- 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 11:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Because your brain/ego is your God
I basically said I wasn't a sky screamer led by emotions
0
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:24 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Youre also missing the obvious point, because I dont think k you actually want to have the conversation or concede the point:
Here let me be you for a second:
"Freauxzen, why weren't you upset with the BBC versions or the 2000s versions of Narnia?"
Care to guess the response?
ETA: I'd also like to hear your response as to why they HAVE to remake Narnia. Why does that HAVE to serve as the basis of their remake. Why cant they make their own thing, and not disturb something that has a certain kind if meaning behind it? Why?
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 11:29 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:45 pm to Fun Bunch
I'm not generally a fan of more modern music being used in this kind of setting but it could possibly work.
It will really depend on what songs they pick and how they use them.
If the music is just songs that were the most popular w/lyrics that barely match the scene like we got w/Suicide Squad it'll be arse soup.
If we're lucky it will be deeper cuts specifically picked for their themes and lyrics and we'll get something more akin to how somebody like Cameron Crowe uses music in a movie like Vanilla Sky.
The only two things I can thing of offhand that used modern music in a medieval or fantasy type show are A Knight's Tale and the Willow tv series. Personally I did not care for the use if it in either of therm and would have much preferred a purely orchestral soundtrack.
It will really depend on what songs they pick and how they use them.
If the music is just songs that were the most popular w/lyrics that barely match the scene like we got w/Suicide Squad it'll be arse soup.
If we're lucky it will be deeper cuts specifically picked for their themes and lyrics and we'll get something more akin to how somebody like Cameron Crowe uses music in a movie like Vanilla Sky.
The only two things I can thing of offhand that used modern music in a medieval or fantasy type show are A Knight's Tale and the Willow tv series. Personally I did not care for the use if it in either of therm and would have much preferred a purely orchestral soundtrack.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:49 pm to Dr RC
Magician's nephew was set in turn-of-the-century England, 50 Narnian Years to our earth year. Narnia was in the midst of techno AI rap not 70s Rock
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:51 pm to OWLFAN86
Well I'm probably too old to like in that era as well. 
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:57 pm to Dr RC
Well while in Narnia you still age in Earth years Then come back to London as if you never left
Posted on 12/6/25 at 1:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but they pulled off the Wiz
Did they? The Wiz is terrible, only really liked by black people and the Jacksons.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 5:31 am to SlowFlowPro
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.
You fricking idiot
It exists; therefore the Left will want to destroy it.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 6:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The 1st movie made $750 million bucks. . .in 2005
They already tried this about 20 years ago and it failed
adapted from a book released 55 years prior.
Caspian and Dawn Treader both cleared 400 million, and they were shitty
Posted on 12/6/25 at 6:25 am to Freauxzen
quote:Obviously they are counting on it's lack of appeal to youths to draw in youths
I'd also like to hear your response as to why they HAVE to remake Narnia. Why does that HAVE to serve as the basis of their remake.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:05 am to Freauxzen
quote:
You keep bringing up bad examples
They are "bad" only because they hurt your argument
quote:
Your also acting like Jesus = The Thing = TMNT
I preemptively covered this with my "sacred" comment
quote:
your belief is that a piece of art is merely its superficial appearance and plot/structure/etc.
No. Again you keep strawmaning this.
You've yet to explain how CON is a single "piece of art" that would encompass this new movie OR how this movie affects any prior piece of art using the IP.
They are all separate, and you've done nothing to show otherwise.
quote:
It has no value other than being a soulless IP.
I doubt that, in this case, just like Barbie. You just don't agree with the value/point of the art. Doesn't make it soulless.
That's more for GIJoe/TNMT which were always mostly soulless.
You just disagree with how the IP can be used b/c you consider it sacred.
Like Muslims with Mohammed.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:10 am to Freauxzen
quote:
"Freauxzen, why weren't you upset with the BBC versions or the 2000s versions of Narnia?"
Care to guess the response?
The actual question is how those movies in any way affected the books, or the BBC version, etc. How did they change the text or film of prior uses of the IP in any way?
The answer is: they did not.
They were their own separate version.
quote:
why they HAVE to remake Narnia.
They don't HAVE to and nobody argued they did.
Do they have the RIGHT to? Yes (assuming proper contractual use of the IP, obviously). To be judged on its own along various sectors of society along various perspectives (money, artistic merit, etc.)
quote:
Why cant they make their own thing
Again, they can. But they don't have to, just as John Carpenter didn't have to make his own thing and not remake the Thing from Outer Space.
Or the Coen brothers filming No Country for Old Men OR O Brother Where Art Thou. Or PTA making There Will Be Blood (which was a bastardication of an Upton Sinclair work). Or Nolan making the Odyssey, or his Batman trilogy. etc etc. Or David Lynch making Dune. Or DV making Dune. Or Jodorowsky attempting to make Dune. Dune is as significant of a socio-religious work as CON.
This post was edited on 12/6/25 at 7:11 am
Posted on 12/6/25 at 1:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They are "bad" only because they hurt your argument
Haha, not at all.
quote:
I preemptively covered this with my "sacred" comment
By saying "Nothing is sacred." Yeah I know, so you believe that anything could and should be remade, that nothing has an identity it is merely a collection of traits that make it to be an IP to be used for whatever someone wants to use it for. RIght?
quote:
You've yet to explain how CON is a single "piece of art" that would encompass this new movie OR how this movie affects any prior piece of art using the IP.
They are all separate, and you've done nothing to show otherwise.
This is a weak point. Of course they are "separate," but that's not the point. The point is that Narnia is not just a story about a group of kids going into a magical world filled with creatures that they experience adventures in.
That's not all it is.
quote:
You just disagree with how the IP can be used b/c you consider it sacred.
Like Muslims with Mohammed.
I think you wanted to make this point all along. And nothing I have said even points to that.
Sacred isn't the word. Respect is.
Just because something literally can be done, doesn't mean it should be. I do think there's some level of respect that should be owed to art, it's creator, it's culture, etc. That it isn't some empty vessel that can be done with however someone pleases.
BUt I know, your world view is that everything exists to be pulled apart and remade however someone else sees fit. I was embedded in that crap in early 2000s Humanities studies, there is no good end to that.
Why can't people just respect what something is?
And that's kind of the point, you CAN remake things and respect them at the same time, that isn't what Hollywood typically does anymore. And it shouldn't. It obviously seeks often to destroy, subvert, etc. Those are the wrong motivations.
This post was edited on 12/6/25 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 12/6/25 at 1:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The actual question is how those movies in any way affected the books, or the BBC version, etc. How did they change the text or film of prior uses of the IP in any way?
The answer is: they did not.
They were their own separate version.
This is irrelevant, honestly.
Of course something still exists. I don't know why you think this point is a good one.
But remaking something and ripping out very big parts of it DOES matter.
quote:
Do they have the RIGHT to? Yes (assuming proper contractual use of the IP, obviously). To be judged on its own along various sectors of society along various perspectives (money, artistic merit, etc.)
This isn't about rights. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 2:32 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
By saying "Nothing is sacred." Yeah I know, so you believe that anything could and should be remade,
I never said that.
Can an IP be remade is a question of property right.
Should something be remade is a question for the property owners.
I do not own any of the IP being discussed.
quote:
, that nothing has an identity it is merely a collection of traits that make it to be an IP
Again, you're mis-stating my argumnent.
I said each production has its own identity. Why do you keep dishonestly stating my argument?
quote:
to be used for whatever someone wants to use it for. RIght?
Property ownership does convey that right.
If an artist doesn't want their work to be co-opted, they don't have to sell the rights/work.
quote:
Of course they are "separate," but that's not the point.
That is exactly the point.
You avoiding answering the crucial question by dishonestly downplaying it doesn't change its importance.
How does this movie in any way alter the prior versions?
quote:
The point is that Narnia is not just a story about a group of kids going into a magical world filled with creatures that they experience adventures in.
Assuming this movie somehow doesn't meet your implied criteria in the above statement, the prior question becomes even more important:
How would that inferior movie version in any way alter the prior versions?
quote:
Sacred isn't the word. Respect is.
If the original versions aren't changed in any way, they're still being respected. They have not been changed in any way.
This isn't Lucas/Spielberg editing the original versions.
quote:
I do think there's some level of respect that should be owed to art, it's creator, it's culture, etc. That it isn't some empty vessel that can be done with however someone pleases.
How are the original works being changed to create this disrespect?
quote:
BUt I know, your world view is that everything exists to be pulled apart and remade however someone else sees fit. I was embedded in that crap in early 2000s Humanities studies, there is no good end to that.
So you no longer like The Thing? Consider it some Frakenstein monster of disrespect? Or O Brother Where Art Thou? Or Ulysses by Joyce?
quote:
Why can't people just respect what something is?
The thing you are referencing is still in existence, unchanged.
If they were to edit it like Huck Finn? Then your argument would fit.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 2:36 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
This is irrelevant, honestly.
Your dismissal doesn't make your above statement correct.
quote:
Of course something still exists. I don't know why you think this point is a good one.
Because that is what you keep trying to defend, and you admit it needs no defense.
You just don't want to address the point because it invalidates your argument for the most part.
That's the point of this dishonest dismissal routine.
quote:
But remaking something and ripping out very big parts of it DOES matter.
ONLY within that version. And we have the right to dislike it and comment negatively about it. That's how a free society operates.
People have the right to make bad art and we have the right to evaluate it freely.
quote:
. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should.
What do you think the penalty should be for violating this social more?
Posted on 12/6/25 at 2:36 pm to Lawyered
quote:would watch
Kendrick Lamar finna blast the theater speakers
Posted on 12/6/25 at 3:14 pm to Fun Bunch
So it’s not Lewis’s either then.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:42 pm to Fun Bunch
The goal of this movie CANNOT be to make money. Right out of the gate they gender swapped Aslan. Making such a significant change to Aslan ABSOLUTELY alienates an already built in fan base. I refuse to believe that they are too stupid to not realize this and therefore it is completely reasonable to believe they have sinister motives. People would have given it a shot with some creative musical choices. But mess with Aslan and people are not even going to give it a chance.
This post was edited on 12/6/25 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 12/7/25 at 3:42 am to Burt Macklin
quote:a male lion, you dolt
OK to make Jesus an animal, but God forbid a female?
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News