rude comment for LWW in paper

MrBob

Well-known member
In my local newspaper, there was a listing of the best movies of the past decade. In the family movies category, the author of the article, Mal Vincent, made the comment about LWW: "Did anyone notice how sadistic {LWW} was? I still can't get over what they did to that lion."

Among the movies that he names as best are three of the HP movies (PoA, GoF, and HBP), "Lassie", "Charlie and the Chocoalte Factory", "Akeelah and the Bee", "Spy Kids", and "Where the Wild Things Are".

That they had even worse death scenes in the HP movies apparently did not come to him.

MrBob
 
yeah that's kind of weird to say that about LWW rather than Goblet of Fire or Half-Blood Prince...
but i kind of get what he's saying, but the LWW scene is not as bad as HP, as you said..
 
That is very odd ... Do you think he thought the violence was too graphic? Cuz Dumbledore is murdered in HBP, but at least you don't actually see him at the moment he smacks into the ground ... still, you don't actually see Jadis' death blow, either. That's just weird!
 
Maybe they thought it crossed the lion? ;)

Seriously folks, there were some disturbing elements in the death of Aslan that would frighten certain people more than the death of someone like Dumbledore.

1) Aslan was tied up. He couldn't even move. He laid there and saw it coming.

2) He was desecrated.

3) He was surrounded by hate on all sides. They were laughing at him as he died.

4) The story paid a lot of attention to his dead body afterward.

I think LWW as a book and movie are tasteful. For that matter, so was Bambi. As for most modern video/computer games, well, if it didn't vomit blood on your rocket boots before it died, it isn't "cool". It's a matter of whether violence is important and properly dealt with or gratuitous and left unresolved.

Research shows that the worse of two violent events is dealt with more easily by children if it's accompanied by some form of catharsis than the less violent act left unresolved.

Example: A child sees his mother get shot in the shoulder by an assailant. He calls 911 and gets an ambulance, then later bravely faces the man in court and gives testamony to get him put away for a long time. His mother, sitting on the front row, is so proud of him.

Then switch to the story of a young man and woman walking through the park on a romantic date. Suddenly a pervert jumps out, rips the front off the woman's dress and takes a picture of her exposed chest. The man tries to rush him but the pervert pulls out a switchblade and says "Back off, wimp!" Then he dashes off with his camera and is never caught.

To a child the first story is scary but the second is horrifying. There is no closure. Does the woman think her boyfriend is less of a man? Will it happen again? Will the pervert do it to other women? Is he going to put the pictures on the internet? Will their mothers see it online? What was he going to do with the picture?

Unlike Dumbledore, Aslan got the last laugh. And unlike Dumbledore, Aslan was in complete control of what happened.
 
So actually despite the scariness and humiliation of what happened to Aslan, the critic should actually prefer that over Dumbledore's death on film, right? If his objection is that something is sadistic ...
 
Warning, spoilers for some movies, the Harry Potter series in particular. Be forewarned.


I agree with you all. We look at some comparable scenes from the other movies listed (that I have seen):

In PoA, there are beings that suck the soul from people. Harry and Sirius are havin that done to them.

In GoF, there is the death of Cedric, the resurrection of Voldy (where the different things used are a bone from a grave, the hand of the follower, and Harry's blood. Voldy even puts his foot on Cedric's face while he is dead with his eyes still open.

In HBP, you have a man falling out of a window, killed by the man whom he had trusted.

In Charlie and the Chocolate Facotry, each of the children suffers a potentially deadly issue. At least in that one, they show they are alive, if now very much altered, especially for Violet and Mike.

The LWW scene is extremely tame in comparison.

MrBob
 
I also can't understand how Where the Wild Things Are could qualify as one of the greatest children's movies over LWW. I haven't watched it, but the reviews seemed to suggest that it was geared slightly more towards adults than children. LWW may be better for older children, but it is definitely a children's movie.
 
I couldn't disagree more about LWW being a childrens movie. It's a movie for adults that kids can also enjoy. I would say the same thing about most of the Pixar films.

Where the Wild Things Are was an amazing film. One of the best of the year. I feel like kids today are a lot more easily scared then they used to be. I would caution parents with kids under 8. I think a lot, but not all, young kids can handle it. It's just a little scary, that's all.
 
I think "family movie" was the goal for LWW. But if family movies can't be categorized as legitimate children's movies, then the article writer should have stuck to movies about Nemo and Disney princesses.

The thing--as I understand it, from the reviews I've read--with Where the Wild Things Are isn't so much that it's scary, but that it includes a lot of mature themes more geared toward adults than children. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie or mean that children who watch it will be irreparably damaged, but most younger children won't naturally gravitate to films with themes about loss.
 
I can understand why the author of that article would be disturbed by that scene in LWW. As a kid, I probably would have been disturbed too because of the nature and emotional leading-up of the scene and Aslan's death. I think if your child is too young to see such a thing, you should fast-forward it and tell them what happened. Otherwise, I think the rest of LWW is fine for kids (besides maybe the scenes where the witch is making things turn violently into stone).

I don't understand why he would mention HP and Wild Things, though. Again, perhaps if you used discretion in fast forwarding scenes, that would be fine---but HP is PG-13! The warning, suffice it to say, should have a few questions as to children younger than 12 seeing it.

I never liked 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory's' scenes with children getting strange things done to them, too. If your child is prepared for that, do so. But a 'family inclusive' movie? I wouldn't suggest a 6 or 7 year old seeing 'Charlie'.
 
I saw LWW when I was 8 or 9 and read the books right after that. I've never seen or read HP but my mom watched it and didn't think it was good... LWW is a kid's movie though, even with the scene of Aslan's death, he rises again anyway people! And frankly if I could watch that movie when I was 8 its a kids movie, because I was terrified of 'little kid's' movies when I was younger and LWW didn't scare me as I recall.
And my cousin has been listening to those books in audio recordings since she was a baby.
I did hear my friend say once though that LWW would probably be rated PG-13, but we like 7-8 then.
Aslan's death is a very emotional scene but I don't think that LWW should be classified as a non-kid movie just for that scene.
 
I agree with Mozart the Meerkitten
I remember watching LWW when I was eight and loving it.
but i also remember being scared by some other little kid movies
around that age too, there was a little bear that i would always
fast forward through.
I think that classifies LWW as a family and kids movie.
 
RUDE COMMENTS IN THE PAPER ABOUT NARNIA??? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Adults who don't see the christian symbolism in it always think its sadistic.
But I've seen worse about narnia.
They think Tumnus is a pedophile and the sexualize the whole Susan and Caspian thing too much. And now heres them complaining about Aslan's death.
sheesh
 
you have got to be kidding me!!I mean the 4 Harry potter is PG-13!LWW is a very good movie but some people just don't see that:mad:
 
Well I can sorta see where they are coming from, as LLW is rated like a PG or summet, but HP is sometimes rated a 12 or a 12A....

speaking of Ratings vicky,how exactly do they work in England?

Here we have:
G-ALL AGES ADMITTED
PG-PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED
PG-13-PARENTAL GUIDANCE STRONGLY CAUTIONED
R-RESTRICTED
NC-17-This usually means you shouldn't watch no matter HOW old you get.
 
Here we have:
G-ALL AGES ADMITTED
PG-PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED
PG-13-PARENTAL GUIDANCE STRONGLY CAUTIONED
R-RESTRICTED
NC-17-This usually means you shouldn't watch no matter HOW old you get.

and X. They used to have X.
X my parents told me was waaaaay worse than NC-17 or R movies... hence why that rating/movie type stopped/toned down I guess.:rolleyes:
 
speaking of Ratings vicky,how exactly do they work in England?

Here we have:
G-ALL AGES ADMITTED
PG-PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED
PG-13-PARENTAL GUIDANCE STRONGLY CAUTIONED
R-RESTRICTED
NC-17-This usually means you shouldn't watch no matter HOW old you get.

U - Is all ages, usually like Disney films and child films
PG - Parental Guidance, it wants your parents to see if they think it's suitable
12 - You have to be 12 to rent it or go to the cinema... or just sneek in
12A - You have to be 12 and they recommend having an adult aswell
15 - You have to be 15
15A - I'm not sure if there is one....... but there might be, then you'd be 15 and with a parent
18+ - You gotta be 18
 
U - Is all ages, usually like Disney films and child films
PG - Parental Guidance, it wants your parents to see if they think it's suitable
12 - You have to be 12 to rent it or go to the cinema... or just sneek in
12A - You have to be 12 and they recommend having an adult aswell
15 - You have to be 15
15A - I'm not sure if there is one....... but there might be, then you'd be 15 and with a parent
18+ - You gotta be 18

thanks! that clears it up for me:)
So,12A or 12 here would just be PG-13 or PG.
U huh? that probably looks funny on traliers:D
I'm assuming 15,15A and 18+ is like R and NC-17 here.
thx a lot!
 
LWW is a film for all ages in some extent but The HP are not as suitable as narnia. My niece is 10 now when she saw narnia she was 5 or six when it came out and she watched it as for the harry potter ones we dont let her watch them
 
Back
Top