Originally posted by: GoodMusician

Sorry... I always saw Casino Royal as a separate take on Bond... I didn't see it as bad, but I've never read the book and knowing that it was written years ago... there is no way that movie was even loosely based on it...

Actually, Casino Royale is amazingly similiar to the novel on which it is based. I would almost go as far to say that it is one of the closest book to film adaptions I have seen in a long time. I have only read a few Bond books, but I have seen every film, and usually they are very loosely based on the novel, I was surprised when I saw Royale. Even the carpet beater sequence is almost straight out of the book.

"Never.... Ever.... Compare Novel to Film. They are two separate media. To say one is better or worse then the other is simply not possible."

That is an interesting thought, and to an extent I would agree with you. But I think it is not only possible, but inevitable. I agree both are art forms, no doubt about it, but we are not talking about the Great Gate of Kiev of the Modest Mussorgsky suite here. Those are too completely different styles and types of art, but both film and liturature are subcatagories of the art of story. And when it comes to books to films or films to books we are talking about one of these subcatagories retelling and already existing story. It would be more like Leonardo repainting the Mona Lisa but this time with water colors instead of oil paints. Of course people would compare the two, some would say they like the new dynamic brought to the work by the water colors, others would say it was a great painting before and that it was silly repaint it, while others would say they both unique and wonderful works of art. But they would be compared, no doubt about it.

When somebody writes a great novel and years later it is converted to film, of course people are going to compare the two. Some will like both, some will hate one and love the other, and others may hate them both. But they are anything but on comparable. Unlike the Great Gate of Kiev and the Modest Mussorgsky suite, Jurassic Park the novel and Jurassic Park the film are forever intertwined with one another, even if both incarnations are both excellent, as in the case of Jurassic Park, one is still a retelling or reimagining of the other.

As for Narnia, the reason it had such a theological message was because of how close it stayed true to Lewis' book. Those analogies from his original works were carried over to the film, being as it is the heart of the story, it would be impossible for it not to have been and to have stayed the same story. It is interesting you say you were stuck comparing it to the Bible and felt it was a knock off copy of the New Testament, because it really has very little in common with the Bible other than the theme of the savior and the sacrifice of an innocent life for a guilty one and the resurrection. Countless people have read those books and never picked up on any religious tones. As far as narrative goes, there is absolutely nothing in common with the New Testament (except perhaps for the resurrection, but you really have to be pulling to come up with that. Last time I read through my New Testament Jesus didn't run into battle with the women on his back right after he was brought back to life the very morning after he died). I think the problem with Narnia was that when it was released there were too many religious groups pushing the thing and preaching sermons on it. I can't even remember how many church billboards I passed that had some mention of The Chronicles of Narnia in it. Even the woman who drew the illustrations for the books didn't know that the book had anything to do with religion until much later, and was surprised when she found out. The comparisons in Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are pretty abstract, I don't think many people would pick up on them if it wasn't hinted to them before hand. Sorry to hear you didn't enjoy it, it really is a great story, I think all of the religious groups pushing that film didn't help it any, I am afraid I have seen many people get too hung up on the religious "analogies" that they didn't see the story for what it really was. So, you are not the only one GM. Even Lewis' did not intend the thing to be a religious work. Aslan isn't even really suppose to be Christ. The idea Lewis had behind Aslan was more of "what if other worlds existed? If God were to send them a savior as he sent us Jesus, what would that savior be like?" Lewis was a theologian, so it stands to reason that he would throw a fair amount of theology into his fiction.