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

quote:

---

Who else could they be destroying this for?

---

Themselves. Just to shite on Christianity.

Something doesn't have to be popular with the youths for them to want to shite on it. Again, your attempted qualifier is bullshite.

quote:

---

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

---

Ok... I laughed at this... However lets not forget Aslan is a male lion ...

quote:

---

Nothing will be destroyed. It will just be the latest in a long line of Left-wing circle jerks

---

Most people don't read. The only exposure to the story that many future people will get will be through this movie. Going forward, many people who hear about this story and want to check it out will find this movie and it alone will be their frame of reference.

The fact that they have Supertwizz Gerwig as director and have already named a woman to be Aslan should have made this obvious to you, but as usual, you care more about arguing just to argue than you do about anything else.

quote:

---

The books still exist as do the older movies.

---

So your argument is that any cultural object can and should be redefined into whatever the whims of people want at whatever time, for whatever reason just because another version of it exists somewhere else in some other medium?

quote:

---

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

---

Your perspective, apparently, is that art is either completely fluid, and it doesn't matter what anyone does with it ever. Or that there is no art whatsoever, no truth, etc. in that art is just a lifeless thing that has no meaning, no core, no value. It's just a thing to experience and move on from.


I mean we are talking about a very subjective thing, but if you have such a utilitarian view on art and meaning, then sure I can see your perspective. But you are also imposing that view as if it's the only way to view art.

And it isn't. This isn't limited necessarily to art (hence why this being related to theology is a pretty big thing). Art has a truth. Art means "something," and this particular action - "remaking" things where you change what they mean at the core, what they represent, etc. is incredibly problematic, especially given the whims of culture.

You may disagree, but let's say, for lack of a better example, they changed Narnia around, and Narnia itself, instead of being populated with animals and creatures, is populated with a whole bunch of humans with different gender identities and sexualities. Like literally. They eschew the whole visible fantasy, to go with a representation of "sexual fantasy" whatever. I'm just making this up. And our culture being what it is.... loves and adores this version. And it becomes "the" cultural" memory of Narnia. Original Narnia still exists, but it's been perverted in cultural memory.

I'm guessing you would say "Yeah, this is a fine thing to happen. In fact, this is a good thing because now it's popular. good for Narnia! You should be happy!" And that from that moment on, when someone says Narnia, they think of a fantasy land where anyone can live for 400 years and cycle through a variety of sexualities with furries and whatever, by entering a closet (wow, there's some coincidences here).

If that becomes the dominent understanding of "The Chronicles of Narnia," is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or just a thing?

quote:

---

And now we're back to my post,

---

No, we're not. Current popularity with youths is not a requisite for the woke treatment, not does it have anything to do with people being curious about the story in the future.. Never has been.

Your bullshite qualifier is still bullshite.: The only thing going around in circles is your brain. thup:

quote:

---

So your argument is that any cultural object can and should be redefined into whatever the whims of people want at whatever time, for whatever reason just because another version of it exists somewhere else in some other medium?

---

This is what we call a straw man. I never made any such argument

quote:

---

Your perspective, apparently, is that art is either completely fluid, and it doesn't matter what anyone does with it ever.

---

You're extrapolating what I'm saying into this, while ignoring the simple fact that IP can be presented in multiple ways.

You're doing the thing where you pretend the version of the IP you can rage over is somehow the only/defining version, and in this case doing that preemptively.

To use an example that will hopefully decrease your emotionality, the same arguments were made over the shitty Michael Bay TNMT movie, where people pretended this somehow hurt their prior concept of the IP and would destroy the IP entirely. What happened was the movie was a failure b/c it had no market and it's an afterthought/joke. Not the preemptive example of the IP.

quote:

---

This isn't limited necessarily to art (hence why this being related to theology is a pretty big thing).

---

The religious IP involved also has many versions throughout history, FWIW.

quote:

---

Art has a truth. Art means "something," and this particular action - "remaking" things where you change what they mean at the core, what they represent, etc. is incredibly problematic, especially given the whims of culture.

---

Again, you're conflating all of the IP into being one thing

Each action (as you put it) is its own thing to be judged individually. This is just an action relying on an IP. It doesn't add to or subtract from other actions using the IP.

So each actions have a truth. Each action means something.

quote:

---

You may disagree, but let's say, for lack of a better example, they changed Narnia around, and Narnia itself, instead of being populated with animals and creatures, is populated with a whole bunch of humans with different gender identities and sexualities. Like literally. They eschew the whole visible fantasy, to go with a representation of "sexual fantasy" whatever. I'm just making this up. And our culture being what it is.... loves and adores this version. And it becomes "the" cultural" memory of Narnia. Original Narnia still exists, but it's been perverted in cultural memory.

---

Like Jesus Christ Superstar, The Last Temptation of Christ, and The Passion of the Christ?

No need for metaphor. We can show 3 different actions within the same "IP". People will rank/value them differently.

quote:

---

I'm guessing you would say "Yeah, this is a fine thing to happen. In fact, this is a good thing because now it's popular.

---

Actually I already gave a comment on that and it was this

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.

---

quote:

---

This is what we call a straw man. I never made any such argument

---

I mean sure, you don't say it explicitly, but you can either defend art, or just let it be thrown to the wolves.

quote:

---

You're extrapolating what I'm saying into this, while ignoring the simple fact that IP can be presented in multiple ways.

You're doing the thing where you pretend the version of the IP you can rage over is somehow the only/defining version, and in this case doing that preemptively.

---

There's a difference between an IP being "presented multiple ways," and remaking/changing/subverting that IP. Huge difference. There are limits.

quote:

---

To use an example that will hopefully decrease your emotionality, the same arguments were made over the shitty Michael Bay TNMT movie, where people pretended this somehow hurt their prior concept of the IP and would destroy the IP entirely. What happened was the movie was a failure b/c it had no market and it's an afterthought/joke. Not the preemptive example of the IP.

---

Not a great example.

1. Comic Books have "different takes" embedded in the product. One of the defining features of comic books, where these stories originate from, is the idea that writers will put their "own spin" on it. It's built into what a comic book is. They even come up with ridiculous concepts to adjust and make up for all of the "takes."

2. Bay wasn't trying to "remake" and "subvert" TMNT. He was just trying to make a new live action version. That's a different intent.

quote:

---

The religious IP involved also has many versions throughout history, FWIW.

---

A religious person trying to retell a religious story in a religious way is a different thing.

quote:

---

Like Jesus Christ Superstar, The Last Temptation of Christ, and The Passion of the Christ?

No need for metaphor. We can show 3 different actions within the same "IP". People will rank/value them differently.

---

Just because the first two exist doesn't make it ok. While at least Superstar was fairly benign, Last Temptation is an extremely problematic piece, and it would be better for it not to have been made.

But even it still treated it's subject matter better than most modern remakes. And it still has that disclaimer of Scorcese says what he is doing. Which is admirable. At least he was trying to talk about spiritual conflict.

You could also bring up Life of Brian, which is a perfectly fine way to do a remake as well. Those intentions were different.

Lastly, Jesus is a different thing as well. I'm not going to say he's invincible, but the cultural weight of his stature, and what he is, really can't be changed, Thankfully. So I am less concerned with takes on Jesus than I am takes on the smaller things like Narnia.

But Gershwig will sanitize the story of any meaningful plot line or message rendering Narnia just another action adventure animal cosplay I can dress up like a Fox or I can dress up like a Beaver, psychotic sexual perversion

and replace it with every secular pagen bullshite that led to you miserable attempts at explaining away the meaning of life as someone who has no purpose other than self-engrandizement because human beings need their life to mean something to somebody

quote:

---

That people shouldn't defend a piece of art, shouldn't try to keep it what it is, etc.

---

What you're defending already exists.

This new version is something different.

I think the old stuff is going to be better. I'm just not opposed (scared may be more appropriate) to letting the marketplace (both economic and ideas) have both.

And no one version of an IP affects another.

quote:

---

That art has no core "truth," that should be adhered to because of what it is, how it was created or developed.

---

Again, each version it its own thing with its own truth/value.

quote:

---

Is that how you view it?

---

No

I imagine that's going to be the gist, but I'm just guessing.