I saw it last night and really really liked it. But then I'm a book-fanboy and it's just immensely gratifying for me to see movies made of these books that don't suck donkey wang (viz. BBC productions from the late 80's).

For those interested: it's much darker than the first film, like persistently, internally dark. The ending isn't even that upbeat, really. The kids get back to Narnia and find out that it's not at all what they were expecting it to be like, and that feeling never really lifts. Which itself is a bit of a character point for Peter and Susan, as they're getting to be too old to come back again. But it does make for a more rewarding film in that respect. It's not as "magical" as the first film at all, and a good part of the story involves the question of, how do these kids adjust to living their lives again after having grown up as Narnian kings and queens?

There's a lot of great supporting cast work, including the awesome-as-always DINKLAGE

I don't know if non-book-fans will find this movie necessary, but it certainly does wrap up Peter's and Susan's stories... and interestingly enough, it does so in a rather ambivalent almost Graduate-esque kind of way. They're growing up, and the film doesn't shy away from the implications of that point.

So anyway, there's my thoughts on it.

My meh factor has increased...I haven't read the books since I was a child, my wife is working through my bookset now.

I haven't seen it yet. Probably won't see it until the video release. Same as the first one.

I am filled with meh.
I really dont know why... I think its the floodign of the market of it all - Golden Compass, Potter X100, Nim, spiderwick, eragon, etc etc.

And the first Narnia Movie was "ok", but for whatever reason I just lost interest in it all.

And before anyone says anything - I was a total Narnia Fan when I was a kid. I read all the books more than once.

Maybe I have outgrown it....


But Prince Caspian is Hawt!!

he's gonna be in the next movie too

I have to admit, I was also a bit meh about the movie before I saw it, but it was surprisingly compelling and mature.

Why is that? I read the Narnia series and the Tolkien trilogy, but only the LotR films rouse more than a "meh" out of me.

I was going to see it until someone told me that it was an allegory for Jesus, and if it's one thing I can't stand, it's allegories.

The allegory aspect is almost retcon.
The stories are decent in and of themselves...

Intend to go see it, might try and convince the girlfriend to go, I can trick her with promises of stuff dying.

Speaking of which, is it Voyage of the Dawn Treader they're doing next?

Well for one, the LotR movies came out FIRST so I saw them before I saw the the 8-million other spin off movies.

For two, the LotR movies are made for adults (so-to-speak).
How many times can we watch the 8 year old fight off a thousand trained warriors before we get tired of

I guess I would like it if i saw it - but i am fighting major apathy. I also have no intention of seeing the next two HP movies -I have been fooled into giving that shot-franchise the benefit of the doubt way to many times.

I'm sorry, but No. People making interpretations of movies after the fact, but which the story itself allows is one thing. Narnia as an allegory for the Bible clearly has author's intent.

Not that that's always obvious for some. After all, one reviewer wrote "This is a rousing adventure story and I really enjoyed it. Why did Spinrad have to spoil the fun with all this muck about Hitler?" in relation to The Iron Dream.

Actually that is integral to all of the books, though each of them has a different sort of spiritual lesson. LWW was about the Jesus story, Prince Caspian is about faith. Not that the movie centers around that as the first one did (though what choice did they really have, since the entire book was a death/resurrection story).

Read the fecking ALMOST part!!!

I am not even trying to advocate Caspian or anything. I'm just saying - Biblical Allegory is a really lame reason to avoid the films or books.
They really do stand up on their own merits.
If you are going to hate on the series then at least hate on it for a real or relevant reason....

such as - Ghey-8 year olds who are better swordsmen than trianed warriors and saving the world because they are the chosen one(s) AGAIN!
or something....

Well, in all fairness, by the time they get back to Narnia they *have* spent years as adults and stuff......

And I totally understand your POV, but at the same time we're talking about childrens' stories... maybe that's the problem here?

That's great

Aren't the Tolkien books children's stories too? I guess they're a bit more mature... I dunno. Maybe I should just read LWatW and Prince Caspian again. >_>

The Hobbit was a children's book. LotR, no.

Dude, I was making a lame joke. I didn't mean to rile Hutner all up. It's not the religious allegory that is keeping me from seeing it, it's apathy pure and simple. I just don't care.

to the video but it misses the point...
IMO the core of the LWW book was Mr. Tumness.

yeah but you gotta love that punchline. All it needed was a "LOL!"

I saw this over the weekend and I have to say that I was very pleased by what I saw. PC, while not as good as LWW from a film-maker's prospective, was definitely a worthy follow-up. I was really glad to see the way that the director worked the feeling of the Telmarines' oppression on Narnia into the film. I was kind of worried that I wouldn't really feel that oppressive presense there. The film felt darker, just as the story was meant to be.

I'll admit, being an uber book-nerd myself, that some of the directorial changes from the books were a bit surprising and somewhat disappointing.

However, what was not disappointing, but entirely anticipated and equally frustrating at the same time, was all of the fricking comparisons to Biblical stories and characters that I heard from other movie-goers afterwards. This was absolutely annoying because many were exclaiming how they missed the biblical tie-ins and how the movie did not relate to the bible in a way they could see because that was the point of the books and whatnot.

You know, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that when the directors were creating this film, they did not say "OMG LETZ MAKE THIS FILM FOR JUST THE CHRISTIANS GUYS!!!!" Seriously! The film was made for a general audience and yes, if you look closely you'll see the biblical references, but don't go and frigging complain about the movie not catering directly to you. This is just the same thing that happened when Transformers came out and people left the theaters pissed and shouting "NOT G1 ENOUGH!" THE FILM WAS NOT MADE FOR YOU PERSONALLY SO GET OVER IT

BTW, for those who don't know, I am a Christian and after hearing what I heard from those around me, I started seriously understanding why some people think so negatively of us. There's far too many self-interested Christians out there anymore. The "me-me-me" attitude is far too abundant and it's really disheartening when people of the faith begin to recognize this in fellow believers.

[/rant]

People didn't batch about biblical references in the Matrix films as far as I remember.
Good lord, so many references.

The funny thing is, I felt that the themes they added to the movie resonated more than the "faith" thing that was the moral of the original story.


Perhaps because the Matrix didn't leave the audience with the vague sense that they were being surprise evangelized?

video =



I have a non-fanboy friend who re-read LotR recently, he told me he was surprised at how "juvenile" it now seemed to him - said it felt like it was aimed for highschool sophomore-aged boys.

I think that perhaps he meant "guileless" because if LotR is anything, it is unfailingly sincere.

I would argue that's more because the references where less.. obvious.

Funny. I felt the same way after re-reading the books some time ago.

I think it could also be that I'm starting to feel like all fantasy fiction =

Yeah but it's not like the Matrix was drawing exclusively upon Christian ideas and imagery. All the self-actualization stuff is pretty Buddhist, not to mention all of the philosophy etc.

I guess you could say in today's cynical world that could come across as a little "juvenile" - I always felt it was part of the charm.


Most of it is pretty juvenile and a lot of it was crap - even stuff that was considered "good" at the time, say, for instance, the "Xanth" books, I don't think would be a good re-read.

Other than LotR, for me the only fantasy properties that still hold up (and would probably make intersting movies) are the "Amber" and "Thomas Covenant" series (although, I have to admit I haven't read the latter for twenty years, so they might be filled with non-remembered suckage).

I still think that His Dark Materials is pretty darn awesome, despite being young adult books, and despite that shitty movie...

I can't comment on those - I haven't read them.


I haven't read any new fantasy series in something like 25 years - so I really shouldn't be making blanket statements.

That series is one that I still can't believe hasn't been approached for a film adaptation.

And it holds up against the test of time. I first read it when I was just in middle school and loved it. I picked it up again and finished all 6 books last year and it was still just as good. And I hear that Stephen R. Donaldson has actually made a new book for the series (I just remembered this now) but I haven't looked into it yet.

Might be worth checking out, perhaps

I do highly recommend them... my Harry Potter thing is my Harry Potter thing, and if other people don't like it, I understand. But His Dark Materials is PWN.

Oh, yeah, I forgot I noticed a new Thomas Covenant book at the store a while back - I think it's part of a whole new series.


I thought they sounded interesting from the movie thread a while back.

Perhaps I'll check them out, when I finish the other thirty books I've bought but have yet to read .

I like most of the Drizzt books i've read, but those are basically battle scenes with character development for the most part... Though I haven't read quite a few of them, so I could be wrong.

The constant retconning of the characters' ages to keep them young is astoundingly ghey, though. It's even gheyer than Marvel and DC' retconning of the characters' ages, as the Drizzt books are much better written.

BTW, once you've read one Xanth book, you've read them all. The author continues to rip himself off with each book. It's amazing, really.

I am going to see both Prince Caspian and Iron Man sometime this week (on vacation). But for those interested:

Prince Caspian was #1 at the box office this weekend - $56.6Mil

Iron Man was #2 - $31.2Mil, 3wk total at $222.5Mil domestic

What Happens In Vegas was #3 - $13.5Mil, 2wk total at $40.3Mil domestic

and...

Speed Racer has only managed $29.8Mil after 2wks... and cost $120Mil to produce... who didn't see THAT coming?

Reference Material

P.S. - Voyage of the Dawn Treader is in production for Summer 2010 release

I'm generally becoming more and more apathetic towards war styled fantasy movies. LOTR was more than enough hack/slash for me. 300 only increased my dislike for such movies. Fantasy movies in general aren't bad just the ones that try to be just another LOTR clone. Saw In the Name of the King this weekend. Feel free to avoid this one at all costs. A B budget effort that tries to be serious, and interesting but is a laughable mess from start to finish. Anybody who's absolutely convinced Micheal Bay's the worst director the world has ever known should try to get through this. Extra points to those who can get through it with a straight face. Another one to avoid, The Seeker. Harry Potter Clone that is about the most forgettable/inept attempt at a Children's fantasy film Walden Media has ever been a part of. Walden Media though has been involved with some pretty good fantasy films though. Recommended are both Narnia movies, last years Bridge to Tarabithia, this years Spiderwick Chronicles, and the upcoming City of Ember which surprisingly looks pretty cool.

Prince Caspian. Now that I'm done ranting I did see this over the weekend. I'm not a huge Narnia fanboy but a group of friends were already going so I tagged along. Overall much better than the first one. Really liked how it shed off the childish feel of the first one and went in a darker more mature direction. What threw me from the start was how unlike the first movie the film started in Narnia with the failed assassination of Prince Caspian. As with the first movie the first sentence of the novel is expanded into a full scene/subplot. Almost immediately following the four children of the first film are pulled into Narnia. Once in Narnia it doesn't take them long to realize a lot of time has past and the fantasy world they once knew isn't quite the same as it was before. Narnia is no longer much of a home to the talking animals/mythical creatures but a barbaric land now ruled by kings of men who are under the belief the Narnians have all been wiped out/extinct. Basically by this point Narnia as it was once believed to be is nothing more than a myth and as such is a bit disorientating for those of us who haven't as of yet read all of the books. For much of the film Peter, Edmund, Susan, and Lucy wander around Narnia with no real clear objective other than to find Prince Caspian who at this time is being safely held by a pair of dwarves and a talking Badger. The biblical references throughout are pretty obvious and hinge strongly on the concept of ones faith. In PR Lucy the youngest seems to be the true believer, Edmund a close second, while Peter the eldest seems to have long given up any hope of Aslan returning and prefers to handle things on his own. Predictably this leads to one disaster after another. Susan just seems undecided and not really caring either way how things turn out.

The short of it despite all of the awesome CGI, visual effects and wonderfully staged fight sequences throughout is Aslan eventually does return at the tail end but only after Peter in desperation of not losing another battle actually believes in him again. At one point Lucy even tells Peter after he asks her why he couldn't see him when at one time she said she could was because he was simply not looking for him. I hadn't read the book but from what little people did tell me before hand I was pleasantly surprised to see this much of the authors original intent for these films actually make it into this movie. Pending on the viewer I guess this can be interpreted however one decides.

If the message of Faith, and God's salvation doesn't excite you the movies cinematography throughout it absolutely stunning. Uew Boll (In the Name of the King) could definitely learn a thing or two about staging a decent action sequence from these films. Not only Boll, but Micheal Bay, JJ Abrams, Ridley Scott and any other director who is under the belief a fight scene has to be shot close up and with a hand held cam that shakes a lot. My hugest complaint for any recent action film is simply not being able to see what the hell is going on in a fight scene. The fight Cinematography for PR reminded me of older action films where a fight to the finish was actually exciting to watch and not just a dizzying array of fast edits and camera shaking. For a kids movie the fight/battle scenes were pretty much on par with the LOTR films, brutal, and lots of soldiers, fairyland creatures on both sides dying. Though there was very little blood expressed on the battlefield it didn't make the battle scenes any less real/impacting. Everything about PR in an action sense carries a much broader scope than the first. So much so that when you reach this point it feels like a whole separate film than what you'd expect from something that is closely compared/confused with Harry Potter. The one on one fight between King Peter and the evil king is worth admission alone IMO. Wonderfully choreographed, and though Peter's only a kid fighting this long experienced swordsman is no less believable because the director doesn't make the mistake of letting either opponent walk away without injury.

My only complaint if any would be the uselessness of the White Queens sudden appearance. Just like the waterfall in the first one this little interlude wasn't anywhere in the book. Though I understand it was originally discussed for PR it never made it into the final story. Personally I don't have a problem with added scenes and such as long as they pertain to the overall plot but this added bit did absolutely nothing for me and overall felt like a dead spot in an otherwise pretty good movie/adaptation. Simply put even Prince Caspian has given up hope and with the aid of some truly forgettable puppet/CG creations is tricked into again summoning the white witch, all she needs is a drop of his blood to free herself from her ice prison or whatever it was. She doesn't make it much further than that, but that was to be expected. The scene was neat to see, but in the overall arc of the evil king, and Peter and PR's rivalry felt entirely unnecessary and for the most part really didn't do a whole lot to further the story other than show how easily weakened by temptation Prince Caspian can be and make the film that much longer.

Coming up next I believe is Voyage of the Dawn Treader. From what I remember Peter and Susan probably won't be returning for any future installments. That is unless it's decided to make a Horse and his Boy which I seriously doubt they will bother with. AHAHB has all four of them and plays out before Prince Caspian during the time they are in Narnia following Aslans return in LWATW.

Easter Egg. Everyone stayed during the ending credits to see if there was anything else. There wasn't but during the cast credits I saw that the composer Harry Gregson Williams did a small cameo voice for the idiot squirrel character whom the mouse tells to shutup. I know the name of the mouse I just don't want to attempt spelling it.

FYI the scene where they try to bring the White Witch from the dead was in the book; it just wasn't depicted in such visual terms. But then this is a movie and that was a book, and that's how that kind of thing usually works.

Mainly I liked seeing Tilda Swinton again. Spoiler for future movies --> I wonder if they'll use her for Jadis in The Magician's Nephew.

I'm also wondering about "The Horse And His Boy" -- it really has nothing to do with the rest of the story, and IMO would be a difficult one to adapt. Although in all fairness, "Prince Caspian" was one of the least exciting of the books, and they did a great job adapting that one. So you never know. But it's not the obvious sell that the other books would be.

There's an age thing you have to deal with on the movie. If you let too much time fly between books, it'll start looking out of sync (due to the aging of the actors). What I think would be a good scenario is if, while filming Dawn Treader, they also worked on Magician's Nephew. Have Dawn Treader come out in 2010 as announced, then while Magician's Nephew is in final production (maybe for 2011), start hashing out The Silver Chair for a 2012 release. You could feasibly do this because MN and Silver Chair are 2 completely different stories using none of the characters from either. That way, it could all beautifully tie into The Last Battle (2014 maybe?), with the audience (hpefully) having seen MN and being aware of who all the characters are. However, if you did Last Battle BEFORE MN, it wouldn't sync as well.

If there's interest left, leave A Horse And His Boy for 2016. However, I could do without that one. I just really want to see MN and how they'd pull that off.

Erm, well actually the entire series works well in terms of aging-actor concerns b/c in the books, the kids all get too old for Narnia eventually. But I don't see any benefit to filming any of the movies at the same time; indeed, they shouldn't be if you're going to sell the "they're too old now" thing to the audience. I mean, the actors playing Susan and Peter are probably already adults IRL. And by the time they get to The Silver Chair (my favorite book) the kids will all be different people anyway.

No arguement there, but the actor playing Eustace will have to be quite young to get thru 3 movies. Which is, in a roundabout way, what I was referring to.

Three?

*counts*

Dawn Treader, Silver Chair...

Last Battle?

Well I suppose they were *all* in that one... except for the ONE WHO FELL AWAY

Susan'd

I wouldn't say I'm a Narnia fanboy, but I thoroughly enjoyed the books when I was younger, more so the the LotR series. So this is a film series I've been excited about.

LWW was pretty good, if not a bit rushed. Couldn't complain though.
PC, well it kicked ass I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already, so I'll just say that the film makers did an amazing job transforming Narnia from a magical wonderland into a darker and grittier place. Well done.

For those who are contemplating skipping the series due to the Christian allegories, don't let it be an issue. I'm not Christian, so I don't accept the divine aspects of Jesus' story. So Aslan's resurrection to me just signifies an other interpretation of a classic (some would say ancient) literary theme.
Yes, the Christian elements are there, there's no denying it. A lot of those Christian elements, however, can also be found as reoccuring themes in "secular" storytelling traditions.
So if you're not a Christian, just put it out of your mind and you'll find the stories do in fact stand on their own merits.

While I agree the standard "8-13 year old 'chosen one' fighting seasoned warriors" fantasy stock character is lame, there's actually an explanation in the Narnia stories. The kids lived to be adults as kings and queens of Narnia at the end of LWW. So they really do have 20+ years of experience, despite being children.


They damn well better. Best book in the series, IMO.