Some good points Dave. About Narnia and LOTR being for kids, I need to paw through the Letters of Tolkien, but in his “On Fairie Stories” Tolkien makes it clear that fairie stories ought not be dumbed down for kids (like the Grimm collection)or even written just for kids.

So on one hand LOTR first began as a story (The Hobbit) he made up for his own children, but as he shared it with his friends (one of them being Lewis) he was encouraged to get it published. Eventually he tied the Hobbit and the LOTR into his fantasy-epic, the Silmarillion, which he had began way back around WWI.

Check out what Tolkien says about children and fantasy/fairie literature:

“Among those who still have enough wisdom not to think fairy-stories pernicious, the common opinion seems to be that there is a natural connexion between the minds of children and fairy-stories, of the same order as the connexion between children’s bodies and milk. I think this is an error; at best an error of false sentiment, and one that is therefore most often made by those who, for whatever private reason(such as childlessness), tend to think of children as a special kind of creature, almost a different race,rather than as normal, if immature, members of a particular family, and of the human family at large.”

“Very well, then. If adults are to read fairy-stories as a natural branch of literature—neither playing at being children, nor pretending to be choosing for children, nor being boys who would not grow up—what are the values and functions of this kind? That is, I think, the last and most important question. I have already hinted at some of my answers. First of all: if written with art, the prime value of fairystories will simply be that value which, as literature, they share with other literary forms. But fairystories offer also, in a peculiar degree or mode, these things: Fantasy, Recovery, Escape, Consolation, all things of which children have, as a rule, less need than older people.”

Dave, I concur with your analysis of “Revenge of the Sith.” I kind of enjoyed “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” I don’t really know why; I just did. However, offering a different interpretation than the author’s is a bit suspect.

Now, to Narnia. I have a few more thoughts here. First, my background is that I read the books as a kid, watched the movie, and then re-read “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.”

I think an important thing to remember about those of us who read the books (or had them read to us) as kids is that some of that childhood fantasy is re-lived when we see the movie. Primarily, I think this allows us to give more leeway to the movie.

As for Lewis and Tolkien. I agree with you that the books are in the same genre. (Although it is interesting to note that while Lewis wrote the Narnia series espressly as an allegory, Tolkien expressly denies any allegorical meaning to LOTR.) Also, while Lewis did a great job, I hardly think it fair to compare him to the masterpiece and genius of Tolkien. (Lewis distinguished himself more in philosophy/theology.)

Even as a kid I had a problem with Father Christmas being in the books.

I agree with Jason that the waterfall scene (not in the book) is added for dramatic effect, but disagree that we must suspend belief in regard to your comments, Dave. I thought the scene was ridiculous and unnecessary, not to mention illogical.

As for the stone table, I think that it is a representation of the penalty of sin. The stone table is the place that traitors are executed, i.e. the place where the penalty is paid. When Aslan rose from the dead, the table broke in representation of the fact that the table was no longer necessary. A traitor no longer was bound to meet life’s end on the table. Rather, Aslan had paid the penalty and provided an escape.

As with any allegory, it is meant to shadow reality. Every allegory falls apart at some point. If it did not, then it would in fact be the substance it is meant to represent. So, the purpose is to point one in the right direction. Hopefully, Lewis’ work will continue to point people to the substance of the work of Christ as revealed in Scripture.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie immensely. However, I certainly understand, and even agree with, some of your problems with it. I guess Peter Jackson lost our phone numbers when he was planning those aspects.

Tell Kalila “hi” for me. (Just as a reminder, I am Russ’s younger bro, Keith.)

great comments guys.

josh-give me more Tolkien! his essay on fairie stories is simply stellar. help me understand Tolkien better my friend!

keith-aka beefy keithy-totally agree with you man. i think the positive points of the movie are pretty obvious, that’s kinda why i took the liberty to criticize it a bit. there were definitely aspects that i enjoyed. thanks for sympathizing some points i’ve made. i’m no filmaker, but i just hate cheesy things in movies. the stone breaking in half made allegorical sense, like the viel being torn. i didn’t think the movie itself offered too much help in making me understand. just one correction-Andrew Adamson was the director, Peter Jackson was doing King Kong, which i am eager to see also. i will tell Kalila you said hi. also give our hello to Angela.