Jump to content

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 424
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think she was there... I'll have to re-read it sometime soon.

No, she wasn't. That's the only character that wasn't there, actually.

Interesting. I forget the reasoning there.

Was it just not her time?

The Last Battle was an amazing book, but I'm not too sure how it will translate to the great screen...

Agreed, but I think The Magician's Nephew is probably the hardest to turn into a film.

Agreed on both counts. Thus why I think The Silver Chair would realistically be the best place to end it. The Horse and His Boy would make a good film, but it's just so separate from the other books.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she was there... I'll have to re-read it sometime soon.

No, she wasn't. That's the only character that wasn't there, actually.

Interesting. I forget the reasoning there.

Was it just not her time?

It depends on what you mean by

"It was not her time". I think that it is said somewhere in the book that she became a silly woman, or something like that, and that she was not "ready" to enter into the "new" Narnia (well, that last part is a deduction based on elements here and there). If you want to learn a bit more about Lewis' ideas for Susan's character, check the "Commentary" section on

this page

the problem was

that she did what Patrick from The Return of The Indian Book did, she "pretended" that the events of going to Narnia and such never happened

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started laughing about 2 minutes into Dawn Treader because the score was far, far superior to the first two movies' music. Right off the bat, the music was so much more magical.

They had the TLTWATW on ABC the other night and I face palmed big time after hearing that cheesey, 3rd tier garbage of a score. So uselessly over the top.

I can't help but wonder how much better the first two films would have been if they had a real film composer write the music.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only it didn't have these preachy overtones repeatedly; some of it is really heavy-handed and hard to stomach in an otherwise "typical" fantasy movie. Oh well, I knew that was to be expected.

Does it really bother you if a movie stays true to the themes of the book? What if Mel Gibson had said, "We need to make this Jesus character a little more racy?" I think it would be a dishonor to Lewis to take out the Christian imagery, just as it would be a dishonor to any author to remove the heart from their works. You can make a movie based completely on plot but it loses its poignance, regardless of where the author draws inspiration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it really bother you if a movie stays true to the themes of the book? What if Mel Gibson had said, "We need to make this Jesus character a little more racy?" I think it would be a dishonor to Lewis to take out the Christian imagery, just as it would be a dishonor to any author to remove the heart from their works. You can make a movie based completely on plot but it loses its poignance, regardless of where the author draws inspiration.

Am I not allowed to like a movie although or even because it doesn't stay entirely true to its source? Then I would also not be allowed to like Forrest Gump (whose style differs vastly from the book and is, because of that, much better imo). Movies can be bad adaptations but great movies, and they can be respectful to the source and still suck (the TV miniseries for Dune comes to mind... ;-)). I was of course talking about my personal preferences here. I simply don't like it when movies are like Sunday school. I am aware that this is more or less true to the book in this case, and as such it is a proper adaptation, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. If it actually were exactly as in the book I would probably have regretted to have paid for the movie ticket(I really don't enjoy Lewis' books much - subtlety means nothing to him [and yes, I know these are kids books]). However, the way they adapted the book made it a mostly enjoyable fantasy movie with some not so enjoyable morality lectures in it for me. In a way that's like Ben-Hur. The preachy stuff seems nowadays mostly laughable to me, but the sea battle and the chariot race (etc.) are still very cool and make the movie worth watching for me. So, if you like preachy movies, that's totally fine with me, I just don't share your sentiments there. Btw, Gibson did make the Jesus movie more than a little "different" (e.g. much more stomach turning than either one of the sources would suggest). Whether that constitutes a respectful "adaptation" or not is debatable, but should be everybody's own decision.

all movies are preachy, they are just preaching different things thats all

I would argue that this is a too simplistic view. Most movies try to convey some sense of morality or convince you of a certain point of view, but good movies do this subtly (the best movies imo are actually those that remain ambiguous to some degree and have you think about how to judge the motivations or actions of a character etc.). Movies that have characters that more or less literally say "I am the good guy (in case you didn't notice), everything I do is unquestionably good and right and everything the guy in the black costume is doing is per definition evil because I say so" leave much to be desired (but may still be "good" adaptations, s.o.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Movies can be bad adaptations but great movies, and they can be respectful to the source and still suck (the TV miniseries for Dune comes to mind... ;-)).

By "bad" you mean "unfaithful", right? I mean, there's no way a good adaptation can't be a good movie. By definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

all movies are preachy, they are just preaching different things thats all

I would argue that this is a too simplistic view. Most movies try to convey some sense of morality or convince you of a certain point of view, but good movies do this subtly (the best movies imo are actually those that remain ambiguous to some degree and have you think about how to judge the motivations or actions of a character etc.). Movies that have characters that more or less literally say "I am the good guy (in case you didn't notice), everything I do is unquestionably good and right and everything the guy in the black costume is doing is per definition evil because I say so" leave much to be desired (but may still be "good" adaptations, s.o.)

This film was obviously made for a certain crowd. Problem is that appealing to that crowd turned it into a shit movie. The plot involves going to some random islands on "faith" and the violence is so toned down that the fights look like they were MADE to look fake so it's always clear that no one is getting hurt. So you get kids "play fighting" with CGI characters in the most unconvincing fashion.

I watched Home Alone last night. It's a kids film but at least it did look like the robbers were in real pain and Kevin would have really gotten it if they got a hold of him

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it really bother you if a movie stays true to the themes of the book? What if Mel Gibson had said, "We need to make this Jesus character a little more racy?" I think it would be a dishonor to Lewis to take out the Christian imagery, just as it would be a dishonor to any author to remove the heart from their works. You can make a movie based completely on plot but it loses its poignance, regardless of where the author draws inspiration.

Am I not allowed to like a movie although or even because it doesn't stay entirely true to its source? Then I would also not be allowed to like Forrest Gump (whose style differs vastly from the book and is, because of that, much better imo). Movies can be bad adaptations but great movies, and they can be respectful to the source and still suck (the TV miniseries for Dune comes to mind... ;-)). I was of course talking about my personal preferences here. I simply don't like it when movies are like Sunday school. I am aware that this is more or less true to the book in this case, and as such it is a proper adaptation, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. If it actually were exactly as in the book I would probably have regretted to have paid for the movie ticket(I really don't enjoy Lewis' books much - subtlety means nothing to him [and yes, I know these are kids books]). However, the way they adapted the book made it a mostly enjoyable fantasy movie with some not so enjoyable morality lectures in it for me. In a way that's like Ben-Hur. The preachy stuff seems nowadays mostly laughable to me, but the sea battle and the chariot race (etc.) are still very cool and make the movie worth watching for me. So, if you like preachy movies, that's totally fine with me, I just don't share your sentiments there. Btw, Gibson did make the Jesus movie more than a little "different" (e.g. much more stomach turning than either one of the sources would suggest). Whether that constitutes a respectful "adaptation" or not is debatable, but should be everybody's own decision.

all movies are preachy, they are just preaching different things thats all

I would argue that this is a too simplistic view. Most movies try to convey some sense of morality or convince you of a certain point of view, but good movies do this subtly (the best movies imo are actually those that remain ambiguous to some degree and have you think about how to judge the motivations or actions of a character etc.). Movies that have characters that more or less literally say "I am the good guy (in case you didn't notice), everything I do is unquestionably good and right and everything the guy in the black costume is doing is per definition evil because I say so" leave much to be desired (but may still be "good" adaptations, s.o.)

You are allowed to like or dislike any type of movie you want. Actually, your explanation above made a lot of sense. Initially I thought you were being narrow-minded and didn't like the movie simply because it espoused Christian values. If I understand you correctly, you were more bothered by the lack of subtlety than the particular underlying themes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Movies can be bad adaptations but great movies, and they can be respectful to the source and still suck (the TV miniseries for Dune comes to mind... ;-)).

By "bad" you mean "unfaithful", right? I mean, there's no way a good adaptation can't be a good movie. By definition.

Yes, I meant unfaithful here. Like in the Forrest Gump example. The book is really vastly different in tone and intention (not really bad either, but I much prefer the movie).

You are allowed to like or dislike any type of movie you want. Actually, your explanation above made a lot of sense. Initially I thought you were being narrow-minded and didn't like the movie simply because it espoused Christian values. If I understand you correctly, you were more bothered by the lack of subtlety than the particular underlying themes.

Exactly. I just think the style of the books and, to a lesser degree, the movies is often awkward. There are better ways to convey your message.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This film was obviously made for a certain crowd. Problem is that appealing to that crowd turned it into a shit movie. The plot involves going to some random islands on "faith" and the violence is so toned down that the fights look like they were MADE to look fake so it's always clear that no one is getting hurt. So you get kids "play fighting" with CGI characters in the most unconvincing fashion.

I watched Home Alone last night. It's a kids film but at least it did look like the robbers were in real pain and Kevin would have really gotten it if they got a hold of him

You do realize that your issues sound a bit... off in this particular case? :P

Karol

Link to post
Share on other sites

CON3 sounds like Harry Gregson Williams meets Bond.

If anything it's reminiscent of Independence Day, but it's a nice score nevertheless. A welcome break from the monotonous rhythmic synthesized scores that seem to be de rigeur these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still stand by my opinion that Dawn Treader is the most outright enjoyable score of the year.

Yeah, Reepicheep, Godzilla, bla bla ... Arnold's principal two themes are refreshingly memorable and there are loads of beautiful variations on them.

He interpreted Gregson-Williams' music better than HGW did himself if I may say so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still stand by my opinion that Dawn Treader is the most outright enjoyable score of the year.

I would place HTTYD above it, personally, but it's certainly one of the most enjoyable scores.

He interpreted Gregson-Williams' music better than HGW did himself if I may say so.

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.