What are your fears about VODT?

Sorry if I start preaching, but I'm kinda getting a little sick of some of the things being said.
BarbarianKing said:
Again Truman, you only look at the Narnia stories as entertainment. Of course I thought about the one mast boat in the high seas. It's kind of silly. However, if Lewis had intended pure entertainment (as some recent fantasy tales are now) he would probably have put in a man-o-war with an escort of destroyers and other naval vessels. After all, none other than the King who delivered Narnia was there. However, the Narnia stories are deeper than just pure entertainment so the one-mast ship actually makes more sense.
Click to expand...
Really? How?

And what makes you think Lewis intended the Narnia stories to be "deeper than just pure entertainment"? Who are you, and where did you get the information that Lewis' depiction of a one-mast ship actually made a spiritual difference in the story?

One exception: You can only give me something from Lewis' mouth; none of that pish-posh "Lewis meant this and that" lingo. What did he say about this? And if you can't give me a quote from him about the "meaning of the single mast," why in heaven should I believe a word you say, BK?

I contend there is no absolutest worldview presented in VDT. In fact, I'm judging by what Lewis did write (i.e. how he believed most of the Bible to be complete myth) that the line "You know me by another name" could very well have been a generic term. I keep hearing these baseless remarks about "if they don't keep the line in about him proclaiming himself to be Jesus I'll hate the movie." First of all why, for rationality's sake, would the writers, director, or producers remove such a vague term?

I've heard Copperfox say countless times in so many words, "Oh yeah. They'll remove it. I know they will. They'll completely remove the Christ claimer line." I'm sorry, but wasn't it the writers who gave you "It is finished" in the LWW film? I was incredibly surprised at how much more Christian it was than Lewis' novel. That "It is finished" line was never uttered by Aslan anywhere in Lewis' works, yet it was added. So why the heck do you think they're going to take out something even less apparent? Doesn't make sense.

Secondly, where has Aslan ever claimed he was Jesus? I want an exact quote. Scour the books if you have to, because I'm not gonna get off this subject until I see it for myself. Nowhere is it mentioned. If this is true, here is yet another example of why it wouldn't matter whether or not they kept the line in. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader will not lead anyone to Christ. Sorry, but this is a fact.

Thirdly, though I do believe Lewis meant Jesus when he wrote what he did, Lewis also said you could go to heaven, even if you believed in Tash, because obviously he "really meant" Aslan. The Last Battle is the sum-up book, and in it he implies that if you were a Muslim, you'll still go to heaven if you believed certain teachings of Jesus. I heard your line, Copper, about "I'll absolutely hate it if Aslan says, 'You know me in your world as Buddha!'" Well it's you lucky day, Copper, because Lewis stated in his Mere Christianity (which has absolutely no reference to any scripture anywhere throughout the writings) that Buddhists can go to heaven if they believe certain teachings of Jesus, though they may claim to be Buddhists, and still believe him to be the real truthsayer, unaware they're really worshipping Jesus.

I want everyone to put behind them the idea that "Lewis was a true believer!" I've read so much on him I could puke. He even believed man as "higher animals," which would imply Jesus to be decended from an ape. So when I read this bullocks about "deeper Christian meaning" I just smile, shake my head, and pray that the person spewing such will soon learn the real truth about C. S. Lewis: the blasphemer (as I call him). ;)
 
Truman said:
Sorry if I start preaching, but I'm kinda getting a little sick of some of the things being said.

Really? How?

And what makes you think Lewis intended the Narnia stories to be "deeper than just pure entertainment"? Who are you, and where did you get the information that Lewis' depiction of a one-mast ship actually made a spiritual difference in the story?

One exception: You can only give me something from Lewis' mouth; none of that pish-posh "Lewis meant this and that" lingo. What did he say about this? And if you can't give me a quote from him about the "meaning of the single mast," why in heaven should I believe a word you say, BK?

I contend there is no absolutest worldview presented in VDT. In fact, I'm judging by what Lewis did write (i.e. how he believed most of the Bible to be complete myth) that the line "You know me by another name" could very well have been a generic term. I keep hearing these baseless remarks about "if they don't keep the line in about him proclaiming himself to be Jesus I'll hate the movie." First of all why, for rationality's sake, would the writers, director, or producers remove such a vague term?

I've heard Copperfox say countless times in so many words, "Oh yeah. They'll remove it. I know they will. They'll completely remove the Christ claimer line." I'm sorry, but wasn't it the writers who gave you "It is finished" in the LWW film? I was incredibly surprised at how much more Christian it was than Lewis' novel. That "It is finished" line was never uttered by Aslan anywhere in Lewis' works, yet it was added. So why the heck do you think they're going to take out something even less apparent? Doesn't make sense.

Secondly, where has Aslan ever claimed he was Jesus? I want an exact quote. Scour the books if you have to, because I'm not gonna get off this subject until I see it for myself. Nowhere is it mentioned. If this is true, here is yet another example of why it wouldn't matter whether or not they kept the line in. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader will not lead anyone to Christ. Sorry, but this is a fact.

Thirdly, though I do believe Lewis meant Jesus when he wrote what he did, Lewis also said you could go to heaven, even if you believed in Tash, because obviously he "really meant" Aslan. The Last Battle is the sum-up book, and in it he implies that if you were a Muslim, you'll still go to heaven if you believed certain teachings of Jesus. I heard your line, Copper, about "I'll absolutely hate it if Aslan says, 'You know me in your world as Buddha!'" Well it's you lucky day, Copper, because Lewis stated in his Mere Christianity (which has absolutely no reference to any scripture anywhere throughout the writings) that Buddhists can go to heaven if they believe certain teachings of Jesus, though they may claim to be Buddhists, and still believe him to be the real truthsayer, unaware they're really worshipping Jesus.

I want everyone to put behind them the idea that "Lewis was a true believer!" I've read so much on him I could puke. He even believed man as "higher animals," which would imply Jesus to be decended from an ape. So when I read this bullocks about "deeper Christian meaning" I just smile, shake my head, and pray that the person spewing such will soon learn the real truth about C. S. Lewis: the blasphemer (as I call him). ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, another sugar-coated post, Truman. True, man. But where's the quote about Buddhists in MC?

You're right about the two masts not making any difference, though.
 
Sopespian said:

Ah, another sugar-coated post, Truman. True, man. But where's the quote about Buddhists in MC?
Click to expand...
Page 209 (last reference I made was from a different edition), but I think I already gave the quote in "Handling the changes."

You're right, it is pretty coated... But I don't want to get too off-topic or else this'll get moved.
 
Well in my mind, saying C. S. Lewis was a great man of God is like saying Charles Darwin was a great scientist, though Darwin was a college drop-out. ;)
 
I think that, even though I agree with you some, Truman; your above post belongs somewhere else in another thread...I am trying my darndest to avoid causing fights or participating in them, as it makes me an enemy of members on the forum, so I'm going to try to play peacemaker here and suggest that you two continue this discussion privately. Y'all can complain, gripe, or praise however much you want, but I think that is the only point of this thread, discussing our fears (and even our hopes) for VoDT; maybe this thread needs a sub-title. ;)
 
Yah, ease up everyone. Let's not get so bent out of shape with each other. Some of us are huge book fans with lots of fears about stuff we see as sacred. Please be gentle with us. Others of us are big Hollywood fans who have no use at all for the books and are tired of hearing the whiners who go on and on about the books ... Please try to bear up. Let's not get excited about it one way or another. I will take Tru's post above and start another thread based on it if he hasn't already, where we can discuss whether Aslan is Jesus and CSL was a Christian, OK? Let's reserve this thread for our fears (if any) about the movie. Thanks.
 
It's funny... this whole argument got started because of the number of masts on the ship! I have not seen this much fury over a ship design, since well, when the first images of the Enterprise from the new Star Trek film were relased!;) Then again, most of those debates were in Klingon so then it looks like everyones yelling. :rolleyes:

Any rate, not to stir up further controversy but with the line in question about ASlan being known by another name in our world, what if it were altered to "I am known by other names in other worlds." Afterall, if Jesus goes by Aslan in Narnia, shouldn't he logically be called a different name on say, Malacandra? Plus we know from TMN that there is more then one world ( See the Wood between the Worlds.) And if I recall correctly, in out of the Silent Planet Jesus (Aslan) went by Melidil the Young... SORRY! Stupid suggestion.

AS for fears ( or not) I ahve none. After bieng let down by the Left Behind films three times and the so-called mini-sereis of a Wrinkle in Time, I learned to to get my hopes up on film adaptations of books.
 
Last edited:
Well, it is such a trivial line (for secular audiences and the makers) that I doubt they will change it. I, personally, would rather it not be in at all than changed. No, I am NOT a stickler for perfect accuracy, because as someone said on the crew of Lord of the Rings, "literal adaptions are almost impossible to get across faithfully". (Paraphrased) Almost impossible, as with Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson did a fantastic job of sticking as close to the books as he possibly could without 1. boring the audience, 2. confusing and/or losing the audience who hadn't read the books, and 3. being so predictable that the fans of the books would enjoy it, but those who hadn't read them would be again bored to death and lost. I think it was Christopher Lee who said, "this could have gone on and on and on and on and on..."; and while Narnia isn't that deep, and doesn't contain that much material, you do run into the problem of the 3 problems I listed above. The BBC ones look boring to me because they seem to follow the books nearly exactly *yawns*.

Okay, that post was a lot longer than I intended it to be; I'll get off my soapbox now. :p
 
My point about the two-mast ship change was that if they made that change already, along with Gumpas at the harbor, who knows what other changes they already made to the story! That is my fear.
 
Have they "released" a script? They should release one that really departs from the book to make people freak out, but isn't the real one. ;) :p I know that the writers for At World's End claimed that the leaked script wasn't real (because the fans were worried over Will dying), but then it was real...if it wasn't actually true I dont' think I would've been quite as mad at the writers as I was when I found out that the so-called wrong script was indeed the filming script for the movie. And, you never know; the writers COULD be monitoring the internet looking for fans' responses to what is being seen. If you'll recall on LotR, they wrote out ARwen at Helm's Deep mainly because of the fan response (how else could they have known that people were upset with that addition if they hadn't been monitoring the internet and stuff.)
 
The good news is, no matter how much they screw up this movie, the books remain unchanged. Isn't that nice to know?
 
There was a rough script, but it was a very rushed script and mainly done before the Writer's strike began so they could begin production as soon as it ended. A lot of good that did.

Oh, AK. don't give me any more good dieas for Apirl Fools day...muahahaha.

But that is a goodp ooint on them monitoring. PC did not do well, in particular because of the fan sentiment, and they are going to want to do right by us.

@Pardine:You know, Ian McKellen said the same thing when fans of LOTR were complaining over the absense of Tom Bombadil. HE said, " He still exists, it isn't like we rounded up copeis of the book and burnt them. "
 
Well, I may have just given the writers an idea. :p Somehow I doubt it! And, on the note of LotR, Philippa Boyens commented that "we dont' know that Frodo and Sam didn't go into the Old Forest, and that they didn't meet Tom; we just don't show it." Peter then went on to say, "What does Tom Bombadil truly lend to the story of Frodo and the Ring? His character and dialogue doesn't move our story along at the rate it needs to." And, finally, as Christopher Lee said, "this could go on and on and on, etc... there's a lot of things not in the books, and in most cases I think those things that they changed areimprovements." (I'm paraphrasing here, but you can find those interviews on the first disc of the appendices of Fellowship of the Ring, extended edition, under the From Book to Script feature.)
 
I'd certainly disklike it if they ended the movies. Where would we be if there were no narnia? we'd be on earth, we just would be glum, empty shells, in theory of course.
 
There would still be the books, and the BBC videos--and the FIRST Walden Media movie, which was good. We would just have to live with the realization that Walden had every opportunity to do it right, and spitefully CHOSE to ruin it for the sake of trendiness.
 
Copperfox, why do you think that Walden Media's making changes to the movie out of spite? If previous posters in this thread are correct, and the movies are going to be cut if this one doesn't do well, you'd think they would be making every effort to alienate as few potential audience members as possible.
Now, maybe this effort will cause some changes you guys don't like. But it's got to be a tough position for the filmmakers, trying to both appease you and a wider audience. At least they're making the effort? At least they want to make these movies, rather than looking at Prince Caspian's relative failure and saying, "Okay! That was a flop! Interns, bring me a list of other successful books we can adapt and make guaranteed piles of money off of."
 
Yet on the other hand, if VODT is on par with LWW ( or better) and the same geos for the rest of the sereis, and PC is the only weak part, well I would not be dismayed. How many film franchises and book series afetrall have a weak entry or two?
 
Back
Top