I was going to say that. Disagreeing with a person is one thing. Insulting that person is another matter. One must learn to disagree with respect.
The Series is threatened.
- Thread starter Caspian'sQueen
- Start date
I was going to say that. Disagreeing with a person is one thing. Insulting that person is another matter. One must learn to disagree with respect.
gogogoff
New member
PrinceoftheWest is a published author, and you would not consider his comments the teachings of a "legless" man if you had been around longer. Or, I will say, the other reason you might say something like this is not worthy of you, so I must assume it is your short time here which makes you give this judgment. Of the moderators and members here whose good opinion I value and who I would come to for straight talk and a good perspective, PoTW is right at the top of the list. I take extreme exception to this comment of yours.
I was talking about his movie views, my brother in law is a Director and me and him have talked, and I my self am an actor I was saying that to call movies flops when they where not is what critics do. Lord of the Rings was done Wonderfully I think it would be cool to have PJ do Narnia
Malacandra
Member
Well, for a given value of "wonderfully", sure. Entirely too many people falling off cliffs, a completely unwarranted subplot where Gollum succeeded in driving a wedge between Frodo and Sam, a pointless and stupid trip to Osgiliath, a foolishly pig-headed reluctance on Elrond's part to re-forge Aragorn's sword, the really dumb part where Sauron put Arwen under a curse for no reason at all, Gimli being made into comic relief, Pippin and Merry having to trick Treebeard into going and seeing what Saruman had been doing to the forest, the portrayal of Denethor as a drooling idiot, Elves at Helm's Deep, and a few other minor flaws that I could mention if I really wanted to...
I mean, visually it was a great movie and it had scope to have been far worse, but really, I don't set the bar for "wonderfully" at "could have been far worse". YMMV.
shortangel
New member
i don't think it was threated at all but yes adaptions
i don't think the series of remade narnia movies is threated at all, but i feel that prince caspian came out at a time when 2 other movies that are so popular were coming out, and yes there were adaptions in the movie but that doesn't mean that they took God out of the movie or at least the Christian messages out of the movie, they are still there you just have to dig for them you'll see them there i did
but yes adaptionsi don't think the series of remade narnia movies is threated at all, but i feel that prince caspian came out at a time when 2 other movies that are so popular were coming out, and yes there were adaptions in the movie but that doesn't mean that they took God out of the movie or at least the Christian messages out of the movie, they are still there you just have to dig for them
you'll see them there i did 
Please, nobody be offended on my behalf. Where Gogo is making his error is in thinking me "of the Critic type" with regard to the film. When it comes to critiquing filmography (i.e. cinematography, the presentation of the story as an example of the film art, etc.) I am quite a neophyte and do not pretend to be any kind of critic.
What I am, however, is a Narnian to the core, and somewhat of a Lewis scholar. An amateur, to be sure, but I have presented papers on Lewis to scholarly groups and had articles published in journals. In that capacity, I stand by my critique that the movie missed one or two critical points, so critical that they weakened the entire work. While they did many things very well and some things superbly, I think the mistakes they made in things like Peter's character weakened the story substantially.
So, speaking as not just a fan of Narnia, but something approaching a devotee, I contend that the film version of the story as a story is weaker than the book - at places critically.
What I am, however, is a Narnian to the core, and somewhat of a Lewis scholar. An amateur, to be sure, but I have presented papers on Lewis to scholarly groups and had articles published in journals. In that capacity, I stand by my critique that the movie missed one or two critical points, so critical that they weakened the entire work. While they did many things very well and some things superbly, I think the mistakes they made in things like Peter's character weakened the story substantially.
So, speaking as not just a fan of Narnia, but something approaching a devotee, I contend that the film version of the story as a story is weaker than the book - at places critically.
This is essentially the reasons that opinions are opinions. You can feel great about a movie or horribly about a movie and what's important is what it means to you. Moves are movies, and we can feel however we want about them and express our opinions about them, trash them or praise them, at the end of the day those are our opinions and we shouldn't have to change them to accommodate someone else.
That said I have deep seated disagreements with PotW's stance because as much as I love the books, the Caspian story -as I've said- has substantial narrative failures, IMO. It doesn't help that I also stand against his position about Peter's character which is one of his major points of contention
But I ain't trashing nobody just having a good ol' debate!
gogogoff
New member
Maybe its just my generation but the more real Peter was something I identified with. I know its not the fairy tale people want. However I also thought the character change was necessary in order to portray that tale of falling away and then to redemption that a lot of people may feel was too subtle, but that I at leasts caught onto. I don't read about King David's adultery and get good feelings, but I see the story from beginning to end and kinda understand what the point was.
What you expounded in your earlier post, Daishi, is an almost textbook example of a thoroughly modern attitude toward literature and art. It is commonly called the “reader response” method, and it can very succinctly encapsulated in your phrase:
It's interesting that this discussion has turned around Tolkien's works, because if there was anyone who detested the reader response approach to literature, it was Tolkien (Lewis was not far behind). We know from letters and talks that Tolkien did not simply “not appreciate” people pontificating on what Lord of the Rings “really meant”, he was outraged and offended. It especially got his back up when people would write him and tell him what he was saying when he wrote the work! He did not respond by saying “what's important is what it means to you”, he responded with scorn, angrily pointing out to those people that they knew nothing of what he intended to say and had no right to try to interpret his works to anyone – least of all him! This is one reason why Tolkien adamantly resisted all efforts to turn his works into movies (Disney was very interested in The Hobbit).
Ironically, you turn right around and contradict yourself by stating that:
This idea is very popular in our time, but flies directly in the face of the classical understanding of the purpose of art: i.e. that the artist wants to say something to his readers (or viewers, or whatever), and part of appreciating the work is to try to apprehend that message. How the readers apprehended that message, and how they responded to the message, and other subjective things like that, are where the opinion comes in. But if a work is intended by the author to say something (and as an artist myself, I can assure you that at least some authors do intend that), then classical appreciation says we should seek what that is.
It's interesting that this discussion has turned around Tolkien's works, because if there was anyone who detested the reader response approach to literature, it was Tolkien (Lewis was not far behind). We know from letters and talks that Tolkien did not simply “not appreciate” people pontificating on what Lord of the Rings “really meant”, he was outraged and offended. It especially got his back up when people would write him and tell him what he was saying when he wrote the work! He did not respond by saying “what's important is what it means to you”, he responded with scorn, angrily pointing out to those people that they knew nothing of what he intended to say and had no right to try to interpret his works to anyone – least of all him! This is one reason why Tolkien adamantly resisted all efforts to turn his works into movies (Disney was very interested in The Hobbit).
Ironically, you turn right around and contradict yourself by stating that:
It's one thing to say you don't like a story, but saying it has 'narrative failures' implies that there is an objective standard (i.e. not an opinion) somewhere of “proper narratives”, of which Lewis falls short. If the reader response has validity, then certainly nobody has any place criticizing the initial reader – the author himself – for an incomplete story.
Narrative failure is a description of my personal look at the work, which is still my own assessment. I completely understand what you're saying about the artist wanting to deliver what they want to deliver, and have no qualms about that, given I have the same attitude when I produce a piece of writing or art. That said, that's exactly what the books exist for. Books don't translate nicely into another medium for a variety of reasons, pacing among them. What's being implied by some of the posters here is that the themes expounded on in Caspian the book aren't expounded on in Caspian the movie, and while I agree that's true in the case of the chivalry/heroic theme, I also feel that some of the more pertinent issues of true religion and such are well maintained. When Lewis says "the restoration of the true religion after a corruption" is a major theme, I feel that I saw that well within the movie. The changing of a character to elaborate on that issue fits the modern sensibilities obviously, but more importantly I feel creates a vehicle for that theme to ride on.
Tweetsie
New member
I believe what can be considered Lewis's "narrative failure" is his objectivism, so to speak. (AKA Third Person Narrative) He did not delve into character's minds much more than to say, "Lucy didn't understand" or "Lucy felt frightened" or something of the sort. He didn't explore their innermost thoughts, and so left it to the READER to do so.
In today's literature Third Person Omniscient is dominating. That is when you speak objectively but see into people's minds. (Harry Potter = great example of this)
I don't know if I was popping in at the wrong time, but that's the only even NEAR to narrative failure I find. Maybe it's that I'm a modern person, but I rather like seeing the characters' minds and it may be so with some other people.
In today's literature Third Person Omniscient is dominating. That is when you speak objectively but see into people's minds. (Harry Potter = great example of this)
I don't know if I was popping in at the wrong time, but that's the only even NEAR to narrative failure I find. Maybe it's that I'm a modern person, but I rather like seeing the characters' minds and it may be so with some other people.
Copperfox
Well-known member
Nothing at all wrong with your comment, Tweetsie. For my part, I favor a sort of limited-omniscient narration, in which the storyteller can see inside any character's head at will, but does not go darting back and forth between one person's inner thoughts and another's in the SAME scene.
Tweetsie
New member
Yeah, that confuses me too. I rather like to know the lead characters thoughts more than anyone elses...
But it might be interesting to see ALL your character's thoughts, if they can do that without confusing anyone.
Copperfox
Well-known member
Warning: shameless plug detected.
Tweetsie, have you read the closely-linked stories Timbalionguy and I have created? Tim's ("The Lion's Share") comes chronologically first, though mine was the first finished writing. My story attempts to practice "limited-omniscient" effectively. But please read the existing portion of Tim's before you start on mine. Mine is old enough that it's no longer visible on Writing Club; but you can reach it via my tiger graphic.
Tweetsie, have you read the closely-linked stories Timbalionguy and I have created? Tim's ("The Lion's Share") comes chronologically first, though mine was the first finished writing. My story attempts to practice "limited-omniscient" effectively. But please read the existing portion of Tim's before you start on mine. Mine is old enough that it's no longer visible on Writing Club; but you can reach it via my tiger graphic.
Tweetsie
New member
I will give it my time if I find it. I had work today so I don't think my eyes or brain are working any further than fan clubs. But i'll even bookmark it.
One thing about the comment on Lewis' limited take on the limited omniscience: It may provide a limited view of the character's person, but it's also entirely consistent with his entire body of writing in the Narnia series. If you think about it, that's where a lot of the feel of the books are. You get a window into this world, but it's a window the writer only provides a small view of, in terms of the descriptions of the world and the thoughts of the people. Lewis allows a person to connect the dots, so to speak, which is in contrast to some of the authors as you said, which is in definite contrast to hyper description used in some books (I'm looking at you Tolkien ). It's consistent with his attempt at writing fairy tales over fantasy stories per say.
Oh and as a final take on PotW's last post. I never meant to say that all people's takes on what a story meant are valid, because that's not true. There's a point to get across, and sometimes it comes across better than others. What I am saying is that whether you feel it is a good work or not is an entirely subjective matter and therefore nobody's feelings on it are any more valid than another's. They're yours and yours alone. Lord of the Rings may be stand as the king of fantasy, but that doesn't guarantee a person will enjoy it. When I look at Narnia, at least on these boards, I'm seeing groups of people who took vastly different things away from the movie. The quantification of 'enjoyment' is subjective. I enjoyed Prince Caspian because I felt it was a good fantasy movie overall, because I smiled the whole way through and I felt it captured the themes I could enjoy. I understand that people like Copper saw it as a decent film that lost some of the spirit, especially in characterization. I think it was acceptable for a reason that Copper does not.
Now where it gets tricky is in discussing in whether or not the movie actually did or did not translate those themes, and that is a legitimate discussion of the movie's strengths and failures and its own narrative flaws.
). It's consistent with his attempt at writing fairy tales over fantasy stories per say.Oh and as a final take on PotW's last post. I never meant to say that all people's takes on what a story meant are valid, because that's not true. There's a point to get across, and sometimes it comes across better than others. What I am saying is that whether you feel it is a good work or not is an entirely subjective matter and therefore nobody's feelings on it are any more valid than another's. They're yours and yours alone. Lord of the Rings may be stand as the king of fantasy, but that doesn't guarantee a person will enjoy it. When I look at Narnia, at least on these boards, I'm seeing groups of people who took vastly different things away from the movie. The quantification of 'enjoyment' is subjective. I enjoyed Prince Caspian because I felt it was a good fantasy movie overall, because I smiled the whole way through and I felt it captured the themes I could enjoy. I understand that people like Copper saw it as a decent film that lost some of the spirit, especially in characterization. I think it was acceptable for a reason that Copper does not.
Now where it gets tricky is in discussing in whether or not the movie actually did or did not translate those themes, and that is a legitimate discussion of the movie's strengths and failures and its own narrative flaws.
Last edited:
Fifth Pevensie
New member
I may just be lost but it sounds here like you two (PotW and Daishi) are using interchangably the concepts of Art and Entertainment.
I would hold that they are very distinct issues. In matters of Art, the purpose behind the work should be respected as it is a form of expression. In matters of Entertainment, only you can judge what you find amusing or interesting.
There is a level of subjectivity in all that we perceive: the world as a whole and our companions in this life. It's true that most of the time our goal is to overcome our own limited outlook -our own highly personal experiences- and broaden it to encompass universalities and approach Truth as the absolute. We take the effort to understand each other --to walk in each other's shoes. Thus, too, in Art we try to see the sculpture as it was originally conceived by another mind -> we stretch ourselves, through our imaginations slowly communicating.
In the case of Entertainment, this is not really necessary. We're not after truth; we're after response. It's a simpler, personal matter of whether you find something amusing or aggravating. So perception and subjectivity, personal inclinations and prejudices, rule the day.
Ok, I'll hush up now since I'm pretty sure I'm not making sense. But, I really enjoyed reading your posts nonetheless. Very thought-provoking.
I would hold that they are very distinct issues. In matters of Art, the purpose behind the work should be respected as it is a form of expression. In matters of Entertainment, only you can judge what you find amusing or interesting.
There is a level of subjectivity in all that we perceive: the world as a whole and our companions in this life. It's true that most of the time our goal is to overcome our own limited outlook -our own highly personal experiences- and broaden it to encompass universalities and approach Truth as the absolute. We take the effort to understand each other --to walk in each other's shoes. Thus, too, in Art we try to see the sculpture as it was originally conceived by another mind -> we stretch ourselves, through our imaginations slowly communicating.
In the case of Entertainment, this is not really necessary. We're not after truth; we're after response. It's a simpler, personal matter of whether you find something amusing or aggravating. So perception and subjectivity, personal inclinations and prejudices, rule the day.
Ok, I'll hush up now since I'm pretty sure I'm not making sense. But, I really enjoyed reading your posts nonetheless. Very thought-provoking.
Last edited:
The falling away and redemption had already been achieved in LWW with Edmund. There was no reason for casting Peter in the same role. No reason whatsoever. And it is not your generation, Daishy, if you mean that you are younger than other members here because I know many young members who are also disappointed in that portrayal of Peter.
Last edited: