I say to-ma-to, you say tah-mah-to: Potter v. Narnia

I recently saw that movie and it didn't really have and christian related theme to it at all. Even though it was rated "G".

EXACTLY.
thats wat im trying to say..
to get more sales..
people make up that a movie has a christian motive to it, just so they can sell it in more places...
thats just wrong..

Not all opinions are equal.

Given a choice between the wisdom of some folks on A2K and the Archbishop of Canterbury, I go with the Archbishop every time.

Everyone does have diffent opinions and if that's the case with The Polar Express, then that is wrong in my opinion.

Narnia
The Chronicles of Narnia are better because they show that evil is bad. The witch is bad, unlike in Harry Potter where the sorcerers and witches are the good and bad. Narnia clearly depicts good versus evil and does so by symbolizing the Biblical story of redemption.

Carter--

Welcome to A2K.

The problem with depicting Good as dazzling white and Evil as deepest black is that this sort of conflict of absolutes is very dull.

Most people come not only in shades of gray, but shades of red and yellow and blue and all sorts of combinations of the primary and secondary colors.

I've never met a child who ever considered emulating the White Witch. I've known plenty of children who could sympathize and forgive Edmund for temporarily yielding to her blandishments.

Pure evil is beyond comprehension (and hence, by definition, not educational. Flawed humanity can be understood and the conduct either embraced or rejected by the reader.

Maybe part of the difference in the Christian perception of Narnia vs. Potter is that, if I recall correctly, no one but the White Witch uses actual magic in Narnia. Aslan is all powerful, like a Christ-figure, but isn't referred to as using magic, is he? Rather than performing magic, he performs miracles...maybe this difference, although it's just semantics, makes the Narnia books more palatable to Christians.

loveislikearose wrote :



love, Boomerang called the Narnia books a parable because that is what Lewis wrote them to be. The Christian spin on them isn't something people just came up with after the fact, that's what he intended, he acknowledged that freely. Perhaps you should look into the background of the books if you're interested in discussing them. :wink:

Just saw Narnia.

The heavy religious allusions were impossible to miss.

It was a sweet movie, and the difference to Potter and LOTR is blindingly apparent to me. I enjoyed the other, but maybe it's the clear distinction between right and wrong. The witch was evil. The lion was Christ. Even Edmund had black hair... "Those who betray must have their blood spilled..."

A bit heavy handed, but I liked it.

I loved LOTR--and I can't think of examples that Christians would consider negative--it just wasn't as clear on some issues....and I don't think they're (the brand I'm talking about) like people going around being called Lord....

Aslin had to whimpy of a voice and seemed to gentle. I did like the move though and nearly cried 2 time or so.

I didn't get Aslan as wimpy.

I imagine Jesus was soft-spoken and gentle "to a fault". But, I guess we all have different images...

Friend of mine described Narnia as a cross between the first Harry Potter movie, the LOTR movies and Little House on the Prairie ;-)

Sorry for coming late to the party and then seeming to try and dominate the conversation, but there are a lot of interesting comments in this thread to which I would like to respond.

Interesting that this thread finds itself peppered with the Usual Suspects from the Political forum.

Re: I say to-ma-to, you say tah-mah-to: Potter v. Narnia


There are obvious Christian themes throughout both the Narnia series and LOTR. Tolkien and Lewis were not only contemporaries, but friends, and members of the same literary "club," the Inklings, which conducted its meetings at the Oxford pub, Eagle and Child; during which Tolkien would read from his LOTR manuscript and Lewis from his Narnia Chronicles.

Tolkien was adamant that LOTR was not an allegory, while he often chided Lewis for his allegorical tendencies. Not to take this thread into a discussion of what is an allegory, it is, at least to me, clear that there are allegorical aspects to both works, and far more as concerns those of Lewis than Tolkien.

(Read the Space Trilogy by Lewis, and particularly Perelandra and tell me there is no allegory there.)

Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic and Lewis was a one time atheist who awoke to devout Aglicanism. It is certainly possible that both of them wrote novels (In Tolkien's case, his masterpiece) that were utterly devoid of their deep spirituality, but highly unlikely. The fact that Lewis also wrote The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain (among others) , if nothing else, suggests that spirituality was frequently on his mind.

Thus, it is pretty clear that Tolkien and Lewis were Christians, and if Knuckle-head Christians couldn't figure this out from reading their books, there are plenty of good Christians with a touch of literary sense who could reassure them of same.

Not surprisingly, a "modern" author like Rowling is not quite up to declaring her religious principles for all to see, and yet only Knuckle-heads, (Christian or otherwise) would suggest that there is anything but an uplifting (and dare I say Christian?) message running through the Harry Potter series. What is the most powerful force in the world of Harry Potter? Unquestionably it is love. It was love and, more importantly for this discussion, the sacrifice of Harry's mother that allowed him to not only withstand Voldemort's attack, but to turn it back on him and nearly destroy him.

Drewdad is correct that there is a knuckle-headed reflexive reaction to "witch." This is the only reason to explain any sort of Christian objection to Harry Potter. The fact remains that over time this objections has shrunken to a bare minimum. Most of the knuckle-heads have finally gotten it.

And who knows what's planned for Dumbledore. Aslan and Gandalf are resurrected. Is the clearly gandalvian Dumbledore next?

As for the Oz series --- totally irrelevant.

Of course he did.

Not because he thought he might infect his readership with such a dose, but because he was deeply spiritual.

Anyone who reflexively recoils from Christianity or any sort of spirituality, I encourage you to read C.S. Lewis, not his Narnia series but any of his many other works. If you prefer fiction, read The Space Trilogy. I f you can handle essays, read The Problem With Pain.

This is a man who said

"It seems there is no plan because it is all plan; it seems there is no center because it is all center." - Perelandra

Now you might think this is babble, or you might think it is profound.

At his most secular, Lewis was a very wise man.

What a bastard!

What do you consider a "holy-roller" to be?

Ooops.

Missed this one and we've overlapped.

It would seem that we have differnet sources relative to the Inklings.

My friend said that the movie was cheesy/corny... Is it?

Depends on your frame of reference.

I didn't think so but it's not hard to imagine how someone might think it is.

If cheesy means amateurish or sub-par, it certainly wasn't cheesy.

There are excellent special effects: When the centaur captain rode into battle beside Peter astride a unicorn, I turned to my wife and said: "It's official. There is nothing they cannot represent in a movie."

If corny means it was sentimental, then yes, maybe it was.

Certainly it is not gritty or dark. The good guys win and the bad guys lose.
No one on the losing side has to suffer the ultimate cost (except perhaps the fox - the only truly nuanced character of the lot). Anyone who has strayed is forgiven.

The themes are grander than the plot.

the fox lived, too.