Lathspell said:

---

The thing i have dreaded since it was announced she was doing the Chronicles of Narnia. A series I grew up reading and loving before Harry Potter came out. A story created by one of the most influential Christian authors of all time, written as Christian allegory, and they're doing this.

To me, it's beyond disgusting.

Normally, I'm happy to debate Hollywood's bull****, but ultimately I'm never THAT invested in it. But screwing with this series in this way is something I do take personally.

As others have mentioned, the rejection of the core audience and the fact the IP isn't as huge of a draw as it has been in the past will most likely lead to a failure. This is a time when I actually hope and pray it does.

Fortunately, we are not far off from being able to simply prompt an AI model to create a live action version of each book and it will probably be better and more respectful of the artists vision, than this abomination will be.

At least we'll always have the 2005 version of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Literally one of the greatest adaptations of any book, imo.

---

It's clearly an intentional mockery of people and concepts, never mind an entire religion, that they obviously hate, and don't even bother to hide it.

But hey, if you have a platform...

Agreed. For what she's going for, the imagery is awesome.

hunter2012 said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

12 pages minimum debating how woke it is.

---

Let's start with Meryl Streep as the Jesus allegory.

---

Yeah, **** this. Not watching

Lathspell said:

---

At least we'll always have the 2005 version of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Literally one of the greatest adaptations of any book, imo.

---

One of my favorite things about that movie is that when they filmed it, they didn't let the actress playing Lucy see what the first Narnia set looked like, so when she comes past the lamp post, her reaction is 100% real.

This thread starts off like



And will end like

I will start off that the poster is incredible for the vibe she wants

I will actually be on the opposite side of where the Odyssey thread was.

I have zero intention to watch this. Greta has been quoted with a clear disdain to Christianity and has issues with Jesus as to which Aslan is in Lewis' work. I am not going to stand on a soap box and put this book on the same pedestal as the Bible, but she clearly has no respect for the source material or for CS Lewis. It may be her childhood favorite but she wants to remake it in her image. Aslan is still male with the mane but the use of a woman's voice is just off and reeks of intentionally doing it to anger the very people who want to watch this

Moving the story out of 1900s has rippling effects downstream of they continue this where Wardrobe shifts out of WW2. Adding the David Bowie of it all is strange

It is her interpretation and that's fine but I will not watch it or support it. Not gonna get in a fight in it with anyone who wants to support it. Just disappointed with decisions made

She doesn't even understand Catholicism

Yeah one of the things that I love about Lady Bird is how Christine is clearly shown as wrong/immature in her evaluation of the nuns/school. Overtime she comes to appreciate them as she does with all the institutions and people in her life she is rebelling against just to rebel. It's all apart of Gerwig essentially writing a love letter to the way she was raised.

Let me provide information. You can ignore it i dont care.

Christians believe in objective truth. If you deny Christ you deny the foundations of being a Christian. Christianity is not a book of stories and fables. It is truth. Jesus is the Word incarnate. And the Word is truth.

You may believe in subjective truth. Just understand that belief is incompatible with Christianity. It is akin to saying someone is a fan of rock and roll but they consider Kpop to be rock and roll. It isn't rock and roll by any objective idea but to that person they consider it rock. So who can one be to deny that person's truth. That is what is going on here.

There now you know that this whole issue is around objective vs subjective truth.

It's literally impossible for you to not be condescending, isn't it?

TCTTS said:

---

What would be the point of yet another traditional adaptation that looks/feels exactly like the other three? Christians got three faithful, massively popular adaptations across five years, all of which still hold up, provide the perfect Aslan casting, etc. So why would anyone do basically the same thing again theatrically? Maybe if they went the Harry-Potter-on-HBO route and turned into a series, I could understand that decision.

Creatively/Theatrically, though, it makes sense to try something new and different. Also, Gerwig brought the idea to Netflix, not the other way around. She's effusively described the Narnia series as "the literature of her childhood," stating that she grew up reading, loving, and imagining herself inside Narnia. Not to mention, C.S. Lewis' family has publicly vouched for her, noting that her lifelong passion and love for the source material are genuine. To that end, the idea that she's going to turn this into some subversive liberal fantasy that Christian families should avoid is pretty far-fetched.

I'm not saying people have to like this iteration. Not at all. It just seems so TexAgs/cliched to dismiss it outright before seeing a single frame of the movie itself. Who knows, after tomorrow's trailer I may even pass. But the core idea isn't all that crazy, considering Aslan literally sings Narnia into existence. So I get the inspiration to take that kernel and run with it, re: the 1950s rock opera idea, which could be really fun, while hopefully still honoring the books' original themes.

---

It could be wonderful, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be somewhat cautious about a reimagining of a story with the clear allegorical connection to Christianity, particularly given the antipathy towards Christianity that occasionally rears its head in modern Hollywood. While Meryl Streep is an incredible actress, casting a woman as the Son of God is not necessarily instilling confidence that Gerwig is going to do the work justice; it may be completely fine and innocent, but…

I don't have issues with playing with some of the set dressing, for lack of a better word, and I think it could be cool. Julie Taylor's take on Titus Andronicus springs to mind as a work that's very different in many ways from the source but keeps the core of the story. Whether Gerwig can hew a line like that remains to be seen, I guess.

She clearly does not have a clear disdain for Christianity. She literally talks about going to church for 5 hours a day. Even if she has a few beliefs that are out there or even if she sees her attendance as more of a catholic tradition rather than bc she thinks she's a true Christian believer, that is certainly not a disdain for Christianity. If anything, it shows she loves and respects Christianity, even if she has doubts that she is a true believer.

Maybe the movie will be terrible and she won't do it justice. But she clearly does not have a disdain for Christianity.

texagbeliever said:

---

Let me provide information. You can ignore it i dont care.

Christians believe in objective truth. If you deny Christ you deny the foundations of being a Christian. Christianity is not a book of stories and fables. It is truth. Jesus is the Word incarnate. And the Word is truth.

You may believe in subjective truth. Just understand that belief is incompatible with Christianity. It is akin to saying someone is a fan of rock and roll but they consider Kpop to be rock and roll. It isn't rock and roll by any objective idea but to that person they consider it rock. So who can one be to deny that person's truth. That is what is going on here.

There now you know that this whole issue is around objective vs subjective truth.

---

Excellently put

I am gonna bow out because I already know this thread is gonna be unhealthy for anyone involved. Maybe disdain about Christianity is the wrong phrase. But I think she has a disdain to a Christianity that many here profess.

TC, you know that I was on your side in the Odyssey thread and frankly many others here. We have even disagreed and usually have had respect for each other. I wish you well but you know this thread is gonna take a toll on you just like the Odyssey and others.

TCTTS said:

---

I attended church for 30 years. I know exactly how it works, thanks. That said, your "truths" are modern interpretations of a bible that has been translated across numerous languages, whose books were selected gradually over centuries by councils of men with agendas. Never mind that the gospels were written decades after Jesus' crucifixion. In other words, you can be as convicted as you want in your beliefs, but your beliefs don't change the fact that just because a book says something is true doesn't automatically make its claims objective truth.

---

Congratulations. That means nothing. And the rest of your post simply illustrates your ignorance and complete lack of foundation in any Christian truths.

Creating your own brand of Christianity, separate from the foundation of Biblical truth, is literally creating your own God.

TCTTS said:

---

You clearly either didn't read or understand a single word I wrote. Par for the course.

---

Just because you don't like what I posted doesn't mean I didn't read your post. Your post illustrates a modern deconstructionist view of Christianity. It's an attempt to remove truth from Christianity and instead makes it about whatever you feel. That's not Christianity.

I'm sure you also believe many things the Bible claims as sin are not actually sin, and you use the rationale you espoused in order to reason away the things you don't like

Your post reads as an attack on the Word of God. That's fine. But don't go claiming your brand of secular "Christianity" is in fact Christianity.

TCTTS said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

It's literally impossible for you to not be condescending, isn't it?

---

When people spread obvious misinformation with an intent to smear, yes.

---

Dude said he believes something about her and you got personally offended and lashed out like a child. Stop acting like you're taking the high road. You've said far worse about other posters on this website routinely and act like it's fact and not the opinion of a deranged individual (I like how you use this word to describe other posters here all the time so I thought you might like it in this use case as well).

TCTTS said:

---

Again, just because the Bible claims it's the Word of God doesn't make it, objectively, the Word of God. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Either way, it's something you actively choose to believe. The whole point is that your belief is an act of faith. It is indisputable that we can't know objective truth for sure in that sense. Not until we die, and maybe not even then.

---

I don't care what you believe, nor anyone else for that matter. One of my closest friends is an atheist and much of our friendship was built around discussing these things. My issue is claiming "Christianity" when you reject the core tenants of Christianity.

Call it something else. Scripture is truth or it isn't. Christ is the Son of God or he isn't. You are fallen and sinful, deserving of hell, or you aren't. Christ was crucified for your sins or he wasn't. These are fundamental. You don't get to pick and choose the parts of Christianity you like and then play make believe that you're a Christian. I mean, you can, but don't get offended when Christians call it out as wrong.

We're not arguing about ideas of pre-trib or post-trib. We aren't arguing about the merits of Calvinism. We are discussing core tenants of Christianity.

TCTTS said:

---

I attended church for 30 years. I know exactly how it works, thanks. That said, your "truths" are modern interpretations of a bible that has been translated across numerous languages, whose books were selected gradually over centuries by councils of men with agendas. Never mind that the gospels were written decades after Jesus' crucifixion. In other words, you can be as convicted as you want in your beliefs, but your beliefs don't change the fact that just because a book says something is true doesn't automatically make its claims objective truth.

---

Just because you say something doesnt make it true. In fact I dont know how you can deny me "my truth" when you so clearly cant define any truth. Is your truth the real truth? That would be a rather tough hill for you to defend.

The goal is for people to forget what Narnia is about. To lose the allegory of Aslan to Christ. That should be rejected. It is Postmodern slop that seeks to "see through" all the wrongs of society but isnt actually looking at anything real. You think it creates art when in reality it destroys art and creates nothingness. It is the opposite of artistic.

Can you not see your own hubris? You, a random Hollywood fanatic is an expert on Christianity. It is getting comical.

Just say this. I dont believe in objective truth and so I dont see a problem with this author butchering the story to tell it in her truth. That is it. Dont try to lecture us on how we christians dont understand our faith or are wrong in our interpretation. You arent qualified to do so. You are making yourself into a meme.

And you make more assumptions about me.

I am actually not a fan of organized religion (see how my responses to you aren't to point to years of attending an organized gathering once a week like yours was). My faith and beliefs have nothing to do with organized religion and are in fact founded directly from the Bible and biblical truths, not what some person standing on a pulpit tells me to believe. I reject most legalism that exists in many churches and denominations.

I also do not care if speaking truth turns others off. It's not up to me to neuter Christianity to make others feel better about it or to make it more palatable. Also, don't start spouting what Jesus may have thought or said. Jesus is extreme. If you truly want to talk about what Jesus said, then be prepared to be turned off from Christianity. He leaves absolutely zero wiggle room. He calls out all sin for what it is and makes absolute claims.

If you reject that all scripture is God-breathed, then everything you may claim to believe is simply a feeling you have and is based in no form of truth. Again, that's fine. Just don't call it what it isn't.