The bible is objective truth until it says stuff obviously false at which point it's symbolism for a greater truth.

Do I trust someone to take a Christian work of art and honor it's story if that person doesn't like like the idea of Jesus Christ as the savior? No of course not. It would only be by luck she would get it right.

Do I think the Christ allegory will be honored by someone who doesnt like the idea of Jesus Christ as the savior. No. Why, because how can she portray it properly if she has disdain for it. To do so would be to go against her own beliefs.

This isnt that hard. It is obvious why Christians should both not see and also actively reject this work of destruction. Your only logical response is: I can see how an objective truth believing person who is Christian would reject the basis of this interpretation based on their views. Im excited to see it because of X, Y, Z not related to that.

It is definitely not trying to tell Christians they arent real.

If you're OK with Meryl Streep as the voice of Aslan, is it cool to cast Andy Samberg as the White Witch? How bout instead of Fledge being a horse, we make him into a flying hammerhead shark? When they make Prince Caspian, i want Lizzo to be Caspian, just my interpretation of things. Also, the four Pensieve children should be from Nigeria, not England, and all be in love with each other. And they all the same mutant powers as Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm, and Wolverine. Hope that's OK. Also, I'm casting Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce as gender-swapping Mr. and Mrs. Beaver.

This thread feels like its venturing into some weird territory.

Narnia isn't the Bible. Its a story, with themes about redemption, good/evil, the nature of man, etc. that artists of many religions have been exploring for centuries. I don't think one has to be a Christian to make a great adaptation of the story, even if it was written by a Christian. One only has to have respect for the story, and for what is really being communicated by it.

Its clear that Gerwig loves the story. What she loves about it we don't know yet. She could totally be missing the pieces that many of faith love about the story and end up falling flat on her face with the movie. Thats a very real possibility. It could also be a really good adaptation. We just don't know. I think its ok to live in the uncertainty of that, taking in the promotional information and details, and deciding if its worth your time or not. It doesn't have to be more than that. Narnia isn't so sacred that adapting it poorly means one is evil/wrong or if people love it for some other reason than the reason you love it they are evil/wrong.

I say this as someone who does love the books, and is pretty nervous about some of the info coming out about the movie. But there is other info that intrigues me or sounds genuinely good to me.

I introduced my kids to Narnia pretty early specifically because of the Christian roots, in addition to beautiful storytelling. I'm not alone in this. It shouldn't be a shock to any rational individual why this interpretation is met with skepticism and frustration. While Gerwig acknowledges religion and speaks about it positively in many respects, she does say pretty clearly that it's very hard for her to equate Jesus as our lord and savior. For those of us who have no hesitation with that and grew up reading Narnia in CS Lewis' mystical world that very much aligns with Jesus and the message of Christianity, packaged in with an inherent mistrust of Hollywood already, it's pretty clearly why this reaction is taking place.

I can understand and appreciate how someone who enjoys the story and separates it from Christianity may be intrigued by it, but I'd venture to say that isn't the majority. But I think even those who fit this category can still cognitively understand the reason for discourse.

veryfuller said:

---

This thread feels like its venturing into some weird territory.

Narnia isn't the Bible. Its a story, with themes about redemption, good/evil, the nature of man, etc. that artists of many religions have been exploring for centuries. I don't think one has to be a Christian to make a great adaptation of the story, even if it was written by a Christian. One only has to have respect for the story, and for what is really being communicated by it.

Its clear that Gerwig loves the story. What she loves about it we don't know yet. She could totally be missing the pieces that many of faith love about the story and end up falling flat on her face with the movie. Thats a very real possibility. It could also be a really good adaptation. We just don't know. I think its ok to live in the uncertainty of that, taking in the promotional information and details, and deciding if its worth your time or not. It doesn't have to be more than that. Narnia isn't so sacred that adapting it poorly means one is evil/wrong or if people love it for some other reason than the reason you love it they are evil/wrong.

I say this as someone who does love the books, and is pretty nervous about some of the info coming out about the movie. But there is other info that intrigues me or sounds genuinely good to me.

---

Disagree.

The Lord of the Rings has "themes" about good/evil, etc. The Chronicles of Narnia are Christian allegory. Written by one of the most influential Christian authors in history. Allegory is not about "themes". It's one of the reasons Tolkien wasn't a fan of allegory and sought to keep his writings from being so. CS Lewis purposefully went the other way. To change his allegory to "themes' is to erase his purpose for the art.

Also, no one has said one has to be anything to properly adapt the story. Most would agree the 2005 movie was a fantastic adaptation. I don't know ANYTHING about the beliefs or thoughts of the director. All I know is he set out to faithfully adapt the book and he succeeded.

But feminizing the allegorical representation of Christ is in line with the post-modern deconstruction that Hollywood participates in, daily.

TCTTS said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

And you make more assumptions about me.

I am actually not a fan of organized religion. 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.

---

Literally the exact same thing can be said about your beliefs. It's baffling that you can't see that. You have a FEELING that the Bible is true. You can't PROVE that the Bible is true. I'm not here to say that it is or isn't. I'm simply here to say that neither you nor I can know whether it's objective truth for sure. This isn't that complicated.

---

And this again illustrates how you view "Christianity". It's all I need to know.

TCTTS said:

---

If you actually studied the history of Christianity, not just from books, sources, and scholars promoting modern Christianity, you would find that it is a far more nuanced religion than the black-and-white, all-or-nothing version you choose to believe. In fact, you would find that Jesus wasn't a fan of religion at all, with all its hypocrisy, absolutes, righteousness, and abuses of power, and to that end likely would have been repulsed by modern Christianity itself. I know you think you're standing firm in the face of some test God is giving you by being so militant in your beliefs, but your militant beliefs are exactly why so many people, including myself, reject your "truth." Not because we want to sin, or are avoiding accountability, or want an easier path. But because we have dug deeper to discover a different truth than yours.

---

Yeah... I doubt many people are going to take your advise on how to best watch or interpret The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe when you don't have a fundamental understanding of Christianity or faith.

I say that as someone who enjoys your posts and respects your dedication to movies, btw

I agree with the jist of this post.

Gerwig...any artist...is allowed to re-envision a source material however they want. That's art. Over the centuries reinterpretations have brought civilization some truly beautiful things. But there's a difference between an adaptation and a retelling. However entertaining her adaptation may be, some people are simply going to want a retelling, and only a retelling. An adaptation will be seen by them as blasphemous.

TC has a point that more intense criticism should be held until we at least see a trailer so we get a better idea of what her telling will be....a reinterpretation/adaptation or a retelling. Heck, circling back to The Odyssey, perhaps I missed somewhere in all of the prerelease hype that Nolan was making just his adaptation/reinterpretation of it, and not simply a retelling of it. Maybe if I was more clear on that I would have had a more forgiving view of the movie.

But whatever people's opinions are, they're certainly not wrong for holding them.

An allegory is a type of non-fiction, and it has themes like any other work of art. You are mixing two different things.

You are arguing that, in order for it to maintain whatever allegorical integrity, it needs to be a straightforward adaptation? That is what it seems. Which is a fine stance to take.

I just don't agree with that 100%. Again, I am highly skeptical that given the choices Gerwig has made, that this will capture the complete picture of what C.S. Lewis wrote. I just don't think its impossible to maintain the integrity of the allegory while still making structural changes or tweaks to the story.

An example would be the time setting. I don't think it matters much when the events of the stories take place. The real world is not really impacting whats going on in Narnia, so changing the timeline from early 1900s to 1950s/60s is something that can add another texture without changing the meaning of the story.

Now the Aslan in the room is a different, harder pill to swallow. I am skeptical of that, but not hopeless, I guess.

veryfuller said:

---

An allegory is a type of non-fiction, and it has themes like any other work of art. You are mixing two different things.

You are arguing that, in order for it to maintain whatever allegorical integrity, it needs to be a straightforward adaptation? That is what it seems. Which is a fine stance to take.

I just don't agree with that 100%. Again, I am highly skeptical that given the choices Gerwig has made, that this will capture the complete picture of what C.S. Lewis wrote. I just don't think its impossible to maintain the integrity of the allegory while still making structural changes or tweaks to the story.

An example would be the time setting. I don't think it matters much when the events of the stories take place. The real world is not really impacting whats going on in Narnia, so changing the timeline from early 1900s to 1950s/60s is something that can add another texture without changing the meaning of the story.

Now the Aslan in the room is a different, harder pill to swallow. I am skeptical of that, but not hopeless, I guess.

---

I have not argued that at all. My argument is I do not expect a secular director, who rejects that Christ is the Son of God and Savior, and who has cast a woman to voice the representation of Christ in the stories, to properly adapt the works of CS Lewis in a way that is true to this worldview.

I don't care about the time period as much, though I don't know why you would take the Pevensies out of the WW2 setting. But that isn't paramount to the message of the story.

I also wouldn't care if she turned it into a rock opera. Honestly, I would view that as an artistic interpretation of the source material. My immediate rejection comes from the casting of a woman to portray Aslan. That immediately tell me something about how important that subject is to the director. For that reason, I have little doubt she will screw up the rest of the story and books.

Also, I don't know how many of you have actually read the entire series, but I fully expect her to COMPLETELY change The Horse and His Boy. That is my favorite book of the series and one of my favorite stories ever. I would be blown away if she actually casts that movie correctly.

1. Your appeal to your credentials as making you an authority on Christianity is not a good look. Just embrace you are a deconstructionist and leave it at that. You are the product of the collapse of the modern story who sees life with the meaninglessness of a Seinfeld character.

2. It is important to reject the changing of a narrative. Narnia is a foundational work. Allowing it to be told incorrectly undermines not just Narnia but also all of CS Lewis's other works. It is a poison of the well of good, True and beautiful things. You cant grasp point 2 because to you, as a deconstructionist, want to poison wells (for our good making you altruistic).

People should not take lightly to things being co-opted and rebranded. Even for the sake of a few laughs and good cinetography.

TCTTS said:

---

Again, I attended church weekly for damn near 30 years. I was also intimately involved with Young Life for a number of those years. I've read the Bible multiple times and many of the most popular books on Christianity during those three decades. I absolutely have a fundamental understanding of Christianity and faith.

---

Odd to claim to have an "absolutely have a fundamental understanding of Christianity and faith" but then be upset at the accusation that you claim to have an authority on the subject. Seems like you are splitting hairs here.

texagbeliever said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Again, I attended church weekly for damn near 30 years. I was also intimately involved with Young Life for a number of those years. I've read the Bible multiple times and many of the most popular books on Christianity during those three decades. I absolutely have a fundamental understanding of Christianity and faith.

---

Odd to claim to have an "absolutely have a fundamental understanding of Christianity and faith" but then be upset at the accusation that you claim to have an authority on the subject. Seems like you are splitting hairs here.

---

Fundamental understanding means you claim to be an authority?

texagbeliever said:

---

2. It is important to reject the changing of a narrative. Narnia is a foundational work. Allowing it to be told incorrectly undermines not just Narnia but also all of CS Lewis's other works. It is a poison of the well of good, True and beautiful things. You cant grasp point 2 because to you, as a deconstructionist, want to poison wells (for our good making you altruistic).

---

Who gets to decide a correct retelling vs an incorrect retelling though? The C.S. Lewis estate is involved and producing this version. They have the best incentive ($$ and reputation) to get this "right", more than anyone else.

I think you have to understand the lines that people are drawing are going to be personal to them based on whatever criteria they have. There isn't going to be a universal line that we agree on that makes this a good or correct adaptation vs a bad or incorrect adaptation. And it seems to be castastrophizing to say at this point that its going to poison Narnia and all of Lewis' works. In fact, a bad adaptation may do the opposite. It may push people to read the actual books and dig into his actual words more. We just don't know.

Actually, if $$ is the family's decision, its in their interest to agree with whatever version Hollywood presents them with that'll bring them the most money. And hell, they could have signed off on releasing the rights to Netflix without reserving any sort of creative control. They could be purely in it for the money and care less about staying true to the original intent/story.

Hell, Tolkien's family signed off on Amazon's Rings of Power show, and that show is an absolutely turd that undermines the whole basis of Tolkien's Middle Earth.

There's a certain percentage of people who will watch this for entertainment purposes more so than anything else.

We choose to read what we want to read or watch what we want to watch for whatever reason.

Not everything that we watch nor read has to be a reflection of our beliefs. And if so, so be it. You are you.

But to trash this piece of work before it sees the light of day and then make judgement on it is also asinine in my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinions as I'm entitled to mine, but why must you piss on it and force your opinions on me who might consider to watch this for my own entertainment?

veryfuller said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

2. It is important to reject the changing of a narrative. Narnia is a foundational work. Allowing it to be told incorrectly undermines not just Narnia but also all of CS Lewis's other works. It is a poison of the well of good, True and beautiful things. You cant grasp point 2 because to you, as a deconstructionist, want to poison wells (for our good making you altruistic).

---

Who gets to decide a correct retelling vs an incorrect retelling though? The C.S. Lewis estate is involved and producing this version. They have the best incentive ($$ and reputation) to get this "right", more than anyone else.

I think you have to understand the lines that people are drawing are going to be personal to them based on whatever criteria they have. There isn't going to be a universal line that we agree on that makes this a good or correct adaptation vs a bad or incorrect adaptation. And it seems to be castastrophizing to say at this point that its going to poison Narnia and all of Lewis' works. In fact, a bad adaptation may do the opposite. It may push people to read the actual books and dig into his actual words more. We just don't know.

---

Well the answer to that i believe comes from this question: did the retelling or adaptation capture and communicate the Good, True and Beautiful elements of the original story.

The rings of power are a great example of a universe adaptation that fails at that. The last 3 star wars movies also fail in that regard.

Would it be bad to create a movie of WW2 but cast the Americans as the bad guys? Yes because that would undo the Good, True and Beautiful things those troops did in WW2.

Now you can say to an extent that is all in the eye of the beholder. To a shade of gray id agree. But there is still some objective point you can debate around. That is has the message of the Good, True and Beautiful been reinforced or deconstructed.

I have thoughts on the whole side arguments here, but I'm not jumping in to that.

Regarding the movie, this particular book is one of my three favorites from the whole series, I just love it so much. It's the one of the 7 I've read the most, actually. I've always thought it would make for an awesome movie. I've always wanted to see what a good, faithful adaptation of this book would look like on the big screen.

Unfortunately this one clearly isn't it. Yes, one detail - Aslan - is enough to make that determination. That character is the most important character in the entire series, and in each book. It's all about him. Get him wrong, you're letting me know that you either don't understand the source material enough to be trusted, or you are willfully trying to mess with it, which is also a turnoff.

I have no issue with someone making the movie the way they want, but I won't be seeing it, because my desire to see a movie of the story is that I want to see a movie that actually follows the story and presents the characters accurately.

It might be a good movie, that's not for me to say. But sadly it isn't the movie I would hope for. Maybe someday a faithful adaptation will be made and made well. That would be awesome. But a lot of Christians like me will stay away from this one. Not because we're trying to make a statement, not because we're mad, just because we're not interested in this version. Just like I wouldn't be interested in watching a Jesus movie where Jesus was a woman. Certain details are too important to mess with.

All that said, I'll still be interested to hear everyone's thoughts once the actual movie has been viewed.

I still don't know how I feel about the rock aspect, but visually quite good.