Monday, May 16, 2005

Narnia Trailer is HERE!

I'm pretty darn excited. The project is afoot.

See the Narnia trailer here. You'll have several URL's presented as options. By reading carefully, you'll probably be able to tell which files are bigger and better for high speed. Look for higher numbers. If you see 56, that's a 56k modem size. If you see 300, all the better.

14 comments:

Bookworm said...

I'm cautiously excited. I've been a huge Narnia fan for more than 30 years. Right now, I'm reading The Magician's Nephew to my 5 year old, and he is riveted. reading it aloud makes me aware, though, how beautiful Lewis' language is, and I wonder if they'll ever transfer that to the screen. Also, despite Hollywood's self-proclaimed respect for the Christian allegory underlying Lewis' work, I really wonder if that jaded, anti-religious community can properly express those ideas.

Tlaloc said...

Narnia never really did it for me. I tried reading it to my kids and they got pretty bored about half way through Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe. Eventually we shelved it in favor of other stuff.

But, hey, if you like by all means enjoy.

Jack said...

Tlaloc, I had to chuckle when I read that Narnia didn't do it for you. I've read some of your postings here in the past, and it would only make sense that Narnia wouldn't do it for you. I didn't really enjoy it myself for many years, then I rediscovered it after my life had undergone some pretty radical changes. Perhaps you'll have the same experience down the road. Best wishes.

Hunter Baker said...

I'm with Jack. You have to discover the values of innocence and redemption to enjoy Narnia. I typically find that "progressive" types find innocence to be a hindrance rather than something beautiful. Narnia won't mean much to such a person.

Tlaloc said...

In a child innocence is wonderful. In an adult it's abominable. As far as literature, well, I'm more interested in works that are adult rather than childish. Compare the innocence, even naivete, of Narnia to the rich subtleties of Dune and I'll pick Dune any day of the week.

Again though, if it makes you happy by all means read whatever you like.

Bookworm said...

Tlaloc writes: " In a child innocence is wonderful. In an adult it's abominable." Why? Is Tlaloc conflating innocence with ignorance? Or that all adults must be cynical and jaded. I think a certain wonderment is a great gift for adults. It's hard to maintain in our all-squalor, all-the-time culture, but to look at things with freshness, joy and faith is anything but abominable.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc writes: " In a child innocence is wonderful. In an adult it's abominable." Why? Is Tlaloc conflating innocence with ignorance?"

No conflation required. Innocence is ignorance. It is a pleasent illusion in place of reality. The world is not an innocent place, therefore those people who live in the world who are innocent are indeed ignorant.


"Or that all adults must be cynical and jaded. I think a certain wonderment is a great gift for adults. It's hard to maintain in our all-squalor, all-the-time culture, but to look at things with freshness, joy and faith is anything but abominable."

Innocence is to look at things that are wrong and to assume they are right, you just don't know why. Innocence feeds conformity and obedience to authority. It is the fuel of atrocity.

To be a muture human being means to take responsibility for yourself. You cannot do that so long as you are prone to see things as you want rather than as they are. This perhaps vividly describes what's wrong with conservatives today. They too often see things as they want them to be rather than as they are. Innocence in a child is wonderful because children can afford to be innocent. Adults however must learn to take responsibility. For them innocence is selfishness.

S. T. Karnick said...

Innocent means free of guilt, not ignorant.—STK

Tlaloc said...

"Innocent means free of guilt, not ignorant.—STK "

The discussion was not about "innocent" Karnick but "innocence." So your statement while correct isn't pertinent to the discussion.

to help you out here's a definition:

1) The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:
a) Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.
b) Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense.
c) Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness.
d) Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.
e) Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.
f) Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensiveness.
2) One that is innocent.
3) Botany. See blue-eyed Mary.

Notice 1c,d,and e.

Anonymous said...

Having read all seven volumes of Narnia aloud to my daughter, I agree with bookworm that Lewis was a masterful children's writer. His stories might not be to one's taste, but I find no flaw in any detail of Narnia--from pacing to imagery to his handling of the didactic side of his stories. It all seems to me perfectly apt to Lewis's aims (which I for my own part largely approve of).

I don't think Narnia is about innocence, any more than the Bible from Genesis 3:6 on is about innocence. The children in Narnia are all "Sons of Adam" and "Daughters of Eve". The problem with liberals today is that they don't take sin and guilt seriously as metaphysical, non-psychological categories. All apparently moral failings arise out of defects in the material substrate of reality. Is my characterization of "liberals today" any less fair than tlaloc's characterization of "conservatives today"?

Chuck

Tlaloc said...

"The problem with liberals today is that they don't take sin and guilt seriously as metaphysical, non-psychological categories."

Since sin is a concept relegated to the monotheistic faiths it makes sense that anyone not believing those faiths (whether liberal or conservative) would not believe in sin.


"Is my characterization of "liberals today" any less fair than tlaloc's characterization of "conservatives today"?"

True I should have made it clear my comments apply to many, or even most, conservatives but not all.

S. T. Karnick said...

Innocence means freedom from guilt. The definition has been expanded over the years to include other connotations, as happens with words. The point, however, is that to refer to someone's innocence is by no means necessarily to define them as foolish or any other bad thing. Quite the contrary, if the word is being used in its main form. Bookworm was correct to take issue with Tlaloc's statment that "In adults, [innocence is] abominable."—STK

Tlaloc said...

Are we devolving to semantic games now? I used "Innocence" in its common usage. If you (or others) meant something else perhaps that could have been made explicitly clear.

S. T. Karnick said...

My only motive in stepping in to this discussion with a very brief statement was to help tlaloc understand what Hunter had meant when he used the word innocence. I mistakenly thought that my intentions in doing so should been quite evident, and I am therefore very sorry if any reader took my comments as hostile in intent. Any misunderstanding in this matter is of course entirely my fault, as I obviously failed to make my explanation of Hunter's meaning explicitly clear. I shall try hard to learn to communicate more effectively.—STK