Why does everyone hate this movie merged with worst change

[inkspot]

Maybe I made too big a deal about the sticky hands. However, too more clearly inform you, a Baptist is not a Protestant, as the Baptists trace their roots all the way to the early church, while Protestantism date back to Martin Luther 95 Theses. I suppose that different people have different beliefs, but personally I found the Bacchus romp revolting.

To my knowledge Baptist is Proestant. There's Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, so Baprist has to be one. While I can see you're disgusted by the Romp, I am still wondering why. You didn't answer Animus. What was the "sick" part about it? What wickedness, besides the wine (which Jesus Himself was known to drink and make)?

 

[Sopespian]

That's all

Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah. We could discuss the origins of different denominations or the differing beliefs about wine and other alcoholic beverages for millions of years and never reach a conclusion. Let me say only that I personally believe the Romp was morally wrong and the exclusion of it was the best change from the book. That's all.

 

[Animus Wyrmis]

You've still yet to explain why that is--the drinking? The lack of handwashing? You called it an orgy, and I would really love to hear your reasoning on that.

(Inky, technically you do have four groups--the Anglican/Episcopal Church wasn't part of the Reformation and thus can't claim to be Protestant. I think some Protestant groups claim some direct connection to the pre-schism church, but they all came out of the Reformation, so that's Protestant.)

 

[Silver Moon]

Peter's character, especially when didn't believe Lucy about Aslan. What made think that Aslan should appear to him especially?

 

[Liz]

Interesting discussion about Bacchus. In my view nothing morally wrong happens in the PC book. The important thing is, that Aslan is there all the time, while Bacchus is there. Aslan ensures things don't get too wild.
It's ok, that this part is not in the film. But I missed the banquet, and the trees getting four kinds of mud!

I voted for Aslan's introduction, as the worst part. I would have liked to see more of Him!

 

[Sopespian]

You've still yet to explain why that is--the drinking? The lack of handwashing? You called it an orgy, and I would really love to hear your reasoning on that.

(Inky, technically you do have four groups--the Anglican/Episcopal Church wasn't part of the Reformation and thus can't claim to be Protestant. I think some Protestant groups claim some direct connection to the pre-schism church, but they all came out of the Reformation, so that's Protestant.)

I called it an orgy because it was so unstructured and "wild" and nobody knew what they were actually doing. Also, Bacchian followers in Greece and Rome were frequent participants in orgies. That was probably the wrong choice of words. From my perspective, engaging in just one drink is sin, and if so, then running around with a god of wine is probably worse. Furthermore, the "wine" that Jesus Christ made and drank was likely not fermented, or barely fermented, having no more intoxicating capabilities than grape juice. Moreover, I reiterate that Baptists are not Protestants. In fact, the Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli persecuted thousands of Baptists, torturing and executing them. However, if he had been Lasaraleen, he would beaten them to death, then burned them alive, and then kept them on bread and water for six weeks. My sister recently re-read the series, and she got a big kick out of that. In case you're wondering, I'd really rather not discuss this anymore as only a detailed study into the two subjects (drinking and Baptist history) would yield any conclusive compromises.

 

[inkspot]

Animus, you're right, Anglican/Episcopalian sort of sit at the crossroads of Catholic and Protestant. Sopespian, you're right, this is not the thread to discuss denominations (there is another thread for that). But I think you'll find when you read Lewis' Space trilogy that he regarded the pagan mythology as part of those "good dreams" God sent to prepare the earth for the coming of His Son, sort of precursors to the arrival of the God-Man, and CSL even found ways to redeem the paganism so it was used for God's ends in That Hideous Strength -- baptizing it, as it were, rather than obliterating it. I think that's what he did with Bacchus and the Romp, here.

 

[Sopespian]

Interesting perspective

Animus, you're right, Anglican/Episcopalian sort of sit at the crossroads of Catholic and Protestant. Sopespian, you're right, this is not the thread to discuss denominations (there is another thread for that). But I think you'll find when you read Lewis' Space trilogy that he regarded the pagan mythology as part of those "good dreams" God sent to prepare the earth for the coming of His Son, sort of precursors to the arrival of the God-Man, and CSL even found ways to redeem the paganism so it was used for God's ends in That Hideous Strength -- baptizing it, as it were, rather than obliterating it. I think that's what he did with Bacchus and the Romp, here.

That's an interesting perspective, Inky. Incidentally, I have read Out of the Silent Planet, but I prefer the fantasy of C.S. to his science fiction. I don't exactly agree with Lewis about the "good dreams," but it helps to clear things up some. Do you think that that has anything to do with what Aslan said to Emeth about service to Tash as being service to Aslan if it were good?

 

[inkspot]

Personally, I do ... it's interesting to note, though, that Emeth was not already dead when Aslan extended this opportunity to worship Aslan in truth to him -- so whether Lewis meant to imply that if you died in a state of sincere service to another god you could still be saved by Jesus is not clear.

 

[Truman]

Personally, I do ... it's interesting to note, though, that Emeth was not already dead when Aslan extended this opportunity to worship Aslan in truth to him -- so whether Lewis meant to imply that if you died in a state of sincere service to another god you could still be saved by Jesus is not clear.

...I think it is. The point in the book where Aslan talks about "believing" in him was very troubling to me, which is one of the primary reasons I didn't enjoy The Last Battle as a reader. Here's the passage that I think'd be helpful if we're going to continue talking about this subject

(If this is getting too off-topic you (mods) can move this to the books forum.)

(Talking to Emeth)

"The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him..."

To be quite frank, this is outright blasphemy. That's like saying in the real world, "If you swear by Allah while doing what Jesus asks, you're really worshipping Jesus."

No, if you swear by Allah you're worshipping Allah. If you ask forgiveness from Jesus and swear by Him you're worshipping Him. Plus, there's no such thing as "totally doing what another religion commands." Everyone has their quirks and superstitions. There are many Muslims who aren't extremist, and are peaceful people who do things that Jesus would approve of. Are they really worshipping Jesus? No, they're worshipping Allah.

This Lewisian teaching is not new; Billy Graham is sold to it (God help him), as he said something similar to that passage in an interview with a Catholic priest who agreed whole-heartedly about how there are many people out there who worship Jesus,

"...whether they know it or not."

This makes me seriously doubt whether Lewis was really a Bible-believing Christian, because if he believed the Bible he would have read and believed such passages as John 3:3,

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

There's also a problem with people thinking, "Oh, I can just believe in Jesus and I'll be saved!" Really? Ever heard of James 2:19?

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

It's not enough to just "believe." Satan believes in Jesus as the Savior of the world. He isn't an idiot, he knows this. The difference between that and getting to heaven is the fact that you must be born again in Jesus' name, then believe and follow Him as well as His teachings given to us in the Bible.

Lewis took this extreme of "knowing not" into his Mere Christianity (which I advise a few people to thoroughly read if they wish to know his true thoughts on conversion).

"There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ's birth may have been in this position."

--Mere Christianity, p. 176, 177

What about the smoking gun passage totally against this in Acts 4:12?

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

I'm sorry, but Lewis was wrong. Very wrong.

 

[inkspot]

Yah, if you'd like we can open another thread on this topic, but it is too heavy for this one. I would place it in the Narnia and Christianity thread if you want. For what it's worth, though, I certainly believe Lewis was a Christian.

 

[Truman]

Yah, if you'd like we can open another thread on this topic, but it is too heavy for this one. I would place it in the Narnia and Christianity thread if you want. For what it's worth, though, I certainly believe Lewis was a Christian.

Yeah, you could move the post (pretty off-topic). (That's going to be interesting. )

Oh I don't doubt he was a Christian! I'm just a little worried about certain beliefs he had surrounding it.

 

[Sopespian]

Absolutely right, Truman! Hearty round of applause!

 

[Trufflehunterthebadger]

Why does everybody hate this movie?

Why are so many hating this movie? I think it's really good, almost as good a LWW! So I want to hear your oppinions on what you think is bad in this movie, so I can understand you!

 

[Lila]

I'm with you! I thought the movie was excellent. But I think a lot of fans were troubled by the fact that it strayed from the book in several ways. I'm aware that that there were discrepancies, but my opinion is that the filmmakers made very wise decisions on what to include and what NOT to include in the movie. Had the movie followed the book exactly, it would've been - to be frank - boring. I suppose it just depends on what you value more - textual accuracy, or cinematic quality.

One of the major things that I think people found especially frustrating was the character interpretation. Apparently, Peter was too cocky, Caspian and Susan were way out of line for cultivating a romantic relationship, Lucy wasn't respectful enough of Aslan, etc. etc. etc. I wasn't bothered by these details at all. I didn't see why they were such a problem. But for some people, they were. (And that's OK! Everyone has different opinions which they are certainly entitled to.)

 

[MissReepicheep]

As a movie, Prince Caspian is a good, entertaining one to watch. As a book adaptation, it is severely disappointing. I could carry on for forever all the things that made me mad about it, but I've narrowed it down to just a few:

* The stupid Caspian/Susan romance. This was unneccessary, unwanted, and only made fools out of the two characters. It was just a dumb, childish attraction that nothing would ever come of. So why did they have to kiss at the end?!?

*I was dissapointed that Aslan had such a small role in the movie, and only appeared near the end. If you ask me, they took out a lot of the Christian symbolism. I hope they don't make this same mistake with VDT.

*Susan the Gentle fighting in battle. I know this is a big debate, so let me say out front that I am not totally against female warriors. (Eowyn in Lord of the Rings is one of my favorite characters ever.) However, this warrior princess character in PC was nothing like the real Susan. C.S. Lewis makes it clear that Susan does not fight in battles, even though Lucy fought in the back-lines of the archers in Horse and His Boy. It upset me to see Susan in the front-lines, commanding males on the battlefield.

*Peter made out to be an idiot. Peter struggled with pride in the book, but he was not an idiot. In the movie, he led Narnians to their death in the castle raid, instead of waiting for Aslan as others encouraged him to. He constantly bickered with Caspian like an ill-behaved child. His pridefulness towards Trumpkin was exacerbated to a disgusting degree.

 

[Peepiceek]

I loved this film too - better than LWW. And it was arguably (heresy of heresies!) better than the book! I really loved the way they brought in the political element of Miraz's accession. I thought the visual effects were really good too. And I had no problem with the whole Suspian thing or with Susan fighting - I thought those were good elements.

The bits I wasn't so sure about were: Trumpkin seemed to figure an awful lot of stuff out in a fraction of a second; we didn't get the detail of Caspian's earlier life or his developing interest in Old Narnia; I didn't like Peter's arrogance and desire for a scrap; I also love the bit in the book where only Lucy can see Aslan as he leads them across the gorge and was sorry that was left out. But all of those elements I can see why they needed to be changed in order to make the film work - unlike with LWW where I felt the changes from the book were unnecessary.

Peeps

Edit: Oh yes - I liked the bit with the White Witch and Edmund as well, and Susan's disappointment with both Peter and Caspian. And also Lucy's faith in Aslan and conselling to wait for him. And the castle raid was good, I thought.

 

[Mozart the Meerkitten]

Ok what bugged me about this movie were several things:

The Susan Caspian romance, particularly the KISS at the end! I mean what the heck?!? No, no, no, NO!

The Castle raid, I mean it was totally unnesicary and it was well, stupid. I don't think that Peter would have ever done that.

Which leads me to Peter himself- what was up with him? Peter was annoying and did very little that was productive or helpful in the whole movie. Just about the only thing he did that helped any was that he dueled Miraz. And he kept purposely fighting with Caspian.

They took out Aslan so much in the movie as well. And they took out the Romp and most of my favorite things in the book.

In all Prince Caspian was one of the most horrid book adaptions I have ever seen and probably ever will see. The makers of that movie took too many rights and turned it into a bad Narnia film. As a film (excluding the Narnia part) it was pretty good. As a Narnia film it was horrible.

 

[Peepiceek]

They took out Aslan so much in the movie as well. And they took out the Romp and most of my favorite things in the book.

Lots of people say this, but actually Aslan doesn't appear that much in the book, so they didn't take him much out of the film compared with the book. Also, personally, I hate the Romp in the book and was glad to see it go!

Peeps

 

[Mozart the Meerkitten]

Lots of people say this, but actually Aslan doesn't appear that much in the book, so they didn't take him much out of the film compared with the book. Also, personally, I hate the Romp in the book and was glad to see it go!

Peeps

No, Aslan has a pretty substancle role in the book where in the movie he is seen in like what? three scenes? four?

And HOW THE HECK CAN YOU HATE THE ROMP?!? IT IS SO INCREDIBLY AWSOMEATIC!!!