Re: Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Only if you went into it expecting the film and the book to remain similar.
I have no expectations and appreciated the film based on its own merits. The
film captured that sehnsucht, that elusive sense of wonder I chase after in
literature and film.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Karl <[email protected]> wrote:

> Good points all.
>
>
>
> Yes, CoN is a classic and has a lot of baggage and expectation.  I feel
> the same way for the way Harry Potter has been chopped up.
>
>
>
> To a degree, I expect some variance.  Movies always take a few
> interpretive changes from the books, that just the way it is.
>
>
>
> But PC was beyond ‘a few shifts’, it had so many major changes that it
> became unwatchable.
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On
> Behalf Of *Johne Cook
> *Sent:* Monday, November 22, 2010 11:25 AM
> *To:* DADL (off topic)
> *Subject:* Re: [DADL-OT] Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
>
>
>
> LWW felt like a starter film. They were still working on the FX and simple
> things like making the animated characters sound organic to the moment and
> setting, not sound like their dialogue was recorded in a sterile recording
> studio. Technically, Prince Caspian was the much better film. I didn't
> notice any obvious sets, stuff outside looked like it was filmed outside,
> and everything (including the quality of the script) seemed to have been
> upgraded. Whether that film was 'true' or not is out of my scope. Comparing
> the two films as films side-by-side, PC was much better to my ear and eye.
>
> I understand CoN as a beloved fiction series has all these expectations
> attached to it.
>
> Johne Cook
> | http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:16 PM, pcg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It sounds like you're basing your opinion of the film
> > on how well it matches up to the book on which it is
> > based. That rarely bodes well.
>
> Yeah, it's possible that I'm too close to the source material to
> sufficiently disconnect the film from the book. I like to think that
> I'm pretty good at that -- a movie is not a book, and certain
> sacrifices have to be made to make an effective film, and I understand
> that. The changes in LOTR didn't bother me, nor did the changes in,
> say, "Jurassic Park" or "Fight Club." But all of those movies captured
> the spirit of their respective books in a way that "Prince Caspian," I
> felt, did not. It felt to me like Adamson was trying to turn it into
> "Lord of the Rings," which is all wrong. On the other hand, "Prince
> Caspian" is the weakest installment in the series, and I didn't envy
> the task of making it an effective family film.
>
> CoN:LWW, on the other hand, didn't make any significant changes its
> story (that I recall), but the whole thing just felt perfunctory.
>
> --
>
> -pcg
>  [email protected]
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot