Children, therefore its going to be a children oriented movie. I'm sure they could have re-worked the characters and made it more in-depth... but then it wouldn't really be what C.S. Lewis wanted.

Just my 2 cents American... some.... few thousand dollars Canadian.

Well, I finally saw Narnia and liked it. Whether I liked it well enough to buy the DVD (the ultimate thumbs up/thumbs down decision), I don't know yet. It was certainly aimed at kids, but enjoyable for adults too. I've never read the book, so I can't personally vouch for the adaptation, but it seemed like its heart was in the right place, storywise. And if you're a cat fan, you'll be wanting to hug that big kitty!

I've never read any of the Potter books, but have liked each movie better than the one before it, and none of them were less than entertaining. So I thought PoA was good, and GoF even a touch better. The Harry Potter series has proved pretty malleable--it's had 3 different directors now, but has preserved its essential feel. No doubt having the same cast and same script writer has helped in that regard!

The folks that made the Narnia movie apparently have the movie rights for the rest of the Narnia books, and rumor has it that the second movie has been greenlit, based on the first one's success.

Olorin1 wrote:I've never read any of the Potter books, but have liked each movie better than the one before it, and none of them were less than entertaining. So I thought PoA was good, and GoF even a touch better. The Harry Potter series has proved pretty malleable--it's had 3 different directors now, but has preserved its essential feel. No doubt having the same cast and same script writer has helped in that regard!

The folks that made the Narnia movie apparently have the movie rights for the rest of the Narnia books, and rumor has it that the second movie has been greenlit, based on the first one's success.

I guess this is where I have to disagree with you. I think that the writers are doing a terrible job taking the book and transfering it into the movie. They have changed important aspects and thrown in things that weren't even a part of the book. I understand deviations from the book and of course... the GoF is no small book. (I shall tell you my Potter Misadventure in a minute ) However, They managed to get through something like... 200 pages of the book in less than 30 minutes there was no character development... their was no... real introduction and things jumped so quickly I didn't really know what was going on.

Anyways. I will be seeing Narnia soon.... in fact. I will be going free! Thanks to my Harry Potter misadventure. Long story short... the projector died about 35 minutes into the movie and they couldn't get it working... so they gave everyone two free tickets to any theatre... anytime... no restrictions. So I decided to use that other ticket to see Narnia.

I'll have to review the entire movie another time... and Narnia too. I'm excited and i'm glad to hear that you finally got to see it Olorin

Needless to say, the longer the book, the more that will be jettisoned when the movie is made. With LOTR, we love it for the things that made it into the movie, knowing that Tom Bombadil, the Scouring, and endless scenes of talking heads will never see the light of day. And we choose to accept certain, er, changes in characterization because there's nothing we can do about it unless we have a spare couple hundred million dollars lying around to make our own version.

With HP, it seems to me (tho as I said, I haven't read the books) that the same thing will be increasingly true as JKR doubled the length of each successive book. Obviously, if there are blatant changes in characterization, it can be very hard to swallow. But at the end of the day, you have to decide whether you can live with it or not. And the more you love the source material, the harder that decision. After I started seeing the HP movies, I decided that I would definitely not read any of the books until after all the movies are made. That way, I go in with no preconceptions and can enjoy the movie for what it is, not lament it for what it isn't (a choice I never had w/LOTR). And after all the HP movies are made, I may still wait another decade or two to see if people are STILL talking about the books, and then maybe read them. (I got that approach from a friend of mine in grad school. Those Jean M. Auel "Earth's Children" books (Clan of the Cave Bear, etc.) were all the rage then. My friend said she was going to wait 20 years, and if people were still talking about them, then she'd read them.)

I was not trying to compare LoTR to HP as it would seem rather silly to, I just think that they could have done a better job instead of rushing through things. I can't comment on the rest of the movie... as I have yet to see it, Narnia too!

School gets in the way far to often now.

I don't disagree that battles in green fields can be a bit ordinary, but I challenge anyone to say that the Battle of Stirling in Braveheart (the first one in the movie) was terrible or boring for this fact alone.

Hmmm... the grass looked pretty green to me... and it was overcast, granted but... whatever.

Point of fact is, it is difficult and often nearly impossible to maneuver large armies in many types of environments. The figth at Amon Hen could hardly be called a large-scale engagement. Logistics alone dictated that most major battles had to be fought in large open fields, be they the ash-covered plains of Mordor, or the green fields you guys don't like. Take a look at history books and tell me how many battles were fought in places because the leaders of said armies thought it would look 'cool,' like a snowy mountain slope, the middle of a thick forest, or a storm-tossed beach. Artistic preference is one thing, practicality and realism is another. I guess the director in a movie simple has to choose which of these two he is going to lean more toward. As for the weather, I think most soldiers would consider it a benefit to be able to fight on a sunny day, as visibility and terrain are greatly enhanced under these conditions, unless of course you are depending on bad weather to win for some reason. I hardly think a couple of armies would call it off simply because the sun shining down would make them all feel un-warrior-like.

Anyhow... again, whatever. I don't feel strongly enough about this to argue it any further.

Back to Narnia.

Your points are well taken, Jason, and your choice of pics illustrate that rather well, so much so that I agree with each of your descriptions. Doesn't help that I think Phantom Menace was an overall terrible movie, and not just for that battle sequence. Movies are indeed about visuals. even if they don't often reflect reality with 100% accuracy.

I suppose what is coming across in Narnia is that because it is an adaptation of a children's book, that the authour likely meant for it to be depicted that way, simplistic and devoid of the dark nuances that adults appreciate more. Children have a much more uncomplicated view of the world than we do, so they would think nothing untoward about seeing a battle in green fields and under bright blue skies, because it can display all the myriad creatures and colours in all their dazzling glory, and when you are trying to entertain children, that is a good thing. I think George Lucas probably had the same idea with his movie as it seems geared for kids so much. Too bad it came out such a royal mess.

What a classic thread!!! I went through it all. Ah, the memories. 2005!

lol... someone is waxing nostalgic.

Isn't it an odd feeling sometimes, to read words you wrote so long ago? Almost feels like someone else wrote them. Then you read them a few times and can finally immerse yourself in what you were saying back then. Weird!

P.S. - I really miss Foe Hammer.

I read some of my old posts sometimes, and I can see how much I have grown and matured through the last 5 years as a member. Some things I read, I can't believe I said.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]I read some of my old posts sometimes, and I can see how much I have grown and matured through the last 5 years as a member. Some things I read, I can't believe I said.[/quote]

That's where the edit button comes in handy!

[quote=""Olorin""]That's where the edit button comes in handy![/quote]

Sometimes, having an edit button, is a bad thing. It's been a wonderful adventure and sometimes its nice to see where we began.

This thread is fantastic!

[quote=""Thorin""]Sometimes, having an edit button, is a bad thing. It's been a wonderful adventure and sometimes its nice to see where we began.

This thread is fantastic! [/quote]

Sometimes having an edit button is a good thing. For example, it would allow you to take some of your unnecessary commas and turn them into apostrophes.

[quote=""Olorin""]Sometimes having an edit button is a good thing. For example, it would allow you to take some of your unnecessary commas and turn them into apostrophes. [/quote]

Perhaps... perhaps... strangely enough, it is (bad) habit of mine to write as I would speak. Granted its the wrong way of doing things but that is what makes it a (bad) habit. Not to mention that I was always terrible with grammar. Just ask my English teachers

[quote=""Olorin""]That's where the edit button comes in handy![/quote]

Nah, not after six years. That would be altering history.

Not even to correct your own errors from the long-lost past; after all, they
show your personal evolution and maturity-upgrades.



Same goes for our thoughts and opinions. Leave them, laugh at them, even if
they're changed now (drastically).

All that combined is a charm of these interesting time-capsules.

[quote=""ed209""]Nah, not after six years. That would be altering history.

Not even to correct your own errors from the long-lost past; after all, they
show your personal evolution and maturity-upgrades.



Same goes for our thoughts and opinions. Leave them, laugh at them, even if
they're changed now (drastically).

All that combined is a charm of these interesting time-capsules. [/quote]

I would not go back and drastically alter an old opinion. I might add clarification if I felt I hadn't e xp ressed myself well. I would certainly clean up a typo. My typos are not a result of lack of personal development or skill but rather, they reflect the haste in which I often post.