#55149: Jake Good — 12/25  at  10:09 PM
Go see King Kong! Awesome movie...

Though I'd have to say, I really enjoyed the BBC originals way back in the day, when I was a little munchkin. Maybe it's just my love for fantasy movies/books...

:: shrugs ::

Merry Christmas!

#55151: Kagehi — 12/25  at  10:47 PM
lol You expected it to be something else PZ? I didn't think it was all that bad, but them I am into Furry and can suspend my disbelief pretty well. I would make a pretty bad movie critic, though I can see stuff that truely sucks. This was just... mediocre, like damn near everything else they recycle from some over blown writer because they don't have a) a clue how to get it right or b) are unwilling to pay good *living* authors for the rights. ;)

#55152: — 12/25  at  11:05 PM
Have you seen the http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=zLElfJ9YCh0 The Chronic of Narnia Rap? Its a SNL skit.

#55153: — 12/25  at  11:06 PM
On the other hand King Kong was excellent. Way beyond my best expectations. However, be advised that if you have issues about crying in public you might want to think twice about it. I was balling, or nearly so, for the last 20 min of the movie. Just like when I was about 14 and saw the 80s version.

Cheers!

#55155: blarnia — 12/25  at  11:43 PM
I noticed the "trilemma" argument stuck into the original book as well, when I re-read it today for the first time since childhood:

p. 45 of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe:

"'Logic!' said the Professor half to himself. 'Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister [Lucy] is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn't tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth."

I belive that in another Narnia book it is revealed that the Professor himself once visted Narnia. The Professor's argument in this situation is not terrible, but the argument is usually applied by C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, and other apologists to Jesus's claim to be God. They say, "Jesus must be Liar, Lunatic, or Lord!" They then argue that Jesus was too morally good to be a liar, and was also not crazy, therefore he must be telling the truth. This shockingly avoids the obvious alternative, Legend, namely that the gospels are a mismash of oral traditions and copying/editing that have at best a minimal relationship to whatever actually happened.

Another relevant alternative is something like "Cult Leader" or "Honestly Deluded" -- sometimes such people are liars or crazed, but sometimes they are quite moral and sincere, just honestly mislead either by some combination of personal ignorance, uncritical followers, wishful thinking, theological rigidness, or the feeling that God is talking to them. Sincere Young Earth Creationists are such a case, and I think some of the strange splinter sects of various religions, e.g. Mormons.

These latter options don't apply to Lucy, so the Professor's argument is not quite as bad (although his cavalier dismissal of the "but we looked in the back of the closet and found nothing" evidence is distressing), but it was rather sly of C.S. Lewis to sneak it into the book, presumably planting the seed so that the argument resonated when the kids grew up and read his apologetic works.

#55156: Leah — 12/26  at  12:04 AM
The BBC ones were pretty good. I haven't seen the new one yet, however, so I can't comment on that. I remember really enjoying the books when I was a kid.

#55157: — 12/26  at  12:24 AM
So, PZ et al are saying that we shouldn't be pissed that we wound up seeing King Kong instead because the theatre web-site had the show time wrong (not that I was expecting PZ to like it -- that would have surprised me) .

KK was pretty good, though we would not otherwise have chosen a 9:15pm showing of a movie that long (in fact, we only just got home). We'll be back next week to make our own judgement on Narnia (which #2 Son informs us sticks fairly close to the book -- and PZ's synopsis tends to confirm. This is a Bad Thing, in this case, IMHO).

#55158: — 12/26  at  12:38 AM
Hadn't you read the books? What were you expecting as a Christmas children's movie based on a set of fantasy books by the world's most famous Christian apologist since St. Paul the Liar, an edgy three-way romance in French between Derrida, Foucault, and Kristeva? C'mon, now.

I used to be a Christian, and I'm still sensitive as hell about it, and I still manage to enjoy Narnia without having a coronary. I'd probably manage to enjoy Narnia even if Tom Cruise played Reepicheep with Scientology overtones, though, so maybe I'm a weeeeee bit biased.

#55159: — 12/26  at  12:45 AM
That's the trouble with Christian stories: the deus ex machina.

#55161: — 12/26  at  01:35 AM
another problem with the trilemma is that there's no proof that Jesus was not a liar or a madman or perhaps even both. as has been mentioned though, it should be a quadremma, since Legend is at least as likely as any of the other three. Personally, I suspect it's a combination of liar, lunatic, and legend.

#55162: Charlie — 12/26  at  01:55 AM
I enjoyed the books when I was younger. But the movie sucked -- and this even after I was willing to overlook the theology. What was with Aslan's voice? They only person who could've really pulled it off was James Earle Jones. Don't cheap out on us, Disney. When Mufasa sounds like more of a king than Aslan, you have a problem on you hands.

Also, I didn't appreciate them making Susan into an unlikable character. (FYI, in the books, Susan ends up not coming back to Narnia.) Okay, we get it! Susan goes to hell! But do you have to beat us over the head with it?

Okay. I'm done ranting. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

#55163: Mandos — 12/26  at  02:05 AM
Huh. I found KK irritating. I thought after two minutes of the chick getting snatched, "With that amount of shaking, she should be dead by now." And it went on for a WHOLE TEDIOUS HOUR of Jurassic Park and goopy insects. The good part: at least the only sympathetic character in the whole thing was KK.

I really enjoyed Narnia. Having read the books, I already KNOW what it's about, and most of these complaints are about its content, which was relatively faithful to the book! If you aren't willing to give credit to Lewis as a storyteller and are going to get caught up in the criticism of his message, of COURSE you wouldn't like the movie. I'm perfectly OK with criticism of the message but it shouldn't spoil the fun TOO much, I should hope.

The White Witch was portrayed excellently, and that's what stuck with me. Simultaneously manic and frigid evil. So I liked it. I reviewed it on my own blog here:

http://politblogo.typepad.com/politblogo/2005/12/movie_review_th.html

#55165: Hank Fox — 12/26  at  03:22 AM
PZ, I’m gonna have to slightly disagree with you on this one.

I had this thing happen to me years ago when I was a hayride driver: We had a large group coming on the ride for a birthday party. Somehow or other, the cake didn’t make it to the event. Since I was in charge, two of the women in the party got in my face and demanded to know what I was going to do about the fact that their party was RUINED. I had no idea how to deal with the situation, until one of them finally demanded “What are we going to DO about this??”

I was stumbling around inside my head trying to find an answer, and to buy time I said, “Well ... we can, um, try to have a good time anyway.”

I could see on their faces that this was the right answer. They turned the idea over in their heads, it made sense, and they both ended up having a really fine time – first because they TRIED to, and then just because everybody caught the spirit of the thing and just ... had a good time. (They were even happier later when we refunded half of their money.)

I continue to remember the concept of deliberately trying to have a good time, and I apply it to a lot of my life. For me, unless a movie is an absolutely repellent stinker, I can almost always find something to enjoy about it. (Admittedly, I have walked out of maybe half a dozen movies in my life, and there’s plenty of others I never want to see AGAIN.)

Hey, I get reality shoved in my face every day, all day. When I go to a movie, I’m not just WILLING to suspend disbelief, I’m EAGER. It’s why I’m there.

Okay, so Narnia had its problems. HOWEVER, it was about 95% great, and for me that’s a glass that’s waaaaay more than half full. The thing was in-fricking-credible. The beavers alone were worth the price of admission, and the flying griffins looked deliciously real. (I’ll admit I did have to hold myself back from laughing out loud at the “dwarf gets shot with an arrow” scene near the end. That feeble squawk he made! Too funny.)

King Kong: Wonderful (mostly). The only place I came back to reality was that much-too-long "Kong fights the T-rex" sequence.

And of course, for me, who likes his happy fantasies, the ending was bad.

In MY version of the story, the ape lives, the girl gets a million-dollar biology study grant, and they both go back to the island to live happily ever after. As the camera pans out at the end, we see a fleet of PETA gunboats circling the island like sharks, keeping away outsiders.

#55166: — 12/26  at  05:15 AM
"If you aren't willing to give credit to Lewis as a storyteller and are going to get caught up in the criticism of his message..."

The problem here is that the biggest weaknesses in the storytelling derive directly from the insertion of the message.

Aslan going to die and then *poof!* coming back to life is one of the lamer parts from a dramatical standpoint. And the reason it's in there is that Aslan was an allegory for Jesus.

Seperating the craft from the message in this story is really not possible.

#55167: Bartholomew — 12/26  at  05:22 AM
If you think Lewis's "liar or Lord" argument is bad, there's an even worse one, also in Mere Christianity: Lewis argues that people have sexual desires which are excessive to our needs; this proves that human nature is sinful, and that therefore the narrative of the Fall must be true.

#55168: Tom Morris — 12/26  at  05:27 AM
Yes, the "3 L" argument ("Lunatic, Liar or Lord?") is used most frequently by the proponents of the Alpha Course. The whole course is built on the acceptance of that (false) trichotomy. If you challenge that fundamental part ("Lunatic, Liar, Lord, Legend or somewhere in between, perhaps with the assistance of the Gospel writers and Paul and the 'fitting in' of pre-Christian Jewish and pagan mythologies in to forming a Christian saviour?"), then you challenge the "logical certainty" that the question implies.

Of course, this is a red herring. The Alpha Course and other similar evangelism courses have nothing to do with logical debate and discussion. They are there to garner souls through misanthropy and emotional exploitation - in our minds, we're all fat, unhappy, existentially confused, useless idiots stuck at a low-level job with loveless relationships and horrible Ritalin munching children. Thank god for God!

(CAPTCHA verification word: atheist. Yay!)

#55170: — 12/26  at  06:23 AM
I haven't seen the Narnia flic yet, but I probably will, since I've got two kids who want to see it. I am confident that they are old enough (fifteen and seventeen) and wise enough to be critical of the religious subtext, and let beavers be beavers.
I too enjoyed the books as a kid (with the exception of the final one, The Last Battle), and I still think they are entertaining and well-written stories, with more emotional depth than The Lord of the Rings. However, the message of the Narnia series is disturbing. In the latest New Yorker, there's an article about the (atheist) author Philip Pullman (His Dark Materials), where he speaks for me about the problems with Narnia:

When it comes to "The Chronicles of Narnia," by C.S.Lewis, Pullman's antipathy is even more pronounced. Although he likes Lewis's criticism and quotes it surprisingly often, he considers the fantasy series "morally loathsome." In a 1998 essay for the Guardian, entitled "The Dark Side of Narnia," he condemned "the misogyny, the racism, the sado-masochistic relish for violence that permeates the whole cycle." He reviled Lewis for depicting the character Susan Pevensie's sexual coming of age- suggested by her interest in "nylons and lipstick and invitations"- as grounds for exclusion from paradise. In Pullman's view, the "Chronicles," which end with the rest of the family's ascension to a neo-Platonic version of Narnia after they die in a railway accident, teach that "death is better than life; boys are better than girls... and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it."

#55172: Mark Nutter — 12/26  at  08:04 AM
I was just thinking about that Lunatic, Liar or Lord argument the other day, and it occurred to me that Jesus also said "I am the Light of the world." So the question we should also ask ourselves is, "Is Jesus a Fruitcake, a Fraud, or a Photon?" It's the same selection of alternatives C. S. Lewis limits us to in his Lunatic, Liar or Lord trilemma.

#55173: — 12/26  at  08:04 AM
i remember reading the narnia books at, i think i was, age 10 or 12 or so. i clearly remember thinking, even then, that (1) this was decidedly below Tolkien's standards (i had been spoiled by then already), and (2) the books'd be much better if he hadn't let his proselytizing get in the way of his storytelling. i don't expect any filmatization of them to be half as good as the books were, and i've never felt any urge to reread *them*, so i think i'll pass on the flick.

and my captcha is "godless". most appropriate.

#55176: Federico Contreras — 12/26  at  08:31 AM
That should say, Deus ex panthera leo. Just picking nits! Don't mind me!

#55178: Ali — 12/26  at  08:58 AM
Fun With Dick and Jane was pretty hilarious. Definitely worth the matinee price.

#55182: Keith Douglas — 12/26  at  09:37 AM
Lewis' 3L argument begs the question by assuming that Jesus wasn't a liar. (Well, it also assumes that the Gospel stories are something like historical records, which is IMO absurd.)

#55184: — 12/26  at  09:51 AM
Before the movie, did you go out for Chinese food first? Or is that not an option in the part of Minnesota you live in?

I have a friend who's (as far as he knows) completely of British descent. He generally goes the Chinese meal followed by movie route on Christmas. He calls it "getting in touch with his Jewish heritage."

#55186: — 12/26  at  10:27 AM
I've always said that Lewis' trilemma ignores three other possibilities, the three M's: Misquoted, Misunderstood, or Made-up.

#55187: — 12/26  at  10:28 AM

Lame. It was a poor fantasy in which insufferably cute kids acquire unearned glory with a succession of talking animals.

Exactly! By exposing children to sophisticated theological concepts, such as talking animals, the Narnia stories prepare young minds for easier acceptance of Christianity.

#55168: Tom Morris — 12/26 at 05:27 AM
Yes, the "3 L" argument ("Lunatic, Liar or Lord?") is...

It's too bad "myth" doesn't start with L, isn't it?