Movie Comparison: LOTR vs Narnia

Archive Home > Advanced Lore
mighty ent man 14/Dec/2005 at 02:23 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Second time lucky!! First off please stick to the topic. This thread is intended to compare LOTR with the new film of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. If you want to talk generally about the new Narnia film then go to this thread:

http://www.lotrplaza.com/forum/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=27&TopicID=192810&PagePosition=1

There you can post at your leasure about the new film, but not in here! Thanks.

Below is a list of why I think that the new Narnia film is similar to lotr:

  • Peter is losing the battle and is loosing all hope. Then Aslan returns with more troops and just the presence of Aslan brings hope back into the hearts of the people. Who does this seem similar to? Of course we have Aragorn and the battle of the Pellenor fields. When he returns he brings hope to all on the battlefield.
  • This next one is perhaps more subtle. In the film we see 4 children who enter a magical and separate world and they get swept off into a new adventure. Then when they go back through the wardbrobe they are back home and nothing has changed. They were in a timeless world. In lotr we have the 4 hobbits (you see 4 again!) and they leave the Shire and get caught up in an adventure and when they return back to the Shire all is the same still in some ways.
  • There is also possibly the comparison of Peter as a reluctant King and Aragorn in the films but I am not so convinced with this one.
  • Also we have the theme of friendship of the 4 children and the 4 hobbits.

However despite these similiarities there are great differences between the two stories. LOTR is on a grand scale with the ever lasting fight almost against the evil of Sauron. However in Narnia we have one battle and all is over.

I would like to close with a huge thanks to Tinw. Thankyou so much for your kindness shown in your email to me and your advice!  It means a lot to me! Now we have to hope it stays on topic!

There we go people, and please only post if you are going to compare the two films!

<Nessa Edit:  My profound apologies for moving your prior thread.  Please accept my best wishes on this thread, and with your permission, I would also like to keep your discussion in mind for transfer to Ad Lore should you wish it at some point.  Until then, my apologies once again>

lotrbigdog 14/Dec/2005 at 04:43 AM
Pilgrim of Isengard Points: 1427 Posts: 911 Joined: 03/Nov/2005
I noticed a similarity between the centaur general and legolas and gimli. The king was about to be killed, and he comes out of nowhere and helps him escape. This dedication was something like that of Gimli and Legolas, they stuck with their king and would have died for him.

Aslan could also be compared to gandalf, he dies for his allies and friends, then comes back from the dead, still more powerful.

Could Edmund be compared to maybe Boromir? he had gotten caught up in a lust for power, had made some major mistakes, but then repented in the end.

Of course the fantasy creatures, especially the minions of the white witch and the orcs, i think they were designed somewhat similarly.
mighty ent man 14/Dec/2005 at 05:17 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

lotrbigdog - Yes a good comparison there with the centaur and Peter and lotr.

Ah yes an interesting one with Aslan and Gandalf. I think it is a good one. Aslan helps the children along. He is their helped through much of it, as is Gandalf for the Fellowship.

Yes I think we can see Edmund as a Boromir. Then the turkish delight would be like the Ring!  

 

lotrbigdog 14/Dec/2005 at 04:16 PM
Pilgrim of Isengard Points: 1427 Posts: 911 Joined: 03/Nov/2005

Of course!  simple yet attractive...

I dont know about you, but i thought the battle itself was comparable to that of the pelennor fields as well.  In my opinion, it is second only to pelenor fields.  Absolutely awesome.  The charge was exactly like the rohirrim, it was sooo cool.  Oh, but i digress.

Hm, maybe the professor could be compared, very slightly, to bilbo?  a learned old man, who acts somewhat of a father figure for the main characters?  at least with frodo, and possible sam, this is the case. 

The prophecy of the two sons of adam and two daughters of eve compared to that in the dream of faramir and boromir?  They both kind of foretell the return of the true king.  (i am just flappin in the breeze now)

Aha, to enhance your earlier comparison, their physical journey is very similar as well.  They have to travel a long distance, maybe not so long as in lotr, but they also go thru dangers and ultimately end victorious. 

There are so many more.... 

 

Beregond Abell 14/Dec/2005 at 06:42 PM
Craftsman of Minas Tirith Points: 1710 Posts: 1027 Joined: 11/Oct/2005
well Father Christmas is like Gladriel. he gave them all gift and so did Galadriel. and also gave the four kids some hope which they needed if you ask me. I like the one about boromir and edmund, the turkish delight and the ring of power. awsome.                                          
                                                                   
                                                           
Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.
Tinw 14/Dec/2005 at 10:06 PM
Loremaster of Imladris Points: 13305 Posts: 17500 Joined: 09/May/2003
Which brings us right to the theory of archetypes and elementary ideas put forward by Jung and Bastian — there are certain motifs and images, certain ’types’ of characters, that are so hardwired into us by our experiences and culture that they reappear again and again in stories, especially in myths. So you have the old wise man (the professor), the magical gifts to the hero, the hero who doesn’t want to set out on the journey ("I’ll take you as far as Mos Eisley"), the hopeless battle and the sudden return of hope, betrayal, ice queen... things are both similar and not similar. But here it is more than coincidence, for two reasons.

C.S. Lewis read at least parts of LOTR, although he and Tolkien weren’t always on the same wavelength. A subtle but telling slip: the Ettinmoors of Narnia appear in a book written after LOTR was published. Same name!

And the Narnia films, of course, were filmed with the hope of riding the wave generated by Jackson’s films. They could not be too similar or they would be a rip-off. But they certainly seem to have taken many cinematographic techniques, from the aerial shots to the witch’s castle and gates (Minas Morgul, anyone?) to the attempt to show a detailed flow of battle and tactics, and of course a heroic cavalry charge after the two armies had lined up and squared off. The set up of the Narnian defenses resembles the Helm’s Deep battle in a way: a front line below, not on a wall in this case but mounted, and above and behind, a sort of natural Keep. Campare also the fortress of Minas Tirith behind Faramir’s and Théoden’s cavalries. There is even the play with vertical which I especially noticed in Jackson’s filming: the camera often goes very 3-D, following things flying up in the sky and crashing down. The Eagles are not mentioned in the Narnia books, at least not for this battle, but surely some of you heard, "The Eagles Are Coming! The Eagles Are Coming!" in your minds?

Both films also attempted to portray the lead characters as more serious, and more flawed, than they are in the books. Peter is rather flatly heroic in the original tale. Both he and Aragorn are much more conflicted here, and in both cases, the movie has added that they do not want to be king, which is quite a change. Boromir is not Aragorn’s brother, but in both films, we have the betrayer redeem himself by a sacrificial charge when the battle is going badly.

Also, both films heighten tension by greatly increasing the sense of imminent pursuit. In fact the Narnia film in a way breaks itself into similar phases: the idyllic stage-setting of Lucy in Narnia with Tumnus (think of Bilbo’s party, prefaced by a prologue of war), the flight of the children from the White Witch, the respite at a Homely House-like lodge, the gifts given along the way by a figure who is at first rather frightening, the redemption of Edmund (Boromir? Théoden?), and the last battle, complete with magical healing -- thins time from the hands of the queen, to make a nice change. And of course a final coronation scene, and Gandalf, I mean Aslan, leaving across the Sea. His directions seem a bit turned around; he’s headed east.

Finally, I can’t help thinking of the river at the end of FOTR, and Sam nearly drowning -- there is little about a river crossing in the book of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, certainly nothing about the ice melting.

Not to insist on the two sagas being identical— there are many differences— but yes, I think they invite comparison.
mighty ent man 15/Dec/2005 at 11:20 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Nessa - Thanks for the apology! It would be wonderful if you could move it to ad lore, only if you think it has ad lore potential of course! Thanks for your wishes on this thread!  

beregond - Ah now that is a good comparison to make there! They both do indeed give each other gifts.

Tinw - Ah great to see you in here.

Yes I was just about to raise the point about the same kinds of characters which have almost become stereotypes. That they are central and staple to have in every fantasy film. We need the big battle with hope coming at the end, we need to father figure and we need a big journey for the central characters. It is like there are basic elements which a film has to have.

Yes I do see the resemblence between Minas Morgul and he Witchs castle. I am interested to compare the two films because I do feel there is a lot to look at. But then again there are stark differences. All of what you mention shows this. There are many similiarities. But are these coincidental as we see many films are similar but they could also be intentional from the film director looking at PJs work.

Bearamir 15/Dec/2005 at 12:53 PM
Emeritus Points: 16276 Posts: 16742 Joined: 21/Sep/2008
Quote: Originally posted by mighty ent man on Thursday, December 15, 2005

Nessa - Thanks for the apology! It would be wonderful if you could move it to ad lore, only if you think it has ad lore potential of course! Thanks for your wishes on this thread!  


Then let me do the honors...right now.
mighty ent man 15/Dec/2005 at 02:08 PM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003
Bael - Thanks so much for this and the kindness that you have shown. You admins arent all that bad really!  Also may I ask, why did you consider this for ad lore? It is a movie comparison something which is rarely if ever seen in ad lore. Not that I am ungrateful for it being placed here I was just curious as to why it was! Thanks again!
Dain 16/Dec/2005 at 05:50 AM
Emeritus Points: 6123 Posts: 7748 Joined: 24/Nov/2008
The two stories as well as the two films are very similar, but then they represent the birth of epic fantasy both as books and now in my opinion as films as well, the two take different approaches but still come back to the same values, these values are then what our ideas of good fantasy are based upon.

Fellowship and friendship is a major theme in both stories. Both parties only find their full potential when they pull together and work as a team, when they are not working together then they face great peril. As stated before the betrayals of both Boromir and Edmund come to mind, but when each of them realize what they have done they restore the balance with a heroic feat. Showing that friendship is more powerful than desire for individual power. Friendship of the characters I would say is the largest theme in both stories, fellowship and working together for a grater cause.

Peter Jackson did change the way we thought about fantasy films and the enormity of the scale they could take on, does anyone else remember the minuscule scale encompassed by The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe when it was televised originally? PJ revolutionized battle scenes and fantasy environments and once again proved himself to be a pioneer of new techniques. However I would say that it is not fair to say that Narnia simply borrows these techniques, in my opinion at least those techniques used are done to a far higher level, in the final battle each warrior seems like an individual rather than one of many.

This I suppose comes across in Narnia more than in LOTR as the story is far more about individuals, there are far more evil characters. In LOTR the evil is faceless, Sauron cannot be slain by conventional means and very few of his servants are actually named. The ringwraiths for example, out of 9 only 2 are ever mentioned by name. This is compared to Narnia where evil character posses names and personalities. This leads to a very different sense of evil characters you can dislike, and hate. We dislike the ’icy’ because she’s not the nicest of people, whereas in Lord of the Rings we dislike Sauron because he is a symbol for the evil acts that are being committed. In the LOTR books we actually learn very little about Sauron other than that he’s evil. Despite the fact this is a discussion comparing the two sets of films I am going to ask whether these two different interpretations of evil could be as a result of Tolkien’s and Lewis’s different experiences in World War I. Could Tolkien have seen war as the actions of a nation as a whole, and Lewis seeing it as the acts of individuals?

Here I have pointed out mainly differences in themes between the two stories, however there are many similarities and I do feel that by comparing these standing stones of epic fantasy we can understand the themes behind each one better. Just by thinking about it for the time it has taken me to write this post I am looking at some major themes in LOTR in a different light.

mighty ent man 16/Dec/2005 at 06:12 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

I moanFriendship of the characters I would say is the largest theme in both stories, fellowship and working together for a grater cause. - And on this point I would agree with you. I think these two films, mainly lotr though, are now representing the birthof epic fantasy films as you put it. Many new films these days are basing their huge battle scenes on ones in lotr. And TLTWTW has done the same. I like your point about Edmund and how when he is not with them they arent doing aswell.

I am glad that this thread has enabled you to look at the themes in lotr in a different light. I also believe that comapring these films helps to re evaluate your own opinion on lotr as a whole.

Barahir. 19/Dec/2005 at 03:33 PM
Adept of Isengard Points: 270 Posts: 26 Joined: 19/Dec/2005

Just telling you all that J.R.R Tolkien and C.S Lewis knew each other.  I donno about the rest but i thought i heard someone once say that Lewis based his books of Narnia on Tolkien’s books of LOTR.

I peticularly like the comparison of Edmund with Boromir and Turkish Delight with The One.

Personally I thought Edmund should have died the same way as Boromir

Eru Illuvatar 19/Dec/2005 at 07:53 PM
Scholar of Isengard Points: 1209 Posts: 1069 Joined: 08/Dec/2004
Actually, Peter was losing the battle in the book as well, although he was doing his best to fight the power of the White Witch.  Then Aslan did return with the reinforcement from the Freeing of the Witch’s Castle.  Anyway, this is plainly clear in the book.  Don’t you remember?
Lossë Brownlock 20/Dec/2005 at 12:23 PM
Builder of the Shire Points: 1606 Posts: 2499 Joined: 23/Nov/2003
With Richard Taylor working on both, a lot of the armour seems *very similar, but I’m doubtful that that is what this topic is all about. But if that is similar, so were the maps.

You can make the comparison between Lucy and Frodo. Lucy is the youngest, the most childlike. Frodo (as the other hobbits) had the childlike innocence. They were both trusting, maybe too trusting. Lucy followed Mr. Tumnus and Frodo followed Strider. We, the audience, knew nothing of either Tumnus or Strider. Luckily both Strider and Tumnus (after a time) are good. Anyway, both Lucy and Frodo don’t really question what they’re seeing. They accept it and move on, whereas the other children don’t really accept it until they absolutely have to do so.

Aslan can be compared to Gandalf, of course, but couldn’t he be more of Eru . Obviously Eru is not in the movies, but Elrond is. Elrond appoints the Fellowship much as Aslan appoints the children. Elrond has the gift of foresight, Aslan has the knowledge of the Prophecy. Its an interesting idea...
Istanira 20/Dec/2005 at 06:15 PM
Soldier of Mordor Points: 1596 Posts: 1367 Joined: 05/Nov/2005
I think I moan hit the nail on the head on what’s the really radical thing about comparing these two movies (I mean, frankly, the two books have certainly been compared and contrasted before). LoTR was the first fantasy film to be made at such an epic scale and receive ’Best of the Year’ Oscar Awards. As a genre, fantasy films were never considered serious enough for bestowing such honors (or budgets, really). Why does LoTR, and now Narnia, represent such a radical shift in epic fantasy? Because it also coincides with technological developments in film-making, primarily, that of the computer. LoTR was made, not because it wasn’t thought of before, but because the technology was sophisticated enough to make it, to be able to create ’something from nothing’; characters that are purely digital. Gollum was the first CGI character filmed/blended with live action--Mr. Thomnas of Narnia is also such a ’creature’. I expect we’ll be bombarded with such movies in near future, until the technology advances to a point where we don’t really ’see’ it. The next frontier? Completely replacing actors altogether with digital actors--that is the bid discussion going on in the Actors Guild, anyway.
Azdiur 20/Dec/2005 at 08:07 PM
Scribe of Minas Tirith Points: 2461 Posts: 1808 Joined: 13/Jul/2004
On the theme of Edmund being similar ot Boromir, he was willing to risk his own life to save another, as Boromir did for the Hobbits. He would likely have died as well, just like Boromir, without aid of some supernatural kind.

Also, just one thing that struck me was when Father Christmas was behind the children and they were runnign, assuming that it was the witch, I was reminded of the scene in The Two Towers when Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas meet Gandalf but think he’s Saruman. They even use Saruman’s voice to further the illusion. In Narnia they camera angles all make it look like the witch, and though I knew what was coming from the books one of my friends didn’t and assumed it to be the witch, much as someone might have thought Gandalf the White to be Saruman.
mighty ent man 20/Dec/2005 at 09:42 PM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Fingolfin - Yes I did know that they were friends which possibly did have an influence on what happened when they were writing their books. I also have another comparison. Susan is given a horn by Father Christmas and Boromir also has the Horn aswell.

Eru - I have read the book but it was a long time ago so I cannot remember it very well. I am going to read it again very soon though as the films have now inspired me to do so!

Dark KillBill - Please really only post in here if you wish to compare the two films. The other thread is reserved for movie reviews! What do you mean howwever when you say hat the movie Narnia creates over and over every soldier?

Oilosse - Ah yes now that is a good comparison to make there. Sam could be likened to the other children who are more distrusting. I think you raise a good point there. Frodo is reluctant to trust Strider though, he is worried. But he has Gandalfs letter to help him. Lucy had nothing, she just blindly trusted this stranger.

Istanira - Yes technology is playing a major role in these films. I mean we only have to look back at the BBC series of Narnia to see how old it is compared to today.

 

Lossë Brownlock 21/Dec/2005 at 07:25 PM
Builder of the Shire Points: 1606 Posts: 2499 Joined: 23/Nov/2003
mighty ent man - I thought we were comparing the movies with basic aid of the books. In the movie version of the Fellowship, Frodo has no such letter from Gandalf. If I misunderstood you, please accept my apologies.

May I second lotrbigdog with the rebuttal of the earlier post? And may I just say that I don’t think wardrobe is a senseless word to have in a title. Somehow, to me at least, none of the synonyms of wardrobe have the distinct image. And as a side note to that, I believe that wardrobe has a sort of foreshadowing element to it. Think of the great WAR the children are a part of, now look at the word WARdrobe. Interesting, eh? Subtle elements are key. Much better than armoir which is a word many children do not know.
mighty ent man 22/Dec/2005 at 02:59 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

lotrbigdog - Please do not use a tone as you have done in that post. You obviously disagree with this persons post but there is no need to voice your opinion in this way. This person does not need putting in their place as you put it.

Oilosse - Ah yes sorry. I was thinking along book lines then! Yes we really should be comparing the movies and not the books to the films!

Yes the word wardrobe does lend itself a kind of mystery about it. Much better and I think it is a wondeful title. I think he possibly used the word wardrobe because it follows on nicely from Witch in the title. The alliteration used makes it flow.

Nenthule Banba 23/Dec/2005 at 04:55 AM
Winemaker of Lothlorien Points: 914 Posts: 640 Joined: 01/Feb/2005
I agree that the two films are very similar, although mighty ent man said in his fist post that  "LOTR is on a grand scale with the ever lasting fight almost against the evil of Sauron. However in Narnia we have one battle and all is over." I don’t know whether you are referring to just the "lion the witch and the wardrobe" film, but in the scheme of the whole Narnia series, there are many battles, and the one shown in LWW is just one of many.
lotrbigdog also compared the professor with Bilbo, which i think is a good comparison, looking back, although i didn’t see it at the time (I was too caught up in the movie to be looking for comparisions!). he is like Bilbo in that he has had his adventures in Narnia (not counting the one in the last book), and although he wants more, he knows he cant get back and do the same things that he once did. In LotR, Bilbo wnats to have more adventures with the dwarves, and although he goes back to the lonely mountain, he can’t have another adventure, he has to leave the ’adventuring’ to Frodo, as the the Professor has to leave it to the four Pevensies.
mighty ent man 24/Dec/2005 at 06:30 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003
Nenthule - Well I am only dealing with The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe film. So I am correct to say that there is the difference between the scale. We see one battle and all is done, much shorter a struggle than lotr where it seems all themes are much more serious. I think one important difference which I think has already been raised is one of scale and depth. In LOTR we see how things are much more grave and serious in many ways. Frodo faces a much more terrible evil in the form of the Ring and the Nazgul. Whereas in TLTWTW there is less. I like your expanded comparison of Bilbo to the Professor. I think the key is that they both want to go on more adventures but cannot really due to old age essentially.
Dain 24/Dec/2005 at 09:37 AM
Emeritus Points: 6123 Posts: 7748 Joined: 24/Nov/2008

Could we all calm down please, I appreciate that we each hold strong views on the topic, however let us not allow ourselves to be rude to those we disagree with, however to accompany thise, if you are onnly going to post opinions on the the movie then please go elsewhere that is not the purpose of this thread.  There are also several stating that they have not read the full thread, would you please do so before posting  it’s considered good manners.

Perhaps one reason that the tone is different is that during the course of the lion the witch and the wardrobe the children always have the option to leave Narnia and flee back to their world however in LOTR, there is no chance of escape if Frodo does not destroy the ring the world will fall to the dominion of Sauron.

We could perhaps draw parallels between the elves and a select few others departing ME and going to Valinor with the children leaving Narnia and returning to the real world. ME and Narnia held a mystery and promise that the eles and children were drawn to, however after time passed they were both drawn back to the their own land or world.

Adlanniel 24/Dec/2005 at 10:30 AM
Banned Points: 247 Posts: 47 Joined: 20/Dec/2005
 I like how both movies and books have some biblical themes. Such as, Sauron is a Maia ( not sure if I spelled that correctly) a high being second to the Valar. He follows the influence of Melkor/Morgoth who is a fallen Valar. And so Sauron basically started out good, right, but then fell from grace. Like Lucifer, who is now Satan, in the bible. In Narnia the biggest biblical theme that caught my attention was how Aslan is a Christ figure. He is killed by the White Witch and then comes back. Like Christ’s death and resurrection. I think the biblical themes, the obvious fact that they are both fantasy epics, and the battles between good and evil in both of them, are the comparisons as how they are alike. I think one of the main differences is the villains. The White Witch seems almost human, where as Sauron is a demonic more powerful being in my opinion.
mighty ent man 25/Dec/2005 at 07:29 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Moaner - All calm down?? It was only one person in this thread! Although I understand what your saying it has already been said. Thanks for saying that though!

the children always have the option to leave Narnia and flee back to their world however - Hmm I am not so sure. Yes they do have the option but they forget the option in a way. For they stay there years and forget about their own world until they stumble upon the lampost. So they kind of have the option in some ways. But I agree with you that Frodo had no option, once he accepted the challenge he had to go through with it.

Adlanniel - Well the one thing I think relevant to your post is that Narnia intended I think to have some Christian elements but LOTR was not written to have any religious ones in. It is just by chance that it does.

Ann-thannath 27/Dec/2005 at 09:06 PM
Librarian of Imladris Points: 2126 Posts: 1609 Joined: 16/May/2005

Some thoughts:  I disagree that friendship of the characters as a main theme in LW&W, and would substitute and clarify "love" for "friendship," especially the love for family, and the love of Aslan for everyone and everything.  However, I wholly agree that friendship is a huge theme in LOTR, and of a very different caliber than LW&W.

Adlanniel - instead of looking at the witch as human, see her as an allegory for sin and how sin can be beautiful and overwhelming and apparently unstoppable at times.

I think one major difference between the two stories is the idea of faith.  Frodo accepts the quest of the ring with a great deal of knowledge of what he is getting himself into - he is privvy to the history of the ring and the evil it has caused and knows how difficult the quest will be.  The LW&W children, on the other hand, really don’t understand what they are getting into as they make their way through Narnia and though they get information as they proceed, they move forward mostly on faith - the faith of those around them and faith in Aslan.  And, one major similarity in both stories is the theme of hope.

Master of Doom 27/Dec/2005 at 09:53 PM
Torturer of Mordor Points: 2358 Posts: 1327 Joined: 26/Aug/2003

I agree with Ann-thannath that a major theme in both movies is hope, even though that is probably true of almost all movies. 

Some other similarities are that both the children and the hobbits are reluctant to do what they are told they have to do.  Also, even though it wasn’t portrayed in the movie, if you have read the Narnia books you know that the White Witch was brought into Narnia and was evil before this, but Aslan defeated her and banished her then.  Now however, in LLW, she is back again.  This is kind of like Sauron’s defeat in the second age, giving Middle Earth some respite, even though he comes back to power in LOTR.

Crown of Melkor 28/Dec/2005 at 02:44 PM
Thief of Mordor Points: 203 Posts: 85 Joined: 14/Aug/2005
The only time that I thought of the lotr movies while watching Narnia was when the queen said "we have work to do," and they did a close up on her face. It was the exact same bit of dialog from TTT when Saruman says it to that little orc guy.  I know its a small similarity but I just thought it was strange that they would put that in.
halfir 29/Dec/2005 at 03:44 PM
Emeritus Points: 46547 Posts: 43664 Joined: 10/Mar/2002

http://www.lotrplaza.com/forum/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=27&TopicID=192810&PagePosition=1

I have removed my comments to the above referenced thread as they seem more appropriate there.

Ann-thannath 30/Dec/2005 at 03:47 PM
Librarian of Imladris Points: 2126 Posts: 1609 Joined: 16/May/2005
I think that Narnia and Middle Earth are really not comparable - one was written as a legend and has very adult themes, and the other was written ostensibly for children with lots of allegories and allusions to keep adults interested (ala the Wizard of Oz, and Alice in Wonderland) .  Hence, movies derived from the stories, while similar in presentation based on the cultural tastes of the movie audience, are difficult to compare as to details.
mighty ent man 02/Jan/2006 at 11:08 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Ann-thannath - Frodo accepts the quest of the ring with a great deal of knowledge of what he is getting himself into - Ah I am not so sure, you would have to clarify what you mean by a great deal first. As I dont think Frodo knows a great deal. He does have some knowledge of what he is going to face. He knows he will face danger and probably death. He knows more than Merry and Pippin, but I would not say he knows a great deal. But your point still stands that he knows more than the children.

 

Bearamir 02/Jan/2006 at 08:22 PM
Emeritus Points: 16276 Posts: 16742 Joined: 21/Sep/2008
Ladies & Gentlemen:  The purpose of Ad Lore is the indepth discussion of a topic...it is not intended to be simply the opportunity to garner 2 points by posting a few lines of barely germane commentary.  I have edited this thread to remove the posts that are not in the spirit of this forum.  Moving forward, *please* consider well what you contribute....I truly do not want to have to delete any more posts in this thread.  
mighty ent man 04/Jan/2006 at 03:17 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Bael - This is the reason why I wondered as to why you moved this thread into Ad Lore. I will try and steer this topic into a move in depth discussion. I also do not want you to have to delete posts.

One issue which has beenn raised elsewhere on the plaza is that LOTR raises much more serious and thought provoking issues which deal with life and death. Some have said that Narnia is much of a childrens story and only raises small issues in comparison. Now while I do agree with the point that LOTR does raise more serious issues I do not agree that the issues raised in Narnia are trivial. We see issues of family raised in the films, which leads to a deep rooted love for family. Survival is raised as an issue, yes I grant you not as much as it is with Frodo and Sam but it is raised. I think many purists of LOTR do not like Narnia for they want to stick to lotr. However I do believe the two are similar and also different as I said at the beginning.

There we go I thought I would add these thoughts in to discuss.

Bearamir 04/Jan/2006 at 04:25 PM
Emeritus Points: 16276 Posts: 16742 Joined: 21/Sep/2008
mighty end man:  There’s no reason why we cannot move the thread back if you think you would prefer it in Basic Lore.  The only difference would be that a post would engender 1 point insted of two...(I would still be in here from time to time giving tribute...)
Firefly 05/Jan/2006 at 12:45 AM
New Soul Points: 9324 Posts: 9686 Joined: 05/Nov/2003

While I think that there are similarities between the two movies, to me it is based off the fact that they two original writers were good friends in real life.  Both LotR and Narnia have trees that can understand the common spoken tongue, though in the movie of Narnia they were on the side of the Witch, while in LotR it is not specified until later that the Ent were indeed good and not evil though their forest is questionable.

 

Many of the places look similar for a dark forest to be scary has to just be that, dark.

 

A battle plain needs to be open so that opposing forces can have a clear range to fight each other.  Some would – and have – said that the colliding of the armies was the same as the Ride of the Rohirrim, but I am unable to see how two forces colliding could be made to look any different no matter what movie it was done in.

 

Both the Rohirrim and Peter’s armies were led by a blonde on a white mount.  White is a good colour for the leading character because it is distinctive and makes it obvious to point out of a crown exactly where the lead character is even in the big wide shots.

 

Narnia’s hero sword looks very much alike to Aragorn’s hero sword, but being made from the same design leader and being forged from the same fantasy genre it is understandable.

 

The children from Narnia always had the choice to keep going or go back through the wardrobe.  The characters from LotR never had that option.  Their whole world was going to collapse around them if they did not fight, only the Elves had a chance of going somewhere else.  The children of Narnia did not forget about the cupboard until the battle had really begun then it was forgotten and in the years following. 

 

The Reluctant King.  The difference that I see between these characters is that Aragorn was bred to be King and he has known it for a long time.  Peter did not have the knowledge until they were told of the prophecy, while his siblings became a King or Queens themselves, it was he who had to lead and fight with more ferocity for he was the oldest. 

 

What I am basically trying to say in a not very forthright way is that while there are some similarities I do not think that these two movies are really alike at all.

mighty ent man 06/Jan/2006 at 11:42 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Bael - I am not sure what to do! As having this thread in Ad Lore has provided me with some excellent and more in depth repsonses than I would have gained had it been left in the movies forum. However also many people often do not visit Ad Lore due to its advanced content. I think I would like to leave it here for a while and see how it goes. What would be your advice?

Firefly - Both LotR and Narnia have trees that can understand the common spoken tongue, though in the movie of Narnia they were on the side of the Witch, - While this is an excellent comparison to make I have to disagree with the second part of this. They were not all on the side of the Witch. Do you not remember when Aslan is killed and Lucy remembers the idea and uses the trees to send word to Peter. Here the trees are clearly on the good side as it were. But the comparison still remains a good one to make. You also have to remember Mr Tummnus says that "some" of the trees are on her side, not all of them are.

I like your comparisons with the battle scenes. I would also like to add that the colour white is used to symbolise good. It is a common colour to symbolise goodness and purity.

Their whole world was going to collapse around them if they did not fight,  - Ah but would not Peter, Lucy and Susan’s world collapse if they had left Edmund behind. Also would not the whole world of Narnia collapsed? You see they did have the choice of going back but in doing so they would have left their brother behind and left friends behind to die and be punished by the Witch. They had to say and save Narnia, just as Frodo had to stay on his quest and save the whole of Middle Earth.

I do think they are similar.

Firefly 06/Jan/2006 at 01:28 PM
New Soul Points: 9324 Posts: 9686 Joined: 05/Nov/2003

Mighty Ent Man:  I would also like to add that the colour white is used to symbolize good. It is a common colour to symbolize goodness and purity.  Normally I would agree with you about the colour white, but not in this case.  The White Witch, she most definitely was not good.  I feel that in the Narnia movie white was not  always the colour of good.  The shadow colours, white and black were basically the badder colours – see the Witch’s castle all black and white – while bright Technicolor’s were the good colours.


So for me, the while unicorn was just to show where Peter was at all times at the beginning of the battle.

 

Ah but would not Peter, Lucy and Susan’s world collapse if they had left Edmund behind. Also would not the whole world of Narnia collapsed?  They had Edmund back before the battle begun and still Peter doubted himself as to whether he really could lead Aslan’s massed army.  So I do think they still had the option to leave had they wanted to.  Yes, Narnia would have fallen, but the children were not of Narnia, they were from the world through the cupboard, but Narnia would have collapsed.

mighty ent man 07/Jan/2006 at 03:45 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Firefly - Ah I had forgot about the White Witch. I agree with you and I have to admit what I said earlier to be incorrect. For we also have the snow, which of course is white, and this is a product of the White Witch. Therefore this is in fact a difference with the lotr films where we see Gandalf clothed in White to symbolise his goodness and his re-birth. However in lotr we also have Saruman who was robed in white, now I know from the books he is not meant to be but in the films he is. But white is more of a good colour in lotr than it is in Narnia. Thanks for alerting me to the mistake I made!

Also one point concerning the unicorn. Unicorns are typically white anyway, so this could be why it was made to be white. Also I do not know the books well but maybe the unicorn was white in the books and this could be the primary reason why it was made white. But granted your reason is one reason but not the single reason.

Yes I see your point. There is a key difference between the children and Frodo and Sam. In Middle Earth if Frodo did not suceed his own home would be lost, he would loose the Shire and all his own race. However in Narnia the children would not loose their own home but would loose friends in another. But does this mean they should not care for it? No. You see I think one theme was that the children settled in at Narnia. It became their home. For the Prophecy tells of them living there. So do you see my point, Narnia is in a way their home and part of their world. Yes they do have the option to turn back, but as people they never could.

mighty ent man 08/Jan/2006 at 08:05 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Angranost - Please take note of the message posted by Bael the admin. He had to delete many peoples posts in here because they did not go into enough depth. This is in Ad Lore for a reason. Welcome to the Plaza also and I am sorry if I appear to be harsh!  

Here let me help you be giving you some things to repsond to:

You say the plot is different. Yes they do have different plots, however do not the plots also have similarities? As they are both fighting against an evil power. There are battles in each.

You also say that the themes are different, well earlier up I mentioned how I thought that there were similar themes of friendship and even family in both movies. Themes of bravery and courage also show through in both.

CirthErebor 08/Jan/2006 at 09:04 AM
Defender of Imladris Points: 715 Posts: 268 Joined: 05/Jan/2006
Maybe you can compare the Beaver’s House to the Council of Elrond...this is the place where the main characters are briefed about their mission, and meet some who give them comfort along the way. Also, the Beavers stay with the Main Characters for the rest of the movie...whereas, in LoTR in the Council of Elrond, a few people (Boromir, Gimli, Gandalf, Legolas) join the Fellowship for the rest of the movie. And Peter can be compared to Aragorn, he is only one of the characters, and possibly not the main characters, and possibly not one the favorite characters, but he is the King, and Holds the Sword (Anduril, The Sword of Narnia) aloft during the great battle. Could Lucy be compared to Pippin? Everyone rags on her, but she is still a good character, and the youngest? Same with Pippin, kind of.
mighty ent man 10/Jan/2006 at 12:17 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Cirth - You could compare those two although I would have to say that the Council of Elrond is somewhat much more of a formal affair and much more of a complicated council ad discussion than what goes on in the Beavers home. However it is a good observation to make. But there are huge differences between the two.

Ah I think you are confusing LOTR with Narnia here! Peter does not hold the sword Anduril. Aragorns sword is named Anduril when it is reforged in Rivendell. I do not know what Peters sword is called but it is not Andruil as this is used in LOTR.

I am not sure about comparing Pippin to Lucy as they are quite different. For you see they are actually all caring about Lucy and eager to protect her and in LOTR we do not see this side to Pippin as much. Although the company do care for the hobbits as we see in places.

Isiliel 10/Jan/2006 at 12:41 PM
Librarian of Imladris Points: 2351 Posts: 1873 Joined: 04/May/2004
In my opinion, Lucy is a character than no single character in the Lord of the Rings can really ’be’. She is more like a combination of several. In one way, she is like Pippin for the reasons listed above...but in my mind her personality is more like my beloved Frodo Baggins. Had it not been for her undying curiosity, there would have been no adventure that takes place. Even though Frodo’s curiosity did not begin their journey (it seemed to have landed in his lap) his choice to even pick up the Ring at all, sparked what happened. No other hobbit (as it was, no other of the children) had such a need to see what went on beyond their own world. Not only that, but their friends/siblings respectively all protected that person. Frodo, it is because he is the key player in the quest, Lucy because she is the youngest. Even though the reasons for such devotion are different from each other, they are there none the less.
I would be most interested in looking to find a match to Mr. Tumnus (my least favorite in the book, and one of my very favorites in the movie!) His hospitality is not unlike Tom Bombadil...but the analogy breaks down at that point. Fear and cowardice drive him to turn Lucy in ... I have been struggling to find such a character in the Lord of the Rings movies. Maybe none exists!
Merwen 11/Jan/2006 at 04:58 AM
Garment-crafter of Lothlorien Points: 389 Posts: 15 Joined: 11/Nov/2005

Well, while waching the Narnia movie, I didnt think about deeper similarities or differenies between two movies, since there werw some obvious things that I observed:

When children hide in the hole in the snow, before they realized it was Father Christmas after them. It was very alike as the scene when hobbits hide under the tree roots, when first Nazgul was looking for them.

When battle begins, the Minotaur that is leading enemy stands on the rock, and waves widely , looking exactly the same as the Uruk hai did at the beginning of the battle at Helm`s Deep. Along with this, eagles looked stuningly similar to those birds/dragons, that carried Nazguls (sorry, I forgot the name).

That field with big white rocks, where battle took place, reminded me strongly on Rohan / part when Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are pursuing the Orcs, trying to save Pippin and Marry.

Somehow, the director didnt manage to create convincing atmosphere , as PJ did.

No need to repeat all the things said above, about Lotr being much more complex, but still the final message is more or less the same. It couldnt be different, anyway, sine every epic story has the same postulates.

Still, there is no way that Narnia could ompete with Lotr, book or movie.

Miriame Sárince 11/Jan/2006 at 08:34 PM
Brewer of the Shire Points: 1310 Posts: 569 Joined: 19/Feb/2005
I think one theme that ran through both was a love for the diversity, the "magic", if you will, of all of creation. The White Witch froze or drove into hiding the spirits of the trees, the rivers, the centaurs, the fauns, the talking animals, all the creatures who make Narnia so wonderful. And she replaced them with cold and wolves. Similarly, Sauron was intent on destroying the elves, hobbits, men, the Ents, even (eventually) Bombadil--all the creatures who make ME so wonderful. And he wanted to replace them with orcs and wargs. I find it interesting that two such devote Christians as Tolkien and and Lewis stayed so in love with the magical creatures of fairy tales and that they so obviously grieved over the loss of magic in their worlds, and maybe even our own.

I’d like to see someone comment on the role of dwarves in both films. It’s been too long since I’ve read TW&W for me to remember whether the servants of the White White were dwarves or whether there were "good" dwarves as well as bad ones. But, in Tolkien, dwarves are a mixed bag, not the friends of the elves particularly but certainly not the friends of Mordor or Melkor. Are dwarves the essential outsiders in fairy land?
earendil_lotr 14/Jan/2006 at 03:23 AM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 266 Posts: 26 Joined: 14/Jan/2006

The cronicle of Narnia was a good film but I can’t say I was thrilled. Lewis has created a mix of mythology(centaurs, minotaurs etc), celtic culture, magic and Christmas. The result was undoubtedly a box office hit but compared to the LotR it is totaly different. Tolkien has created a fantastic world from where he tries to talk about love, friendship, bravery, courage etc. I vote for LOTR of course!!!   

       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Narija 16/Jan/2006 at 11:50 AM
Winemaker of Lothlorien Points: 806 Posts: 342 Joined: 05/Jan/2006
first of all, I havent read all that is written above, so sory if I repeat some of ideas mentioned.
Now about the movies: there are some similarityes betwen the two movies, but I think it is because the two books have some similarityes which come from the close friendship of both autors. Only thing that is mutual to both movies is the location of filming- New Zeland.
I like Narnia a lot, but it is not nearly as great a LOTR is.
Kathuphazgan 16/Jan/2006 at 12:20 PM
Miner of Mordor Points: 832 Posts: 783 Joined: 29/Apr/2004
well tolkien and lewis were pen pals so they shared their stories no doubt.  i thought that the battle scene was better in narnia than lotr.  mostly because of the diveristy that lewis has.  that made me give bonus poits for narnia. but with tolkien its just humans and orcs.  not that its bad, but the variety isnt that much, sure there is ents and elves, but they only do so much.    the movies were both good.  but LOTR reigns supreme in my mind.
mighty ent man 21/Jan/2006 at 03:28 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Isiliel - his choice to even pick up the Ring at all, sparked what happened.  - It was not Frodos curiosity that led him to first pick up the Ring. He was given it by Bilbo. I think here you may have gotten confused with Bilbo. Bilbo picked the Ring up in Moria when he found it and put it in his pocket. I agree that Lucy holds some similarity with Pippin but to me not huge amounts with Frodo. There is a lot more depth and sadness to Frodo.

I know this is a long shot but the possibilty of comparing Boromir to Mr Tummnus is one I think. You see Boromir turns against Frodo but then regrets this upon his death. Just as Mr Tummnus turns against Lucy but then regrets it.

Merwen - When children hide in the hole in the snow, before they realized it was Father Christmas after them. It was very alike as the scene when hobbits hide under the tree roots, when first Nazgul was looking for them. - This is a very good comparison in terms of scenes. The shot does look almost identical the way that they are crouched down in the hollow space and the shadown of Father Christmas and the Nazgul come over it. Very good observation there!

Miriame -  A good post there.

Arasilowyen - I am not sure. I know they shared ideas and looked over each others work but I am not sure about them actually properly editing each others books or writings.

Sighel 26/Jan/2006 at 01:25 PM
Scout of Lothlorien Points: 77 Posts: 33 Joined: 17/Jan/2006

even Tolien and Lewis meet in 1926 we can’t compare the books !!!Come on like lewis wrote a book about 4 kids who were getting older by the second and could not get to understand each other the adventures brought them closer and made them realise they are in fact a family....it’s not tolkien books everywhere there are other writers with a vision.lewis created a world where animals could be free and speack !!Think of the differences!

Stop comparing it with lotr!it’s different and as nice as lotr if u read it

geordie 26/Jan/2006 at 04:32 PM
Hugo Bracegirdle Points: 20570 Posts: 14087 Joined: 06/Mar/2005
well tolkien and lewis were pen pals

No they were’nt. They were colleagues in the Oxford English School [or faculty] - at Oxford University. They met, as Sighel says, in 1926. They were best friends for many years; they were two of the founding members of the Inklings, a group of Oxford dons [and others] who met twice a week to read their work to each other. But Lewis did’nt ’influence’ Tolkien; and he certainly never edited LotR!

For [accurate] info on Tolkien and Lewis, I recommend Humphrey Carpenters two books: JRR Tolkien: A Biography; and also The Inklings

mighty ent man 27/Jan/2006 at 09:42 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Sighel - If you do not agree with me comparing them do not bother to post in here! To me it is obvious to compare them as two movies which are similar and two books which have elements in them which are similar. I fully think they can be compared and if you took the time to look at this topic in more depth I think you could see this too.

Commander Ugluk - I would compare Aslan more to Gandalf not to Aragorn. Gandalf is the guide and helper as is Aslan.

Mithrantil 27/Jan/2006 at 09:42 AM
Savant of Isengard Points: 589 Posts: 402 Joined: 01/Mar/2003

Why are we trying to compare these two? The only reason to do so is by going completely off of the movies, which are only similar in screenshots because the two films used the same digital effects company (WETA, I think? not sure), and Narnia was trying to reproduce the effect that LOTR had...

Many posts in this thread contain no valuable material at all. It’s just, "This guys like this guy, because of this trait, and this guy too..."

After getting past his initial similarity of New Zealand made epics, the stories are not similar AT ALL. Lord of the Rings is a thousand times more complex than the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. While there may be four cute hobbits and four cute children, we never see The Narnia kids split up to go off on individual missions, not to be reunited until the end of the entire epic. There is no "race" tension that is found in LOTR (i.e. Elves and men, dwarves... tension...) There is no Christ character in LOTR to compare with Aslan. 

The Chronicles were written as an allegory, something that Tolkien and Lewis disagreed about. Tolkien specifically removed any "allegory" from his works. The stories have no similarities, besides the EXTREMELY simple concept of good guys trying to drive bad guys away and overcome their problems, an idea that can be found in everything from Star Wars to The Matrix.

These two BOOKS have no real plot or story similarities, only the basic character molds that are always filled (Tinw made a good post about this.)

mighty ent man 27/Jan/2006 at 03:31 PM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Mithrantil - The reason that I wanted to discuss and compare these two films is because I feel that there are definite similarities between the two and I thought it would be an interesting debate. As it has proven to be and many also agree with me.

I actually take some offence to your comment saying that many posts in this thread have little value in them. To me anyones opinion holds some value and just because it is not academic or based on lore this does not diminish it to worthless. Please try to refrain from this in this thread. There are many posts of value in here.

Yes LOTR is more complex but the two do share basic level similarities. I never once said that they were the same! Of course the two are quite different but to me also quite similar.

So you are saying that we cannot compare Gandalf to Aslan? Pippin to Lucy? Bormomir to Edmund? I know there are differences but there are similarities. Also this is a film dicussion thread.

Bearamir 01/Feb/2006 at 07:52 PM
Emeritus Points: 16276 Posts: 16742 Joined: 21/Sep/2008

Ladies & Gentlemen:  This purpose of this thread was to allow for the *discussion* of two stories whose authors we colleagues, and whose respective contributions to the literary canon are often compared and contrasted.  The fact that this discussion resides in Ad Lore is out of respect for the potential such a dialogue could show.

Might Ent Man has been kind enough to attempt to coordinate this effort (and for this I extend my profound thanks and appreciation).   Moving forward, please be advised that I will be monitoring this thread heavily so ensure that this thread proceeds without further unpleasant encounters.  Should I find any, it goes without saying that the offending post(s) *will* be deleted with pointloss.

mighty ent man 04/Feb/2006 at 07:44 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Bael - I feel as though I should apologise to you for my thread causing such problems and difficulites in Ad Lore. As you recognise I have tried to keep it on track but it has been difficult to do. There have however been some very good posts in here and it has been a good thread. Hopefully I will get some more posts in here at some point. I thank you for posting in here and keeping a watch on my thread.

<Nessa Edit:  No worries, these things happen in the best discussions.  Best of luck with your continured discussion>

 

Tanequil 09/Feb/2006 at 02:33 AM
Scholar of Imladris Points: 7623 Posts: 5388 Joined: 04/Sep/2005

I feel that Narnia was similar to the Lord of the Rings in many ways.

1 The hobbits do not know much of what is happening outside Hobbiton, just like the 4 children do not know that Narnia exists.

2 Aslan goes to save those turned to stone in the witches castle for them to be re enforcements in the battle. Aragorn goes to the Paths of the Dead to free the Oathbreakers and to bring reenforcements.

3 Edmund did not trust Peter. Sam did not trust Aragorn.

4 Peter and Aragorn are both new to the burden of duty on their shoulders. Both will become King.

5 The Nazgul attack the four hobbits at Weathertop before the Council of Elrond. The wolves and Maugrim attacked Peter, Susan and Lucy.

6 In the above, both Aragorn and Edmund were not there.

7 the four hobbits thought that Glorfindel’s horse was that of the enemies. The children thought Santa’s sleigh was the Witch’s.

That’s all for the time being.

FarmerGiles 10/Feb/2006 at 08:02 PM
Vagrant of Minas Tirith Points: 60 Posts: 2 Joined: 10/Feb/2006
I agree i totally see the comparison in the two.  Both great books and movies. But i believe narnia is following lord of the rings.  Although i love lord of the rings a lot better than narnia i see the comparison.
Telancaren 10/Feb/2006 at 11:20 PM
Horse-groom of the Mark Points: 480 Posts: 16 Joined: 25/Jan/2006
I also think that there are a lot of similarities between the two movies and books. I like both books of them very much, but of couse I think the Lord of the Rings better.
mighty ent man 17/Feb/2006 at 05:36 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Bael - Thanks

Nimras-  Yes that is a good first comparison to make. There is of course a large difference between not knowing that something exists and not knowing much about an area or events taking place. However your comparison could be expanded upon. As there were some hobbits who didnt know much about anything outside the Shire. Some would not know Mordor exists. So in some ways they are direct comparisons.

Hmmm I dont agree as much with you second comparison. It is a bit of a distant link. Not too direct.

I am not sure as to whether Edmund did not trust his brother. To me it is more like they just do not like each other. I mean brothers never get on. They just disagreed and because Edmund was the younger brother he resented his brother.

Also Aragorn has always known of his burden. Peter has never known.

FarmerGiles and Telancaren - Could you please try to expand on your views. This is Ad Lore and advanced opinons and posts are needed! Thanks!

<Nessa Edit:  Indeed! 

Farmer GIles and Telancaren:  Mighty Ent Man is correct, the purpose of Ad Lore is the in depth discussion of a topic...it is not intended to be simply the opportunity to garner 2 points by posting a few lines of barely germane commentary. >

Daithi Mac 21/Feb/2006 at 09:06 AM
Apprentice of the Shire Points: 145 Posts: 95 Joined: 21/Feb/2006
Didn’t  Tolkien know the writer in real life?I heard they were very good friends and supposedly he is based on Treebeard
mighty ent man 22/Feb/2006 at 01:59 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Daithi - Yes Tolkien did know CS Lewis very well in real life. They were very good friends and were both part of the Inklings which was a small group of authors who met up to discuss their writings and poems and such. I doubt that Treebeard was based upon Lewis though. Tolkien I do not think based any of his characters on anyone.

Welcome to the Plaza. I hope you enjoy your time here!

Eretria 22/Feb/2006 at 11:52 AM
Banned Points: 955 Posts: 566 Joined: 27/Apr/2004
Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were good friends so I am sure that they must have exchanged some thoughts and ideas for their novels. It is strange that this conversation should come up because I was thinking about comparisons between Narnia and LotR just this very morning. I had mainly thought about the coming of the eagles in both storylines, although the eagles come at the beginning of the battle in the film for Narnia (I don’t remember them in the book, or at least not as important). I think that comparing Edmund to Boromir (Turkish delight to the Ring) is also valid, although Boromir does die, but they do both realise their mistake. Aslan and Gandalf...hmm... yes, I suppose that would work. I do like the comparison of the four hobbits to the four children, both leaving their worlds behind and embarking on a difficult journey, and then the return to almost a normal life. But there are many differences well, more than similarities.
mighty ent man 23/Feb/2006 at 05:20 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003
Eretria - No I also do not remember the eagles playing a huge role in the books of Narnia. They probably were involved in the battle though, but not as much. Yes as you mention at the end there are many differences. LOTR is almost on a different level to Narnia. It deals with much more complex and deeper meanings. I am not trying to belittle Narnia but it does not deal with the same type of things as lotr does.
KitsuneInuYasha 27/Feb/2006 at 06:02 AM
Winemaker of Lothlorien Points: 655 Posts: 417 Joined: 22/Oct/2005
Hm... I dunno. It could be considered similar... though the timeline IS set in a drasticly later period in Narnia than it was in LOTR. As for the comparison of Peter and Aragorn, Perhaps. Peter wasn’t so much disgruntled about becoming a King as he was worried they would be missed back at home. At least, that’s what his view seemed to be in my opinion. It was a worry that they’d cause problems at home.

Course, that and they LEFT their home to come to the mansion to AVOID the war... not get caught up in one. That may have had something to do with it
Jedi Ranger 01/Mar/2006 at 05:13 PM
New Soul Points: 460 Posts: 222 Joined: 28/Feb/2006

Hey did anyone notice how amazingly simmilar the dialougue is betweeen these two?  The white witch is more of a Sauroman than Sauron kind of person.  Also when she says, "We have work to do" it is almost exactly like the scence in TTT where Sauroman is walking in the mines hes created and he says it and it looks almost the same.  I always knew that PJ and Lewis were good friends but they wrote amazingly similar stories. 

The children i think are like the hobbits, they seem very new and vulnerable once they enter the world and have to be led about and protected as they learn what they have to do.  Then as they become more powerful (Susan getting her longbow, Lucy her cordial, Peter his sword) they begin to take on the roles of Mary and Pippin when they became a knight of gondor and a rider or the roherim.  Then once they have their kingdoms thay are split apart just as they arr in hte movie.  I went to see it with my class and boy was there a big disussion there.

Jedi Ranger 02/Mar/2006 at 09:14 AM
New Soul Points: 460 Posts: 222 Joined: 28/Feb/2006
Also i just saw the movie again on a trailer and i realized look at the centaurs.  Now compare them to a horse and rider from rohan.  Do they not seem similar?  I think they look exactly alilke.  They ave thew same helmets and the same shaped spears.  Man
mighty ent man 02/Mar/2006 at 10:11 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Imperial Powers I always knew that PJ and Lewis were good friends but they wrote amazingly similar stories.   -  What?!?! It was Tolkien and Lewis who were good friends not Peter Jackson (PJ) and Lewis. Also Lewis and Tolkien did not write amazingly similar stories - the written books are quite different. It is the films that I am comparing and not the books. I would like you to clarify what you meant when you wrote this because to me it doesnt make a lot of sense. Also the line with Saruman was probably not in the books.

IdrilLorelinde 20/Mar/2006 at 11:16 AM
Herald of Imladris Points: 203 Posts: 21 Joined: 15/Mar/2006
I think one of the most immediately noticiable things about LOTR and Narnia is the fact that in both cases, there is a quest or prophecy that must be fulfilled, and in both cases, the heros are some of the most unlikely candidates.  In Narnia, Aslan chooses four English kids over the entire nation of Narnia.  In LotR, the one who is called is Frodo, a small, domestic hobbit whose life consists mostly of eating, smoking, and generally being unconcerned with the outside world.  Both, in effect, save the world and accomplish something so much bigger than themselves.
Celebind Eryniel 20/Mar/2006 at 12:36 PM
Butler of Mirkwood Points: 1702 Posts: 1107 Joined: 18/Mar/2006
Y’know, when I saw the Narnia movie, I was really struck by a couple of things during the scene where Aslan dies. One of the things was, when the white witch was standing over Aslan with the dagger in her hand, I thought she bore a striking resemblance to Galadriel. Maybe it was because, at that point, the White Witch is the most powerful being in Narnia, and Galadriel is the most powerful Elf in Middle-Earth.
And about the whole conversation that happened earlier about Treebeard being based on C.S. Lewis... I know that Tolkien wasn’t the kind of author to base characters on anybody, but I read somewhere that the "hrum, hoom" noises that Treebeard makes were based on some of Lewis’ vocalizations.
mighty ent man 22/Mar/2006 at 03:19 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Idril - In Narnia, Aslan chooses four English kids over the entire nation of Narnia. - Ah well that is not really true. The four children were set down in a long made Prophecy. Aslan did not chose them over others in Narnir, it was their destiny to help Narnia.

Both, in effect, save the world and accomplish something so much bigger than themselves.  - But this is true and a great observation to make. They do accomplish things much bigger than who they are or what they are used to. They are the unlikely heroes so to speak.

 

Aralaiqualassë 26/Mar/2006 at 02:18 AM
Forester of Lothlorien Points: 119 Posts: 95 Joined: 20/Dec/2005
Compare Narnia and lord of the ring? Well, both were very interesting both book and movie, but I like LotR more than Narnia.

Well, like in the lotr, Gandalf died to save Frodo and the other and was alive again to help them, just like Aslan died to sacrificing himself so he can save Edmund.

There’s 4 hobbits from beginning, like those 4 kids from Narnia. And both were help by other, like in lotr they help by Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas....but in Narnia, the kids only help by some talking animal and some other creature.

In lotr the evil is Sauron, a male evil. While in Narnia,the evil one is the queen.

In the end, the good win, the evil die. Like the old days.

Ancalimia 26/Mar/2006 at 03:54 PM
Gardener of Lothlorien Points: 272 Posts: 75 Joined: 01/Mar/2006

I just finished reading all of the Chronicles of Narnia a month or so ago, and found more differences than similarities with LOTR (I’m comparing the books more than the movies).  Narnia’s allegory seems much more obvious when you read The Magician’s Nephew and there is discussion about Aslan singing to create Narnia, the land forming, the animals speaking in pairs with Aslan, etc.  And Aslan comes up in all of the other books beyond The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe as well, and is the moving force behind the action.  I haven’t read any CS Lewis commentary, but Aslan is obviously God and is sacrificed in Wardrobe and comes back from the dead, like Jesus.  Aslan KNOWS he is going to be able to come back (at least in the books, although maybe it is not so clear in the movie).  I don’t see Gandalf in the same light at all, even though he too comes back from the dead.  Gandalf serves the Valar, who were created by Eru, in LOTR.  He doesn’t really know what is going to happen in the end, and he certainly doesn’t know that he will be coming back from the dead as Gandalf the White.  Aslan is the be-all and end-all in the Lewis books, and does appear to be all-knowing and steering the children along their way.  You can really see this in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, when some of the children take a voyage with Prince Caspian to the end of the earth and see (but cannot yet enter) Aslan’s country.

The Narnia books, while fun to read, do not have the historical depth of Tolkien, which is so deep that it seems real.  Because the Narnia books are allegorical, there seems to be more direct correspondence to Christianity.  Tolkien deliberately tried to keep specific religious references out of his books, even though he was a Christian, and says so in Letter 142:  "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religous and Catholic work:  unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision.  That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ’religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world."  I admit that some of the fundamental religiousness that Tolkien speaks about escapes me.  I know that he continually deals with the fall of man, especially in The Simarrillion, but a lot of it I don’t see. 

jrmhaldir 30/Mar/2006 at 10:53 AM
Garment-crafter of Lothlorien Points: 426 Posts: 144 Joined: 17/Mar/2006

i think there is alot of similairities between these two movies. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were friends so no doubt they shared some ideas.

First: Both Gandalf and Aslan die and come back.

Second: both the white witch and sauron want to rule over all of the land that they live in. i.e. the witch: narnia; sauron: middle-earth

Third: in the battle of helm’s deep it seems all is lost but then Gandalf comes with the rohirrim, and the battle is won. In the battle in Naria, it seems all in lost but then Alsan comes with those that he saved from the white witch’s castle and the battle is won.

these are just some of the similarities that i see.

mighty ent man 01/Apr/2006 at 07:56 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Aral - Well, like in the lotr, Gandalf died to save Frodo and the other and was alive again to help them, just like Aslan died to sacrificing himself so he can save Edmund. - This could even be taken further and said that both Aslan and Gandalf knew that they would come back to Middle Earth. For we know for sure that Alsan himself knew that the Deep Magic would protect him and he would be re born but did Gandalf know this? Now I do think that Gandalf had a suspicion that he would be sent back to Middle Earth. He would not of course have known this for sure when fighting the Balrog but I think deep down he would have known.

 

greypigeon 01/Apr/2006 at 09:10 PM
Huorn of Fangorn Points: 632 Posts: 161 Joined: 04/Jan/2006

The shared ideas and ideal also though could be attributed to their shared belief in biblical principles. By no means do I want to take this into a discussion about religion but it remains a fact that it is nearly impossible to separate your art from your faith as they are all intertwined in your soul so it stands to reason that both Tolkien and Lewis drew from their core belief system in creating their heroes.

Aside from that though the works are inherently different in that the one deals primarily with children Aslan fully admits to the children that their trips into Narnia are not simply missions or quests for dragons and lost worlds but to draw them closer to their Faith and closer to their own world and I believe Aslan to be the representation of the Holy Trinity that not because I have read it anywhere but when you track his movements and behaviors he is all three God, The Son and the Holy Spirit(IMHO).

Tolkien writes a fictional history about a great evil that can only be destroyed by throwing it into a tremendous flame in a volcanoish mountain that seems to have a theme of technology vs simplicity at its core. But much more then that he creates entire languages, peoples, worlds and they all are so believable. I still maintain the books are so different in style and substance it is hard to compare because they each have their own place and are great in their own right.

mighty ent man 02/Apr/2006 at 01:59 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003
greypigeon - Yes they are both extremely different. Also though you seem to miss the point of this thread! I was comparing the films and not the books. And as you must know the LOTR films differ vastly from the LOTR books! However this does not diminish the points you have made. Narnia is a very religious feeling book, far more than LOTR. The imagery is stronger and more pronounced around Aslan than it is Gandalf and in fact their roles are rather different. Gandalf is more of a guide and Aslan more of a leader.
greypigeon 04/Apr/2006 at 09:48 PM
Huorn of Fangorn Points: 632 Posts: 161 Joined: 04/Jan/2006
So I just watched Narnia and all over I found it to stick closer but not 100% to the book. Changes were made in language, small scene differences. Adding in the background of the war at the begining, the ending - the children in the book spoke to Proffeser Kirke in his den I think, not in the Spare Room. Those types of things. I do not remember Fox playing such a large roll in the book and missed the Supper scene with the squirrles and the romp. But I understand the same issues arise with Narnia as do with LOTR. Altogether I kind of felt it is a better adaptation the LOTR(as I duck and cover) in respect to story. I felt some of the animals could have been more real and I would have preffered the language be left as is in the book. I still cried though when Aslan sacrifices himself. Now hurry up and get Prince Caspian done I can’t wait to see that Mouse created.
KitsuneInuYasha 06/Apr/2006 at 10:29 AM
Winemaker of Lothlorien Points: 655 Posts: 417 Joined: 22/Oct/2005
Well, any two things can be compared. You could compare an apple to a foot if you wanted to, in that both have an outer covering called the skin, both are organic made primarily of carbon, ect.

As far as comparing Narnia to LOTR... well, that is definately interesting. I think the part I’m most intruiged about is this:

Quote: Peter is losing the battle and is loosing all hope. Then Aslan returns with more troops and just the presence of Aslan brings hope back into the hearts of the people. Who does this seem similar to? Of course we have Aragorn and the battle of the Pellenor fields. When he returns he brings hope to all on the battlefield.


Indeed in both cases the return of a main character has returned hope to the battle. In Narnia it is largely due to knowing that, now, they are not so horribly outnumbered and that now there was actually SOME chance they may survive. In LOTR, Aragorn comes back and is a symbol of courage around which others rally. He is, to be simple, a huge insperation for those still fighting.

Lacharean 07/Apr/2006 at 07:46 AM
Forester of Lothlorien Points: 84 Posts: 4 Joined: 06/Apr/2006

Dear everyone but especially mighty ent man.

MIthrantil bravo!. I actually have to agree with your note:

There is no Christ character in LOTR to compare with Aslan.

Alsan is more or less sort of a christian-powered character. There are too many common things between those two folks. On the other hand, I cannot compare Gandalf to Aslan as a character. Maybe they act in a bit similar way, the help they offer...etc. But thats where the similarities end. Gandalf is one of the five Istari who came to ME, but I could not see any other lions coming with Aslan (save the one in a stony form). The motiv of the death is then really the common issue. I think there might be some response to this, so even before that,  I please anyone not to take any religious offence.

And furthermore some of the replies in this toppic made sleep comfortablly atop of my table and it was not that late (what you can obviously see). I just could not bear the thought of comparing Galadriel with Father Christmas what in my eyes is rather an insult than a fact. Giving a present does not make anyone Father Christmass. All the same there is much more complex backround to Galadriel, she is an elven lady, real character, she has the power to defend at least Lothlorien against the will of the Dark Lord. And what did FatherXmas do? Got delayed untill the snow was melting. Thats what I call a reliable and strong ally. Furthermore he had no force, save those few cariboo bucks or what the hell they were, while galadriel is a queen of a realm with formidable power. And at the end she is definitelly more attractvive(the last sentence is of course for fun, and I hope there are no ladies who would like to suggest that fatherXmass is very sexy indeed).

Please mighty ent man next time, if you note like: these two characters are the same because the have the horns, well, yes they are, but this schedule could be applied to millions and thousands of other literature characters with any horn and thats why I see such note as a bit...how to say it nicely...redundant. I think there are more serious subjetc to compare about the movies/books than having a horn. What if you tried to analyse the target group of the stories. That is the basic difference. LOTR is a fantasy book, while NARNIA...is more likely to get the title modern fairytale. Of course you can post any replies you wish, but do not argue about the post being...redundant, thats what I decided to use, is it???... You know I could then for example state that the horses of Rohan had four legs and the Centaurs had the same number of legs - four. What a similarity!!! Isnt it amazing(and boring/redundant)???

But I do not want just to criticise you. I found the topic about Edmund and Boromir rather good one. Alhtough I personally think that what forces Edmund to accept the deal with the Queen is his childish/childlike nature. THere is nothing evil about his actions, although he is a bit of spoiled bastard. And then the Turkish Stuff is not evil, just somehow different as it makes him wich for even more. Boromir appeares as a character which for me is not evil, but his lust for power is slowly consuming him and thats why I find him a bit negative since the early begining. And then the relation - child longing for a piece of sweet, and a man longing for power, victory and maybe benefit for his own people. And the Ring itself is of evil nature and almost has its own character. I would like to mention the quotation from the LOTR I film, prologue "but the ring of the power has a will of its own" while the Turkish stuff did have scarcely any. I hope you see my point, that eventhough the characters become evil (in Edmunds case just for a while, and in Boromirs just till the end) the basis upon which this happens is DIFFERENT.

And finally one more thing for mighty ent man . I would like to use your quotation from one of the replies.

We need the big battle with hope coming at the end, we need to father figure and we need a big journey for the central characters. It is like there are basic elements which a film has to have.

I am affraid I have to disagree. There are more motivs for any fantsy story to develop. If you were especially interested I could send you something of my own creation. There might be a battle, but let us widden it to conflict (a basis for any story). The journey is not essential too, but may bring extra-stroyline episodes and more fun, in LOTR the journey is the basis of the Fellowship making decision. So I think there is a possibility for a story to be famtasy story, good one, wihtout having the battle-journey stuff included in it. Despite my opinion I have to admit you are particulrly correct about considering such absence as a loss of fun.

mighty ent man 08/Apr/2006 at 07:06 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Rylen - Well I would not go that far as to say that they are nothing alike. I mean if you read through this thread we have pretty much shown that there are some definite similarities between the two films. Just because some things exist in different worlds it does not mean that they are completely different.

greypigeon - You do not need to duck and cover from me! I agree with you that Narnia is a better book to screne adaptation that LOTR is. I think I would have expected this because the book of TLTWTW is far simpler and easier to adapt that LOTR.

Elke  - I do not see how both films are different genres! They both fall under the Fantast realm of films and are very close in some of their most basic elements.

Lacharean - A very good post and a rather strong post too! I have to say that I do see your point though. I accept that some of my comparisons were rather simple and at a very basic level. However I do still think that there has arisen some good discussion in this thread around the two films. I know that LOTR is often on a far more complex level that Narnia. And that is one thing you pick up on with your Galadriel point. But I think you go a bit far in saying that much of the comparison is redundant. For I think in comparing the two we begin to think more on LOTR.

Lacharean 10/Apr/2006 at 04:52 AM
Forester of Lothlorien Points: 84 Posts: 4 Joined: 06/Apr/2006

Mighty ent man - We think more of both actually. I hope you did not take offence, but for me, personnaly, some of the points were simply of no interest. All the same I do not try to limit any rights for posting even the most simple point but in one of your replies you told you feel somehow offended by expressing the boredom of certain posts. I think by this you actually did the same as the person who mabe gave the opinion a bit straightaway. It is an opinion that was published whether you agree or not and I do not think it should have made anyone feel angry or so...

The reson for feeling Narnia as not that complex is that the single book was created in much shorter time and is surely of lesser scale than LOTR. LOTR is a sort of well organised and structuraly progressive "fantasty world chronicle" While reading it you might actually get a feeling of reading a history book, if you concern yourself with the backround, not just the story itself, to express it correctly. Narnia is more likely to be a collection of nice fairy-tale stories with a common central motiv of the country, Aslan...etc. And even the film adaptation shows it, I mean the film felt like being for smaller children, while LOTR may (must?) attract wider target group of even older people. I see the difference in the source of inspiration. THe influence of the old myths and legends as the inspiration for Tolkien make LOTR be more acceptable with adults than NArnia could do, because the legends of old were made by the adults. THats what I think at least. The introduction of terms such as king, queen and their understandig in the stories is different. And the animal involvement, Aslan as a lion, thats whats found in fairy tales. In contrary such creations as ent feel more mythic and for me more original than a lion king.

mighty ent man 11/Apr/2006 at 04:21 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Lacharean - Yes it is of a lesser scale to LOTR. However to me despite these large differences between the two books good comparisons can be made between the two. I think they are two books which can both be attributed to having a huge influence upon the world of fantasy writing and I do think it is good to compare the two despite their differences. However I must not forget we are looking at the films here!

I think you have brought a good new side to the debate. Maybe we could now begin to examine the differences that I mentioned were present in my opening post to this thread. I said there were huge differences between the films but also similarities. Perhaps the differences outweigh the similarities. I ike the one you bring up about the Ents and the animals. I agree with this observation. There is certainly more of a mythic feel to LOTR, and this stems from Tolkiens study of such things. Both books I think had different intentions. This is why they are different.

 

mighty ent man 14/Apr/2006 at 04:10 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003
blue129 - Thanks for that post. It was a good read. LOTR did herald a grat shift to more CGI being used in films and also a great shift to more Fantasy genre films being produced and receiving more recognition. I dont think that Narnia will ever be as widely popular as LOTR was. The films have a much wider appeal where Narnia really only appeals to the younger side of audiences. However I still believe the two films share a lot in common and also share significant fantasy elements in common. Yes both are also fundamentally different, but also similar to some extent.
mithrandir_pp 14/Apr/2006 at 11:00 PM
Adept of Isengard Points: 84 Posts: 6 Joined: 14/Apr/2006
yes, i marked the similarities the day i saw narnia.. however, i also agree about having certain "types" of plots and characters.. mark the hobbits’ and in general everybody’s dependence on gandalf for support, as a guide, friend and protector.. it’s the same with aslan, rite? i mite also go out on a limb and say the same thing applies to harry potter series as well.. the almost dead voldemort, 3 "children" fighting him, formation of the "order" n most important, role of dumbledore as the same protector and guide as gandalf, which brings us to whether he’s really dead, or whether he’ll come beck? still speculating.. for curious cats, visit www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com
Laiquallasse 15/Apr/2006 at 02:55 AM
Defender of Imladris Points: 1250 Posts: 1072 Joined: 13/Oct/2002

If I refrase or say again what has already once been said, I apologize now.  I know the guidelines of the forums and will advise any who read my post to disreguard it if the general has previously been stated. 

The guidelines of any hero-based story is dwelled upon the foundations of key points therein that many people are quite aware of, but possibly might not acknowledge the fact.  Every story one might read is based upon core neccessities to provide the fruitful inners of the relating body which explains in detail the events.

Green will be set as the color for the bullet-points for which a story is based.  Red is highlighting the LotR view of this guideline, whereas the Blue will represent that which is designated for Narnia (L,W, & W). . .

1.)  We are given in virtually all well written stories a poor, or all the way to a rich prince, given as a basis of the story-line.  Some character great or small who sets out on and/or is presented with a great task. This is at which point the individual must find a path (the story begins).

1.) Frodo, in turn started with Bilbo, an unexpected halfling from an unknown region of the map (at least to most).  Bilbo being the key incentive for The Hobbit, thereby placing the foundations of the latter story, leading the way for what was later to come for Frodo.  A well-written story from an authors perspective.
There is also the alternate story we can follow of Aragorns, which we would be lead on a journey of a forgotten kingship.

1.) In this, we see a different turn of people.  We are given four persons in the stead of one, but rather acting as a whole. Peter, Edmond, Lucy, and Susan.  We can argue that in retrospect, Peter was ultimately the factor in the succession of the war,but taking into consideration Aslan there might be difficulty. We could do the same with the occurances of Frodo, as to Aragorn.  

It would be from two different origins we conjure the ’hero-basis’. 

>> As to points two, three, and four, the arrangement might differ depending on the chronology of the story.
2,3,4.) The next of three points in which the story-line may follow is a specific event, task, or weapon (all depending on the authors choice).

2.)In the LotR we are given in the events of The Hobbit, where the hero once again could be diversified into two characters, that being Bilbo and Thorin (for basis of quest concerns)...  The TASK is set upon the group to aquire the treasure that was once theirs (the Dwarves of course), which was substantial backround to give lee-way for Bilbo and his (and his families) prolonged journey. 

2.) In this story as in the previous, we are presented with the "task" once again, in which we could count among two events that occur in this story.  The venture from their home, leaving their mother to find something better.  Or, we could take the actual task of being their actual venture into the realm of Narnia as being the ’set journey’. 

In both we are given the task as the next sequence of events.

3.)Weapon, or tradgic happenning (which comes in play later)...

3.) This is something you have to neglect minor instances throughout the body, for without them (in every story) there would be no body.  Depending on the ideas of others and implications throughout the story, we could depict the ’special’ weaponry as those tools/weapons given to the hobbits by T.B., or in the latter portion of the story which would be difficult to filter out on spot, the giving of Sting and the mithril chainmail given to Frodo in Rivendell, or the giving of gifts to the entire fellowship (excluding Gandalf) by the Elves of Lothlorien. The morgul wound awarded to Frodo by the Witch-King (tragic event) will be explained later.

3.) Again this series of happenings should be explained at a later time.  The turning even would appear to be Edmonds’ capture, or rather betrayal, which prevents him from being among the ’heroes’ when gifted with their specialty items...  As far as that goes, the meeting with Father Christmas follows those points, reviving hope (as I forgot to mention in the LotR part) in the quest/journey.

>3.)The major events that take place in the stories should be a bullet point, but was not included as such for I others throughout the story that could be counted just as significant. (thinking back, we have many in the trilogy, not to say the least with the L, W & W)

4.) Now this is coinsided with other points in the story, therefore will not be color catagorized.

In LotR, we are given mishaps, quest altering occurances throughout the story.  Among those  we can include Frodos’ stabbing, Gandalf’s fall, Aragorn’s "tumble", Boromir’s death, etc...  Some stories have these more well placed than others, which is why my passion for Tolkiens’ writings are so intence. 
As for the Narnia realm, Edmonds capturing/betrayal/foolishness, adding his wound towards the end, Aslans forfeit of life, Tomnus’ capture and imprisonment...  Again, these listings all collide with the baseline story-telling, as with many stories.....

To be continued>>>

Laiquallasse 15/Apr/2006 at 02:58 AM
Defender of Imladris Points: 1250 Posts: 1072 Joined: 13/Oct/2002
>3.)The major events that take place in the stories should be a bullet point, but was not included as such for I *thought* others throughout the story could be counted just as significant.
Obsidian 15/Apr/2006 at 03:21 AM
Pilgrim of Isengard Points: 1896 Posts: 1839 Joined: 02/Mar/2006

well i think the creation of Narnia was rather like the creation of Arda as Aslan sang Narnia into shape and as he did the gods/naiads sang together with him, just like Illuvitar and the Music of the Ainur.

mighty ent: in Narnia, it isnt just one battle and its over, there are many kings and battles after it, including a final battle similar to the Dagor Dagorath, the End of the world mentioned in the Silmarillion.

Alkin 15/Apr/2006 at 12:30 PM
Garment-crafter of Lothlorien Points: 517 Posts: 74 Joined: 10/Apr/2006

I thought that the Centaur General was alot like Lord Elrond. He stuck by Peter and helped him through a lot of tough spots and gave him good advice.
Also I thought that Edmund was like Boromir. Because Boromir was courupted by the ring Edmund was also in a way courupted by the White Witch. Also Mr. Tumness (spelling?) was sort of in a wy like Saruman. IN teh begining he was trying to get Lucy to go over to the "dark side" just like Saruman trying to persuade Gandalf. Eventually both characters did pick a side in the end even though they were oppisites.

Laiquallasse 16/Apr/2006 at 06:51 PM
Defender of Imladris Points: 1250 Posts: 1072 Joined: 13/Oct/2002

As for my follow-up post to the above, I am unable to complete for my notes are lost. My efforts would appear to be wasted for now.  I will continue to search for the information in which I had, but I will say that the general concensus may be altered slightly. 

It’s disappointing I must say, but hopefully some of you who took time to read it saw it usefull.

mighty ent man 17/Apr/2006 at 11:31 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Laiq - Wow. What an interesting and logical way to compare both films. This is going to be a great read of your post I can tell. Right then lets get on and read through. Firstly I will say that the reason the two share similarities is due to the necessity and basic elements of a fantasy story and fantasy film. I agree with you on this point.

You say that Aragorns journey is one of ’forgotten kingship’. I have to disagree with you because it is not. He has not forgotten that he is King or that he is meant to be King. He has know this for quite some time. He was just waiting for the right moment to reveal and become King. For the time when he could become King and the time he was destined to do so.

Your post was not a waste, it was a truly great addition to this thread and I thank you for it. I look forward to you finding you notes and posting in here again.

Apocalyon - I know there is not just one battle but in the films there is. And this thread is a discussion of both films.

Alkin - I can see no resemblence between Elrond and the Centaur who led the armies. Elrond plays a small role in the film of LOTR, his role also completely different to the Centaur. Elrond is a councillor and not a warrior at this point in the films.

Laiquallasse 17/Apr/2006 at 02:20 PM
Defender of Imladris Points: 1250 Posts: 1072 Joined: 13/Oct/2002

I’m doing research, slowly aquiring the information I recently had. . .  I will not disappoint those who have ejoyed what I’ve said.

As far as my phrase of ’’forgotten kingship’’, I must go on in more detail.  For lack of a better explanation at the time, I entered this idea with a greater meaning behind it; which I foolishly took for granted that others would understand.

Aragorn was obligated in his own mind to have reclaim the kingship that was the Tradition of his bloodline.  We are under the firm impression that he knew this destiny full-well, but feared that fact.  It could be he felt he was undeserving, and at the same time possibly incapable of overcomming the corruption that was known for living in Men.  He would appear to never have neglected his heart, keeping always an ear listening to it, never abandoning his roots.  But he did refrain from following his personal legend, as some would say, for the reasons already suggested.  These ideas are all of the reader, and would be but an opinion.  He was challenged to the point of quitting, but that’s when his individual journey was near to it’s completion. 

Maybe I would be more accurate in the rephrasing of...  "forsaken kingship"  (only for a time, not for ever)

mighty ent man 18/Apr/2006 at 02:53 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Laiq - It is excellent to hear that you are doing research into this subject and spending your own time on this. I really respect and appreciate that.

Yes I think Forsaken is a much more appropriate word to use for Aragorn. Forgotten implies that he forgot about his Kingship title, which is simply not the case. I now see your reasoning behind what you said and it makes much more sense to me now. He did in a way fear his destiny as you say, I think it was a heavy burden on him. Maybe he feared that he could not reclaim his title and so fail Middle Earth and fail Arwen. For he could only marry Arwen if he ruled Gondor. But I think Aragorn wanted glory, but at the right time. He wanted to restore Gondor to its former beauty, he cared and loved that Kingdom very much. But I think it was just a matter of timing.

Bearamir 18/Apr/2006 at 12:34 PM
Emeritus Points: 16276 Posts: 16742 Joined: 21/Sep/2008
A small reminder:  once this thread was moved to Ad Lore, some expectations as to the quality of the posts was created. So, moving forward, please remember that Ad Lore is for the in depth discussion of topics pertaining to the Lord of the Rings, and try to avoid extraneous chat.   From this point on, I *will* be deleting posts that do no serve to advance the topic, or add materially to the discussion.

 

mighty ent man 18/Apr/2006 at 02:43 PM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003
Bael - I am sorry that people are still not posting properly in here. Although it has got better recently for this thread. I hope that none of my posts are the ones which you are not happy with. I am always aware that this thread is in Ad Lore and I try to add enough quality into my posts to keep it going. I cannot see many poor posts recently in this thread. I think many of them have been adding to the discussion but I do respect your opinion and position as an Admin.
Nenuphar 21/Apr/2006 at 05:12 AM
Guardian of Imladris Points: 4435 Posts: 1966 Joined: 13/Aug/2005
Yes! I’ve been wanting to post in this thread for ages, and now I finally have time! (hopefully I’ll remember what I was going to say....)

First of all, since Mighty Ent Man said that we would move on to differences between the two, I would have to say that one of the key differences that I saw between the two movies (and between the movie and book LWW) was that the kids in the Narnia movie didn’t want to be where they were. In fact, they spent the entire movie talking about how, "This isn’t our war... we should just go home... let’s just back out now and leave these people to their problems..." Heck, Peter even told Edmund in the middle of the battle to take the girls and leave, as if that would have been any safer! (this was one of my major pet peeves with the movie, since in the book they considered leaving for a bit, but once they committed to staying there, they were committed)

The characters in the LOTR, on the other hand, were committed with everything they had. In fact, that was one of the main themes of what makes a hero. To attempt to quote Sam (from TT), "I bet [those people in stories] had a lot of chances of turning back, only they didn’t." Sure, many of them wished to be back home (think Sam and Frodo in Mordor), or imagined wistfully what it would be like to be back in their normal lives again. However, I don’t recall any of them ever saying, "Let’s just turn back." (except for Pippin to Merry when Treebeard had said he was going to send them home and they momentarily couldn’t think of any other options) In fact, this courage and willingness to sacrifice oneself for the good of those around one is, in both Tolkien and Lewis’ eyes, one of the main things that gives someone character. This comes out more in the book LOTR than in the movie, but look at Theoden and Denethor. Both of them start out caught in despair and sure that evil is sure of triumph. Yet Theoden’s response is to tell his troops that even though they will likely all die by the hands of Mordor’s army, "We will ride out to meet them anyway." He rides out with them, and dies gloriously. Denethor, on the other hand, withdraws from the world into madness. He sacrifices his warriors and even his sons, but won’t lift a hand to risk damage to himself, until ultimately he dies a shameful, ignoble death. I feel like Denethor, unfortunately, seems to exemplify the attitude that the kids have throughout much of the movie – we’ll do what we can for as long as it isn’t personally inconvenient, but we’ll bail if we think we’re in too much danger.

A minor detail in answer to a question Miriame asked ages ago about dwarves. This is slightly outside the realm of the movie, but in Prince Caspian, one of the characters said something about how, “There are two opinions about humans, begging your pardon [to the human he was talking to]. But there’s no two opinions of those that look like humans and aren’t.” Someone else said, “There are some good dwarves,” and the first speaker replied, “I guess that’s so, but the good ones are the ones that look least like humans.” This leads me to believe that in Narnia as well, the dwarves are looked at with suspicion. Although I guess it’s hard to say about LOTR, since I always felt that their view as less important and outsiders in a way was because Tolkien was more interested in the elves, and wrote much more about their p.o.v. (and as we know, they tend to be suspicious of dwarves) than because the dwarves were actually like that. Not to mention the fact that one of the appendices (yes, away from the film, but it relates to what we see there) said that the dwarves rarely or never let others learn their language, which leads me to believe that they don’t really let anyone else in to their societies period; maybe they aren’t ostracized so much as choosing to be separate of their own free will.

I’d also like to talk about the mythism of LOTR vs. Narnia, but my stupid computer is about to die, so I’ll save that for another day.
KitsuneInuYasha 21/Apr/2006 at 06:08 AM
Winemaker of Lothlorien Points: 655 Posts: 417 Joined: 22/Oct/2005
Of course there are going to be some similarities in how the creatures look- often times, "old earth" and "feudal era" and other "midevil" critters look a lot alike because there is a common "template" for it all.

Big, Evil, Dumb as a Rock, Strong as an ox

LOTR = Orcs
Narnia = the ogre things you see when they raided the White Witch’s camp.
Pendragon = Quigs

Small, Evil, nimble, crafty

LOTR = the little things... what were they called again? The tiny archer guys that fought against the group?
Narnia = evil animals
Pendragon = "humanoids" turned against the Pendragon

Each has very common styles and characteristics for their good and bad guys. It’s a somewhat common template that doesnt’ change too terribly much.
mighty ent man 21/Apr/2006 at 08:58 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Nenuphar - I am glad to see that you are so excited about posting in my thread. It is in fact a nice thing to read on the plaza! That you have been waiting to post in here, makes me feel honoured in a way! I did not actually say (at least I dont think I said) that we shall move onto the differences but I do not mind what we discuss. As long as it compares the two films!

I have to agree with you that the children were always wanting to leave and go back home and would not accept their responsibility. We do not see this in LOTR, we see Frodo stepping up to the challenge and accepting what he has to do and he does not look back. No one does. We do not see Frodo constantly going on about how he wants to be back in the Shire. Sam does majorly once with the Mirror but this is not really wishing he was back there, more concern.

Hmmm thats an intersting comparison between the kids and Denethor. Although of course it cannot just be a straight comparison because Denethor is far more complex than someone who simply wants no harm done to himself. The key behind Denethor is his despair. He has been tricked by Sauron and sees no way out. Now I see your point that there was a way out in the end, Denethor had lost all hope and was too bitter and proud to return from it. The children do not quite go this far but I see what you mean about them not wanting to inconvinience themselves!

All I have to say to you is keep posting in this thread and enter into the debate with me! I have enjoyed reading you post and it is a good boost to this thread. As Bael has said the posts have begun to take a turn for the worse. Let us hope your wonderful post heralds a turn again in this thread of mine!  

Kits - Yes that is true and its an idea people have already voiced in here. There are common fantasy templates for films and for good and bad guys. The two films do follow these stereotypes, but Tolkien did almost invent and create a whole fanatsy genre in his wake.

Nenuphar 21/Apr/2006 at 09:22 AM
Guardian of Imladris Points: 4435 Posts: 1966 Joined: 13/Aug/2005
Okay, it’s now several hours later and my computer battery is charged up enough for another round of usage. I’m sorry I’m posting so close to my last post; like I said, I would have finished it up last time, but unfortunately my computer wasn’t okay with that idea. Sigh.

I wanted to add something to the comparison of the "mythic" level of LOTR vs. LWW. First of all, yes, it’s very true that LOTR is more complete and deeper than Narnia. It was Tolkien’s magnum opus, the thing he dedicated much of his life to, and it makes sense that it would be richer and more fleshed out than the Narnia series that did not have the same importance for Lewis.

However, don’t forget that this comparison can’t be complete yet because we only have the first part of the story here. We’re comparing the entirety of the LOTR series, 12 hours of film covering 3 books (6 books if you consider the fact that each book is divided in half) and comparing it to one book from the Narnia series that has been made into a movie. It would be fairer to compare LWW with, say, the first disc from the FOTR extended edition. Many of the main characters have been introduced, but we don’t know who they all are, a whole lot about them all, or what importance each will play.

For example, in LOTR we don’t know yet that Boromir will turn traitor, repent. but then die, although we know he desires the Ring. We have little idea of the importance of Elrond, and although we know movies well enough to figure out that Arwen will be the romantic female lead for Aragorn, we don’t know hardly anything about her, either. Legolas and Gimli barely have names, and we haven’t met any later individuals of importance such as Galadriel and Celeborn, Faramir, Treebeard, Theoden, or Denethor.

This is the same as with the Narnia series. After the LWW, we don’t know several of the main characters -- think of Eustace and Jill, Caspian, Polly and Digory (yes, we’ve met him as the Professor, but we know very little about his personality). Much of the depth of Narnia and its lands, traditions, and customs, have yet to be revealed. Does this mean that they aren’t there? No, it means that we haven’t gotten to them yet.
Furthermore, I think there is a lot to say for the mythic background that Lewis draws on as well. I’m sure that many of you are familiar with Tolkien’s essay "On Fairy Stories", in which he discusses why fairy tales aren’t really children’s stories, and how they got to be that way. I think that we today have the tendency to see stories about things like talking animals in the same light people saw all fairy stories in his day. Disney and other films have led us to believe that talking animals are for children and children’s stories. That, however, is not necessarily true.

If we look at myths and legends (and, yes, fairy tales) from cultures around the world, as well as other modern fantasy that has been written, the motif of talking animals appears frequently. Some of these stories are lighthearted and playful, but some of them are serious as well. I know that Narnia was intended as a children’s series, but I found that the talking animals that Lewis created were real true characters. I mean, think of Aslan. Whoever he’s around is always profoundly affected by his presence; whether feeling solemn, convicted, hateful, joyful, encouraged, or renewed, he always touches those that he comes in contact with. Some of this gets lost in the movie (it’s hard to translate a presence sometimes), but you can still see some of that. Aslan has always seemed much too real to me to be a mere one-dimensional fairy tale or fable (in the fluffier meanings of those two words).

Don’t forget as well that Lewis included other creatures from other myths (dryads, satyrs, fauns, centaurs, giants, etc.) as well as inventing some of his own (marshwiggles, the creatures drawn from the center of the earth by the Green Witch, hags [in the specific way he described them here] and cruels, etc. [if some of the aforementioned examples are from other legends, sorry; I haven’t heard of most of them]). Narnia is not made up solely of humans from Earth and talking animals.
Nenuphar 21/Apr/2006 at 09:26 AM
Guardian of Imladris Points: 4435 Posts: 1966 Joined: 13/Aug/2005
(oops, simultaneous post. Mighty Ent Man, I’ll respond to your comments later. You can be glad to know, though, that I’ve been wanting to post here for a month or two!)
mighty ent man 23/Apr/2006 at 05:49 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Nenuphar - Oooh yet more for me to read through. Great! Well now your in here please continue to post!

I have to say that I have in my own mind often thought about the almost un-fairness of our comparisons. We are as you so rightly say comparing a whole trilogy of films with just one film. Which is unfair when we start to say that Narnia has less depth than LOTR. I think if we look at all the Narnia books we can see that it could rival LOTR in terms of depth. But just the single Narnia film cannot of course rival this master piece of 3 whole extended films. This is an important point that we have to take into consideration.

You have now made me want to read all the books and to hope for other Narnia films to be made. It is true that I think that Prince Caspian is going to be made into a film. So maybe when more of this fantastic world is revealed we will be able to make yet more comparisons with LOTR, which is already complete. I made this thread because I saw similarities between Narnia and LOTR, and now I realise that there is more to come from Narnia. The fact that we do not have it yet should not mean that we consider it to be less in depth and complexity.

I also like your use of fairy tales to analyse Aslan. I would have to say that I agree with what you say in that last paragraph. Aslan is not simply a talking Lion, just like Treebeard is not simply a talking Tree. They are both far more than this. Real characters with real emotions and real feelings and actions.

Well what an excellent post yet again!  I truly believe that this debate is moving on in a positive way now!

Wolfbeard 25/Apr/2006 at 08:24 PM
Master of Isengard Points: 168 Posts: 28 Joined: 20/Apr/2006
The LotR films also have 3 movies while Narnia has only 1 (there could be more) but i have to say LotR is a way, way, way, way, way better film. I just saw the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe last night, but i have to say it is a great film. I’m just looking at it now, and the difference is LotR doesn’t go on into the future and Narnia does. In the last scene you see the four kids all grown up, that is a bit like LotR when Frodo comes back. But also when Mr Tumus oes off and fights in the war jsut like with pippin or merry (i forgot) when they go off to fight in the war.
Boromir88 26/Apr/2006 at 03:57 AM
Merchant of Minas Tirith Points: 3627 Posts: 2473 Joined: 24/Mar/2005

MeM, good thread Idea.  I just received Narnia for my B-day, and just watched it a few days ago.

I hope this discussion is allowed, if not than go ahead and delete this post.  But, I wanted to just share that I think when in comparison of Narnia to C.S. Lewis’ book, and LOTR to Tolkien, Narnia was much more closer and accurate to the book.  No doubt that The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, is much shorter and much less complex than LOTR, but from my remembrances of Narnia (which I read a few months prior), it seemed pretty much dead accurate to the books, besides parts being cut out.

I think you can make a comparison between Peter and Aragorn as they are both reluctant King’s.  Aragorn (in the books) didn’t seem at all reluctant to be King to me, but he definitely had this feel in the movie...as if he was trying to get away from it.  Peter is the same way in Narnia, as he doubts what he can do and his powers as a King, and he doubts about his leadership.  But, when it comes to the end, he makes the ultimate decision in following his destiny.

I think you can apply this to all 4 of the kids, as they are all reluctant.  They want to go back home, they don’t know what they’re doing in Narnia, and they feel they can’t do anything about it.  Just like the Hobbits (especially Merry and Pippin) seemed out of place and wondered, what the heck are we doing in this Quest? But, when the time comes, each person, and each hobbit was able to make the decision to go on and realize that indeed they could make a difference and they were important.

Those are just some of the few things I’ve noticed and thought were worth mentioning.

mighty ent man 26/Apr/2006 at 04:07 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Boromir88 - I think this is allowed seeeing as this whole thread has lasted to 2 whole pages now! Dont worry about it. As long as your post compares the two it will be fine!

I have to say I agree 100% on the accuracy of the two films. As we know there were massive inaccruacies in the LOTR films but the Narnia one was pretty much spot on for me. Now I know there were probably some small errors and alterations in the Narnia film but I did not notice anything as large as the ones in LOTR. Nothing hugely plot altering. Although I did not like the way they did the encounter with Father Christmas. But its only small things.

That is also true that Merry and Pippin did also wonder what they were doing and did almost go home in Fangorn. But they stuck it out just like the children did. The children stayed in Narnia then after for many years unitl they were older. Also I think you could compare the Shire to the Real World. The children stay and then return back to their own little world, the same thing that the hobbits do in the films. Note this is in the films where the Scouring was emitted. The hobbits come back to their own cosy Shire.

Aredhriel 26/Apr/2006 at 11:33 AM
Scribe of Minas Tirith Points: 2724 Posts: 1593 Joined: 31/May/2005

I think the reason why there is a sense of familiarity between LOTR and Narnia is because of the close friendship between their two authors--Tolkien and Lewis, respecitvely. (I’m sure this has been brought up but I haven’t read all the pages of the posts!) That being said, I see Lewis’ book as being more overtly Christian in theme (especially in relation to Aslan’s character as well as the white witch) than Tolkien’s which is more subtle though also thematic to Christian concepts at times as well.

Of the two, I prefer Tolkien’s LOTR simply because it seems less fantastical and more historical. There’s something very gripping about reading a fantasy novel and at the same time being able to think in the back of your mind, this sounds as if it really could have happened. The effort to pull that off is nothing less than brilliant!

Nenuphar 26/Apr/2006 at 01:14 PM
Guardian of Imladris Points: 4435 Posts: 1966 Joined: 13/Aug/2005
Okay, MEM, I’m going to respond to your other questions a bit later (probably this weekend, when I have more mental energy). However, I was entertained by everyone’s comments that LWW seemed closer to the book than the LOTR. You see, when I saw LWW I almost hated it for being so different from the books! This is definitely in part because I have the Narnia books half memorized, whereas I had only read LOTR 2 or 3 times before seeing the movies (I’ve only really become a fan since then). However, I felt like when I saw the LOTR movies I could say, "Yes, this looks like the way I imagined Middle-earth," whereas the movie Narnia felt way off. I also felt like the LWW was more sensationalized than LOTR, to the detriment of character development and depth (yes, I know that almost always happens in movies, but it seemed worse in this one, maybe because it was so dear to my heart). And like I mentioned earlier, the whole bit with the kids wanting to run away the whole time seriously grated on my nerves. One more detail, Aslan wasn’t right at all, but I wasn’t as disappointed there because I knew there was no way to give a movie lion the same traits as Aslan from the books. Anyway, as one of my friends said, "If I didn’t know Narnia better than I know my own homeland, I would probably have thought it was a great movie. As it was, I thought it was only okay."
Boromir88 26/Apr/2006 at 02:03 PM
Merchant of Minas Tirith Points: 3627 Posts: 2473 Joined: 24/Mar/2005

Nenuphar, that is really interesting, that we think differently and completely opposite.  I have read LWW probably twice (and most recently a couple months ago- and am now trying to finish the whole series), where I have read LOTR a countless amount of time, The Silmarillion several more, and so on.  It’s just interesting how our views on each movie are opposite and how it relates to how familiar we are with their respective books.

The big difference I noticed was the exclusion of the "Rat" character in the movies...wasn’t there this rat that led the kids around the camp?  And he had a small rapier at his side?  And about Aslan, the first time in the Beaver’s home where he is mentioned, I actually got a chill...as is told by Lewis.  When you hear the name you fear it and are "lifted" by it.  I got that "chill" you get...the same I got when Theoden arrived with the Rohirrim at Minas Tirith, when Aslan was first mentioned with the Beavers.  I felt like Liam Neeson is a pretty good choice for Aslan’s voice, as well.

I just find it interesting as I’m sure you can go on and on about the alterations from the boos in LWW, when I can go on and on about Jackson’s alterations.  I feel the same way you felt about LWW, that I think character developement took a back seat to the big glorious battles and grand SFX breakthroughs.

mighty ent man 26/Apr/2006 at 04:19 PM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Aredhriel - Firstly I do not think that the two books are similar because of their friendship. I think this would have played some part yes but not the sole reason. Also remember some discussion of the books is good here but really the thread is for the movies in the main part. But the books can also be used a bit.

I would like to ask you a question. Did you read Narnia for the first time knowing that these Christian themes were present? Or did you read it and pick up on them yourself. I think many people say that they are there because they are told that they are present. I myself cannot remember thinking of Christian themes whilst I was reading the books. I am not saying that these themes are not present, but I am saying that I do not think them as strong as many people say.

Also Tolkien purposefull avoided any religious references in LOTR. This does not mean that you yourself cannot compare it to religion but Tolkien did not put any in so to speak.

Nenuphar - Yes a good post there. Well I did read the Narnia books a long long time ago and so my memory of them was not fresh when I saw the film. However I cannot remember any glaring emissions in the films. I do remember the BBC version of Narnia very very well and this was pretty much accurate. So therefore I have some knowledge. However I would be interested if you could post in here (when you have free time of course!) the ways in which the films deviated from the books?? It would be a great interest to me!

Also I have to say that LOTR did differ from the books greatly and in so many ways on so many levels. The imagery was perhaps the best bit!!!

Boromir88 - I did not like the bit in the Beavers house where Aslan is first mentioned. I preferred the way the BBC version scripted it and the way it was acted. I did not like the way that Mr Beaver kind of laugher in dis belief at them not knowing. It didnt work much for me. But I agree that Liam Neeson did an amazing job at Aslan’s voice. I thought he was so so good.

A final point for everyone I do think character development was poor in both films. It was better in LOTR due to 3 films, but none the less not good compared to both books.

Blue Goblin 10/May/2006 at 09:58 AM
Garment-crafter of Lothlorien Points: 613 Posts: 397 Joined: 01/May/2006

People say the LoTR didn’t follow the books, but it followed the book more than The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe did!! Narnia was just lame really. When Aslan joined the battle at the end, you thought "Yes, it’s our turn to kick <BEEP>! woohoo!"
Oh no, he just pounced on the Queen. She’s dead. It’s over *look of disappointment*. Also, Susan never got to use her bow and arrow, apart from when she shot that dwarfy thing. What was that all about?

<Ulmo Edit - Let’s be careful what kind of language we use here. We want the plaza to be family friendly!>

<Nessa Edit:  Also, please do NOT post your contribution in more than one post. Doing so is considered SPAMMING and can get your posts deleted with penalty.  I have combined deleted your second post and added it below>

I also think Narnia was less realistic. There was far too little blood in that movie. The lack of blood in that movie was a personal insult to me. You cannot stab about twenty creatures, like Peter, did, and have a gleamingly clean sword. Does anyone else agree?

Legolas, stating the obvious to Aragorn: "You look terrible."

mighty ent man 12/May/2006 at 03:12 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Blue Goblin - LOTR did follow the books in only the most basic of decisions. For the most part the crucial plot areas PJ (director) went astray from the plot that was written in the books. When I watced the Narnia film I thought it did a much better job of representing the books than the LOTR films did. You see PJ did have a bigger job to do, he had 3 large books and 3 films. We are therefore comparing these with one book and one film in the form of the Narnia book.

As to your comment about the blood. I think Narnia possibly had to tone things down a little in terms of violence because it is much more of a childrens book that LOTR is. Many children would most likely want to see the film so therefore the levels of gore would have to be toned down.

So far as I can see you have not pointed out any major differences between the two films. Now I know that there are many of them. But also I think the two films are closer than people think.

Laiquallasse 14/May/2006 at 10:55 AM
Defender of Imladris Points: 1250 Posts: 1072 Joined: 13/Oct/2002

Character association seems to be a factor within the movies that differs from one to the other.  Presented in the movie primarily (whereas also included in the books), the LotR supports character developement and association with us with details.  Including such things as family and habitual histories, Tolkien paints us (or at least me) with a much more vivid picture of the individual ’heros’.

Concerning my research which I continue at will, I will touch upon this subject -  the relation to the characters given from the author to the reader by descriptive words.

Nenuphar 17/May/2006 at 02:02 PM
Guardian of Imladris Points: 4435 Posts: 1966 Joined: 13/Aug/2005
Okay, it’s been so long that I’ve mostly forgotten what I wanted to say, but I thought I’d write a bit anyway.

First of all, MEM, you asked Aredhriel if she noticed the Christian themes right away or only after they were pointed out to her. I have to say that they stood out from a mile away for me. I suppose it’s partly because I happened to see the old movie over Easter weekend one year (which fact I’m sure was on purpose, considering that it was rented by parental figures). It’s hard not to miss the symbolism then: a perfect character with the personality Aslan has (both loving and at the same time not someone you want to mess around with) gives his life for someone else’s mistake, but then comes back alive again and defeats the one who deals out death. You can see it in the other books as well, however. The most obvious one in overall theme is The Last Battle, with the end of the world, the false Aslan (anti-Christ), and entering into the new Narnia (echoing the new Earth). However, the scene that is most blatantly Christian in my eyes is at the end of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. When the children make it to Aslan’s country, they run into a Lamb that is glowing bright white. It feeds them fish it has cooked over a fire, and when they’ve eaten and start talking to it, it turns into Aslan. For those who may not know, Jesus is called the Lion of Judah and the Lamb of God, and in one of his first encounters with his disciples after he’s resurrected, they run into him while he’s on the shores of the sea cooking them a breakfast of bread and fish. Having these random details (the whole lion/lamb thing and the same food) that have no real reference to anything else (Aslan has always been a lion, of course, but were it not for Christian symbolism there would be no reason for him to be a lamb as well) really made it stand out for me.

On to other things. I too have heard that all of the Narnia books will be made into movies, although I don’t know about the accuracy of this rumor. I’m not sure how I feel about that idea at the moment, since I was disappointed with the first movie and how different it was from the book (don’t know how to explain it, but a hundred little details that made it hard for me to trust in the film and its presentation of the story). However, it would be much easier to compare the two series if we had more examples.

One of the things I’ve always liked most about the Narnia series is the fact that Lewis makes animal characters that are real characters, but yet not just humanized. Each has aspects of the kind of animal they are when they can’t speak (for example, the talking horses are still very horse-y, the bears are bearlike, etc.). I missed that a bit in the film; I didn’t feel that the animals were so animal-like. But maybe that was just me.

You asked about differences between LWW book and movie, so here are a few:

-- The book barely mentions why they’re sent to the Professor’s house, unlike the movie that goes into detail about the air raids and such. This fits in with the general theme of the movie where the kids are all so anti-violence. While I happen to like the whole idea of anti-violence, I don’t know that it’s realistic for kids living through WWII to agree. Not that they want war, but in the movie they’re always talking about wanting to escape it. I think that kids who had lived in that time would have wanted it over, but would have realized that while the price of war is high, sometimes the price of avoiding it is higher (look at the now-classic example of Czechoslovakia in the pre-WWII years).

-- The whole first interaction with Lucy and Mr. Tumnus is subtly different; don’t know how to explain what the changes were (besides less dialogue, and M.T. coming to his senses rather than having a roaring Aslan from the fire), but they’re there.

-- The conversation with the Professor was different, too. It was shorter, and some of the ideas he presented for thought were cut (this was true of a lot of the scenes, actually, although I suppose that’s normal for movies; however, since this had always been one of my favorites I was rather sad).

-- After the children decide to try to help M.T., they remain resolute in their decision, and do not spend the rest of the book thinking that they ought to return home so that they will be safe, and the inhabitants of Narnia can go hang. Major difference!!

-- The beavers are not constantly insulting each other; instead they speak with respect and love.

-- The introduction of Aslan is much more in-depth, and you find out more about his character (including Mrs. Beaver’s classic words, "Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good." [What Happened After Dinner] [note: this chapter is where you can find the quote I mentioned earlier about dwarves, the one I mistakenly situated in Prince Caspian]).

-- When Edmond goes to the White Witch’s house, he shares his news with her and then they leave almost immediately. He is not thrown in prison, and M.T. (who has presumably already been turned to stone) never finds out how he was discovered.

-- Instead of a chase scene from the beaver dam, the beavers and children (all except Edmond, of course) have time to take food and supplies (including the key wilderness essential, clean handkerchiefs ) and hurry off into the night. Then they end up sleeping in "an old hiding-place for beavers in bad times" (The Spell Begins to Break). Not so dramatic, perhaps, but I liked the scene better. There was also no fox to guard their leaving, nor to make the whole "loyalty to King Edmond" speech.

-- The next morning they were awakened by sleigh bells, which they thought were the WW. The beaver left the hole and went to look, and found that it was Father Christmas. No chase across the snow or anything. Father Christmas also (in the next chapter) has left a feast for some woodland animals (including a fox; maybe that’s where the fox idea from the last point came from). The Queen turns them all to stone.

-- The whole running to cross the river thing, along with the confrontation with the wolf in the middle (where the kids -- yet again -- talked about how they ought to leave and go home, as if they had any idea where home was from there), was all made up. In one brief spot it mentions that they hadn’t stuck to following the river, both because it wasn’t their path and because it was flooding. Instead, they just rejoiced at the return of spring. Subtler and no so "filmable", perhaps, but overall a more powerful scene than just a chase and escape.

-- When the wolf attacks Susan and Lucy, Peter is scared during his fight with it. Of course he is; he doesn’t have any sword training to speak of. Yet he recognizes that he has to kill it or watch his sister die, and so he just does. No arguing with it, debating whether or not he can kill something; he sees his sister’s life in danger (Lucy has escaped, but not Susan) and does what he has to.

-- The conversation between Aslan and the WW is much longer, and gives more information about why she deserves to kill Edmond.

-- The scene where Aslan is killed is more dramatic in the book (although I suppose some of it would have been hard to transfer to screen). I don’t know why, but it was.

-- After Aslan comes back to life, he talks more with Susan and Lucy, and then plays with them for the sheer joy of being alive. I don’t remember him explaining very well why he came back to life in the movie (although I may just be forgetting), and I know the frolicking scene was cut. As was the girls’ ride on Aslan to the WW’s palace.

-- I don’t remember them going into much detail about the un-stoning of the WW’s victims in the movie, whereas in the book it talks about it for awhile. You also meet several of their allies (although granted, there wouldn’t have been much point putting all the work into developing, say, the giant for the short time he would have been on-stage).

-- The actual battle between the Narnians and the WW and her army is only mentioned briefly; basically, you read about where those who were in the palace come. Aslan kills the WW, and the others make short work of it. Peter tells how Edmond saved the day by destroying the WW’s wand (without, might I note, Peter having told Edmond, "Take the girls and go home. I have to stay, but at least you can be safe!", as if a) they knew how to go home from there, and b) running away in the middle of a battle [and leaving all their allies, who were fighting at least partly to defend the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve, to be alone] was in any way safer when they were the primary targets was any safer than staying. Not that I was bitter about the children’s attitude....), and that’s about it.

-- The coronation was much simpler, and just involved Aslan crowning them and others yelling, "Long live King Peter! Long live Queen Susan!...." Their names (Peter the Magnificent, Lucy the Valiant, etc.) were earned later. (Tolkien fans that you are, you will appreciate that one of the most tantalizing details Lewis presents about their palace by the sea is the crying of the sea gulls.)

-- No one saw Aslan leave.

-- The book ends with a final conversation with the Professor, which I’ve always rather enjoyed. I guess it wasn’t essential, but for me it always added a lot.

I guess that’s it (was that enough?). There were other differences, but those were some of the main ones.
mighty ent man 17/May/2006 at 03:14 PM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Nenuphar - but I thought I’d write a bit anyway - A bit!!!! More like a whole essay there from me just looking down your post! But it gives me an excellent read no doubt so here I go!

I am glad you gave me your own opinion on the whole Christian theme. That is not what I wanted to focus on in this thread but it came up in relation to the films. For quite clearly some feel these Christian themes have been transferred into the films. I myself am not a religious person so maybe that explains why I did not see these so called religious hints. I am not sure whether they are intended or derived from the reader. But so far as I can tell Narnia does seem to hint a little more on religion than LOTR does. But I would not say there were blatant religious things in the films.

I thought that the encounter between Mr Tumnus and Lucy was very good, a bit rushed though but still very well done. I would have liked a little bit more of a bond struck up between them but on the whole it was good. Although I am not too sure about him using his music to make her fall asleep.

I do agree that the children seemed far too reluctant to help. They were at the start in the books but as you say once they decided to do so they set on it. This did not show through in the films with Susan constantly going on at Peter for leading them into this mess.

The beaver change really was the main thing that annoyed me the most. I did not like the way they were done and I think they were too silly and stupid and the voices were not too good either for their characters.

I also have to say I did not like the whole chase scene. I loved it in the books when they were in a panic and rush to leave the beavers house. And they scrambled around getting all their things and they made off into the night. It was perfect. But the films did alter this dramatically, obviously to inject action into the whole thing. Something which I do not like, this is done far too much in the LOTR films. In LOTR action is used in favour of character depth (MOS example!).

The conversation with the professor is in there briefly. When Lucy goes to the wardrobe again in the night after returning from Narnia he is there and talks to her. He tells her that she will never get back in again.

Excellent post!

Nenuphar 03/Jun/2006 at 03:16 AM
Guardian of Imladris Points: 4435 Posts: 1966 Joined: 13/Aug/2005
MEM: Once again it takes me awhile to be able to come back to Ad Lore (something I can usually only do when I have a lazy free Saturday and all my housemates are gone [especially since I do go on once I start ]).

As far as the Christian aspects in both movies, I felt that the separate movies related their authors’ takes well. Lewis was Protestant, and believed, among other things, in a more direct, familiar relationship with God. Thus we see Aslan, the Jesus figure (and Lewis has stated that he’s a Jesus figure, although for the life of me I can’t remember where), who comes and interacts directly with the inhabitants of Narnia. Tolkien, on the other hand, was Catholic, and believed in a more formal and slightly distant relationship with God. Thus we see Eru, who creates the universe and theoretically still watches over it, but rarely intervenes directly. Instead he leaves its visible governance to the Valar, and in LOTR we only see hints of his work (in quotes like "Bilbo was meant to find the Ring", etc).

This was kept well in the movies, I felt. The filmmakers kept the references that made clear ties between Aslan and Jesus in LWW, and PJ kept some of the quotes and ideas indicating some overriding Power directing things.

I agree that there was still some of the talk with the professor, but I don’t feel like it had the same weight or depth as it did in the book of LWW.

Gotta go, so I’ll leave it at that.
mighty ent man 03/Jun/2006 at 03:49 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Nenuphar - You may go on but you go on in a way that is enjoyable to read. I love reading you posts for I know they will give me a good read and contain a lot of useful information to comment on.  

I agree that the talk with the Professor did not have the great depth and meaning that it had in the books. From what I remember of the books it was a significant point as you got wondering about how the Professor had been in Narnia and all of the hisory behind the world in the wardrobe. You also wonder how the wardrobe works and what happens. I love it all. That is another similarity I think, in LOTR you also wonder about many things about where they cam from and you also do this in Narnia. The two both contain elements of mystery about them.

You can liken Aslan to Jesus, but I do not see it. I see why he can be like Jesus for he has his qualities but I am not a religious person so maybe that is why I do not automatically think of Jesus when I see Aslan. Also I see very little Eru references in the LOTR films.

Nenuphar 03/Jun/2006 at 04:40 AM
Guardian of Imladris Points: 4435 Posts: 1966 Joined: 13/Aug/2005
The talk with the Professor was one of my favorite parts of LWW in the book. First of all, I loved the way that he calmly accepted Lucy’s story as being probable (of course we the readers know [if we’ve read the other books] that he’s been there before and has a reason to believe her, but the children don’t know this, and I don’t even C.S. Lewis did when he wrote the first book). Secondly, I love how he sets everything out logically: either she’s lying, mad, or telling the truth. She’s not mad, and she’s not usually a liar, so we must assume she’s telling the truth. I also like his point that it’s likely that another world would have its own time, but that’s an idea Lucy is unlikely to think of. All in all, I think this made him a strong secondary character, even if he hardly appeared in the book at all.

The end conversation showed even more knowledge of Narnia, and wisdom about how to proceed now that they’ve returned ("Once a king or queen in Narnia, always a king or queen in Narnia...." And then the tantalizing hint that there were others who had visited Narnia before). Such a short conversation, and yet it said so much.

In my opinion the movie professor’s words didn’t have nearly the same power. The scenes with him were okay, but since I’ve always loved that section so much, it just didn’t do it for me. I felt like he was a weaker character, and in trying to save time they cut out the strength of that scene.

This is a bit tangental, so I won’t go into it much, but some of the things Aslan has like Jesus: he is the physical incarnation of the creator of the world, has many of the same powers as that creator, has a similar personality (Jesus was well-loved, esp. by those on the bottom of society [prostitutes, tax collectors, etc.], but never wishy-washy nor allowing you to slide by with something unnoticed), a similar blend of gentleness and strength, etc. Not to mention that Lewis said something in one of his writings about this intention for Aslan. And the clear Christian imagery of Easter in LWW, and the lion/lamb thing in VDT (which is an image used to describe Jesus as well).

It’s true that the movie didn’t have many Eru references. There was, however, that line about "Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and therefore I think you were meant to have it." There’s a line from the book FOTR in which Elrond says,

"That [the fate of the Ring] is the purpose for which you are called hither. Called, I say, though I have not called you to me, strangers from distant lands. You have come and are here met, in this very nick of time, by chance as it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must now find counsel for teh peroil of the world." ("The Counsel of Elrond")

The movie cut this a bit, saying, "You have been summoned here...." Later in the EE of TT, Denethor says that Elrond has called a special meeting, which goes against the book. However, if you don’t see that scene (since it was originally cut), you have some of the same idea. Both of these were references to someone (Eru or the Valar) controling the ultimate destiny of Middle-earth. They’re subtle (and not the only ones, although the main ones coming to mind right now), and provide a good contrast with the more direct "Let’s take Jesus, the Lion of Judah and the Lamb of God [two of his names in the Bible] and make him into a great lion called Aslan."
Nenuphar 06/Jun/2006 at 05:02 AM
Guardian of Imladris Points: 4435 Posts: 1966 Joined: 13/Aug/2005
Okay, I know this is a double post, but this came to me the last couple of days, and I’ve been waiting to see if anyone else is going to post, and no one’s doing it. Sorry everyone!

Anyway, I was thinking this weekend about the different narrative structures of LOTR and Narnia, and how that affects both books (I’m not sure if "narrative structure" is the right term; forgive me my lit mistakes, I don’t speak English most of the day ). In LOTR, all of the characters are inhabitants of Middle-earth. We see much of the action through the eyes of the hobbits, who do travel to foreign lands (Imladris, Lothlorien, Fangorn, etc.). However, all of these places are parts of their world that they can expect (all of them have heard of elves, for example, or of the trees in the Old Forest [not the same as Ents, but enough that they’re prepared]). In Narnia, on the other hand, most of the action takes place through the eyes of four children who come from another world. They’ve never heard of other lands as part of the make-up of the universe, nor have they heard of things like fauns, centaurs, true witches, or talking animals outside of fairy tales. Thus everything they see is through the eyes of a foreigner.

So my question is, how do you think that affects the way the two stories unfold? How do you think Narnia would have been different had the Pevensies been part of a royal family grown up in Narnia? How would LOTR have been different had the main character come from earth (earth in our times)? Which way do you think is easier for us to enter into the story? Is it easier to see things from the eyes of someone from our world, so that they like us take time to adjust to the new rules, new peoples, and so on? Or is it easier to jump in all the way if we can momentarily suspend our knowledge of the "real world" and see everything through the eyes of those who live there, without details from the outside world to jar us back to reality?
Nathangel 09/Jun/2006 at 02:31 PM
Master of Isengard Points: 140 Posts: 37 Joined: 07/Jun/2006

Thats pretty cool that they almost go hand in hand. I give you credit. You really thought this out. And as i was reading that i remembered my essay on C.S. Lewis that I wrote and i recall reading that tolkien and lewis were very close friends and often meet together. This pushes me toward believing that they almost wrote these two different series together. Its not like that sat down and talked about writing the same stories but its more of they talked and had the same ideas. Thats just what i think.

mighty ent man 17/Jun/2006 at 09:20 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Sorry for the late reply to these posts. I have been away for around 2 weeks and have only today now managed to get back on the beloved plaza. I hope that this debate can continue from where it was left. I will certainly now respond to all the interesting points that I come accross.

Nenuphar - I agree that the Professor was a fascinating character in the books. I also love the way he logically sets things out and I think this is wonderfully written dialogue. And I do think we see very little of him in the films and perhaps his importance should ber stressed a little bit more. For he is after all a great man and a character of huge importance. Linking this to LOTR I think we see many characters in the films who were resigned to roles of a small importance. I think Eomers role is played down a little bit. There must be more but I for the life of me cannot think of them write now! I will have to get back to you on this link!

Thanks for the information on Aslan there. I agree he shares similarities with Jesus but then so do many things in this world. It is all together different however if Lewis intended for Aslan to be viewed as Jesus. If he wrote this character with this in mind then it becomes a different matter. But I tend not to ever draw religious views into my reading for I am not religious.

However, all of these places are parts of their world that they can expect (all of them have heard of elves, for example, or of the trees in the Old Forest [not the same as Ents, but enough that they’re prepared]). - I disagree, the visited many unknown lands. Even people as well travelled as Aragorn had not expirienced places like Moria and Fangorn. There were so many regions in Middle Earth that even the wise did not know much of. And you are talking about hobbits, who rarely even venture outside the Shire. They did not really know what to expect in my opinion. I know what you are trying to do though. What they expirience is in their won world where as the children are in a completely new and magical world where none of the same rules apply. Suddenly they come accross talking animals which they could never have imagined existed.

I think that when we read TLTWTW we are more so put in the same place and mind set of the children. For me travel into Narnia with them as they do. We see all these things as they would. We share more of what they feel. However with the LOTR we are thrust into this strange new world with wizards and things called hobbits and we immediately have to start to adjust and form our own views on this world. It is like we are more separate from it all as their are no humans like us involved. I hope that makes sense. I think this is an incredibly interesting topic to debate and a lovely slant to take on the two films and books. The questions that you ask are all very very good ones and I hope I have answered them a little in what I have been saying.

 

Balin stonearm 03/Jul/2006 at 06:38 AM
Trader of Erebor Points: 312 Posts: 183 Joined: 10/Oct/2003

Clearly the books have similarities. THey were written by close friends who were in a group together called the "inklings". This was a huge source for them to feed off each other and put forward ideas and recive feedback on works in progress. I believe that both men had very similar Ideals also. They both had veiws on the rise of industry and the destruction that man has wrought upon the earth. Hense the Ents and huorns in LOTR and the forests are also alive in CON.

Both were also religious men and thus we see sometimes similarities to the bible and its themes. THe death and resurection of Aslan and Gandalf(JESUS). Morgoth rebels in heaven at the beggining and is cast to Ea where he begins a campaign to destroy all things good and undo the plans and works of the almighty Eru (GOD). THe white which is present at the founding of narnia and begins to mar the works of Aslan. this is a clear satan character in both works. THe eldar rebel in the beggining of days (relativly) and turn their backs on the Valar. This could be seen as the jews turning away from god.

there are somany similarities though most are subtle that we can not say that one book is a copy of the other or anything remotely similar. We can merely say they were like minded friends who loved writing, had a true gift for it and have brought something great into millions of peoples lives and I think they shant be forgotten for many many long years, if ever even unto the end of days.

I love both books and I will never forget them.

Peace    H.

mighty ent man 04/Jul/2006 at 03:27 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Balin - Whilst you may be able to find religious similarities in Tolkien’s works they were not intentionally put in there by Tolkien. He purposefully avoided any religious allegories in his writings. However Lewis on the other hand has been shown to have desired to show Aslan as a Jesus character. Where as Gandalf was never intended to be viewed in that light.

I know that you can pick out elements of LOTR and then compare them to religion, you can do this wtih anything! But that does not mean that those similarities are there in the works. I am not a religious person so I never bother to compare things to religion.

I do however think that if comparing a book to religion helps you to understand it better then this is good thing.

Lil Sidhe 04/Jul/2006 at 11:43 AM
Winemaker of Lothlorien Points: 1017 Posts: 1861 Joined: 24/Dec/2005

In the Narnis series, C S Lewis mixed many mythologies together to create characters and story lines, i.e. fauns, centuars, and gorgons--> (the most famous gorgon was Medusa, gorgon  is similied in the white witch, a being that when some one looks at it, they turn to stone, the white witch turns people to stone with her wand) but Tolkien, who was in the reading group "The Inklings" with Lewis, was a firm believe in not  mixing mythologies.

Just a differene between the two, one has many mythologies and one is completely made up. (Except  for the lotr books relations to WW II, but whatever)

Dagorn Brewhard 05/Aug/2006 at 07:31 PM
Scribe of Erebor Points: 359 Posts: 34 Joined: 24/Jul/2006
i think that they both have many simalarities to each other. they both depic alot about christianity although narnia has a much stronger christian storyline. one of the simalarities i saw was between orcs and white witches sevants (this may have already been started but i didnt c it) the orcs were once elves (good) which became evil and fought against elves (fought against themselves) and the white witches servants were once good and then became evil and fought against the good versions of them. now after i thought about this for a sec i realized that although they r very close orcs were tortured into evil and the white witched sevants willingly chose to become evil. so i kinda just refuted myself. but that was a just the first simalarity i knoticed
Alassiel - na 07/Aug/2006 at 11:35 AM
Tween of the Shire Points: 55 Posts: 18 Joined: 24/Jul/2006

i think that we will find very simular topics between CS Lewis and Tolkien works as they were both good friends, compared each others work when they were writting the stories, gave adive and even had arguments that they were coping each others work. tolkien felt that part of the world he had made up was been used in CS Lewis narnia stories. though been Christian writters,  one was Catholic and one prosistent(can’t spell!) both had gone through the war, and both very good at english thier stories would both hold  very simular moral issues. tolkien put alot of his personal experiences into his storys, and so did Lewis, however tolkiens was the story of a world he had created to the tiniest detail while CsLewis was more christian based to help his younger relatives understand christianinty (as expressed in a letter he wrote)

looking at the four points that were mentioned at the beginning of this dicussion, one i do not completely agree! in narnia, when the 4 children come back though the wardrobe not a second has past, and nothing has happened, however when the four hobbits come back, not only has the land been changed, but also the four hobbits have been changed in character and maturity etc!!

sorry bout the waffle!

Arvellas 08/Aug/2006 at 02:28 PM
Warrior of Imladris Points: 5462 Posts: 3016 Joined: 16/May/2006

Overall, I’m not that surprised, since the authors of the books were friends and no doubt influenced each other’s writing, and because the movies were worked by a lot of the same people, as Alessa says.  They were, after all, both Inklings.

One thing I just thought of is that in the Narnia movie, there is a scene before they come out of the wardrobe in which they are all adults.  In LOTR, the Hobbits start out very innocent and cheeful, rather like children, caught forever in the youthful state of mind, even though they are fully grown.  By the end of their travels, they have "grown up" a lot.

Personally, I think the moviemakers were wrong to alter the end of LOTR by leaving out the Scouring of the Shire.  That was one of the most important parts to me.  Sure, you can stand up against evil on a mythic batlefield, surrounded by soldiers, but it’s much more difficult than trying to chase evil away from your own home, simply because it hurts so much to see your home so ruined and corrupted.  It is disheartening.  Yet the Hobbits managed to do it--and by themselves, too, without the help of Gandalf or Aragorn or any of the more powerful characters.  Only when the Scouring is finished do I get the feeling of "Okay, now it’s done...that was great."  I think it worked in Narnia, building onto the magical feeling of there truly being a parallel universe, because in that story, the world where the adventures took place and the world that remained unchanged were two different worlds.  In LOTR, they were the same world, so I don’t think it works to have the same kind of ending.  It clashes.

Bearamir 10/Aug/2006 at 12:28 PM
Emeritus Points: 16276 Posts: 16742 Joined: 21/Sep/2008

Ladies & Gentlemen:  Please remember, that this *is* the Ad Lore forum, and as such there are posting guidelines in effect.  Given that the intent of this forum is to provide "in depth" discussion on a variety of topics, excessive chattyness, over-large smilies, and short replies (just enough to garner a point) are all things that are NOT consistent with the kind of contributions we want here.

Moving forward, consider well what you post in this forum.  I’ve already deleted a half dozen posts in this thread.  These were without penalty.  If I find any more, however, I will seriously consider deleting *them* with penalty.

 

Harlindon 10/Aug/2006 at 11:23 PM
Soldier of Mordor Points: 1899 Posts: 1650 Joined: 17/Apr/2006

Heres just a few points I want to touch upon. (please excuse me if some of these things have been mentioned breifly; this thread is rather large and I might have forgotten some things mentioned at the beginning)

The battle of Pellenor Fields and the Battle of The LW&W were alike in more than a few ways. Allow me to ellaborate.

1. The defenders face extremely difficult odds, being greatly outnumbered in both Movies. The ’ggod guys’ have had a chance to entrench themselves in their own area and await the attack of teh enemy. There is very anxious waiting and eventually, the attack is made by teh forces of evil.
2. The part of the battle where both enemies collide is much like when the rohirrim arrive; A giant force locks the enemy in combat and gains an advantage for a while. Cheers are sent up when the wall of fire comes up, much like the music shortly after the charge of the rohirrim. Everything seems to be going very well and victory doesn’t seem that far away; hope is instilled in the hearts of the defenders. Then, to the dismay of the viewer and the defenders, things take a turn for the worst, and in a very bad way. The white witch blasting through the wall of fire is much like the mumakil being sent in to attack the rohirrim - All hope seems to fade as new and impossible obstacles are placed in the way of Victory.
3. Fierce fighting then ensues, with neither side seeming to gain any huge advantage. However, while this fighting is going on in teh backround, a new enemy enters the battle field. The White Witch for Narnia, and The Witch King for LOtR. The battle between Eowen and the WK and indirectly, Merry is extremely similar to the battle of the White Witch and Peter, abd indirectly, Edmund. They parallel eachother in almost every way except for in event order. Let me elaborate -

 - The witch king decides to go after the leader of the attacking force, Theoden. / The White Witch decides to go after teh leader of teh attacking force, Peter.

Similarities: The witch king and White Witch seem to be of like mind; killing the leader will hinder, deter, or even break up any resistance.

- The witch king is hindered by Eowen however, who cripples him in a way by killing his fell beast or The witch king is crippled by Merry’s barrow blade making him an easier opponent for Eowen. / The White witch is hindered by Edmund, who cripples her in a way by destroying the wand, which makes her an easier opponent for Peter.

Similarities:
Eowen seems to play both the role of Edmund and the role of Peter, in that she both cripples and epically battles with, the leader of the opposing forces. However, one could also link Merry and Edmund, in that they make teh enemy killable; The Witch king is stunned or made suceptible to normal blades depending on your opinion of the topic while the WW is made ’killable’ because it would be nearly impossible to defeat the WW with her wand; one stab and You’re stone.

- Fierce fighting and blows are exchanged between the WK and Eowen, with the WK having the advantage(seemingly / Fierce fighting adn clows are exchanged between teh White wtich and Peter, with the WW having the advantage.

Similarities: A little obvious isn’t it?

- Just when all hope is lost, Merry stabs The Wk with his barrow blade, giving Eowen the ability to kill him / Just when all hope is lost, Aslan comes and deals with teh WW

Similarities: Both enemies are caught just as they are about to triumph. Merry could be compared to Aslan, because he comes through at the last to save the hero.

- The WK is utterly vanquished and the at the Coming of teh Army of the Dead, the battle is all but won. / The WW si utterly vanquished, and at the coming of Aslan’s reinforcemenmts, the battle is all but won.

Similarities: Both battles are won by reinforcements brought at the last minute. Perhaps Aslan can be compared to Aragorn, because both end up being the ones to bring the reinforecements.

Both battles are won with no few losses, and the wounded are healed Lotr=houses of healing Narnia=lucy

So, if you compare characters, this is how I would rate everyone, based on my own analysis and comparisons of the battles.

Witch King = White Witch
Eowen = Edmund
Merry = Edmund
Eowen = Peter
Merry = Aslan
Aragorn =
Aslan

This is just my opinion, and I would be happy to discuss it with anyone.

halfir 11/Aug/2006 at 12:25 AM
Emeritus Points: 46547 Posts: 43664 Joined: 10/Mar/2002

This has nothing to do with the movies per se, but as several of those who have posted here appear to be laboring under the misapprehenison that Tolkien and Lewis helped one another on their fiction, it is important to point out that other than the earlier Science Fiction series of Lewis’s that largely met with Tolkien’s approval, Tolkien both disaproved of and intensely disliked the whole Narnia series, and most ceratinly did not aid Lewis in its writing. Moreover Lewis did not read any of the Narnia series to the Inklings for the simple reason that by the time of LWW the Inklings no longer met. Their last meeting was on 20 October 1949 and although some of the participants continued to have the Tuesday meetings at the Bird and Baby the term Inklings ceases to be used after that date.

Tolkien’s comment in Letter # 265 that Narnia remained:

’Out of the range of my sympathy’,

is to put it mildly, an understatement.

In his very critcal response to the Narnia series which hurt Lewis deeply, Tolkien made it clear that he found Lewis’s use of so many disparate characters a major defect. In a conversation with Roger Lancelyn Green, Tolkien said:

’I hear you’ve been reading Lewis’s children’s  story. It really won’t do you know. I mean to say ’Nymphs and their Ways, the Lovel-Life of a Faun" Doesn’t he know what he’s talking about?{Colin Duriez- JRR Tolkien and C S Lewis- Chapter 9 A Professor’s Wardrobe and Magic Rings}

George Sayer -formerly Head of English at Malvern College (until 1974} and a close friend of Lewis’s , and Tolkien’s, and himself involved with the Inklings, writes with regard toTolkien’s hostility to the Narnia series:

’Jack had always been constructively helpfuland sympathetic with Tolkiien’s writing, and he probably expected similar treatment. He was hurt, astonished, and discouraged when Tolkien said that he thought the book {The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe} was almost worthless, that it seemed like a jumble of unrelated mythologies. Because Aslan, the fauns, the White Witch, Father Christmas, the nymphs, and Mr. andMrs. Beaver had quite distinct mythological or imaginative origins, Tolkien thought it was a terrible mistake to put them together in Narnia, a single imaginative country. The effect for him was incongruous and, for him, painful.But Jack argued that they existed happily together in our minds in real life. Tolkien replied, ’Not in mine, or at least not at the same time.’

Tolkien never changed his view. He so strongly detested Jack’s assembling figures from various mythologies in his children’s books, that he soon gave up trying to read them. He also thought they were carelessly and superficially written. His condemnation was so severe that one suspects he envied the speed with which Jack wrote and compared it with his own laborious method of composition.’ {Jack- A Life of C S Lewis Chpt 17 Into Narnia}

And Tolkien, with his dislike of allegory, no doubt also held that against Lewis’s overtly allegorical children’s ficiton. He also found Lewis’s robust  Christianity  (which was very Chestertonian) embarrassing and certainly disaproved of  much his ’popularization’ of Christian ideas in his books and radio broadcasts.

Lewis had been fulsome - and cotinued to be so- in his praise of LOTR -his review of it was almost OTT- but Tolkien was not simply niggardly in his response to Lewis’s Narnia fiction, he was positively discouraging and hostile.

mighty ent man 15/Aug/2006 at 04:29 AM
Ent Elder of Fangorn Points: 6964 Posts: 6236 Joined: 04/Nov/2003

Dagorn - they both depic alot about christianity although narnia has a much stronger christian storyline.  - One depicts a lot, the other depicts none. Narnia is the one that does a lot, Tolkien on the other hand did not let his religion intrude onto his story. Yes he was strongly religious (being a strong Roman Catholic) but he did not put this part of him into his works. He put his clever mind into it, his knowledge of language, his knowledge of mythology and how to write a good story and make a new world.

Arvellas - Overall, I’m not that surprised, since the authors of the books were friends and no doubt influenced each other’s writing,  - They were very good friends and Tolkien greatly valued Lweis as a critic on his chapters as he wrote them. He also valued his sons(Christopher) views. However I do not think Lewis really had any huge influence over Tokliens writings, he read them and gave feedback but I am not sure if Tolkien changed anything as a result of this. It is the same the other way round, Tolkien was very critical of Narnia.

I agree with you about the Scouring of the Shire, although this is not the place to discuss that issue, it has been talked about a lot on the plaza. I think it should have been included, and if it had we would have another similarity to draw between the two films. The hobbits show great strength and wisdom to save the Shire on their own, as do the children to fight on when they think Aslan is dead and gone.

Harlindon -   A very complete and in-depth look at the two movie battles. I am glad you included it in your post for it shows the close relation of many such action films. Common components are needed in battles to make them appealing.

halfir - Excellent quotes there, shedding light on the views of Tolkien. I am currently reading through Tolkien’s letters and I find them quite fascinating and revealing to me.