Started By
Message

re: Gerwig's Narnia isn't "your mom or grandmas Narnia" & features a lot of contemporary music

Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:39 pm to
Posted by Freauxzen
Washington
Member since Feb 2006
38677 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:39 pm to
quote:

I don't think Narnia is popular enough with the yutes to be worthy of seeking out and destroying. It's a property for older millennials and those even older.


Except they are literally making this. Do you think they are making it because they think it will fail??

they are making it to ALTER the cultural perception of what it is for future generations.


If this discussion were about the "potential" of a Narnia remake... you might have a point, but they literally invested in this for a reason.
Posted by iwyLSUiwy
I'm your huckleberry
Member since Apr 2008
42478 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:47 pm to
quote:

Kendrick Lamar finna blast the theater speakers


I can for sure see the White Witch singing/rapping "They Not Like Us" in defiance of Aslan and Co.
Posted by Midget Death Squad
Meme Magic
Member since Oct 2008
28560 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:55 pm to
quote:

So... OK to make Jesus an animal, but God forbid a female?



TD has a long list of idiotic takes throughout all of their boards, but this has to be in the running for dumbest of them all
Posted by molsusports
Member since Jul 2004
37539 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:08 pm to
quote:

Meryl Streep was in line to voice Aslan - the character specifically written as the Jesus of Narnia


So... OK to make Jesus an animal, but God forbid a female



You seem stupid. The metaphor is plucked straight from the Bible. This is arguably the most relevant Biblical fantasy somewhat still in the western public consciousness authored by arguably the most important Christian author from the 20th century.

If you can understand many Muslims will straight up murder you for drawing Muhammad? Then you can at least pretend to be respectful when Christians say angry things when you change their carefully chosen Biblical metaphors.

In a less tolerant time it would have merited burning at the stake or torture.
Posted by TheTideMustRoll
Birmingham, AL
Member since Dec 2009
10704 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:50 pm to
I'd say C.S Lewis is spinning in his grave, but honestly he's probably good where he's at and doesn't feel the need to worry about this sort of thing anymore. Old Uncle Screwtape, though, is so excited he can't sit still.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
59315 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:58 pm to
Lemme break it down for ya:

Four neurodivergent, homeschooled British siblings of varying gender identities and non-caucasoid races stumble through a rainbow-colored wardrobe into the sovereign indigenous realm of Narnia which is currently experiencing a 100-year climate collapse. The climate emergency is happening because of the White Witch’s greenhouse-gases-causing magic.

Guided by a non-hierarchical collective of talking animals and a resurrected Aslan, who now identifies as a genderqueer lioness named Ash (zi/they) and offers trigger warnings before roaring, the children stridently fight to dismantle the land's systemic oppression and establish a restorative-justice intervention circle for Edmund’s compulsory heteronormativity and internalized colonialism.

Susan keeps her lipstick, starts a body-positivity movement, and is never exiled for daring to have sexuality because she finally comes to accept her fictosexuality.

The Pevensies ultimately surrender their crowns in a solemn decolonization ceremony, issue reparations, and return home to smash the wardrobe so no more white colonizers like the White Witch (where do you think she came from) can invade. Narnia becomes a demilitarized, carbon-negative queer utopia.

The end.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477259 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:14 pm to
quote:

Except they are literally making this.

That doesn't make your prior statement correct

They can be making this for infinite-1 reasons to counter your prior point.

quote:

Do you think they are making it because they think it will fail??

You mean financially?

It can be both a success and failure financially and still disprove your point. The original series was as by the book as you could be and it failed financially and they didn't complete the series accordingly.

quote:

they are making it to ALTER the cultural perception of what it is for future generations.

Except the books still exist?

Posted by Freauxzen
Washington
Member since Feb 2006
38677 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:32 pm to
quote:

SlowFlowPro


We're talking past each other.

It's simple, they are making this to crap on christians, crap on Christian thought and theology, subvert expectations and all of the good stuff. Of course, they think it will make money hence the investment.

You say "Narnia isn't relevant enough for them to do that for young people," but they are literally doing it, so apparently it is.

This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 2:34 pm
Posted by OWLFAN86
Erotic Novelist
Member since Jun 2004
196626 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:44 pm to
quote:

You say "Narnia isn't relevant enough for them to do that for young people," but they are literally doing it, so apparently it is.
I didn't see where Slow said this but if he did it proves he is the dumbest person that posts on this board

But he was always too smart to understand simple things like spirituality and faith

His brain is his God
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477259 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:46 pm to
quote:

You say "Narnia isn't relevant enough for them to do that for young people," but they are literally doing it, so apparently it is.

They can be doing it for infinite-1 reasons, though.

You're marking an argument and conflating it into an auto-conclusion.

Just because they're making it doesn't confirm your argument correct.

I could argue, "They are making this to honor Christianity, because if they weren't, why would they be making it?" with the same rhetoric you're using.
Posted by OWLFAN86
Erotic Novelist
Member since Jun 2004
196626 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:52 pm to
You're ignoring the history of Hollywood and Gershwig, especially clear recent history that as a director and the producer clearly there is precedent

But ignore the facts that you don't mention first because of course we all know that any facts that you failed to mention yourself
you ignore
Posted by rebelrouser
Columbia, SC
Member since Feb 2013
13279 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:53 pm to
quote:

The original series was as by the book as you could be and it failed financially and they didn't complete the series accordingly.


LOL. No. The movies made over 1.5 billion. However, they were less successful each movie mainly because the first book is the best and also because the second two movies were not very good. This latest version is going to fail massively.
Posted by Freauxzen
Washington
Member since Feb 2006
38677 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:56 pm to
quote:

They can be doing it for infinite-1 reasons, though.

You're marking an argument and conflating it into an auto-conclusion.

Just because they're making it doesn't confirm your argument correct.

I could argue, "They are making this to honor Christianity, because if they weren't, why would they be making it?" with the same rhetoric you're using.


Sure, of course I don't have proof that they are making it for that reason.

But come on, we all know what modern Hollywood. We all why "the force is female" is a thing, we all know why Ray was an incredible force user from day 1. We all know why the Barbie story is what it is, why the SIlver Surfer is a woman, why Snow White was multicultural, Ariel, Indiana Jones and on and on and on.

You're acting like this is the first time they've done this. And they chose reta Gerwig, literally based on how she constructed a film about the classic female icon and subverted expectations. What do you think her goal is here? To celebrate Christianity and Christian thought?

Now, the difference here is that Barbie, while it was an explicitly feminine ideal meant to show and symbolize something very specific, had already been "changed" a couple of decades ago. It was already a shell of what it stood for.


Narnia is not that thing. It is still to this day a very explicitly Christian piece of work. Through and through. That's a huge problem.

This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 3:01 pm
Posted by StansberryRules
Member since Aug 2024
5226 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:21 pm to
Huge obvious trainwreck is obvious.

A lot of inorganic forced edginess and reimagining that nobody wants.
Posted by OWLFAN86
Erotic Novelist
Member since Jun 2004
196626 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:32 pm to
Again slo didn't think of it first so he'll never concede this obvious point
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
65584 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:55 pm to
quote:

I don't think Narnia is popular enough with the yutes to be worthy of seeking out and destroying
One is not a qualifier for the other. Your argument is bullshite.

As for Aslan, he's not symbolic of Jesus. Lewis was very clear. He IS Jesus. He even says in one of the books that he's known by another name is their world.

The previous film series attempt was well produced but still didn't do well enough to continue. The fact that a shrill activist like Gerwig wants to do this is proof enough that it's a hatchet job.
Posted by tiggerthetooth
Big Momma's House
Member since Oct 2010
64370 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:12 pm to
I want to know who thought it WOULDN'T be this way? When is it ever NOT "modernized"? If you actually believed they'd stay true to the book then you should be wearing a helmet 24/7.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477259 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:23 pm to
quote:

One is not a qualifier for the other.

How would this be "destroyed" for anyone already familiar with the IP?

The books still exist as do the older movies.

quote:

The previous film series attempt was well produced but still didn't do well enough to continue.

This leads to the answer about "why would they try it in another way?" response.

They already tried a straight up remake and it failed, in the era of LOTR and Harry Potter.

I don't think this will work, but I imagine it is going to be more Marie Antoinette/Romeo +Juliet than The Ring of Power. I think it's going to feed the victim/outrage/sky screamer culture on the cultural right regardless of how good/faithful it is.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 4:24 pm
Posted by OWLFAN86
Erotic Novelist
Member since Jun 2004
196626 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:25 pm to
REPENT!!
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
65584 posts
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:30 pm to
quote:

How would this be "destroyed" for anyone already familiar with the IP?

How is 'popularity with the yutes' a determining factor for them wanting to shite on the books?

Again. Your argument is retarded. Just because you're a shitty lawyer doesn't mean you have to constantly overcompensate by starting dumb shite with people on this site every single day.

The performance of the last attempt should have discouraged this attempt, but it didn't and they have attached shrill feminist director Gerwig to it. That's what leads people to speculate, correctly, that they just want to shite on the Christian thing.

If you don't understand that, you're just fricking stupid and no one can help you.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram