NationStates Jolt Archive

this is about the movie what did you think of it?

personally I was majorally dissappointed and I want my 8 bucks back.

I shall leave any real comments until i see it but i thought the Computer 'stuff' was visible.

I won't ruin anything but the visuals except for some parts were disappointing. Blue screen was noticably everywhere. From a man who took part such a CGI blockbuster series as Shrek, I would expect so much more from him. It wasn't just the effects either, the children actors are really bad almost like Little Anakin bad. everyone else puts on a decent job though.

I felt it was a little lackluster as well. The characters and story just sort of clicked along. The old cartoon seemed to inspire more awe and fear, though to be fair I watched the cartoon as a kid and the movie as a post-Lord of the Rings adult.

I had also scared over Santa being in the story, which struck me as silly. But it is, essentially, a kids story, so...

I wanted to like it, I think mostly because I think Minataurs are cool, but I just couldn't get into it. Edmond's betrayal was sort of weak. They did work at the rift, and maybe I just didn't give that enough credence, but...maybe I'm not being fair to that bit.

A friend of mine compared the battle scene to watching an SCA battle. Aslan's sacrafice didn't seem that harsh. And the walk with Aslan, what was that, 40 feet? Some lapsing, make it seem more substantial would have been nice.

The Centaur seemed like a character that was developed in a different version but his development was cut out.

It didn't really stand out. I'm not upset that I saw it, I just wish I had gone to a matinee.

The old cartoon seemed to inspire more awe and fear, though to be fair I watched the cartoon as a kid and the movie as a post-Lord of the Rings adult.




and the scene where the lion is shaved is much creepier in the cartoon as well.





I just hope Adamson stays off the sequel and it gets better.

and the scene where the lion is shaved is much creepier in the cartoon as well.


No kidding. It's been decades since I've seen it and it's stilled seered in my head. Still kind of gives me chills.

I want to see it next week...is it ok for an 8year old child ?

I want to see it next week...is it ok for an 8year old child ?


yeah i believe so. If the child can read the book they can see the movie.

oh and if the child can handle the shaving part.

I went to the New Zealand premiere last Thursday, and I thought the movie was really good. The only flaw was really that the characters develop way too fast; one minute they are scared little children and the next they are able to hold their own in battle. I really don't know why anyone wouldn't like it unless they thought it was weak in comparison with the book, which I can't comment on, seeing as how I've never read it.

I went to the New Zealand premiere last Thursday, and I thought the movie was really good. The only flaw was really that the characters develop way too fast;


yeah the movie was only 2h 12m it should have been at least 3

They handled the story and the characters weakly, I didn't feel much depth in them. I loved the queen though, she can rule over me any time she wants.

One thing I don't get in these stories, why does Santa give the kids a sword, a bow, etc? If he knows what's coming he could have given them a chopper with a side-mounted machine gun, or a tank! That would have been a nice Christmas gift.

Stupid Santa. And no, I'm not bitter because he never brought me anything I asked him.

I want to see it next week...is it ok for an 8year old child ?

I thought it was alright. I took my 12 and 7 yr old sons. There were a few startling scenes, but nothing I think would be objectionable for children that age.
I was entertained. And glad they didnt roll out the spider from the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings movies. I figured they'd borrow it for this movie too.

I went to the New Zealand premiere last Thursday, and I thought the movie was really good. The only flaw was really that the characters develop way too fast; one minute they are scared little children and the next they are able to hold their own in battle. I really don't know why anyone wouldn't like it unless they thought it was weak in comparison with the book, which I can't comment on, seeing as how I've never read it.


I almost snorted a good amount of soda twice when the little girl drew the dagger to go and fight and then again later when she threw it at a target.

Incidentally, for amusement, from a review of the Lion, the Witch and
the Wardrobe on imdb:

"first of all, shutup about jesus and christianity in the books and
movies. its only recent that christians have decided that because CS
Lewis was an outspoken christian and because Aslan was similar to Jesus,
it MUST have underlying Christian tones. gasp, is it possible that it's
actually nothing but a story?"

Umm... no, it isn't!

I thought it was really good! Certainly did justice to the book which films nowadays don't tend to do, the acting was not the best, but come on, they are like 10 years old!! The acting in my view was like 10 times better than the first Harry Potter film, that was dreadful.

The fight scenes are good with some awesome action, it is like LOTR, not as good but then Narnia uses people for the fight scene and not CGI...

The CGI is obvious in places, but its IMO its fairly minor as the film is really good, not excellent but certainly entertaining for the whole family.

It was too short though, an extra hour would have improved the film so much because as previously, character development and more could have been added to the plot, not to mention longer fight scenes!

On the whole, it was really good, and yes i believe it would be suitable for over 8s (although i am only 18 and don't have kids...)

Graham

Incidentally, for amusement, from a review of the Lion, the Witch and
the Wardrobe on imdb:

"first of all, shutup about jesus and christianity in the books and
movies. its only recent that christians have decided that because CS
Lewis was an outspoken christian and because Aslan was similar to Jesus,
it MUST have underlying Christian tones. gasp, is it possible that it's
actually nothing but a story?"

Umm... no, it isn't!

I prefer to just think of it as a story, the whole christian thing would put me off, can't be assed to sit through a movie and think, umm..thats related to Christianity. Rather sit through Narnia and think...this is a really good film.

I think personally it is nothing but a story, the links are sooo vague that its coincidental.

Incidentally, for amusement, from a review of the Lion, the Witch and
the Wardrobe on imdb:

"first of all, shutup about jesus and christianity in the books and
movies. its only recent that christians have decided that because CS
Lewis was an outspoken christian and because Aslan was similar to Jesus,
it MUST have underlying Christian tones. gasp, is it possible that it's
actually nothing but a story?"

Umm... no, it isn't!Lewis certainly was a Christian and I think he probably did intend a Christian ethos in the Narnia novels. However, I think you can take what you want from them; if you want it to be some sort of religious allegory, that's not hard, but if you just want it to be a story, it's really not that hard to accept it on that level either.

I prefer to just think of it as a story, the whole christian thing would put me off, can't be assed to sit through a movie and think, umm..thats related to Christianity. Rather sit through Narnia and think...this is a really good film.

I think personally it is nothing but a story, the links are sooo vague that its coincidental.

You are perfectly welcome to enjoy it as a story but no, it's not coincidental. I promise.

You are perfectly welcome to enjoy it as a story but no, it's not coincidental. I promise.

Ahh as you have promised then, ok :D

too many parralels to NOT be an allegory to christ's death and resurrection. nothing wrong with it, though.

It sucked. The director should be drawn and quartered. But shave him first.

Incidentally, for amusement, from a review of the Lion, the Witch and
the Wardrobe on imdb:

"first of all, shutup about jesus and christianity in the books and
movies. its only recent that christians have decided that because CS
Lewis was an outspoken christian and because Aslan was similar to Jesus,
it MUST have underlying Christian tones. gasp, is it possible that it's
actually nothing but a story?"

Umm... no, it isn't!

Not entirely Christian. There are many figures from Greek mythology too. And wasn't the whole resurrection/saviour thing originally a Greek myth? Mithras or something.

If anything, at least the little girl was cute.

Not entirely Christian. There are many figures from Greek mythology too. And wasn't the whole resurrection/saviour thing originally a Greek myth? Mithras or something.

Yea but Christianity took it over it is now a Christian myth. I hated The Passion of The Christ. I saw it and still see it as the battle cry of the religous right. Although there is the Lion sacrifice thing and other Christian hints the movie didn't seem to have the ugly religous agenda of the passion of the Christ. The one thing I loved about the movie is the suggestion of Children warming the heart of the world.

Yea but Christianity took it over it is now a Christian myth. I hated The Passion of The Christ. I saw it and still see it as the battle cry of the religous right. Although there is the Lion sacrifice thing and other Christian hints the movie didn't seem to have the ugly religous agenda of the passion of the Christ. The one thing I loved about the movie is the suggestion of Children warming the heart of the world.

What was wrong with the movie, The Passion?

It wasn't a secret that it was a straightforward re-enactment of the last hours of Christ - straight out of the Bible.

If you're not religious, and don't like the subject, why did you go see it?

If you don't like the subject, don't go see the movie, especially if they tell you up front that the movie is re-enacting the Bible.

here we freaking go...

If anything, at least the little girl was cute.


I dont know how she's got yellow teeth so young.

I dont know how she's got yellow teeth so young.
She's British, and it's a permanent stereotype that British people have bad teeth.

I hated that book SO MUCH, so I have decided to not see the movie.

I dont know how she's got yellow teeth so young.
I was convinced that she was this year's poster child for the British Orthodontic Society. http://new.bos.org.uk/

I went to the New Zealand premiere last Thursday, and I thought the movie was really good. The only flaw was really that the characters develop way too fast; one minute they are scared little children and the next they are able to hold their own in battle. I really don't know why anyone wouldn't like it unless they thought it was weak in comparison with the book, which I can't comment on, seeing as how I've never read it.

In truth, that's how it happens in the books as well. Immediate jump from scared little children to ready-to-fight almost-adults.


Incidentally, for amusement, from a review of the Lion, the Witch and
the Wardrobe on imdb:

"first of all, shutup about jesus and christianity in the books and
movies. its only recent that christians have decided that because CS
Lewis was an outspoken christian and because Aslan was similar to Jesus,
it MUST have underlying Christian tones. gasp, is it possible that it's
actually nothing but a story?"

Umm... no, it isn't!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! That's almost as good as the idiotic VP at Disney claiming that he though C.S. Lewis would tell everyone that this is not a Christian book. Lewis was *incredibly* clear that these books were meant as Christian allegory. A reading of his own autobiography, as well as his essays, demonstrates quite clearly that he no longer thought it to be a good idea to create a fantasy world just for the sake of doing so - there had to be a point behind it. He also spent much less time on "perfecting" his fantasy world than, say, Tolkien, because the world itself was not the point - the meaning behind the stories was. LOL.

Yea but Christianity took it over it is now a Christian myth. I hated The Passion of The Christ. I saw it and still see it as the battle cry of the religous right. Although there is the Lion sacrifice thing and other Christian hints the movie didn't seem to have the ugly religous agenda of the passion of the Christ. The one thing I loved about the movie is the suggestion of Children warming the heart of the world.

The Chronicles of Narnia were always a Christian work; both it and the Lord of the Rings are the result of a college friendship between Lewis and Tolkien and their mutual love of classical mythology. They were disappointed that the primary means of conveying the morals and heritage of ancient civilization was essentially cut down to nothing but childish fairytales. They both decided to write their own sort of mythology by drawing from old myths and giving them Christian morals and meaning. While Tolkien’s work is much, much more subtle with its Christian tones I always saw Narnia as blatantly obvious.

The Chronicles of Narnia were always a Christian work; both it and the Lord of the Rings are the result of a college friendship between Lewis and Tolkien and their mutual love of classical mythology. They were disappointed that the primary means of conveying the morals and heritage of ancient civilization was essentially cut down to nothing but childish fairytales. They both decided to write their own sort of mythology by drawing from old myths and giving them Christian morals and meaning. While Tolkien’s work is much, much more subtle with its Christian tones I always saw Narnia as blatantly obvious.

I'm fairly certain that any Christian undertones in Tolkien's work were mostly accidental. Tolkien hated Lewis' Chronicles, denouncing them as silly and as "underdeveloped", which, compared to Middle Earth, they really were. He saw the idea of using them as Lewis did as a bit of a farce. Indeed, biographical accounts suggest that, after Lewis converted to Christianity, the friendship between the two was very strained.

Narnia was never as developed as Middle Earth, nor as consistent. However, the two were writing their stories for very different reasons. Consistency was not really a necessity to Lewis, who was using his fantasy world specifically to convey Christian metaphors. Tolkien, on the other hand, was creating a fantasy world to create a fantasy world, and he wanted it to be perfect.

I'm fairly certain that any Christian undertones in Tolkien's work were mostly accidental. Tolkien hated Lewis' Chronicles, denouncing them as silly and as "underdeveloped", which, compared to Middle Earth, they really were. He saw the idea of using them as Lewis did as a bit of a farce. Indeed, biographical accounts suggest that, after Lewis converted to Christianity, the friendship between the two was very strained.

Narnia was never as developed as Middle Earth, nor as consistent. However, the two were writing their stories for very different reasons. Consistency was not really a necessity to Lewis, who was using his fantasy world specifically to convey Christian metaphors. Tolkien, on the other hand, was creating a fantasy world to create a fantasy world, and he wanted it to be perfect.



Also Tolkien was a little bit crazy, and crazy people wrtie good stories. It's fact

For all those people who are saying it's not a christian allegory... You're kidding, right? I mean, you've GOT to be kidding.

I HATE literary interpretation... but when the author specifically says the thing is an allegory, the thing is an allegory. It's not interpretation, it's just what he says he meant by it. Not that you have to dwell on it, or even think about it, for it to be a great story. But you can't say it's not there when the author said it was there.

As to Tolkein, his books were intended for something of an older audience. Lewis generally wrote and lectured to "the common man" and it was intended to be accessable for everyone. Tolkein was a bit more high-brow. He didnt' dumb things down so everyone got everything. His writing and thoughts are more complex. He also was not a Christian apologist. He said he wrote from a christian perspective, but that was only because that was his perspective, not because he did it on purpose. And LOTR wasn't an allegory. It was a story.

I don't understand why this is even a point of debate. To know what they thought, you just look and see what they wrote and said. Lewis' Narnia was enitrely Christian. Tolkein's Middle Earth wasn't. They said so and no ammount of nay-saying will change it.

Also Tolkien was a little bit crazy, and crazy people wrtie good stories. It's fact

Yeah. I think Lewis was a bit crazy himself. As was Dorothy Sayers, just to throw in another of their gang. And she wrote a bunch of mysteries I like as well as either of the others.

(Ah, Lord Peter... I hope they memorialize you in movies too... it'd be a travesty, but a good sort of travesty.)

She's British, and it's a permanent stereotype that British people have bad teeth.

Its true,then? Stereotype aside, her teeth were terrible. It wouldnt have taken much to clean them up a bit, knowing they'd be so prevalent in a movie and all.
I'd be ashamed if it were my child.

Its true,then? Stereotype aside, her teeth were terrible. It wouldnt have taken much to clean them up a bit, knowing they'd be so prevalent in a movie and all.
I'd be ashamed if it were my child.
They could at least have gone back with the computer and brightened them up.

They could at least have gone back with the computer and brightened them up.

You saw the movie- didnt those teeth make you uncomfortable? Werent you inadvertantly licking your teeth clean while you watched?
I'm not vain and I dont use whiteners, but my teeth are pretty white. And I'm 38, I drink coffee and smoke at least one big cigar a week.
I dont think that kid does either yet. Her teeth should be like pearls.

Its true,then? Stereotype aside, her teeth were terrible. It wouldnt have taken much to clean them up a bit, knowing they'd be so prevalent in a movie and all.
I'd be ashamed if it were my child.

Someone go look at the book. Isn't she supposed to be somewhat ugly and with big yellow buck teeth? Probably they'll clean them up for later movies.

You saw the movie- didnt those teeth make you uncomfortable? Werent you inadvertantly licking your teeth clean while you watched?
I'm not vain and I dont use whiteners, but my teeth are pretty white. And I'm 38, I drink coffee and smoke at least one big cigar a week.
I dont think that kid does either yet. Her teeth should be like pearls.

Yes, and the fact that she needed braces in the worst way to straighten the teeth out.

I get on edge when I see severe acne on teenagers - I want to strangle their parents and tell them, "you know there's a cure for that?"

the guy who plays edmund (skandar keynes) is in my class!

What was wrong with the movie, The Passion?

It wasn't a secret that it was a straightforward re-enactment of the last hours of Christ - straight out of the Bible.

If you're not religious, and don't like the subject, why did you go see it?

If you don't like the subject, don't go see the movie, especially if they tell you up front that the movie is re-enacting the Bible.

I was encouraged to see it by those who suggested I couldn't critisise it without seeing. So I saw it and I still critisised it as Jerry Falwels propaganda piece.

mmm kimchi, i tried making some, it wasn't so great. ill leave it to the experts!

I was encouraged to see it by those who suggested I couldn't critisise it without seeing. So I saw it and I still critisised it as Jerry Falwels propaganda piece.

that's like saying the new testament is Falwell's propaganda piece.

Falwell didn't write either the New Testament or The Passion.

In fact, The Passion has been a long time traditional subject of art and music.

Sure, various churches tried to use it as a propaganda piece, but that's not why the film was made.

Also Tolkien was a little bit crazy, and crazy people wrtie good stories. It's fact

Yeah. Edgar Allen Poe for one. Samuel Clemmens is another.

Yeah. Edgar Allen Poe for one. Samuel Clemmens is another.
Clemens didn't seem crazy to me. I love the book, "Roughing It"

Yes, and the fact that she needed braces in the worst way to straighten the teeth out.

I get on edge when I see severe acne on teenagers - I want to strangle their parents and tell them, "you know there's a cure for that?"

I cringe when I see that too. I never had more than a few minor pimples here and there as a teen, but always had sympathy for those who did. Acne's a cruel condition.

Yeah. I think Lewis was a bit crazy himself.

I thoght CS Lewis was a woman.

Also Tolkien was a little bit crazy, and crazy people wrtie good stories. It's fact

Hehe. I think they both were a little crazy - but Tolkien probably moreso. I don't think you can make up an entire world, complete with new languages that you also make up, without being insane.


I thoght CS Lewis was a woman.

=) You thought incorrectly, hehe.

Clemens didn't seem crazy to me. I love the book, "Roughing It"

I didnt think of his writing as crazy- Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, Coonecticut Yankee, etc -all put you in the story. I love his writing.

He was an eccentric in day to day life. Brilliant, but eccentric. And eccentric is what crazy people are called after they make some dough and a name for themselves.

that's like saying the new testament is Falwell's propaganda piece.

Falwell didn't write either the New Testament or The Passion.

In fact, The Passion has been a long time traditional subject of art and music.

Sure, various churches tried to use it as a propaganda piece, but that's not why the film was made.

No disagreement there. Falwell didn't write the New Testament and he didn't write the passion. Although I'm near certian the producer intended it to be at least a means to promote the Christian faith. He may not have wished the Christian Right to use it as a propaganda film but they did.

Beyond that I'm near certian most if not all of the Jesus story is made up. Seems to me it was pieced together from other myths both within the Bible and outside the Bible.

Actually my critic of the film wasn't actually of the film itself. It was more about the people using for propaganda.

Narnia carried no such propaganda uglyness.

No disagreement there. Falwell didn't write the New Testament and he didn't write the passion. Although I'm near certian the producer intended it to be at least a means to promote the Christian faith. He may not have wished the Christian Right to use it as a propaganda film but they did.

Beyond that I'm near certian most if not all of the Jesus story is made up. Seems to me it was pieced together from other myths both within the Bible and outside the Bible.

The film was an extremely accurate portrayal of events taken directly and only from the New Testament (bit of liberty on Mary remembering Jesus when he was young, but that's it).

If you believe the Bible is accurate, then the film is accurate. If you believe the Bible is a storybook, then the movie was very faithful to the book.

I cringe when I see that too. I never had more than a few minor pimples here and there as a teen, but always had sympathy for those who did. Acne's a cruel condition.


when i was a young teen my acne was so bad i got piples in my ears.

when i was a young teen my acne was so bad i got piples in my ears.
Between Accutane, tetracycline, and a benzoyl peroxide wash, there's no reason to have a major case of acne in your teenage years.

It is psychologically scarring.

The teasing is psychology scrarring acne is just acne.

I didn't mind her yellow teeth. I found it strange but I didn't mind. I'm not big on vanity.

Between Accutane, tetracycline, and a benzoyl peroxide wash, there's no reason to have a major case of acne in your teenage years.

It is psychologically scarring.

Those are awfully abrasive and dangerous chemicals to clear up a few blemishes.

Let's see:
Accutane - can't go out in the sun without super-strong sunscreen, must be on the pill if you are a girl because it often causes severe birth defects, cannot give blood IIRC

Benzoyl peroxide - incredibly abrasive. If used incorrectly, can increase acne by overdrying skin. Many people have severe allergic reactions towards it, and most teenagers don't test it on a small patch of skin first as they are supposed to.

Those are awfully abrasive and dangerous chemicals to clear up a few blemishes.

Let's see:
Accutane - can't go out in the sun without super-strong sunscreen, must be on the pill if you are a girl because it often causes severe birth defects, cannot give blood IIRC

Benzoyl peroxide - incredibly abrasive. If used incorrectly, can increase acne by overdrying skin. Many people have severe allergic reactions towards it, and most teenagers don't test it on a small patch of skin first as they are supposed to.

I'm talking about cystic acne - if you have a few blemishes, the tetracycline usually works rather nicely.

Acne?
Teeth?

How did you get onto this?!
You people are insane.

Well, I really liked the film, but I thought The Queen was rubbish.
Not so much icy as slightly chilled - verging on lukewarm.
She wasn't nearly scary enough as she should have been. The one from the TV series was terrifying!

And she looked like she was wearing a bowl. What was with the dresses? And she had dreads! Serious issue going on there...

Apart from her, I really liked it, and I thought Tumnus was awesome. (Is it wrong to fancy a dude who's half goat?) I was worried, cos I love the books so much, but i was pleasantly surprized.

Acne?
Teeth?

How did you get onto this?!
You people are insane.



When you talk about films with british acrors acne and teeth tend to come up a lot

Acne?
Teeth?

How did you get onto this?!
You people are insane.

No, we're bored because the movie was rubbish.
I'll admit that when they said years back that they were turning the Lord of the Rings into movies, I thought they would do something stupid. Turns out, I was impressed and satisfied.

Hopefully, I went to see the Narnia movie - which turned out to be as stupid as they could have made it. I blame Disney.

There's nothing wrong with most British people's skin and teeth.
It's just the same in every country.

I blame Disney.

GAH! Disney didn't make the film!
They just put money into it.

GAH! Disney didn't make the film!
They just put money into it.
That's all it took. I'm sure they put some pressure on the director.

GAH! Disney didn't make the film!
They just put money into it.


Which still puts them as much at fault as the guy who directed it.
What did they put their money into? Another failure thats what. Kinda like that alamo movie.

Seriously. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Somebody starts a thread, and within ten posts people take it as an opportunity to argue and hack people off. Gah!
I'm actually a nice person believe it or not, and I don't come on these threads to argue whats right or wrong on a thread about a flipping movie.

Seriously. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Somebody starts a thread, and within ten posts people take it as an opportunity to argue and hack people off. Gah!
I'm actually a nice person believe it or not, and I don't come on these threads to argue whats right or wrong on a thread about a flipping movie.
Well, I will admit that it's better than this BBC production I saw on DVD. But that's not saying much.

They could have at least done as good a job with the special effects, acting, and cinematography as was done with LOTR - it's really obvious that the director didn't really care to try as hard.

when i was a young teen my acne was so bad i got piples in my ears.

Sorry to hear that. I can only imagine how self-conscious you must have been.

Well, I will admit that it's better than this BBC production I saw on DVD. But that's not saying much.

They could have at least done as good a job with the special effects, acting, and cinematography as was done with LOTR - it's really obvious that the director didn't really care to try as hard.


exactly, especially with LOTR and Harry Potter now dominating as the new Fantasy epics, Narnia better ship up or ship out. And get rid of Adamson as director.

They handled the story and the characters weakly, I didn't feel much depth in them. I loved the queen though, she can rule over me any time she wants.

One thing I don't get in these stories, why does Santa give the kids a sword, a bow, etc? If he knows what's coming he could have given them a chopper with a side-mounted machine gun, or a tank! That would have been a nice Christmas gift.

Stupid Santa. And no, I'm not bitter because he never brought me anything I asked him.

It's part of an allegory from the book

When you talk about films with british acrors acne and teeth tend to come up a lot


They could always go back to squealing about it being a subvertive plot to teach you about the Passion

When you talk about films with british actors acne and teeth tend to come up a lot

It's part of the allegory about the condition of the UK...

Seriously. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Somebody starts a thread, and within ten posts people take it as an opportunity to argue and hack people off. Gah!
I'm actually a nice person believe it or not, and I don't come on these threads to argue whats right or wrong on a thread about a flipping movie.
Welcome to NS General!
:fluffle:

Anyway, the book may have been written as a Christian allegory, but christianism uses myths and concepts that are as old as humanity itself and not at all exclusive. In the end, the movie has no more christianity than Star Wars.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]I'm fairly certain that any Christian undertones in Tolkien's work were mostly accidental. QUOTE]

On the contrary, Tolkien was just more subtle than Lewis.

"Responding to a letter from Father Robert Murray suggesting Tolkien's story impressed him as entirely about grace, Tolkien wrote: "...The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first but consciously in the revision."

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/2003/issue78/6.8.html

I thoght CS Lewis was a woman.

ROFL

(I'd be laughing with you, if only you were laughing...)

Yeah. Edgar Allen Poe for one. Samuel Clemmens is another.


I heard someplace (read: this is unsubstantiated rumor, as far as I know) that Poe actually died of rabies. So that is what a brilliant writer with rabies writes. Quoth the raven, Nevermore.

ROFL

(I'd be laughing with you, if only you were laughing...)


I AM hehehehe


I used to think that when I was just a wee child, but then i was told a couple weeks later.

It's part of the allegory about the condition of the UK...

Heh, yeah, think we established that.

That teeth stereotype always confused me...I think it comes from before the British had tooth paste, and the American soilders, who did, commented on it during WW2. Didn't take long for it to change, but the stereotype continuing to this day despite no basis in reality anymore is quite strange.