Not really, $17.99 on Amazon...
Posted on 12/27/2005 11:28:47 AM PST by Bob J
I agree. That movie stunk. I felt like I needed a degree in the history middle ages to keep up with the nuances in the plot.
The simplest stories are usually the best.
For a terrific film on the WRONG way to do incarnation, see John Candy's Delerious.
Huh?? It's grossed $153,800,000 in the US alone, $229,660,000. Total cost, including production and advertizing was about $211,000. It's paid for itself. Not by much, but it's not going into the red.
IMO that book is by far the best of the series. Lewis' vision of the end of earth was just fantastic.
Wow! that sounds yummy.
Enjoy
To be sure, I meant Voyage of the Dawn Treader (the 3rd book) not Prince Caspian (the 2nd book). I liked TLTW&TW but didn't much care for the rest other than VotDT.
Not really, $17.99 on Amazon...
We are going to see Cheaper 2 on Friday and watched Cheaper 1 again on DVD yesterday - Steve Martin is the best.
**sigh**....more coffee...
Both said it was the worst book ever written, and stand by that feeling today 12 and 16 years later.
And some people don't like a perfectly cooked cheeseburger with fries and a shake, either.
Some things just can't be explained.
Why do people watch so many movies anyway? I think suspending one's disbelief in a theatre is pretty infantile to tell you the truth.
I think you'll like it better than 1. Let me know.
Narnia isn't doing that bad. It has made $163,544,000 , #10 Box Office in 2005 , and has pretty good legs, making $30 million last weekend, its third. Its production budget was $180 million, not $215 M.
It has made 23 times what the homo cowboy movie has done.
I thot it was terrific. And beautiful. And heroic. And well-acted. And true to the books. CS Lewis wasn't quite up to your standards?? haha.
When MacMillan reissued the books in the U.S., back I think in the 80s (with new illustrations by Pauline Baynes), the American publishers changed the order to Narnian chronology instead of the order in which the books were written.
The problem with that approach is that Narnia grew as Lewis produced the books over a period of years, so that when you read The Magician's Nephew, there is much that you will not understand if you haven't read the preceding five books. It comes first in the reordered series, and I think that's a mistake because too much is assumed by the author, who thinks you've already read the others.
I read the whole series when I got the books for Christmas when I was 6 -- a long, long time ago (they had just been published as a set for the first time in the U.S. . . . < eek >) I wish I could read them again for the first time!
I gotta neg on this one - to anyone who read "Cheaper by the Dozen," a very good book btw, the first movie was a lame bastardization. And there's no reason to have made the second one.
A Kerryesque flip flop wouldn't you say/
Lewis himself actually articulated your believability argument better than anyone else I've ever read. But all I can do is paraphrase: it's ok for an imaginary world to have talking animals; they simply must talk as if they would if they really talked; in other words, an imaginary world must be consistent with its own rules.
Which is where you miss it, because you are missing that Narnia is an imaginary children's world, not an imaginary adult's world.
In Braveheart, we wouldn't expect anybody to win a swordfight except by training, because, well, it is still our universe, though a different time.
But in Middle Earth, for example, did you happen to notice that hobbits killed huge goblins with little daggers? That a lady killed a witch-king who had decimated entire armies of male warriors -- because some prophecy or other said "no man" could kill him?
In an imaginary children's world, hobbits and ladies and, yes, boys actually do win swordfights with goblins, because of their courage and their goodness. Unbelievable, you say? then it's been too long since you were a boy.
You missed everything important about every character. Lucy's character was based not on her "cuteness", and not just on her age, but on her goodness. The principle being that those who are good perceive a different world than those who are bad. You notice she always perceived what the others missed: Narnia, the fauns in the fire, the dryad, Aslan leaving the camp, Aslan leaving the world.
The point of Susan's character was not her tendency to kill fun; it was her reductionist logic, which chopped off entire chunks of the cosmos for her.
The point of Peter's character was the question of whether or not he would be willing to take his father's place and take responsibility for the others -- to the point of self-sacrifice. He did do that, of course.
And so on. You missed everything. Only boards in the back of your wardrobe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.