Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe/Archive 1

---

Rating

The movie could be rated PG due to many large bloodless battle scenes that are similar to that of Star Wars, however if these large battle scenes get very bloody, the movie would be rated PG-13. -- Ed Telerionus 7 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

• Well, there doesn't have to be blood for a movie to go PG-13. I think we can expect LOTR-type battle scenes, quite a bit of violence but no blood. In this case, we can expect a mild PG-13 rating (after all, it really just means parental guidence stongly suggested), which will not effect the number of kids who will see it.

Am I the only person that doesn't remember tons of kick-ass battle between fantasy creatures in the original? It's a lovely addition if it is an addition...

the battle took place on merely 2 pages on The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Hence, why you wouldn't remember it. LuminousSpecter 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template?

Would it be a bad idea to created a link in the Chronicles of Narnia template that links directly to the film? Empty2005 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think it would lead to inconsistancies down the road. Right now there is only one article on any of the adaptations of the books. I don't know that that will always be the case (a second film would do it too). I can understand the desire to add it. You don't want anyone to miss the fact that there is a seperate entry for the movie, but there are plenty of links to it already from: The Chronicles of Narnia, from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, from each of the character articles (if they are in the movie). I don't think it's going to get missed. Lsommerer 04:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of the films religious aspects

Anyone think we should add some of this? Have some links here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1657759,00.html

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051205/SCANNERS/51205001

NuclearFunk 00:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There is also heavy criticism over at the Narnia boards on Imdb! Empty2005 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the film actually did a pretty good job of a light-hand on this. To me, the most notable allusion was the mocking Aslan received before being killed. Interestingly, in discussion afterwards, a fairly ardent atheist was annoyed by the *pagan* overtones!! Limegreen 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that either of those links have anything to offer about the movie itself. The Guardian article seems to be more of a critism of christianity than a critism of this movie (read the last paragraph if you don't have time to read the article). And the Ebert link looked like it was mostly quotes from The Guardian (but I didn't read the whole thing). There might a legitimate reason to include a 'Religious criticisms' section, but I don't see it from those articles. Lsommerer 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As a further thought, I don't think any religious criticism is particularly unique to the movie, and is probably better discussed at C.S. Lewis and The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe. There is a little on those pages already, and from both my viewing and from that Guardian piece above, I don't see any suggestion that the movie presents a materially different interpretation. Perhaps the presence of a debate could be mentioned, but directed to those pages.Limegreen 01:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Maugrim voice?

I confess I haven't seen the film yet, but I wonder if those who have could check on the accuracy of listing Michael Madsen as voicing Maugrim. The official Buena Vista presskit, which reflects the on-screen credits, lists neither character nor actor, and only identifies film editor Sim Evan-Jones as providing "voice of wolf." Thus, the question is, does more than one wolf speak in the film? For while it's possible Madsen is uncredited, it's also possible his dialogue, reported in passing in the making of book only, was shelved or cut for time. Can anyone check on this? Also, again speaking in terms of it as a film, is there a reason only one adult version of the children is listed under "Featured Cast"? I know Wikipedia is not Imdb, but it seems to me, unless her role was unusually significant, that either all four should be listed, or none. (And I also wonder if Father Christmas and Digory Kirke should be added, as much for their significance to the book as to the film, but again, not having seen it and relying solely on press material and billing, I could be wrong). Aleal 22:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There are definitely 2 wolves that talk in one of the scenes (Peter's first battle). I'm not sure which one is which, but there's a lot of information out there about Madsen being one of the wolves, although I will not judge their validity. -PK9 02:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, while I cannot say whether Madsen is credited as being in the film, he is in it (regardless of actual credit), well at least his unmistakable voice is in it. Radagast83 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional Adaptation Changes

I added some new information based on reading the "movie storybook" version. As such, I have not seen the film (nor do I intend to; see below), so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

In all honesty however, this film is a violation of C.S. Lewis' creative integrity (besides which, he never wanted a live-action film version, plus this isn't the kind of movie Walt would have made). I personally feel that the 1979 animated TV-movie adaptation, and the 1988 live-action miniseries adaptation are both the "superior" versions (even though in the former, it's Aslan who gives them their weapons instead of Sant..., that is "Father Christmas"; a minor liberty).

I'm all for morals and political correctness, but I don't feel that either was appropriate for this particular film (although It would be grand if viewers learned a thing or two from it). I refer to changing the reason for Aslan's revival (former), and "the unnamed Xmas icon" not telling the girls not to get involved in the battle (latter). Also, I've lived in the U.S. all my life, and have never gone to any other country, yet I've always known that Santa Claus is called "Father Christmas" in the U.K.. For this reason, I consider not naming him an insult to viewers on both sides of the Atlantic (age notwithstanding). Also, we didn't need the "anti-war" talk. I consider this as being a hidden/secret message: "Stop the war in Iraq". I don't like war (or the Iraq situation) either, but I don't feel it was appropriate for this film.

All in all, I feel that this film is only half-faithful to the source material. It was faithful in some places, but in others it wasn't (especially the addition of a completely original character). When it comes to film adaptations, and/or remakes, it's either all or nothing, and this is a half-hearted effort.

That's all I have to say about it.

Oh, and one more thing. I felt the White Witch in this film was a litte bit (I repeat--a little bit) too beautiful.

Ok, first thing's first: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Secondly, you shouldn't really be editing a page concerning the movie if your only experience of it is reading the movie storybook. Although I've not read it myself, these storybooks are often produced independantly of the movie and with only a synopsis of the movie's script to go on - hence, some of the adaptation changes that were (presumably) added by you are incorrect.

In the movie, Aslan states that his resurrection was because of Deep Magic; he explicitly mentions it. Father Christmas not being named, I'll grant you, was probably because of the naming difference between UK and US viewers, but it's unfair to say that just because you, as a US viewer, know that Father Christmas is Santa Claus, every American child will.

In addition, as he gives Lucy her dagger, Father Christmas says that he hopes she won't have to use it, not that girls shouldn't go into battle. This to me is an anti-conflict statement in general, befitting of his benevolent image; he wasn't likely to say "I hope you stab someone with that!". As it stands, the girls hardly "battle" anything, with Susan firing one arrow and Lucy knifing something.

Finally, I didn't feel that the film was a commentary on the Iraq war. The allegories were drawn to the Second World War, and no allusions were made to "present day" conflicts. You're free, of course, to interpret the film in whatever way you want, but to imply that the director or screenwriter is deliberately salting the script with hidden metaphors about current events - even given the already-present Christian allegories that were retained - strikes me as a little ridiculous. CNash 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, okay. Fine. I get it. However, the film is still a violation of Mr. Lewis' creative integrity (if even partially; in this case, even "partially" is too much).

Which changes did you find especially repulsive? you have to realize that no adaptation perfectly matches the author's work, and, realistic, there's room for the director's artistic vision. in any event, I found the movie unusually faithful as adaptations go. I was slightly disappointed by Susan's role in the story (my memory of the books is hazy, but i felt the movie didn't give her enough to do) but other than that, iw as pretty good. - Orion

inconsistencies section

the article currently says that tumnus returns the handkerchief to Lucy which the beaver already gave back. but it's not clear to me this is an inconsistency. it might well not be her handkerchief at all; we never see that balck spot in the middle of it. and if it is, perhaps it was in her room or something and he went and got it?

Article name for film series?

I'm assuming that as soon as (if not before) the Prince Caspian movie is announced there will be an article for it. The obvious name for that article, I would think, is The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, but that's not my question. Once there's a second movie there will occationally be reasons to link to an article about the series of movies as a whole. What should that article be named? Anyone have an opinion? LloydSommerer 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Chronicles of Narnia films
• The Chronicles of Narnia Disney films
• The Chronicles of Narnia (Disney films)

The only problem with calling them "Disney films" would be the fact that they are Walden Media's films, and not Disney's. Disney is a financial backer and promotor; Walden Media hired the screenwriters, director, and owns the rights. --LuminousSpecter 07:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I started the article already, at The Chronicles of Narnia film series. It can, of course, be renamed. —wwoods 09:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Box office numbers

Current box office numbers

$141.4 million USD through Sunday, December 24, 2005 (currently 14th highest grossing film of 2005).

Why is its box office numbers just listed as the domestic total? There are people that use wikipedia who are not American, maybe the world wide would be more appropriate don't you think? Smerk 14:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Deeper Magic?

From our article on the book,

The "Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time," and "Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time" can be seen as similar to the Old and New Covenants of Christianity, respectively.

The Deeper Magic was missing in the film, but I'm not entirely convinced it was an issue of "adaptation for film", so much as (in my opinion) fluffing a major point of the book's theology. I'd like the article to point out that this was missing -- to me, it was the most important omission from the film -- but I'm not sure we have an appropriate section. Any thoughts? Wooster 14:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkish

The article says that Aslan is Turkish for lion. I thought it was Persian (Farsi) for lion. Joey1898 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Aslan article says it like this: The word aslan or arslan is both Turkish and Persian/Farsi for "lion" and is used as a title for Ottoman/Seljukid and Persian rulers. which seems a bit wordy too me, but who knows. LloydSommerer 02:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Adaptation changes for the film - criticisms

Consider this as "feedback" I suppose. The adaptation section, I felt, could use some work

• For many of the points, it was often difficult to determine whether some comments meant "for the film version.." or "in the book..." I would have prefered such formulaic prose, or even a table (consisting of columns with "in the film" and "in the book" column headings)
• The hyperlinking was WAY over the top, and unhelpful. Hyperlinking is good, but does lullaby, flame, wolf, castle, river, stone, treason and fire really need to be highlighted? why not other random words like death, fight, father, battle, film, coronation or others? It just seems that they are hyperlinked because of hyperlink sake, not because they have much to do with the sentance's main points.

I Critique out of love for Narnia, but realize I'm unlikely to return to this page, so I leave it to the hands of more capable chaps than I to accept or reject my comments -- 68.179.8.193 02:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Current box office numbers

• $248,649,542 as of January 9th, 2006 (currently the 4th highest grossing film of 2005 and 34th all time highest worldwide grossing movie). Also, according to Box Office Mojo, Narnia has grossed a worldwide total of $532,000,000 million so far.

The distinction between these numbers needs some explanation. What's the 248M refer to? Just U.S. ticket sales or what? —wwoods 06:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Lazy Sunday

Should we add a link to the lazy sunday video from this page? it relates directly to the pop-culture status of the movie. 67.188.192.110 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's in the Trivia section. Mrtea (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Beware of POV

I see a lot of: "I think...", and "personally..." which Wikipedia is strongly against. This is also a discussion on the article itself, not the topic. Colonel Marksman 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Box office, comparison not adjusted for inflation

The adulation in the box off sectio is all very nice, but does not really make clear that the film is only coming out top because it is comparing actual receipts. Gone with the Wind took a mere $191 million compared with Narnia's $290 million (so far). But adjusted for inflation GWTW took $1.2 billion, Star Wars $1.1 billion, etc. etc., and Narnia does not (yet...) even make it into the top 100 box office mojo. Sandpiper 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I could stand to cut all the records except for the "3rd highest worldwide grossing movie of 2005" and the Disney company history ones. And round the figures off to '$### million'. We can link out to trivia like "12th highest Christmas Day gross" and 'nth longest title of 2000s'. —wwoods 07:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The records section could stand to be cut down. I would wait until the BO figures are absolutely final though. As Sandpiper points out they aren't really that notable given the high inflation of Box Office reciepts. Eluchil404 15:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Will the box office figures ever be "final"? I expect the film will be shown again when the next film comes out. "Most pre-1980 pictures achieved their totals through multiple releases, especially Disney animated features which made much of their totals in the past few decades belying their original release dates in terms of adjustment. For example, Snow White has made $118,328,683 of its unadjusted $184,925,486 total since 1983."

—wwoods 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rereleases have become much less common since the introduction of home video releases of movies. Also re-releases are counted seperately where possible (though the total from all releases is considered the pictures total for most record purposes). That is while there is always the possibility of a rerelease it isn't very likely (the Harry Potter films haven't been re-released for instance) and the record numbers will change as new films pass it anyway. I was just recomending waiting to overhaul the BO section until the initial run is complete which is either now or very soon. It was still playing the last time I checked. Eluchil404 00:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to have a bit of fun with records/trivia, and it is fair comment to show how it has compered with other releases in the same year. it's just that the present phrasing (unless someone has revised it) doesnt make it clear that it is the annual placings rather than all-time and I thought went over the top in adulation. So that is misleading. Sandpiper 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the Box Office numbers section since it is no longer playing in the U.S./Canada and have removed most of the the all time records as non-notable. They are real but inflation robs them of most meaning as has been noted. Eluchil404 17:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)