The Gang of Five
The forum will have some maintenance done in the next couple of months. We have also made a decision concerning AI art in the art section.


Please see this post for more details.

New to the Big Screen

WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
Quote
The damage of war is spotlessly cleaned away there. However much I like the movie I can't help seriously questioning that message. I suppose that this is simply a point we're disaggreeing on. We'll get over it I suppose. The same goes for the question of the "baddies". I don't believe they were taken care off without anything indicating they were; you believe they were taken of taking the mere absence in the few post war scenes we saw as no indication of the contrary.
You really don't get that Narnia is a fairy tale that's supposed to have a happy ending, do you? Also, it was a PG rated kid's movie. When is that going to sink in? Anyway, I don't really care if the baddies were taken care of or not. If you want to revive a minotaur, be my suicidal guest. Oh, and when was this movie supposed to mirror real life? Let's see: talking animals, magic, kids suddenly becoming warriors with little training, people turning to stone, yep, this was supposed to be SO realistic! Please... You are just over-thinking that. When there are actually children believing that war will have a clean sweep, I will believe that that little happening in the film has done any damage, you picky man.
If you wanted the film to show the corpses, to push the idea that the battle was horrible, thus pushing the rating up a few notches: Fine, but Aslan is the Christ figure, and he has the power to heal and to sweep away the damage of war (which he did, and which I believe Jesus will do someday, as well), just like that. That was part of the point of Aslan's character. It's a Christian allogory, with a purely happy ending in mind. Live with it. At the worse (for you atheists), this will give the idea that someone out there has to power to heal wounds, and God forbid someone should believe that, eh!

Quote
I never said we had to like such a character. In real life with almost no war being fought only for selfless reasons such gray zone people of differentiated mind may come accross kinder. The character would be peace-loving as he wouldn't want himself to be dragged into a war. Again this appears more indifferent in a black and white story such as Narnia than it does in real life.
Again, where in watching this film did you think it mirrored real life? It's a frikkin fairy tale!
 
Quote
There were countries not involved in WW2. Many countries were dragged into the war by being attacked when they would have prefered to stay neutral. Others managed to remain neutral to the end. Countries such as Sweden and Switzerland have been seriously critizised for their "indifference" in WW2. There is no "true" judgement about this as there were people in these countries who profited from the Holocaust. On the other hand these countries were a last save harbor to many jewish refugees. Had either country declared war on Germany they would have most likely been overrun and suffered from the nazi terror themselves. How harsh can we judge them?
Well, since they didn't join, I do know that it was just much harder to bring down Hitler.

Quote
Or what about Finnland that actually fought alongside the Germans against the Soviet Union who had occupied large Finnish territories before and later fought alongside the Soviets against the Germans in Lapland. Finnland did not allow its democracy to be destroyed by the Germans. Each of these examples could fill many books and threads, but I'm coming of from the topic.
Whatever.

Quote
What about the followers of the Witch. Do you really think they are all just evil? Or may it be that quite a few of them are too are scared of the Witch aware that they will be killed the moment they don't follow the Witch's command? There is a scene indicating something like this on the DvD version of "The two towers". Such a scene would have been quite appropriate in "Narnia" I think.
"There is a scene indicating something like this on the DvD version of "The two towers". Such a scene would have been quite appropriate for "Narnia" I think" Over my dead body! That was not the point of the story, and thus, there was no need for such a stupid and uncalled for little scene! Anyway, I don't care what the followers of the witch were thinking. To me, it was obvious that she hired mercenaries, traitors, and the like. No way would anyone truly loyal to the true ruler of Narnia join her. And I don't care if it's more complex in real life. It's a flippin' movie. Rated PG, only 2 hours and 20 minutes long, for kids, about as complex as they could get it without it getting bogged down with a lot of stuff! I'm glad they left the story alone, as it was when Lewis wrote it, other than a few additions here and there. None of the stuff you want is allowed, because Lewis didn't write it that way (and his stepson was deeply involved in the film), and if you were going to question how this movie gives an innaccurate idea of war: you should have been questioning the book, which it is based on, months ago. You also should have known that no such scenes would be added.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
It doesn't take a huge amount of sensitivity to realize I'm pissing you off. Honestly mate I don't mean to  :rolleyes:
Please don't forget about what I repeatedly wrote. I like the movie. You do too. We are basically "on the same side". Only difference is that despite liking it I'm still pointing out where I think I see faults. You don't see that faults or consider them as such and that's that.
In a way this is terrifying for me for, believe it or not, I have had a very similar argument with one of my profs. The subject in this case was Robert Louis Stevenson's book "Treasure Island" which he said was unfit to be called "literature" as it had no deeper sense, no message other than being an adventure story. I disagreed with that point of view arguing that the sheer pleasure one can take from reading such exciting a book as "Treasure Island" should qualify it to be named literature. What I would name "entertainment value" is in my opinion underrated in our literature sciences. In a way I was taking your stand on Narnia on a different work.
Anyway back to the topic. You are sort of contradicting yourself when on the one hand you say:
Quote
Oh, and when was this movie supposed to mirror real life? Let's see: talking animals, magic, kids suddenly becoming warriors with little training, people turning to stone, yep, this was supposed to be SO realistic!
and
Quote
Again, where in watching this film did you think it mirrored real life? It's a frikkin fairy tale!
While on the other hand you write:
Quote
It's a Christian allogory, with a purely happy ending in mind. Live with it. At the worse (for you atheists), this will give the idea that someone out there has to power to heal wounds, and God forbid someone should believe that, eh!
The majority of stories involving talking animals (fables) are not mere ferry tales but are meant to transfer a message. According to my prof's mind they would certainly be better qualified to be named literature. When you name it a Christian allegory you admit that in fact it has a very strong tie to reality. For no matter how we think about it ourselves religion definitely does affect our every daily lifes. I for my part am not an atheist (too much utterly unexplainable by science to consider non existence of a god a fact), nor am I a theist (too much about just believing and being obediant without questions in most religions of the world). I am an agnostic not claiming to know with certainty whether or not there is a good, but living a life as good as I can.

It is probably pointless to continue talking too much about the content of the movie. I'm of a different mind and opinion than you are and I can live with that quite well while I read between the lines of your last message that you apparently can't. That is not meant to be an offense, but all I did is stating my opinion. I never asked you to share it and I never meant to discredit your opinion with my own. You need not be angry at me.
As for the matter of history:
Quote
Well, since they didn't join, I do know that it was just much harder to bring down Hitler.
Suppose yourself in the position of a leader of Sveden in 1941. Locked between Nazi Germany and the Soviet union and unwilling to be controlled by either. With an army that doesn't stand the chance to resist for more than a month at best if Nazis or Soviets are going to invade your country. You have many people in your country who would suffer horrible persecution (known as Holocaust) if your country was occupied and you are aware that to that day your country is one of the very few safe harbors left to those fleeing from the Holocaust. You also can't hope to get any help from the British or the Americans as you are surrounded by enemies territory.
Would you indeed decide to impose the horrible suffering of the Holocaust onto your people for years to come and accept that hundreds of thousands of innocents would be killed just to be able to say later that you made a one month stand (at best)? Would you really do that considering that no matter how the war ends your country might be under Nazi or Soviet rule for decades or even centuries to come?
I doubt a leader who decided against that option ought to be judged to harshly.


WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
All right, no offense taken, but I had to speak my mind. I shouldn't have gotten so miffed, but I still think you're way of doing the story would have been horrible, and would only have made it watchable by the LotR audience, but it's younger, intended audience.

All right, I'll lay off the neutral WWII guys, although it sounds like it was still their war to me.

The connections of Narnia to reality only go as far as the it's moral. Everything else was utter fantasy. And how would you have shown the results of the battle without making it rated PG-13 or R, eh? How could we have possibly sympathized with a neutral character? Such a character would have served no purpose, other than to waste the audience's time.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
Quote
All right, I'll lay off the neutral WWII guys, although it sounds like it was still their war to me.
From what moment on do people loose their right to stay out of a war that would destroy their land and kill hundreds of thousands of them? What makes a war the war of a given people?
Quote
And how would you have shown the results of the battle without making it rated PG-13 or R, eh?
I probably couldn't as war is simply not meant for kids or anyone else either. But at least I would avoid making it too utopic. One might wonder for example what happened to that gryphon that was not only petrified but also smashed to pieces on the rocks. I would have shown at least some kind of loss.
Quote
How could we have possibly sympathized with a neutral character? Such a character would have served no purpose, other than to waste the audience's time.
It would be interesting though what would be the reaction to such a character. I think you edited a part of you message (before I finished this response) to which my question would have applied even better.
Would Aslan say to such a character something like:
"Who is not for me is against me!" threatening to kill him if he didn't follow his command? I am sure Aslan would not. It would put him on the same low level as the Witch. But what would he do? What would he say?
Of course the movie should not vary from the book. But I think such a chapter in the book would have been everything but a waste of time. It would have been a chance for Aslan to show his greatness.


WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
Quote
probably couldn't as war is simply not meant for kids or anyone else either. But at least I would avoid making it too utopic. One might wonder for example what happened to that gryphon that was not only petrified but also smashed to pieces on the rocks. I would have shown at least some kind of loss.
They were at a castle in a land now healed of it's hundred year winter sleep. Trust me, it was going to be utopic. To the Narnians, whether or not this was just after a recent war, this was a very pleasant relief and utter bliss to everyone who had been dreaming of warm whether for a hundred years.

Quote
It would be interesting though what would be the reaction to such a character. I think you edited a part of you message (before I finished this response) to which my question would have applied even better.
Would Aslan say to such a character something like:
"Who is not for me is against me!" threatening to kill him if he didn't follow his command? I am sure Aslan would not. It would put him on the same low level as the Witch. But what would he do? What would he say?
I think that character would be taking the book away from it's point and would only waste our time with Aslan's reaction. Come on! We see so many characters like thqat in movies and such, it's a nice break to get away from the crap once in a while! And you do know that even if Lewis had included such a character, he would have had this character eventually fight for Aslan's side, right?

Quote
Of course the movie should not vary from the book. But I think such a chapter in the book would have been everything but a waste of time. It would have been a chance for Aslan to show his greatness.
How? Aslan would never have come into contact with this character, because througout all the book, he's too busy with the witch to bother with lazy bums who won't even fight for a cause. So, such a character would have been a major waste of time, because they would have gotten no help out of him. And by the time they meet Aslan, he already has their army together and any contact he and this neutral character might have had would have already happened, and I doubt that neutral would have anything good to say about Aslan.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Littlefoot1616

  • The Circle
  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 3883
  • The game is on; so let's play!
    • View Profile
Hey guys!

Has anyone seen Aeon Flux? It's not too long hit the shores here and it looks pretty cool to me. I think it's based on a manga comic (the name rings an anime bell for some reason) but I was intrigued by it. Anyone actually bin out to see it? A lot of reviewers on his side of the pond have degraded it quite royally but I find that they tend to do that to a lot of action flicks with similar styles (that's why I never take their word for it LOL :p )


WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
"Aeon Flux"...oh, you mean that excuse to see Charlize Theron is skimpy clothings deguised as a movie!

If you've seen the new "Charlie's Angels" films and the "Tomb Raider"...ahem...films: you've seen "Aeon Flux".
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Littlefoot1616

  • The Circle
  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 3883
  • The game is on; so let's play!
    • View Profile
So more of the same sorta thing then as Tomb Raider and Resident Evil movies? Not bad...I still reckon it's worth a view...might go and see it (once I finally get paid that is LOL :lol )


F-14 Ace

  • Member+
  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 3670
    • View Profile
I really want to see Ice Age 2.  I loved the first one.


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
Dito!!!  :D I'm really looking forward to Ice Age 2. A trailer I have seen looks quite promising.


Littlefoot1616

  • The Circle
  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 3883
  • The game is on; so let's play!
    • View Profile
Double ditto! The 1st Ice Age was wikid! The 2nd one looks just as funny. It's here 7th April...can't wait! :D


WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
I'm on the fense about "Ice Age 2". The original doesn't need a sequel, and there's no way in hell that they'll be able to top, or even reach, the emotional level of the previous one, and that was part of the beauty of the original: You had a great comedy with an actual emotional level that was well-handled that made for great drama.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
I really don't see why it should be impossible for people who made a good movie once, to make a good movie twice with the same characters. You have something against sequels in general WR and some sequels of some movies give certainly some substance to your stand on the matter. However, so far there is no point whatsoever which would support the idea that Ice Age 2 is going to be bad. So till I watch it I will endulge in pleasant anticipation rather than staying on the fence. Even in case the movie should turn out to be a disappointment nothing on earth could deceive me for that anticipation.


F-14 Ace

  • Member+
  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 3670
    • View Profile
Quote
I really don't see why it should be impossible for people who made a good movie once, to make a good movie twice with the same characters. You have something against sequels in general WR and some sequels of some movies give certainly some substance to your stand on the matter. However, so far there is no point whatsoever which would support the idea that Ice Age 2 is going to be bad. So till I watch it I will endulge in pleasant anticipation rather than staying on the fence. Even in case the movie should turn out to be a disappointment nothing on earth could deceive me for that anticipation.
Good point, Malte.  Besides, a lot of sequels are actually goot.  take Land Before Time for example.


Littlefoot1616

  • The Circle
  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 3883
  • The game is on; so let's play!
    • View Profile
I suppose it's all down to the individual to take their views on sequels. Most people go with the saying "Original is always best" (of course this is arguablle). With me, I like the idea of sequels. Gives a new edge and a new situation to existing characters. It doesn't necessarily have to be better than the previous instalment to be enjoyable. You can decide on which you like better AFTER you've seen it. In liking the first one, I wooda thought the idea of a sequel would be a GOOD thing...

Meh...each to their own I supposed!  :^.^:


WeirdRaptor

  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 4766
    • View Profile
    • Knowhere: A Geek Culture Fan Forum
I didn't say that the sequel would be bad, persay, but there's no way in hell that it'll measure up to the original, and the sequel to a story that wrapped up rather nicely is pointless and will serve as nothing else than to make more money, oh, and the director of the original is not returning, so your little comment about "why couldn't people who made a movie good the first not be able to do it a second time?" comment has officially been nullified. And the fact that Queen Latifa is doing a voice only works against it even more (she is one of the people I find most irritating).

Thus far, I'm not seeing any of the charm of the original in the sequel.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf


Littlefoot1616

  • The Circle
  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 3883
  • The game is on; so let's play!
    • View Profile
Quote
the sequel to a story that wrapped up rather nicely is pointless and will serve as nothing else than to make more money

To be honest Raptor, that's all film making is. It's a business market set up in order for companies to make money. That's exactly what it is if you boil it down. LBT is no different. If something is deemed profitable, you make more of them so more people buy/invest into the company's services or buy their product. It's down to the people who watch films. Whether you like it or not is not their problem if you've already forked out to see it in the cinema and so many 1000s of others have as well. The film companies have got what they want.

As for liking sequels, again it's down to the person's own individual perception and willingness of acceptance. I for one reckon that a sequel CAN outmatch its original counterpart (I use that term loosely). New directors on a scene don't necessarily cast a doomed shadow over a movie's sequel but again that's MY personal opinion...I can't change people's views (neva plan to) but if it's something that you liked first time round, I can't see the logic in thinking that the next instalment is gonna be inferior. I wooda thought that if you enjoyed the first one, it would give you the drive to interested by more that are released. To me that just sounds...well...prejudice. Make your judgement AFTER you've seen it.


Petrie.

  • Hatchling
  • *
    • Posts: 0
  • It's good to be the king!
    • View Profile
Most don't hear me say things like this, but I do plan to see Ice Age 2 as well.  :o  Yeah, RR goes and actually plans to watch a sequel....might be another Shrek 2 in the making.


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
Quote
might be another Shrek 2 in the making.
Do you mean this to be a praise or a fear? Personally I liked Shrek 2, especially for it's countless allusions to other movies.


action9000

  • Member+
  • Cera
  • *
    • Posts: 5742
    • View Profile
Quote
Personally I liked Shrek 2, especially for it's countless allusions to other movies.
I really should way Shrek 2 someday; I've heard good things about it, but I've never actually gotten around to watching it.

Anywho, regarding Ice Age 2, I'm not particularily looking forward to it, however if the opportunity arises, I'd be interested in checking it out.  I very much enjoyed the original.