- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 7:22 pm to Saint Alfonzo
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:22 pm to Saint Alfonzo
quote:I think that is the impression they would like to give.
Did they give it the Baz Luhrmann Romeo & Juliet treatment?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:31 pm to Roaad
quote:
because you won't present one.
What?
quote:
If you don't define yourself, you will be defined by others.
I have, several times, since the initial (rather simple) argument was apparently confusing.
This version of the IP has no market for long-lasting impact. Young kids don't give a shite and older people already have their concept of it solidified.
At best you'll have Leftists self-flagellating within their bubble over an IP I imagine they don't really care about and that they'll forget once the constant cultural right melts stop being funny.
*ETA: and different versions of IP can be better or worse than others, but will never "destroy" the IP or good versions of it
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 7:38 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
You debate everybody except me
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:39 pm to OWLFAN86
I give people what they need, whether they realize it or not.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
You need Jesus in your life, and before I die, you're going to begin to realize it
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:01 pm to Fun Bunch
This is going to bomb, hard
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:12 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
thats the plan
Yep.
You see... Christian themed entertainment can't make money
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:IP remakes are rampant.
This version of the IP has no market for long-lasting impact.
The idea is to remake the IP to appeal to younger viewers, or to make it resonate with it's nostalgia base. . .and if possible both
Barbie, He-Man, She-Ra, GI Joe, etc off the top of the dome. All did well-ish.
Are you suggesting the younger generation isn't open to high fantasy with talking animals and good vs evil narratives?
Or are you saying the younger generation is less familiar, and therefore cannot be introiduced?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:23 pm to udtiger
I love CS Lewis, love the Narnia series, The screwtape letters etc. \
Huge fan
Magician's nephew was about finding delight in being obedient to God I think that Gershwig will try to destroy that narrative and turn God into a female empowerment version of paganism
So the Chinese will buy it..
Huge fan
Magician's nephew was about finding delight in being obedient to God I think that Gershwig will try to destroy that narrative and turn God into a female empowerment version of paganism
So the Chinese will buy it..
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:33 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
I love CS Lewis, love the Narnia series, The screwtape letters etc. \
Huge fan
Magician's nephew was about finding delight in being obedient to God I think that Gershwig will try to destroy that narrative and turn God into a female empowerment version of paganism
So the Chinese will buy it..
I have all three of the ones that were released in the aughts. They're pretty good.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:54 pm to Roaad
quote:
Are you suggesting the younger generation isn't open to high fantasy with talking animals and good vs evil narratives?
I don't think they're open to this particular version of high fantasy.
They already tried this about 20 years ago and it failed, in the middle of the Harry Potter/LOTR boom. I don't see why it would face a revival a generation-ish later, decades after its peak of popularity.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:56 pm to Roaad
quote:
I think that is the impression they would like to give.
Yeah, that's the impression I got as well. "Hey, kids, this is for you, it's gonna be hip and cool." But in reality, it's probably the same offensive and subversive shite they usually vomit out.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 9:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
So again, you believe that art is nothing more than a superficial assembly of "things" and can be molded into whatever form anyone wants without regard for who created it, what it is and why it was created. Without any concern for its purpose or meaning?
That Art is merely an "IP" for someone else to tinker with. That creating different versions of things, that could potentially be completely at odds with the core truth of the art, is ok. Right?
quote:
Again, each version it its own thing with its own truth/value.
why do there have to be other "versions," that are far removed from the core of the original. Why is that ok?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 9:50 pm to Freauxzen
Slow
Let me put this another way:
If Greta Gerwig and Hollywood want to create a fantasy story about kids who experience some kind of fantasy world, why cant they create a new thing?
Why do they use Narnia and, most likely, proceed to rip its identity away? What is the point of that? If it isn't thing, and only uses the language and the names and the simple plot points, Why does it have to be that way?
Why not create something new? Why "version" something?
Let me put this another way:
If Greta Gerwig and Hollywood want to create a fantasy story about kids who experience some kind of fantasy world, why cant they create a new thing?
Why do they use Narnia and, most likely, proceed to rip its identity away? What is the point of that? If it isn't thing, and only uses the language and the names and the simple plot points, Why does it have to be that way?
Why not create something new? Why "version" something?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 10:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Holy shite, you fancy yourself more than anyone else ever will.
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.
quote:Thank you, Leslye Headland
Again, each version it its own thing with its own truth/value.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 10:10 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
If Greta Gerwig and Hollywood want to create a fantasy story about kids who experience some kind of fantasy world, why cant they create a new thing?
If John Carpenter wants to create a sci-fi story about a shape shifting alien, why can't he create a new thing?
quote:
Why do they use Narnia and, most likely, proceed to rip its identity away?
That's an internal question for the creatives, judged independently of any other creation using the IP
One of the mediums of judgment will be the market and I doubt this is successful there, and if I'm wrong, that shows you there is a want for that IP to be redone (and it answers your question, at least to an extent)
Nothing is so sacred it can't be redone and reimagined. That doesn't make the output good. Plenty of shitty remakes and reimaginings out there.
But it works once in a while, too.
If you told me about a black-urban reimagining of the Wizard of Oz I'd say it would be shite...or a retelling of the Odyssey in the Jim Crow South based around Americana-bluegrass ...I'd have called that retarded...but they pulled off the Wiz and I Brother. So while a long shot it is possible to work.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 10:13 pm to blueboy
quote:
you fancy yourself more than anyone else ever will.
I basically said I wasn't a sky screamer led by emotions
It was far from profound or self -congratulatory.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 10:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This version of the IP has no market for long-lasting impact. Young kids don't give a shite and older people already have their concept of it solidified.
The 'modern audience' isn't buying these reimagined stories.
Yet they keep making them. Why, do you think?
Willow - cancelled, removed completely off of D+'s system. Erased. Possibly forever.
Witcher - A massive collapse after disrespecting first the source material, then the star who was a fan of the source material.
Rings of Power - Pure ego project by Bezos who wanted his own GoT. Even his own son told him not to screw this up. He screwed it up. Massively.
Doctor Who - current day team have face planted this series into the cement and laughed at the fandom who have stuck with them for decades. They revel in destroying the past that's made them so beloved. Not anymore.
She Hulk - and speaking of mocking a fan base, the writers went so far as to make the ones who bought into and enjoyed the character the bad guys.
Star Trek - sad that Bill Shatner has lived this long to see the removal of Trek's heart, soul and backbone. But while he's here, we can be thankful he's fighting the good fight.
Star Wars - Lucas sold his creation to the Disney slave trade, and they defiled it beyond recognition. Praise the sequels all you want, but save for Rogue One, every show or movie has lost money.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If John Carpenter wants to create a sci-fi story about a shape shifting alien, why can't he create a new thing?
You keep bringing up bad examples and are avoiding all of the hollow ones
Again, this was a film that honored the source material.
There is a difference always in both the material and the intent.
Your also acting like Jesus = The Thing = TMNT
And that also isn't true.
quote:
Nothing is so sacred it can't be redone and reimagined
Yes, as I've said, your belief is that a piece of art is merely its superficial appearance and plot/structure/etc. and it has no other value than being a vessel for anyones random ideas at any time.
It has no value other than being a soulless IP.
If you do believe this, you are exactly whats wrong with art and film.
Popular
Back to top



1









