What is ONE thing you hope happens in the Netflix Narnia stuff, that you are concerned they won't do?

MrBob said:
"I think CS Lewis would disagree that there are people who are evil simply for evil's sake."

wonderlings, people do embrace evil merely for evil's sake. They do it for the great feelings it gives them, for the power it gives them, for many reasons, all falling on the evil aspects of their behaviours and reasons behind it.
Click to expand...
I disagree, as does Lewis. I would recommend reading Mere Christianity if you have not already. Evil cannot create, it is just twisted or bent good.

A great feeling is not wrong, so doing something to get that great feeling can be twisted and turned evil, but the base desire of feeling good is good, just going about it the right way. That is what Lewis talks about, going deep into the motives behind those evil actions. At the root of all of them will be something that is good. This is not saying that evil act is good, just the core of it was done for something that is good.
 
The problem is, again if we are going off of Lewis wrote with Jadis, there is very little room for her to be "sympathetic" . The only account we have regarding the destruction of Charn is her own. Further when Digory and Polly call her out for how cruel it is to destroy all life on Charn, all she does is justify her actions, with out a single hint of remorse for her actions as she espouses full blown Nieztschean ethics. The same beliefs Digory's uncle espouses.

Uncel Andrew, perhaps could be sympathtic, maybe initially beginning his studies in search of a cure for his sister, but losing sight of the goal, a la Mr. Freeze in Batman, but that's about it.
 
Sven-El said:
The problem is, again if we are going off of Lewis wrote with Jadis, there is very little room for her to be "sympathetic" . The only account we have regarding the destruction of Charn is her own. Further when Digory and Polly call her out for how cruel it is to destroy all life on Charn, all she does is justify her actions, with out a single hint of remorse for her actions as she espouses full blown Nieztschean ethics. The same beliefs Digory's uncle espouses.

Uncel Andrew, perhaps could be sympathtic, maybe initially beginning his studies in search of a cure for his sister, but losing sight of the goal, a la Mr. Freeze in Batman, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
She is a classic villain. Don't need to sympathize with her, she is the villain and that is all she needs to be. While I find some characters more interesting when there is something more behind them, in this case it is a simple beautiful story that does not need to go down the rabbit hole for every characters. The story needs a villain, it got one.
 
"A great feeling is not wrong, so doing something to get that great feeling can be twisted and turned evil, but the base desire of feeling good is good, just going about it the right way."

That is the case for some people who commit evil. I will disagree with Mr. Lewis and you regarding this being the case for all cases of evil deeds. Some people commit evil for the power it gives them or to gain more power. Staying within the Narnia-verse, why did Miraz kill his brother Caspian IX? For power. Was that a great feeling? Why did he then want to kill his nephew after his own son was born? Power. Was that a great feeling? Thankfully, Miraz was not turned into a sympathetic character. He retained his bloodthirsty desire for power.

The only difference between Miraz and Jadis was their abilities. Miraz was limited to what he could do to his enemies. Jadis killed everyone, enemy and ally alike to maintain her power.
 
MrBob said:
The only difference between Miraz and Jadis was their abilities. Miraz was limited to what he could do to his enemies. Jadis killed everyone, enemy and ally alike to maintain her power.
Click to expand...
And presumably,her favorite horse, her pet cat, and her bowl of goldfish.
 
MrBob said:
"A great feeling is not wrong, so doing something to get that great feeling can be twisted and turned evil, but the base desire of feeling good is good, just going about it the right way."

That is the case for some people who commit evil. I will disagree with Mr. Lewis and you regarding this being the case for all cases of evil deeds. Some people commit evil for the power it gives them or to gain more power. Staying within the Narnia-verse, why did Miraz kill his brother Caspian IX? For power. Was that a great feeling? Why did he then want to kill his nephew after his own son was born? Power. Was that a great feeling? Thankfully, Miraz was not turned into a sympathetic character. He retained his bloodthirsty desire for power.

The only difference between Miraz and Jadis was their abilities. Miraz was limited to what he could do to his enemies. Jadis killed everyone, enemy and ally alike to maintain her power.
Click to expand...
People don't just want power for powers sake. That is ultra simplistic for how we operate. There is more to it than that, far more. And when you break these things down to their roots you will find they all stem from good. They are so twisted and bent though they can be hard to recognize. They are also no justification for the evil done but help in understanding the person committing the evil. Miraz might want power for the security it brings, the wealth and prosperity that can come with it. These things in themselves are not wrong or evil, but going after them in the way he does is. He wanted to kill his nephew to ensure his biological child would be ensured a prosperous future, the best future he could think of. What parent does not want the best for their child? These are not justifications for actions, but they are deep rooted motives that are not evil at the core. Through the Christian lens we were created without sin, but have been corrupted. So all that is good and wonderful has been twisted into horrible dark things, but evil is still lacking the power to create it can only distort and ruin.
 
Peepiceek said:
I hope they will cover the books that haven't been done before, rather than following the pattern of doing LWW, PC and then running out of steam after VDT.

Although I think adaptation is needed, both because the book dialogue is rather weak for a film version and because cultural expectations have changed since the 1950s, I hope that they will try to be relatively faithful to the characters of the original books rather than making them all into moody, self-obsessed existentialists.
Click to expand...
I would love doe them to do The Horse & His Boy. Alas I fear it could be misinterpreted as mocking Middle Easterners, when one of its greatest characters, Aravis, is one.
 
Sven-El said:
The problem is, again if we are going off of Lewis wrote with Jadis, there is very little room for her to be "sympathetic" . The only account we have regarding the destruction of Charn is her own. Further when Digory and Polly call her out for how cruel it is to destroy all life on Charn, all she does is justify her actions, with out a single hint of remorse for her actions as she espouses full blown Nieztschean ethics. The same beliefs Digory's uncle espouses.

Uncel Andrew, perhaps could be sympathtic, maybe initially beginning his studies in search of a cure for his sister, but losing sight of the goal, a la Mr. Freeze in Batman, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
I pray we so not get another “empathize with evil,” like the Cruella movie. I fear though they will attempt to make Jadis seem justified in why she becomes what she does, a la Wicked.
 
Back
Top