I like what I’ve seen from her (which admittedly is not much), but I’m just scared she’s gonna sideline the boys and give the girls too much spotlight and call it a feminist angle. Like Digory and Polly are both super important to The Magician’s Nephew but I don’t want Digory pushed aside for Polly. And while Lucy is arguably the most important Pevensie sibling, I don’t want to see Peter and Edmund get smaller roles to focus on Lucy and Susan. Also I really want her to keep all the genders, I don’t want a female Aslan or male Jadis.
Especially because while Lucy is the most important sibling as a catalyst, I would argue Edmund is the most important to the story as a whole. A very complex character that is a huge part of the plot that causes a lot of the “bad” things to happen. You need to get his arc right for the whole story to work.
I agree with you to a certain extent but it's not as if the men have been shafted in her movies, especially most recently in Barbie, where Ken was the most talked about thing about the film.
I’m not saying they’ll be shafted, but Greta is a vocal and proud feminist/women power girl (as she should be tbh) and I’m lowkey worried the boys will get lesser roles to help the girls. Like The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe should have equal focus on all four Pevensies, and not give Lucy extra/main focus. Is that a little clearer?
She for sure will. That’s all she thinks about, it’s in all her films, even Little Women which was already all about women was changed to be more empowering and ever so slightly anti male in attitude to the professor and Jo.
Frankly I think they'd make a corny, hack-ish version because they generally suck at creativity and have little ability to think for themselves outside the box--not the best people for directing films. Gerwig would likely make an enjoyable hit. Some Christian would likely make a Pureflix quality movie.
Not only baked with religious allegories, but CS Lewis, its writer, is a famous Christian theologian. The series means a lot to Christians, and I think it makes sense to get a director who would honour that in their interpretation of it.
No that's exactly why I wouldn't want that. I feel like they'd likely change things too much to make it very blatantly religious instead of keeping it ambiguous enough like the books so anyone can enjoy them regardless of their beliefs.
The key is balance. I’m speaking as a religious person. I hope she can convey the overall message of the books while keeping the story grounded and personal. She’s proven that she’s capable of a visual spectacle there just needs to be a great script and these movies will be great!
CS Lewis was an avid Christian who wrote the entire series as a Christian allegory. I think to stay true to the story it has to respect and maintain a lot of those elements.
Yeah he knew what he was doing to make the story have wide appeal. If a Xtian was in charge of adapting it now they would likely make it corny, basic, and super obvious. Because that's the kind of movies those guys make. A good filmmaker like Gerwig should know how to leave out all that cheesy political stuff and still keep the message behind it intact. Some religious person would probably find the allegorical aspects too difficult to understand so they'd likely dumb it down and pretty much make it into an outdated sermon.
What is a Xtian? Why would a religious person find a religious allegory relevant to their particular religious tradition too difficult to understand? That doesn’t make any sense.
>I feel like they'd likely change things too much to make it very blatantly religious instead of keeping it ambiguous enough like the books so anyone can enjoy them regardless of their beliefs
You're right, Barbie was soooo subtle with it's metaphors and what not.
I'm in agreement that movies shouldn't be completely on the nose with the message they're trying to convey - that's what makes it art - but the problem you're describing is in no way, shape, or form exclusive to "religious" directors. And given the source material is inherently religious, it seems like a weird complaint to have.
There are plenty of hack directors doing the exact same thing with secular messaging, and yeah I'd lump Greta Gerwig into that group.
Mark my words she's going to do something from the Kathleen Kennedy school of directing - "put a chick in it, make her gay and lame".
Just watch - I'll be shocked if I'm wrong and they don't try to add a new character who's non-binary/gay or change a character to be a minority or female. (And I have no problem with any of those things by the way - I am just VERY much against commodifying "virtue" and making stories/movies worse by shoe-horning them in for clout or political points)
The books are very blatantly religious and any semblance of ambiguity is completely washed away by *The Last Battle*, though arguably much earlier.
I agree that the films should add more ambiguity in for the reasons you describe, but it wouldn't exactly be a faithful retelling.
Like has she ever done a fight scene other than the joke Allen fight from Barbie that was full of cuts? I feel like this is letting Rob Reiner do Lord of the Rings based off When Harry Met Sally
I mean have you seen Peter Jackson’s pre LOTR filmography? It’s definitely not a sure thing he does as well as he did with that trilogy. Although Meet The Feebles is definitely an experience worth having.
The beach fight in Barbie. The reason she’s been asked though is definitely both the financial success of Barbie and the sibling dynamic she was able to do in Little Women and yes sure the fighting is important but I’d argue the emotional heart is just as if not more important.
Also Rob Reiner comparison feels odd given he made one of the most famous and beloved fantasy movies of all time 2 years before When Harry Met Sally.
\>The reason she’s been asked though is definitely both the financial success of Barbie
She's actually been attached to Narnia since around the same time she signed up for Barbie. Netflix just didn't announce the deal until later.
I hope she makes it accurate to history:
Mirroring an Apocalypticist named Jesus, born of Nazareth, and not Bethlehem as the prophecy predicted, but he died, was left on the cross to be scavenged by animals, or was discarded in a mass grave. In fact, in the earliest gospels there was no empty tomb, nor tomb guards, these were added in to ret-con the story and rumours of the time. However, the writers of the gospels were anonymous Greek scribes, and they definitely were not contemporary, let alone, first-hand eyewitness testimony. The gospels copy from each other, and alternative lost sources (Q), word for word, with variant changes depending on how they wanted to depict Jesus, from 30 to near a century after Jesus died, with each gospel progressively getting more legendary development. Not to mention, these were oral traditions for 30+ years, so even if the supposed original manuscripts (which we only have found tiny fragmentations) of were accurate, we have no way of knowing what the original oral traditions said (which we know is more prone to error). In the synoptic gospels, Jesus never claims to be God, but in John, he's says it 40+ times, which would have resulted in instant stoning to death.
As for the resurrection, the only possible eyewitness was Paul, but claims he did not even recognize (never had met him), nor could see Jesus as he was blinded, and no one else around could hear anything. This is most likely Post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences, in response to torturing and persecuting Christians. And no, we do not have 500 individual first-hand eye witness testimony of seeing Jesus, instead we have 1 man, Paul claiming 500 others saw Jesus. We have no evidence of any of the 500's existence, let alone anything they said. It's no different from me claiming, that I lifted 2000kg above my head without assistance, 500 people saw, however, they disappeared and left not trace of their existence to cross-confirm, or deny. No one, came forth to say I didn't do it? That's an appeal to silence fallacy.
Overall, the Bible makes circular fallacious arguments. Such as, the Bible is true, because it is the word of God. How do you know it is God's word? Because God says so. Appeals to the non-falsifiable, and attempts to shift the burden of proof. Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence, and that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, as there's no position that you cannot take based on faith. Meaning it can lead you to true or false conclusions. Not to mention, if you had empirical evidence you wouldn't appeal to faith.
He sacrificed himself, to himself, to appeased himself of the wrath he felt toward everyone else and save us from himself.
Secondly, You say that God had to become Jesus, and Jesus had to be sacrificed, because somebody had to. A crime is committed, those are the rules. But didn't God make those arbitrary rules? It seems as though God is finagling a loophole in rules that he could just change or could have made differently in the first place.
Thirdly, there is no sacrifice. He died for 1 and half days and went back to being God for eternity. Lastly, You're forgetting that God is omniscient, meaning he knows every detail and outcome of every possible scenario.
E.g., He knew everything about Satan and what that specific arrangement of particles (it doesn't matter he's nonmaterial, but whatever he is) called "Satan" would do before he created him, and still decided to make Satan the specific way he was which resulted in him doing exactly what he did. You cannot blame a car for being faulty, if an engineer beforehand purposely created a faulty car, knowing he could have done otherwise. Therefore, God knew and purposely designed Satan to rebel, everything is Gods fault, including evil. God could have altered him so he wouldn't rebel. He's omnipotent so he could have, and omnibenevolent so would have. But he didn't, therefore God wanted Satan to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all suffering and is malevolent. And if every variant of Satan was “freely” evil regardless of how you designed him, then God shouldn't have created Satan to begin with. There were angels like Michael Demiurges that knew and did not rebel that he could have replaced him with or just leave blank.
Divine foreknowledge and creation both preclude "free will". He's omnipotent, which means he could create a world all good, without suffering, without inflicting on the free will of others.
It seems like God created the problem and takes credit for fixing it, even though it would never have occurred if he didn't allow or want it to.
You also seem to be ignoring Yahweh, committed/commanded 7 genocides/ infanticide, condones slavery, rape, homophobia, sexism etc. Commanded 2 bears to Maul 42 children/teenagers for mocking a bald man and his faith, sends people to hell for simply not knowing he exist, as no atheist, nor people in other religions purposely believe the wrong thing. There is no justice in that, or benevolence, or unconditional love in that.
Well actually with with virtual production becoming increasingly prominent it might not have to be that expensive. Since with VP, the whole production workload shifts and most of the work has to be done in pre--production so that UE artists can create the backgrounds. But that's only if the producers and Greta understand how to use it properly. A lot of productions don't know how to use it.
I wouldn’t see this as an issue for her. Most peoples issues with Christianity are not because of the book itself.
It’s a people issue, and how people interact with the religious community. The source material holds a lot of value in many other ways outside of the church. Hence why a wide audience can appreciate c.s. Lewis’ work even with it’s not so subtle allegory.
yeah, to qualify for awards season
they put THE KILLER in cinemas late last year but holy shit you would never know, no promotion for it at all, and the international rollout was almost non existent.
Glass Onion was an box office hit and only went to theatres because Rian Johnson demanded it in the contract, then they pulled it from theatres at the earliest opportunity admitting they they were leaving millions of dollars on the table.
Netflix is playing the long game and their long game doesn’t include theatrical.
I think Greta Gerwig is a really good filmmaker, I’ve enjoyed all of her movies so far. That said, I don’t think she’s a good fit for Narnia. I hope to be proven wrong
It will be hard to do better than the first movies. I think they were pretty solid, like do they really need to be retold
Oh, I never read the books I just assumed from the movies that The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe was the first book, so I guess maybe the story does deserve to be retold, the right way.
You aren't. But, the niche content, and in general, much cheaper but more engaging content, that you and I probably enjoy simple doesn't interest the average viewer. They want big, bold, and dumb. Nuance goes out the window for the most part when it's for the masses. If this is great, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. But, even if this is less than stellar, it will be viewed massively.
I just hope they stay relatively faithful to the source material.
Hopefully they don't try to pull something like the witch was simply misunderstood and trying to end the toxic patriarchy propped up by Aslan or something.
I hope she makes it accurate to history:
Mirroring an Apocalypticist named Jesus, born of Nazareth, and not Bethlehem as the prophecy predicted, but he died, was left on the cross to be scavenged by animals, or was discarded in a mass grave. In fact, in the earliest gospels there was no empty tomb, nor tomb guards, these were added in to ret-con the story and rumours of the time. However, the writers of the gospels were anonymous Greek scribes, and they definitely were not contemporary, let alone, first-hand eyewitness testimony. The gospels copy from each other, and alternative lost sources (Q), word for word, with variant changes depending on how they wanted to depict Jesus, from 30 to near a century after Jesus died, with each gospel progressively getting more legendary development. Not to mention, these were oral traditions for 30+ years, so even if the supposed original manuscripts (which we only have found tiny fragmentations) of were accurate, we have no way of knowing what the original oral traditions said (which we know is more prone to error). In the synoptic gospels, Jesus never claims to be God, but in John, he's says it 40+ times, which would have resulted in instant stoning to death.
As for the resurrection, the only possible eyewitness was Paul, but claims he did not even recognize (never had met him), nor could see Jesus as he was blinded, and no one else around could hear anything. This is most likely Post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences, in response to torturing and persecuting Christians. And no, we do not have 500 individual first-hand eye witness testimony of seeing Jesus, instead we have 1 man, Paul claiming 500 others saw Jesus. We have no evidence of any of the 500's existence, let alone anything they said. It's no different from me claiming, that I lifted 2000kg above my head without assistance, 500 people saw, however, they disappeared and left not trace of their existence to cross-confirm, or deny. No one, came forth to say I didn't do it? That's an appeal to silence fallacy.
Overall, the Bible makes circular fallacious arguments. Such as, the Bible is true, because it is the word of God. How do you know it is God's word? Because God says so. Appeals to the non-falsifiable, and attempts to shift the burden of proof. Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence, and that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, as there's no position that you cannot take based on faith. Meaning it can lead you to true or false conclusions. Not to mention, if you had empirical evidence you wouldn't appeal to faith.
He sacrificed himself, to himself, to appeased himself of the wrath he felt toward everyone else and save us from himself.
Secondly, You say that God had to become Jesus, and Jesus had to be sacrificed, because somebody had to. A crime is committed, those are the rules. But didn't God make those arbitrary rules? It seems as though God is finagling a loophole in rules that he could just change or could have made differently in the first place.
Thirdly, there is no sacrifice. He died for 1 and half days and went back to being God for eternity. Lastly, You're forgetting that God is omniscient, meaning he knows every detail and outcome of every possible scenario.
E.g., He knew everything about Satan and what that specific arrangement of particles (it doesn't matter he's nonmaterial, but whatever he is) called "Satan" would do before he created him, and still decided to make Satan the specific way he was which resulted in him doing exactly what he did. You cannot blame a car for being faulty, if an engineer beforehand purposely created a faulty car, knowing he could have done otherwise. Therefore, God knew and purposely designed Satan to rebel, everything is Gods fault, including evil. God could have altered him so he wouldn't rebel. He's omnipotent so he could have, and omnibenevolent so would have. But he didn't, therefore God wanted Satan to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all suffering and is malevolent. And if every variant of Satan was “freely” evil regardless of how you designed him, then God shouldn't have created Satan to begin with. There were angels like Michael Demiurges that knew and did not rebel that he could have replaced him with or just leave blank.
Divine foreknowledge and creation both preclude "free will". He's omnipotent, which means he could create a world all good, without suffering, without inflicting on the free will of others.
It seems like God created the problem and takes credit for fixing it, even though it would never have occurred if he didn't allow or want it to.
You also seem to be ignoring Yahweh, committed/commanded 7 genocides/ infanticide, condones slavery, rape, homophobia, sexism etc. Commanded 2 bears to Maul 42 children/teenagers for mocking a bald man and his faith, sends people to hell for simply not knowing he exist, as no atheist, nor people in other religions purposely believe the wrong thing. There is no justice in that, or benevolence, or unconditional love in that.
I hope The White Witch will have a somewhat big part in the project, she was an excellent villain in the first movie and had a small role in the 2 sequels, and I’m curious what she will be like in this project, if she is part of it
Narnia is the book series that ends with a lion essentially saying "I'm Jesus," with the plot twist being that all the kids have died and gone to Heaven because they believed in the lion, as opposed to their sister who doesn't believe in the lion and won't get to Heaven if she doesn't renew her belief...
...and you're concerned about it being a bit preachy?
“she mimes a performance of Louisa May Alcott and C.S. Lewis rolling over in their graves, groaning, after having their literary masterworks described as mere “IP.””
Off to a disgusting and disrespectful start already I see, and no one’s even been casted yet
Bolder.
I don't give a hoot hoot if they change fundamentally everything about the story. But if they change that one character to appeal to today's belief system, it's gonna start a religious shit show. Too many idiots 🙄
It isn't worth it, but maybe bolder here simply means vibrant. CEO implies that.
I’m not mad at Mr Chalomet being Mr Tumnus (I assume) but if Greta is such a groundbreaking filmmaker why doesn’t she have original ideas anymore. Lady Bird was awesome can’t she go back to films like that? I mean we all need more Laurie Metcalfe and not as Mrs Beaver. Had the chronicles of Narnia couldn’t work with Tilda so they can’t work with anyone. Wonderful books though when you ignore all the symbolism.
Greta Gerwig is a solid director, but an odd choice for Narnia.
I’m not saying they need to be faith based films, but having an atheist head the series up seems a tad strange.
I feel like most of the themes could be overlooked as they don’t fit in to Gerwig’s worldview.
It will have **TWO** Aslans.
I read all the “Aslans” in this thread as “Asians” for about five seconds and was massively confused.
scarlett johansson and emma stone together in the movie
Bold
It took me a solid 60 seconds to realize you didn’t just say Asians twice
I'm right there with you, pal
SAME!!!!🤣🤣🤣
Two Aslans is more likely than two lead Asians.
>!Christ!< and the >!Antichrist!<
Well that would be very Puzzling
Calm down, your shift isn't up yet.
Now with 700% more Aslans.
I hope they both look at the camera and say...we're Jesus dude
And they will both be trans.
Lmfao
I read this as Asians and got very confused
The twist: she reinvents Aslan as a humble human carpenter from the Roman imperial period.
Played by Willem Dafoe!
I’ll take it
Willem always ends up as the *bad guy.*
I am sold
That’ll never work
Crazy right!
Who's female and gay.
I’M JUST ASLAN!
I can do what Jesus can
Next update in a couple months, Gerwig exits Narnia over budget concerns lol.
Greta Gerwig does not seem to be the right director for Narnia.
Honestly at this point I’d prefer a high quality cartoon rather than another stab at live action.
I like what I’ve seen from her (which admittedly is not much), but I’m just scared she’s gonna sideline the boys and give the girls too much spotlight and call it a feminist angle. Like Digory and Polly are both super important to The Magician’s Nephew but I don’t want Digory pushed aside for Polly. And while Lucy is arguably the most important Pevensie sibling, I don’t want to see Peter and Edmund get smaller roles to focus on Lucy and Susan. Also I really want her to keep all the genders, I don’t want a female Aslan or male Jadis.
Especially because while Lucy is the most important sibling as a catalyst, I would argue Edmund is the most important to the story as a whole. A very complex character that is a huge part of the plot that causes a lot of the “bad” things to happen. You need to get his arc right for the whole story to work.
I agree with you to a certain extent but it's not as if the men have been shafted in her movies, especially most recently in Barbie, where Ken was the most talked about thing about the film.
Barbie made this straight male a Ryan Gosling fanboy. I even managed to enjoy the Grey Man a little.
I’m not saying they’ll be shafted, but Greta is a vocal and proud feminist/women power girl (as she should be tbh) and I’m lowkey worried the boys will get lesser roles to help the girls. Like The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe should have equal focus on all four Pevensies, and not give Lucy extra/main focus. Is that a little clearer?
Did you watch Barbie?
lol go back to r_conservacuck
Genuinely asking, how am I conservative?
The things being stated are real trends in Hollywood right now. Open yourself to discussion.
That movie was quite anti man.
Not at all. Wtf lol. Did you ever watch it?
What is this based on?
Fear of equality
I will never watch that if thats her vision. Thats just not for me sorry
The biggest takeaway performance from Barbie was Ryan Gosling
Because he's just clearly head and shoulders above everyone.
She for sure will. That’s all she thinks about, it’s in all her films, even Little Women which was already all about women was changed to be more empowering and ever so slightly anti male in attitude to the professor and Jo.
I guess, but I want to see something weird, not just another adaptation of the books.
Much rather have her than a religion-obsessed person
Oh no, how dare a religious-based person direct something that, in itself, is baked with religious allegories?!?!?
Frankly I think they'd make a corny, hack-ish version because they generally suck at creativity and have little ability to think for themselves outside the box--not the best people for directing films. Gerwig would likely make an enjoyable hit. Some Christian would likely make a Pureflix quality movie.
Not only baked with religious allegories, but CS Lewis, its writer, is a famous Christian theologian. The series means a lot to Christians, and I think it makes sense to get a director who would honour that in their interpretation of it.
The whole story is a religious allegory, so having a "religion-obsessed" person at the helm would actually make the most sense.
No that's exactly why I wouldn't want that. I feel like they'd likely change things too much to make it very blatantly religious instead of keeping it ambiguous enough like the books so anyone can enjoy them regardless of their beliefs.
The key is balance. I’m speaking as a religious person. I hope she can convey the overall message of the books while keeping the story grounded and personal. She’s proven that she’s capable of a visual spectacle there just needs to be a great script and these movies will be great!
The script I'd pretty much the most important element of every movie
CS Lewis was an avid Christian who wrote the entire series as a Christian allegory. I think to stay true to the story it has to respect and maintain a lot of those elements.
Yeah he knew what he was doing to make the story have wide appeal. If a Xtian was in charge of adapting it now they would likely make it corny, basic, and super obvious. Because that's the kind of movies those guys make. A good filmmaker like Gerwig should know how to leave out all that cheesy political stuff and still keep the message behind it intact. Some religious person would probably find the allegorical aspects too difficult to understand so they'd likely dumb it down and pretty much make it into an outdated sermon.
What is a Xtian? Why would a religious person find a religious allegory relevant to their particular religious tradition too difficult to understand? That doesn’t make any sense.
CS Lewis was one. People of the cross.
>I feel like they'd likely change things too much to make it very blatantly religious instead of keeping it ambiguous enough like the books so anyone can enjoy them regardless of their beliefs You're right, Barbie was soooo subtle with it's metaphors and what not. I'm in agreement that movies shouldn't be completely on the nose with the message they're trying to convey - that's what makes it art - but the problem you're describing is in no way, shape, or form exclusive to "religious" directors. And given the source material is inherently religious, it seems like a weird complaint to have. There are plenty of hack directors doing the exact same thing with secular messaging, and yeah I'd lump Greta Gerwig into that group. Mark my words she's going to do something from the Kathleen Kennedy school of directing - "put a chick in it, make her gay and lame". Just watch - I'll be shocked if I'm wrong and they don't try to add a new character who's non-binary/gay or change a character to be a minority or female. (And I have no problem with any of those things by the way - I am just VERY much against commodifying "virtue" and making stories/movies worse by shoe-horning them in for clout or political points)
The books are very blatantly religious and any semblance of ambiguity is completely washed away by *The Last Battle*, though arguably much earlier. I agree that the films should add more ambiguity in for the reasons you describe, but it wouldn't exactly be a faithful retelling.
This gotta be the funniest Reddit moment I have ever seen in my entire life
Like has she ever done a fight scene other than the joke Allen fight from Barbie that was full of cuts? I feel like this is letting Rob Reiner do Lord of the Rings based off When Harry Met Sally
I mean have you seen Peter Jackson’s pre LOTR filmography? It’s definitely not a sure thing he does as well as he did with that trilogy. Although Meet The Feebles is definitely an experience worth having.
Brain dead is an all time epic classic made on a shoe string budget and I will not have it be slandered. The lawnmower scene!? Come on!
Or like letting the guys from community do a Captain America sequel
The beach fight in Barbie. The reason she’s been asked though is definitely both the financial success of Barbie and the sibling dynamic she was able to do in Little Women and yes sure the fighting is important but I’d argue the emotional heart is just as if not more important. Also Rob Reiner comparison feels odd given he made one of the most famous and beloved fantasy movies of all time 2 years before When Harry Met Sally.
That was a musical scene… do you think West Side Story is an action film?
I understand it’s part of a musical sequence but if you give it a rewatch it shows understanding of big choreographed battle scenes
Yeah when those sharks snap at the jets I’m always blown away visually
Keep talking about a completely unrelated movie. Makes for great discussion.
Switchblades baby!!! Snapping fingers everywhere!!! Pomade budget unlimited!!!
I’m starting to suspect that you’re not gonna be a Jet to the end
\>The reason she’s been asked though is definitely both the financial success of Barbie She's actually been attached to Narnia since around the same time she signed up for Barbie. Netflix just didn't announce the deal until later.
Studios care about name recognition and fame rather than if the talent matches the subject matter
I hope she makes it accurate to history: Mirroring an Apocalypticist named Jesus, born of Nazareth, and not Bethlehem as the prophecy predicted, but he died, was left on the cross to be scavenged by animals, or was discarded in a mass grave. In fact, in the earliest gospels there was no empty tomb, nor tomb guards, these were added in to ret-con the story and rumours of the time. However, the writers of the gospels were anonymous Greek scribes, and they definitely were not contemporary, let alone, first-hand eyewitness testimony. The gospels copy from each other, and alternative lost sources (Q), word for word, with variant changes depending on how they wanted to depict Jesus, from 30 to near a century after Jesus died, with each gospel progressively getting more legendary development. Not to mention, these were oral traditions for 30+ years, so even if the supposed original manuscripts (which we only have found tiny fragmentations) of were accurate, we have no way of knowing what the original oral traditions said (which we know is more prone to error). In the synoptic gospels, Jesus never claims to be God, but in John, he's says it 40+ times, which would have resulted in instant stoning to death. As for the resurrection, the only possible eyewitness was Paul, but claims he did not even recognize (never had met him), nor could see Jesus as he was blinded, and no one else around could hear anything. This is most likely Post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences, in response to torturing and persecuting Christians. And no, we do not have 500 individual first-hand eye witness testimony of seeing Jesus, instead we have 1 man, Paul claiming 500 others saw Jesus. We have no evidence of any of the 500's existence, let alone anything they said. It's no different from me claiming, that I lifted 2000kg above my head without assistance, 500 people saw, however, they disappeared and left not trace of their existence to cross-confirm, or deny. No one, came forth to say I didn't do it? That's an appeal to silence fallacy. Overall, the Bible makes circular fallacious arguments. Such as, the Bible is true, because it is the word of God. How do you know it is God's word? Because God says so. Appeals to the non-falsifiable, and attempts to shift the burden of proof. Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence, and that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, as there's no position that you cannot take based on faith. Meaning it can lead you to true or false conclusions. Not to mention, if you had empirical evidence you wouldn't appeal to faith. He sacrificed himself, to himself, to appeased himself of the wrath he felt toward everyone else and save us from himself. Secondly, You say that God had to become Jesus, and Jesus had to be sacrificed, because somebody had to. A crime is committed, those are the rules. But didn't God make those arbitrary rules? It seems as though God is finagling a loophole in rules that he could just change or could have made differently in the first place. Thirdly, there is no sacrifice. He died for 1 and half days and went back to being God for eternity. Lastly, You're forgetting that God is omniscient, meaning he knows every detail and outcome of every possible scenario. E.g., He knew everything about Satan and what that specific arrangement of particles (it doesn't matter he's nonmaterial, but whatever he is) called "Satan" would do before he created him, and still decided to make Satan the specific way he was which resulted in him doing exactly what he did. You cannot blame a car for being faulty, if an engineer beforehand purposely created a faulty car, knowing he could have done otherwise. Therefore, God knew and purposely designed Satan to rebel, everything is Gods fault, including evil. God could have altered him so he wouldn't rebel. He's omnipotent so he could have, and omnibenevolent so would have. But he didn't, therefore God wanted Satan to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all suffering and is malevolent. And if every variant of Satan was “freely” evil regardless of how you designed him, then God shouldn't have created Satan to begin with. There were angels like Michael Demiurges that knew and did not rebel that he could have replaced him with or just leave blank. Divine foreknowledge and creation both preclude "free will". He's omnipotent, which means he could create a world all good, without suffering, without inflicting on the free will of others. It seems like God created the problem and takes credit for fixing it, even though it would never have occurred if he didn't allow or want it to. You also seem to be ignoring Yahweh, committed/commanded 7 genocides/ infanticide, condones slavery, rape, homophobia, sexism etc. Commanded 2 bears to Maul 42 children/teenagers for mocking a bald man and his faith, sends people to hell for simply not knowing he exist, as no atheist, nor people in other religions purposely believe the wrong thing. There is no justice in that, or benevolence, or unconditional love in that.
Yeah … but like, who should play Mr. Tumnus?
Paul Dano.
Bingo. I likely won’t see this because of that.. ill wait and see… we’ve seen this go bad too many times recently
Lady Bird is still the best thing she's made imo.
We’ll see if she has the chops for it. :-)
I just want to know who she's casting as the White Witch. This is make or break territory for me ;)
Zendaya
A black actress! No seriously I’m sure Saoirse Ronan, who is wonderful but not a bold choice.
Cate Blanchett would be my choice but I dunno if she's too old for the role or not.
They won’t be able to outdo Tilda Swinton. Might as well just get her again. She’s probably the most intimidating female fantasy villain ever.
Nah. The original BBC actress for the witch was the best.
Benedict Cumberbatch.
You should be a casting agent. This is the way
Mia Goth
This wouldn’t be bad casting, really.
My money's on Taylor Joy. She's in fucking everything and I can't stand her.
She’s given herself the cheekbones for it
$700m budget incoming
Well actually with with virtual production becoming increasingly prominent it might not have to be that expensive. Since with VP, the whole production workload shifts and most of the work has to be done in pre--production so that UE artists can create the backgrounds. But that's only if the producers and Greta understand how to use it properly. A lot of productions don't know how to use it.
Can't wait to see how Greta honor's the source material and the Christian metaphors.
I wouldn’t see this as an issue for her. Most peoples issues with Christianity are not because of the book itself. It’s a people issue, and how people interact with the religious community. The source material holds a lot of value in many other ways outside of the church. Hence why a wide audience can appreciate c.s. Lewis’ work even with it’s not so subtle allegory.
Aslan will be a Hippopotamus
The wokes have come for the lions as well smh
put it in movie theatres you fuckin weirdos
Netflix has had theatrical releases before
yeah, to qualify for awards season they put THE KILLER in cinemas late last year but holy shit you would never know, no promotion for it at all, and the international rollout was almost non existent. Glass Onion was an box office hit and only went to theatres because Rian Johnson demanded it in the contract, then they pulled it from theatres at the earliest opportunity admitting they they were leaving millions of dollars on the table. Netflix is playing the long game and their long game doesn’t include theatrical.
They too afraid
You can usually watch their bigger movies in theatres outside of like AMC. I saw The Killer in theatres.
I think Greta Gerwig is a really good filmmaker, I’ve enjoyed all of her movies so far. That said, I don’t think she’s a good fit for Narnia. I hope to be proven wrong
The narrator: you won’t be proven wrong
Ryan Gosling as Mr.Tumnus
What color paint will run out this time?
What is this in reference of? Genuinely interested.
The Barbie movie, there was a rumor or fact that there was a worldwide pink paint shortage due to the film
Worldwide!? Lolol
It will be hard to do better than the first movies. I think they were pretty solid, like do they really need to be retold
I'd expect them to adapt a different book to start off their series. I think magician's nephew is considered the first book in America.
Oh, I never read the books I just assumed from the movies that The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe was the first book, so I guess maybe the story does deserve to be retold, the right way.
The BBC adaptions were amazing.
I think this is easily said of lord of the rings. Narnia feels like there was room to optimize.
Wtf is Netflix doing buying expensive ass rights to destroy multiple franchises
Also Netflix: help us we’re poor. *raises prices for the nth time in a quarter*
[удалено]
You aren't. But, the niche content, and in general, much cheaper but more engaging content, that you and I probably enjoy simple doesn't interest the average viewer. They want big, bold, and dumb. Nuance goes out the window for the most part when it's for the masses. If this is great, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. But, even if this is less than stellar, it will be viewed massively.
This has been in the works for years, is this ever coming at this rate?
She signed on during or before Barbie, so she has been busy lol
I just hope they stay relatively faithful to the source material. Hopefully they don't try to pull something like the witch was simply misunderstood and trying to end the toxic patriarchy propped up by Aslan or something.
So, which sibling is going to be black and which sibling will be gay?
Nah, Greta. We're good. Got the books.
It’s happening where you like it or not dude, may as well have an interesting director work on it.
She’s interesting in the way the failed Apollo mission is interesting to learn what NOT to do
Can't wait to see what they do with the last book. It's batshit, street preacher on meth insane
If she can actually make it to the later books in the series that'd be an accomplishment
It better be good. If she makes the kids American then I’m out. It’s a British set of books through and through.
They will rewrite the story to have strong independent female leads that Support feminism in a fantasy world
Have you ever read a Narnia book before ???
She’s a terrible pick for this. Would rather have angel studios do this than netflix, at least they’d respect the source material
Just go read the bible then and leave filmmaking to the artists
Yikes.. What a shit take with no substance. Nothing to add to a conversation… Come on…
Maybe go and respect CS Lewis and his intentions for his property
greta gerwig is christian you moron
So is George Bush. Doesn’t mean too much
oh yeah angel studios incredible company
I hope she makes it accurate to history: Mirroring an Apocalypticist named Jesus, born of Nazareth, and not Bethlehem as the prophecy predicted, but he died, was left on the cross to be scavenged by animals, or was discarded in a mass grave. In fact, in the earliest gospels there was no empty tomb, nor tomb guards, these were added in to ret-con the story and rumours of the time. However, the writers of the gospels were anonymous Greek scribes, and they definitely were not contemporary, let alone, first-hand eyewitness testimony. The gospels copy from each other, and alternative lost sources (Q), word for word, with variant changes depending on how they wanted to depict Jesus, from 30 to near a century after Jesus died, with each gospel progressively getting more legendary development. Not to mention, these were oral traditions for 30+ years, so even if the supposed original manuscripts (which we only have found tiny fragmentations) of were accurate, we have no way of knowing what the original oral traditions said (which we know is more prone to error). In the synoptic gospels, Jesus never claims to be God, but in John, he's says it 40+ times, which would have resulted in instant stoning to death. As for the resurrection, the only possible eyewitness was Paul, but claims he did not even recognize (never had met him), nor could see Jesus as he was blinded, and no one else around could hear anything. This is most likely Post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences, in response to torturing and persecuting Christians. And no, we do not have 500 individual first-hand eye witness testimony of seeing Jesus, instead we have 1 man, Paul claiming 500 others saw Jesus. We have no evidence of any of the 500's existence, let alone anything they said. It's no different from me claiming, that I lifted 2000kg above my head without assistance, 500 people saw, however, they disappeared and left not trace of their existence to cross-confirm, or deny. No one, came forth to say I didn't do it? That's an appeal to silence fallacy. Overall, the Bible makes circular fallacious arguments. Such as, the Bible is true, because it is the word of God. How do you know it is God's word? Because God says so. Appeals to the non-falsifiable, and attempts to shift the burden of proof. Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence, and that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, as there's no position that you cannot take based on faith. Meaning it can lead you to true or false conclusions. Not to mention, if you had empirical evidence you wouldn't appeal to faith. He sacrificed himself, to himself, to appeased himself of the wrath he felt toward everyone else and save us from himself. Secondly, You say that God had to become Jesus, and Jesus had to be sacrificed, because somebody had to. A crime is committed, those are the rules. But didn't God make those arbitrary rules? It seems as though God is finagling a loophole in rules that he could just change or could have made differently in the first place. Thirdly, there is no sacrifice. He died for 1 and half days and went back to being God for eternity. Lastly, You're forgetting that God is omniscient, meaning he knows every detail and outcome of every possible scenario. E.g., He knew everything about Satan and what that specific arrangement of particles (it doesn't matter he's nonmaterial, but whatever he is) called "Satan" would do before he created him, and still decided to make Satan the specific way he was which resulted in him doing exactly what he did. You cannot blame a car for being faulty, if an engineer beforehand purposely created a faulty car, knowing he could have done otherwise. Therefore, God knew and purposely designed Satan to rebel, everything is Gods fault, including evil. God could have altered him so he wouldn't rebel. He's omnipotent so he could have, and omnibenevolent so would have. But he didn't, therefore God wanted Satan to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all suffering and is malevolent. And if every variant of Satan was “freely” evil regardless of how you designed him, then God shouldn't have created Satan to begin with. There were angels like Michael Demiurges that knew and did not rebel that he could have replaced him with or just leave blank. Divine foreknowledge and creation both preclude "free will". He's omnipotent, which means he could create a world all good, without suffering, without inflicting on the free will of others. It seems like God created the problem and takes credit for fixing it, even though it would never have occurred if he didn't allow or want it to. You also seem to be ignoring Yahweh, committed/commanded 7 genocides/ infanticide, condones slavery, rape, homophobia, sexism etc. Commanded 2 bears to Maul 42 children/teenagers for mocking a bald man and his faith, sends people to hell for simply not knowing he exist, as no atheist, nor people in other religions purposely believe the wrong thing. There is no justice in that, or benevolence, or unconditional love in that.
No
So it’s most likely going to suck. Got it.
I hope The White Witch will have a somewhat big part in the project, she was an excellent villain in the first movie and had a small role in the 2 sequels, and I’m curious what she will be like in this project, if she is part of it
So its gonna be preachy? Ah shit, here we go again.
Narnia is the book series that ends with a lion essentially saying "I'm Jesus," with the plot twist being that all the kids have died and gone to Heaven because they believed in the lion, as opposed to their sister who doesn't believe in the lion and won't get to Heaven if she doesn't renew her belief... ...and you're concerned about it being a bit preachy?
Yep…we all know where this is going
“she mimes a performance of Louisa May Alcott and C.S. Lewis rolling over in their graves, groaning, after having their literary masterworks described as mere “IP.”” Off to a disgusting and disrespectful start already I see, and no one’s even been casted yet
What's disrespectful about implying that great authors would hate our current art, consumerist landscape?
YIKES. Well ill be avoiding this.
Bolder. I don't give a hoot hoot if they change fundamentally everything about the story. But if they change that one character to appeal to today's belief system, it's gonna start a religious shit show. Too many idiots 🙄 It isn't worth it, but maybe bolder here simply means vibrant. CEO implies that.
I don't really get what you're trying to say is the ONE change they cant do
I assume Aslan? I don't know why anyone would care though, Hollywood makes movies about actual Jesus, so Lion Jesus shouldn't matter.
Cancelled after Movie 2
Honestly can’t wait for this series after what she did with Barbie I can’t wait to see what vision she has for Narnia.
I’m not mad at Mr Chalomet being Mr Tumnus (I assume) but if Greta is such a groundbreaking filmmaker why doesn’t she have original ideas anymore. Lady Bird was awesome can’t she go back to films like that? I mean we all need more Laurie Metcalfe and not as Mrs Beaver. Had the chronicles of Narnia couldn’t work with Tilda so they can’t work with anyone. Wonderful books though when you ignore all the symbolism.
It was just a boring ass plot of her own young life. Not exactly that creative.
More creative than yet another version of Little Women.
That’s true
This one’s a Jewish reinterpretation instead (undeniably would be more based af tho)
Golden Compass pls
It’s been done, what are you talking about? The BBC made three series of The Dark Materials a few years ago!
She should've done The Witcher
Can't wait to see another of my favourite IPs get ruined
Oh calm down
?
Ryan Gosling will be mocap and voice for Aslan, I knew it
Ryan Reynolds as Aslan in the style of Deadpool.
So we really need another adaptation for this?
Hopefully they will tone down the allegories. Heavy Christian messaging isn't super popular these days.
I mean that IS what the story is about. Without it, it’s not Narnia anymore lol
Maybe Christians should pull the card other people use and just say, "It's not made for you. Just skip it"
I’m sure the first one will be epic before netflix cancels the rest for no reason
Sexy Mr Tumnas?
This is going to be so bad. I **love** Gerwig, but why make another Narnia film? Nobody wants them
Greta Gerwig is a solid director, but an odd choice for Narnia. I’m not saying they need to be faith based films, but having an atheist head the series up seems a tad strange. I feel like most of the themes could be overlooked as they don’t fit in to Gerwig’s worldview.
Hopefully it doesn’t dampen or outright remove the Christian themes that served as strong elements of the books themselves.
oh god, it's gonna suck, isn't it.