Mini review of LWW

Status
Not open for further replies.

ascaaear

New member
I just watched LWW at the cinema this weekend, and I just felt that I had to give my opinion about it. For those who havent read the book or seen the movie. There may be spoilers!

I would like to start it by saying that I have gorwn up with watching the BBC tv-series of LWW from 1989. And I really enjoyed the series, so naturally I would compare this new movie to the old series.

After reading the books I`ve been a fan, and I really believe he have something important in the books that has to be told, but also it is a childrens book where there are alot of magic in the story, but also magic outside the story, if you know what I mean. And it is with sorrow that the new LWW hasnt been able to fully adapt this magic into the movie. What I by magic, is not how many cool scenes they are able to put in, or how good the cgi are. And btw, the cgi were really bad also!

First. The Lion. The voice were ok, even there were a minute I always thougt he would say end a sentence with: "May the force be with you", but the cgi were crappy. The animation was good, but it was too blury. In the last few years I havent seen any worse cgi. Even on Jurassic Park, witch came out many years ago had better and clearer cgi. They should have used WETA workshop (they did a great job on Lord of the Rings).

The story startet good. I liked the intro with the WW2 over London. Really good contrast to what will come, and the reference to the birds who droped stones over the Battle between the Witch and the King Peter. Really good.
From the start till they arrived at the beavers house, the storytelling were amazing and really good.
Then it started to tear appart. The waterfall and riding on ice were actually ok, but they started to drop off the story too much. They didnt slow down the movie, but jumped to the next thing to quick. They needed to dwell on the importent things and put more meat on the characthers, put some more depth in the movie. Ex. The audiense understod too quick that the Lion hided something to the others, after Edmund weas freed. They simply made the story too sweet and shallow. They barelly toucthed the importent and essantial parts of the books by jsut mention it quick.

I wasnt too happy about the actors either.... Peter, Lucy and the Faun were the only one who seemed believable. The Witch looked more like she weared the latest and hottest dress they could find at in a fashon show. The professor looked like the crazy jerk from the movie "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events". Susan and Edmund just looked too different from what I imagined from the books.

My conclution is that I still love the old BBC series. Even when it was imcomplete and had even worse special effects, they kept the magic.

But hey. I really had high hopes on this movie, but I guess Disney still hasnt got the magic back into the movies...
 
Okay, well, I suppose that's your own, *caugh* opinion. I have personally been a fan since I was a little kid, and I loved the movie, although I thought that they didn't perhaps portray Aslan and Susan quite like the the charactes in the books. I still LOVE the movie, however, VERY much. I don't think that the CGI was bad... one thing's for sure, it was a whole lot better than the BBC versions. And as for "Susan and Edmund just looked too different from what I imagined from the books," I'm sorry, but everybody sees book characters differently in our heads. I imagined them differently too, but I thought the actors and actresses picked in the movie were great, and they didn't help in ruining the movie for me.

As for the Witch, her outfit was totally original, and did not look, in my opinion, "contemporary." I thought they did a great job with her and Prof. Digory.

In conclusion, I don't know how you could possibly like the BBC actors (and actresses or whatever), namely the four Pevensies, more than the actors in the new Narnia movie. No, you never said this, but I just hope that by saying that you liked the BBC version better, you didn't mean the actors!

Once again, everyone has their own opinions, and that's mine!
 
DeplorableWord said:
Okay, well, I suppose that's your own, *caugh* opinion. I have personally been a fan since I was a little kid, and I loved the movie, although I thought that they didn't perhaps portray Aslan and Susan quite like the the charactes in the books. I still LOVE the movie, however, VERY much. I don't think that the CGI was bad... one thing's for sure, it was a whole lot better than the BBC versions. And as for "Susan and Edmund just looked too different from what I imagined from the books," I'm sorry, but everybody sees book characters differently in our heads. I imagined them differently too, but I thought the actors and actresses picked in the movie were great, and they didn't help in ruining the movie for me.

As for the Witch, her outfit was totally original, and did not look, in my opinion, "contemporary." I thought they did a great job with her and Prof. Digory.

In conclusion, I don't know how you could possibly like the BBC actors (and actresses or whatever), namely the four Pevensies, more than the actors in the new Narnia movie. No, you never said this, but I just hope that by saying that you liked the BBC version better, you didn't mean the actors!

Once again, everyone has their own opinions, and that's mine!

amen to that! :p
 
Better or not!

When I say the BBC is better, its not because it has better special effects or because it had so much better actress. What I mean, is that the BBC version kept the magic from the books better, and it had more personality.

And... I didnt say Susan and Edmund "looked" different from the books... theyr personality were different. The costume of the witch may look cool and great now, but in a few years people will laught about it. They could have picked something more timeless... something that were both special AND would "last" longer!

Do you actually thing the lion were stunning? I am sorry, but have you really seen what they really can do nowdays? I think easly could do the rendering more crisp, but actually chosed not to for a unknown reason...
 
Exscuse me Aslan is an AMAZING work of CGI. He may not look totally photorealistic but no CG model of a living thing can be. Buildings and trees and all you can do but not something living. I don't care how amazing you think Gollum was, he had his moments but you could tell he was CGI along with many other examples from LOTR. Also Weta had it easier creating Gollum & the others because they were fictional. No one really had seen a "gollum" before as opposed to a lion which is a real, everyday animal. It's much harder doing a model of something that everyone knows what it looks like compared to something no one has every seen. And to make it talk and seem believeable...that's hard. Also it was all fur and hair one of the toughest things to do with CGI. Please people, Aslan was amazing so stop looking at your precious LOTR and Weta and give credit to people who deserve it too.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top