Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe/Archive 1

message: The movie could be rated PG due to many large bloodless battle scenes that are similar to that of Star Wars, however if these large battle scenes get very bloody, the movie would be rated PG-13. -- Ed Telerionus 7 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)
*Well, there doesn't have to be blood for a movie to go PG-13. I think we can expect LOTR-type battle scenes, quite a bit of violence but no blood. In this case, we can expect a mild PG-13 rating (after all, it really just means parental guidence stongly suggested), which will not effect the number of kids who will see it.
Am I the only person that doesn't remember tons of kick-ass battle between fantasy creatures in the original? It's a lovely addition if it is an addition...
:the battle took place on merely 2 pages on The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.  Hence, why you wouldn't remember it. LuminousSpecter 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: Would it be a bad idea to created a link in the Chronicles of Narnia template that links directly to the film? Empty2005 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template? 

message: Anyone think we should add some of this? Have some links here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1657759,00.html
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051205/SCANNERS/51205001
NuclearFunk 00:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the film actually did a pretty good job of a light-hand on this. To me, the most notable allusion was the mocking Aslan received before being killed. Interestingly, in discussion afterwards, a fairly ardent atheist was annoyed by the *pagan* overtones!! Limegreen 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know that either of those links have anything to offer about the movie itself. The Guardian article seems to be more of a critism of christianity than a critism of this movie (read the last paragraph if you don't have time to read the article). And the Ebert link looked like it was mostly quotes from The Guardian (but I didn't read the whole thing). There might a legitimate reason to include a 'Religious criticisms' section, but I don't see it from those articles. Lsommerer 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a further thought, I don't think any religious criticism is particularly unique to the movie, and is probably better discussed at C.S. Lewis and The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe. There is a little on those pages already, and from both my viewing and from that Guardian piece above, I don't see any suggestion that the movie presents a materially different interpretation. Perhaps the presence of a debate could be mentioned, but directed to those pages.Limegreen 01:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the films religious aspects 

message: I confess I haven't seen the film yet, but I wonder if those who have could check on the accuracy of listing Michael Madsen as voicing Maugrim. The official Buena Vista presskit, which reflects the on-screen credits, lists neither character nor actor, and only identifies film editor Sim Evan-Jones as providing "voice of wolf." Thus, the question is, does more than one wolf speak in the film? For while it's possible Madsen is uncredited, it's also possible his dialogue, reported in passing in the making of book only, was shelved or cut for time. Can anyone check on this? Also, again speaking in terms of it as a film, is there a reason only one adult version of the children is listed under "Featured Cast"? I know Wikipedia is not Imdb, but it seems to me, unless her role was unusually significant, that either all four should be listed, or none. (And I also wonder if Father Christmas and Digory Kirke should be added, as much for their significance to the book as to the film, but again, not having seen it and relying solely on press material and billing, I could be wrong). Aleal 22:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are definitely 2 wolves that talk in one of the scenes  (Peter's first battle).  I'm not sure which one is which, but there's a lot of information out there about Madsen being one of the wolves, although I will not judge their validity. -PK9 02:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, while I cannot say whether Madsen is credited as being in the film, he is in it (regardless of actual credit), well at least his unmistakable voice is in it. Radagast83 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maugrim voice? 

message: I'm assuming that as soon as (if not before) the Prince Caspian movie is announced there will be an article for it. The obvious name for that article, I would think, is The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, but that's not my question.  Once there's a second movie there will occationally be reasons to link to an article about the series of movies as a whole.  What should that article be named?  Anyone have an opinion? LloydSommerer 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with calling them "Disney films" would be the fact that they are Walden Media's films, and not Disney's.  Disney is a financial backer and promotor; Walden Media hired the screenwriters, director, and owns the rights. --LuminousSpecter 07:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I started the article already, at The Chronicles of Narnia film series. It can, of course, be renamed. —wwoods 09:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name for film series? 

message: Current box office numbers
$141.4 million USD through Sunday, December 24, 2005 (currently 14th highest grossing film of 2005).
Why is its box office numbers just listed as the domestic total? There are people that use wikipedia who are not American, maybe the world wide would be more appropriate don't you think? Smerk 14:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box office numbers 

message: From our article on the book,
:The "Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time," and "Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time" can be seen as similar to the Old and New Covenants of Christianity, respectively.
The Deeper Magic was missing in the film, but I'm not entirely convinced it was an issue of "adaptation for film", so much as (in my opinion) fluffing a major point of the book's theology.  I'd like the article to point out that this was missing -- to me, it was the most important omission from the film -- but I'm not sure we have an appropriate section.  Any thoughts? Wooster 14:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Deeper Magic? 

message: The article says that Aslan is Turkish for lion.  I thought it was Persian (Farsi) for lion. Joey1898 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Aslan article says it like this: The word aslan or arslan is both Turkish and Persian/Farsi for "lion" and is used as a title for Ottoman/Seljukid and Persian rulers. which seems a bit wordy too me, but who knows. LloydSommerer 02:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish 

message: Consider this as "feedback" I suppose.  The adaptation section, I felt, could use some work
* For many of the points, it was often difficult to determine whether some comments meant "for the film version.." or "in the book..."  I would have prefered such formulaic prose, or even a table (consisting of columns with "in the film" and "in the book" column headings)
* The hyperlinking was WAY over the top, and unhelpful.  Hyperlinking is good, but does lullaby, flame, wolf, castle, river, stone, treason and fire really need to be highlighted?  why not other random words like death, fight, father, battle, film, coronation or others?  It just seems that they are hyperlinked because of hyperlink sake, not because they have much to do with the sentance's main points.
I Critique out of love for Narnia, but realize I'm unlikely to return to this page, so I leave it to the hands of more capable chaps than I to accept or reject my comments -- 68.179.8.193 02:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptation changes for the film - criticisms 

message: * $248,649,542 as of January 9th, 2006 (currently the 4th highest grossing film of 2005 and 34th all time highest worldwide grossing movie). Also, according to Box Office Mojo, Narnia has grossed a worldwide total of $532,000,000 million so far.
The distinction between these numbers needs some explanation. What's the 248M refer to? Just U.S. ticket sales or what? 
—wwoods 06:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current box office numbers 

message: Should we add a link to the lazy sunday video from this page? it relates directly to the pop-culture status of the movie. 67.188.192.110 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the Trivia section. Mrtea (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lazy Sunday 

message: I see a lot of: "I think...", and "personally..." which Wikipedia is strongly against. This is also a discussion on the article itself, not the topic. Colonel Marksman 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beware of POV