The Chronicles of Narnia

I don't really blame someone for saying, "Wait until you see the film before you book the theatre."

Remember that they turned the story of the first pilgrims into a very propagandized version of "white men are evil and greedy, and they came to America to rob, murder, and kill innocent indians while plundering the earth."

Not exactly the story line parents were expecting when they took their children to the film.

 

Not exactly. The pilgrim purpitans came on the Mayflower in 1620. The film animated film Pocahontas was about the Jamestown expedition in 1607. The whole story of the Jamestown settlers and Algonquian Indians covers several years, and their relationship was often complicated and uneasy (the movie takes several instances over several years and compresses them). Much of this uneasiness came from a simple lack of understanding of the other's culture Over the years, much myth and legend has cropped up about the Pocahontas/John Smith tale, not unlike Davey Crocket and Johnny Appleseed.

Clearly, the animated movie was not trying to be a historical representation. But I do disagree with you somewhat. In the film, it was not just the "whites" who were portrayed as evil and greedy. Both the settlers and indians were portrayed as untrusting and fickle. In that aspect, there was probably more truth than we'd care to admit. The actual story of Pocahontas is, imo, considerably less interesting than poets and story writers have made it over the last 400 years.

 

Johnv,

Disagreements over the historical documentation aside - the film Pocahontas was not at all what most parents expected when they took children to see the film.

This is a simple historical fact at this point, attested to by the huge outcry of "propaganda" that went up after the film was released.

 

I personally didn't expect it to be any different than any other animated Disney film. I think, perhaps, that too many parents might have been expecting a history lesson. I could be wrong, though.

And I still remembe the Johnny Appleseed song:

The Lord is good to me
And so I thank the Lord
For giving me the things I need
The sun and rain and the appleseed.
The Lord is good to me.

 

John,

I am not suggesting a "Disney Boycott," just a preview before someone drag a youth group into a film.

You, though, are going overboard on the "support them theme." The Johnny Appleseed song was written in 1948, it was lengthened in 1969.

Disney films have taken a turn in recent years. Not enough to create a boycott, but definately enough to encourage caution.

Follo's lust for Esmeralda in the Hunchback comes to mind. Many reviewers, secular and Christian, commented on the "obvious sexuality" of Esmeralda.

Though you may have enjoyed Pocahontas, not every did. One critic said it "belittles the true historical figure of Pocohantas by reducing her to the status of sexy Native American Barbie."

Another called it racist.

Historically, it was atrocious! John Smith and Pocahontas were not lovers in real life. She was 12 and he was 27.

They choose to ignore the fact that she converted to Christianity, and married an englishman.

The film is riddled with "Women's Liberation" themes. Pocahontas was not some indian maiden out to realize her impossible dreams, as the movie portrays her.

All of this is done to appeal to modern audiences... and that's Disney's right, and it probably all increased their sells, but...

If they are willing to play with history that much to sell the story of Pocahontas - - what are they willing to do to sell the Chronicles of Narina?

The books were written with a Christian theme and message. Do you REALLY expect Disney to include that message in their film?

 

I agree that this is generally good advice for movies in general. I've done it from time to time.

I think you know me enough that I don't withhold criticm when called for. I have in the past been critical of Disney, when I felt it was necessary. I also praise them when appropriate.

And don't be pickin' on the Johnny Appleseed song

I think the opposite. I think in the last 15 or so years, Disney films, and their product in general, has started getting back to where they should have been.

That's actually an implication in the original novel. Frollo is enamored with Esmeralda during Fool's Day, and sends Quasimodo to catch her. It's a somewhat integral part of the story. I actually thought that the animated films tames this down enough for a younger audience, without completely rewriting the story (as was done with the Grimm's fairy tales, though with positive benefits).

I do admit that Pocahontas and HoND were not my favorite, though I did enjoy them.

I think "sexy Native American Barbie" is probably over the top. The character certainly wasn't any more or less "sexy" than Belle, Ariel or Snow White, but definitely more sexy than the Genie.

I'd hardly go that far, but if one is an anglocentric, they might see it that way.

Agreed. But it wasn't intended to be a historical movie. To be fair though, I have seen three movies on the topic of Pocahontas and John Smith, and none of them were particularly accurate.

Most likely true. This tends to be a topic of myth and legend. Much is unkown, but it is very unlikely there was any romance involved.

The movie stops prior to her leaving the New World.

That's a bit of a stretch. The gender issue isn't touched upon at all.

Yes, that's a Disneyism. Building on a myth and legend, not the real person. But again, I knew way before this movie came out that it a fictional tale. I wasn't the only one.

Just just appeal to a modern audience, but to appeal to a young audience. The actual Pocahontas / John Smith story sans dramatic license isn't, imo, much of a dramatic story. And even in historical circles, it is misunderstood (the saving of John Smith was probably a benign ritual, and not an actual threat upon his life).

WHile that was a nice segue back to the topic of the OP, I think it's apples and oranges. Pocahontas was, again, never intended to be historically accurate. TLTWaTW is intended to be a direct adaptation of the book.

Disney execs said that the Christian themes are integral to the story, and they will not downplay them at all. Reports from those who have pre-screening of the footage have said that Christian themes remain intact.

 

Disney didn't didn't actually do The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. Disney put up the money and will market it. Walden is doing the movie itself. CS Lewis's adopted son had a great deal to do with the production of the movie. He wanted to make sure CS Lewis himself would approve of the movie.

I have been following the development of this movie for months. It looks like it will be great.

 

Correct, Hal. I neglected to mention that. Disney and Walden are both involved. Coinvolvement in the movie industry is commonplace, since it allows each individual organization to work in the realm it specialized in.

For example: Disney/Pixar is a common example of coinvolvement.

 

Hal,

That makes me feel better about it.

 

Well, I agree she wasn't a "sexy Native American Barbie" since she was only 12 when she met John Smith. On the other hand, I don't know about the movie belittling her because one source I read said she was a wild kid who would run around stark naked doing cartwheels in public.

 

Petrel,

The comment was stating that the movie turned her into a sexy Native American Barbie when in fact she was really just a 12 year old girl.

 

The truth of the matter is that many films are not actually "made" by the companies that release them. Disney is in effect the distributor, they basically buy the "rights" to the film, slap their name on it, and put up the promotion/marketing costs. All of the production work is done by another company/producer entirely. As well as the initial financing of the film. For well known producers or production companies distribution deals are usually struck before the film is edited. For smaller companies and independents the deals are usually struck after the film is finished, and usually after it shows promise at some of the bigger film festivals. The same goes for Disney/Pixar. Pixar made the films and Disney distributed them. After Pixar's deal expired with Disney, they realized that they could get better distribution deals elsewhere, hence their split. It is very rare that Disney will actually produce it's own films anymore.

With that being said, at the time Poccahontas was released Disney was taking a lot of flack for not making enough films with "ethnic" hero/heroines. IMO, they probably chose the story because Poccahontas was Native American and not white. Either was it is not my favorite Disney movie, but it certainly does not deserve all the negativity I have seen. I took it for what it was-a Disney movie with a female heroine and a semi-romantic storyline. Most Disney cartoons used the same formula (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, etc.).

 

Not exactly. She was 12 when the settlers arrived in Jamestown. She was in her mid to late teens during the John Smith encounters. She was in her late teens when she married John Rolfe.

She died at 21, I believe.

Anyhoo, we're getting off topic, though this subtopic has indeed been interesting.

 

Now that Eisner is out at Disney, look for Iger to fix the problems between Disney and Pixar. Disney has produced their own films recently, but most of them stink. The only one hit that I can think of was "The Pirates of the Caribbean." The last animated hit that Disney had was The Lion King in 1994.

 

From your lips to God's ears!!!!

It's also good news that Roy Disney has been invited back to the company in an emeritus role. I personally think that the company needs to get more of the younger, less known, family members on board. That is one area they fail in. But since it's not a family run company in the first place (Walt did not intend fot it to be family-only), there's certainly never been any requirement to have the Disney family involved. It would probably be a comfort to the shareholders, though.

 

Disney did not actually produce Pirates of the Caribbean. Jerry Bruckheimer Films produced the movie and Disney distributed the movie. Hence the credits will read... Walt Disney Pictures presents in association with Jerry Bruckheimer Films.

At this point I am skeptical of even Iger to fix the problems between Disney and Pixar. Pixar has the ability to produce some very lucrative films and the competition is quite steep in the industry.

 

My set is over 15 years old now and Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is first. I would have to go check on the numbering, but they were not written in chronological order. I actually have always kept them on my shelf in semi-chronological order. . . Some publishers must have reorganized the order since then.

 

Lion wsa intended to be read first. In some sets, Lion is book 1, but in others Nephew is book 1, following the chronological order instead of narrative order.

 

I realize we have veered from the subject of the original movie but there have been some very interesting comments made about Disney and for anyone to say that Disney seems to be going in the right direction with their movies is wrong. Disney like any other movie making company seem to be all going in the wrong direction. Going to see a PG movie is with your kids in these times has to make you completely wonder about its content.

But back to Disney and their so called family friendlyness, good God man get a grip how can you say Disney is family friendly when they promote homosexuality in their own theme parks????????? Where in the world do you get family friendly??????????????? They are blatantly pro homosexual !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where is the family values????????????????????

It was also mentioned that Disney very seldom makes their own movies anymore. They just buy the rights and do some financing and do the marketing and SLAP their name on the label. Are we as christians labeled according to the things we do? Are we not supposed to act Christlike as to attract people to Jesus so they will be saved?

If Disney buys products and slaps their name on them then by all means be very careful about anything Disney.

JohnV you can pick out every little cute scene from the movies that you like but your not even willing to discuss their pro homosexual stance in their movies and their parks. Disney is not going in the right direction and would be very leary of this upcoming movie only for the obvious fact that Disney has stuck their immoral fingers in it.

I will be completely surprised if Disney has not altered just the smallest part of this movie to fit its agenda. I do not apologize for looking on the side of skepticism when it comes to todays movie entertainment and Disney itself. I do not boycott Disney but I am certainly not anxious to be first in line for a new release with their name on it.

I would challenge anyone who sees this movie to go with the full intentions of not compromising their christian values at all. In other words the movie has held to its full potential as a christian movie or it has compromised the whole C.S.Lewis series. And no, if it weren't for that part it would have been okay or it was good for the most part but! No buts it was either completely good or all bad. Good is good and bad is bad. Bad cannot be good and good cannot be bad. Jesus said "Let your yes be yes and your no be no, everything else is from the devil.

I fully intend on seeing the movie and have all intentions of being honest about the whole thing. I do not need to cheapen my values and compromise my morals to be entertained by giving into just a little bit of indecency or subversive messages.