THE PACK Message Boards

I'm trying to remember - during the movie (I liked it btw), they seemed more like talking wolves, or talking dire-wolves than weres. At least, there was no gestalt or human transformations.

I liked the wolves okay, but they did look somehow strange. The shape of their heads was kind of....toaster-y. The little fox guy was very neat, too. Now if there were only some coyotes.....

I really enjoyed just looking around the whole world there...so much to see!

Baphnedia wrote:I'm trying to remember - during the movie (I liked it btw), they seemed more like talking wolves, or talking dire-wolves than weres. At least, there was no gestalt or human transformations.

There were plenty of talking wolves, but the werewolves were different (there were no transformations, though).

From what I remember, there was at least one werewolf during the sacrifice scene (pretty close to the stone table. You didn't see much of him, though). Most of them could be seen during the battle. They were in gestalt form, but they bounced around like big... bouncing apes or something. I wasn't very pleased with that.

All in all, they didn't get much screen time.



I enjoyed the movie, though. There were a few things that got to me, but it was definitely worth seeing.


The gryphons got some decent screen time, at least. That was a treat.

-- Vilkacis

Looks like I'm going to have to make it to the theaters now. Finally a film worth going to the theaters to see. Or according to what I've read here.

I just saw it.

Was pretty good. Esspecially the battle. And the Wolves ( though on the evil side) were awesome. Moved pretty well, looked damn fine (all the animals did really, the CG fur looked so real...) and Maugrim had a awesome voice.



[spoiler]Though, I wasn't too pleased with how Maugrim died. Kinda crappy.
Jumped onto Peter's sword. Dumbass. All the cool badguys manage to die in stupid ways. Maugrim pulled a Boba/Jango Fett. He was badass - then he went and got himself killed in a assinine way. *grumble*

The Ice Queen's death was cool, though. Aslan tackled her and *Rwwaaarh* Ker-die. Mwhaha. Total pwnage. [/spoiler]

I managed to glimspe the werewolf in the sacrifice scence, I think. Hard to spot, but he was there. Too bad he wasn't in the battle scene. That rocked. The battle scene was the best part, IMO.

Aki wrote: [spoiler]Though, I wasn't too pleased with how Maugrim died. Kinda crappy.
Jumped onto Peter's sword. Dumbass. All the cool badguys manage to die in stupid ways. Maugrim pulled a Boba/Jango Fett. He was badass - then he went and got himself killed in a assinine way. *grumble*[/spoiler]

Yeah, unfotunately, and then after that you don't see any of them anymore

Lupin wrote:

Aki wrote: [spoiler]Though, I wasn't too pleased with how Maugrim died. Kinda crappy.
Jumped onto Peter's sword. Dumbass. All the cool badguys manage to die in stupid ways. Maugrim pulled a Boba/Jango Fett. He was badass - then he went and got himself killed in a assinine way. *grumble*[/spoiler]

Yeah, unfotunately, and then after that you don't see any of them anymore

You see 'em. They just are really really really in the background.

Aki wrote:

Lupin wrote:

Aki wrote: [spoiler]Though, I wasn't too pleased with how Maugrim died. Kinda crappy.
Jumped onto Peter's sword. Dumbass. All the cool badguys manage to die in stupid ways. Maugrim pulled a Boba/Jango Fett. He was badass - then he went and got himself killed in a assinine way. *grumble*[/spoiler]

Yeah, unfotunately, and then after that you don't see any of them anymore

You see 'em. They just are really really really in the background.

That's a pretty big demotion, though.

Lupin wrote:

Aki wrote:

Lupin wrote:

Aki wrote: [spoiler]Though, I wasn't too pleased with how Maugrim died. Kinda crappy.
Jumped onto Peter's sword. Dumbass. All the cool badguys manage to die in stupid ways. Maugrim pulled a Boba/Jango Fett. He was badass - then he went and got himself killed in a assinine way. *grumble*[/spoiler]

Yeah, unfotunately, and then after that you don't see any of them anymore

You see 'em. They just are really really really in the background.

That's a pretty big demotion, though.

Yeah, but considering one of them was responsible for leading Aslan's forces to the White Queen's troops, it's not that severe.

I ment important demotion in importance in the story.

I went to see it again with my Mom on Christmas last week. The film's good, but there was something about it that just...bothered me.

Then I thought about it and read a review and something the reviewer said hit me right upside the forehead — THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THE FILM, AT ALL!! None!

No genitals, either. And we get several from-behind shots of Aslan and as you know...yeah, lion package is right out there for everyone to see.

No blood, anatomically edited, where's the PG? The battle scene, sure, but that wasn't any worse than the wildebeest stampede scene in <i>Lion King</i>. Maybe Ridley Scott's films and Branagh's <i>Henry V</i> spoiled me, but that battle scene was pretty low octane. I can only assume that the PG is in the sacrifice of Aslan, which is emotionally quite hard to go through (I wanted to wring that dwarf's rotten little neck). For my money, I think they should have brought the intensity up to this level and REALLY engage the audience. I was only engaged because I know and love the books.

Eh, well. They got six more. Let's hope they fix it for <i>The Magician's Nephew</i> and <i>The Silver Chair</i>.

vrikasatma wrote:I went to see it again with my Mom on Christmas last week. The film's good, but there was something about it that just...bothered me.

Then I thought about it and read a review and something the reviewer said hit me right upside the forehead — THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THE FILM, AT ALL!! None!

No genitals, either. And we get several from-behind shots of Aslan and as you know...yeah, lion package is right out there for everyone to see.

No blood, anatomically edited, where's the PG? The battle scene, sure, but that wasn't any worse than the wildebeest stampede scene in <i.>Lion King</i>. Maybe Ridley Scott's films and Branagh's <i>Henry V</i> spoiled me, but that battle scene was pretty low octane. I can only assume that the PG is in the sacrifice of Aslan, which is emotionally quite hard to go through. For my money, I think they should have brought the intensity up to this level and REALLY engage the audience. I was only engaged because I know and love the books.

Eh, well. They got six more. Let's hope they fix it for <i>The Magician's Nephew</i>.

I don't mind the lack of genitals. For a movie that little kids are going to be seeing, I think that's appropriate. Also, for a character that is supposed to be representative of Jesus, I personally would have found it to be a little weird.

But, I agree that there should be at least a little blood. Nothing over-the-top, but at least some. After all, it's not like little kids haven't seen BLOOD before. Hell, when I was a kid, I somehow managed to injure myself almost every day. Plus, we skinned deer and other animals all the time, and I turned out fine, so I can say conclusively that blood is not by default frightening or disturbing. The total lack of blood is more weird than an appropriate amount.

Also, in regards to the PG rating, part of it might come from the fact that, in one scene (only a split second), a centaur gets its leg cut off.

H'mm, missed that. And the gryphon who got turned to stone and smashed to pieces (oops...no resurrection for that guy...)

I do agree on the lack of blood being quite weird, especially when the whole movie builds up to a major martial confrontation between monsters and big mythological beasts. They'd probably explain the lack of blood/genitals away as "Narnia is a magical land, nobody needs to breed and they're sustained by magic, not biological systems." (Okay, I guess having meals is just for fun, then).

Side note: I'm listening to "The Organ Loft" on my local classical station now and they're playing the Mickey Mouse Club theme song on a pipe organ...

Edit: I don't think it's a movie/series for little kids, I mean the real little ones (ages 3-6). As for older...come ONNNN! We were playing Doctor and Playboy Photographer when we were seven back in the late Sixties! If the female centaurs can have knockers, you can show a lion's yarblockos.

Excelsia wrote:

vrikasatma wrote:I went to see it again with my Mom on Christmas last week. The film's good, but there was something about it that just...bothered me.

Then I thought about it and read a review and something the reviewer said hit me right upside the forehead — THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THE FILM, AT ALL!! None!

No genitals, either. And we get several from-behind shots of Aslan and as you know...yeah, lion package is right out there for everyone to see.

No blood, anatomically edited, where's the PG? The battle scene, sure, but that wasn't any worse than the wildebeest stampede scene in <i.>Lion King</i>. Maybe Ridley Scott's films and Branagh's <i>Henry V</i> spoiled me, but that battle scene was pretty low octane. I can only assume that the PG is in the sacrifice of Aslan, which is emotionally quite hard to go through. For my money, I think they should have brought the intensity up to this level and REALLY engage the audience. I was only engaged because I know and love the books.

Eh, well. They got six more. Let's hope they fix it for <i>The Magician's Nephew</i>.

I don't mind the lack of genitals. For a movie that little kids are going to be seeing, I think that's appropriate.

You know...have you guys ever thought of this.

There has been lots of times where little kids go to the zoo with thier parents. They sometimes come across animals having sex. But these little kids have no clue as to whats going on. (True fact) Will the parents tell the kids what the animals are really doing? Hmmm?

So if the lion is missing his *ahem* the little kids are not going to notice. The adults will. Besides, why in the world does the adult want to look there in the 1st place!?!

It's a question of completeness. And I feel like I'm being talked down to by that kind of censorship. I don't like the condescending tone of...editing anatomy.

"We must protect the innocent minds of the children!"
"From what, a picture?"
For Pete's sake, when will this country grow up? Europeans laugh at Americans for our prudishness. And they're right!When has a picture of a penis ever injured anybody, by any definition? The Danish, the French, the Dutch change into their beach clothes right out in plain sight and nobody bats an eyelash.

Little kids don't care. Adults see it and pass over it. If it's not there, it reads to the adult as "weird" — the product is flawed.

Sorry...grew up during the Sexual Revolution in the '70s. Guess I'm spoiled.

vrikasatma wrote:
Little kids don't care. Adults see it and pass over it. If it's not there, it reads to the adult as "weird" — the product is flawed.

Makes you wonder why hollywood is going through the trouble of doing this.

http://www.killermovies.com/s/superman/ ... /5712.html

Meh, I hardly care for genitals on CG animals, the lack doesn't bother me much.

The lack of blood did. Essopecially since [spoiler]Aslan said "Clean your sword" after Maugrim got impaled on Peter's sword. Clean it of WHAT pray tell? The wolf impaled on it? [/spoiler]

Or when.. [spoiler]Aslan went all "RAWR!" and ate the Ice Queen's face, or tore her throat out or whatever. Apparently Aslan has blood-resistant fur. [/spoiler]

And of course, the battle scene needed it..

Figarou wrote:Makes you wonder why hollywood is going through the trouble of doing this.

Oh, wonderful! They're turning Superman into a eunuch now!

What's his next job? Guarding the harem? When did the bloody Hayes Office open for business again?

Figarou wrote:You know...have you guys ever thought of this.

There has been lots of times where little kids go to the zoo with thier parents. They sometimes come across animals having sex. But these little kids have no clue as to whats going on. (True fact) Will the parents tell the kids what the animals are really doing? Hmmm?

If they're good parents, then yes. But that's another discussion entirely.

The lack of blood was rather weird. I hate the censorship thing. It's not only the Europeans that laugh at us, it's damn near everybody. Only in America are kids so delicate that they can't see blood...

...Despite the fact that kids are notorius for finding new ways of injuring themselves. (And walking in on their parents for that matter...) I've skinned BOTH of my knees before - repeatedly - and you can bet they bled.

Reilune wrote:

Figarou wrote:You know...have you guys ever thought of this.

There has been lots of times where little kids go to the zoo with thier parents. They sometimes come across animals having sex. But these little kids have no clue as to whats going on. (True fact) Will the parents tell the kids what the animals are really doing? Hmmm?

If they're good parents, then yes. But that's another discussion entirely.

The lack of blood was rather weird. I hate the censorship thing. It's not only the Europeans that laugh at us, it's damn near everybody. Only in America are kids so delicate that they can't see blood...

...Despite the fact that kids are notorius for finding new ways of injuring themselves. (And walking in on their parents for that matter...) I've skinned BOTH of my knees before - repeatedly - and you can bet they bled.

Have you seen the beginning of Saving Private Ryan? Would you like to have that type of battle scene in Narnia? It would make it more realistic. But since little kids are going to see this movie, you're going to have to cut back on something. You don't want to frighten the child with horrific battle scenes and gore.

I haven't seen <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> but I have seen Lord of the Rings. The battle scenes in the Two Towers would have been a good analog and a battle like that probably wouldn't have scandalized anyone (since everyone and his brother's cousin's niece's dog has seen it).

I wouldn't suggest having a battle scene like the one that kicked off <i>Gladiator</i>. That would be a little too much for the rest of the movie.

It is strange that half the movie says, "Okay, there's going to be a big kick-a** battle before this is all over" and decide to get all politically correct right then. It's a flaw, and disrespectful of the audience. I gave Narnia a "Flawed But Worthy" grade in my Yahoo!Movies grading system.

I saw the movie on the 30th; loved it.

I've read all the books, 'cept DawnTreader, a couple years back. I was for ever hooked, and Aslan had become my hero. So after watching the trailers and hearing about how great the movie was, I couldn't resist, I pestered my father until we finally went to see it.

The Movie was beautiful. Much unlike the first movie made of it, this one has incredible graphics. The landscape and creatures were beautiful; I was amazed at how well they looked. It was very exciting for me, to see one of my favorite fantasy stories brought to life. The whole time I gawked and sat at the end of my seat, even softly whining 'Oh no, Aslan, don't do it Aslan!' to myself when Aslan had made his slow march to be sacrificed.

Then I thought about it and read a review and something the reviewer said hit me right upside the forehead — THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THE FILM, AT ALL!! None!

No genitals, either. And we get several from-behind shots of Aslan and as you know...yeah, lion package is right out there for everyone to see.

Uh....shouldn't that be a good thing?

You know, I didn't notice there was no blood until you mentioned it. I loved the battle scene, it was absolutely my favorite part; I adored it. I think it's awesome the battle scene didn't need blood; it was great the way it was.

And I personally prefer the 'package' off of Aslan. I find no reason why people need to be caring about the fact Aslan had nothing 'down there'. I didn't notice anything wrong, and I certainly like it that way; I don't want to see a lion's stuff in a movie. I don't want to see it.

From what I remember, there was at least one werewolf during the sacrifice scene (pretty close to the stone table. You didn't see much of him, though). Most of them could be seen during the battle. They were in gestalt form, but they bounced around like big... bouncing apes or something. I wasn't very pleased with that.

All in all, they didn't get much screen time.

Yes, during that scene all I was searching for were the werewolves. I got a bit frustrated though, because I wanted to see the werewolves, and they didn't stay on the screen very long. Yet are you sure they were werewolves? I mean, they looked a lot like hyenas, Gnolls maybe?

There were wolves, hyaenas and werewolves. They were white, in gestalt form pretty much throughout. There were wereboars in gestalt as well, all over the place.

outwarddoodles wrote:Yet are you sure they were werewolves? I mean, they looked a lot like hyenas, Gnolls maybe?

I'm pretty sure the one in the sacrifice scene howled, at least...

-- Vilkacis

hhhmmm.....As to the lack of genitals thing, I refer to my above comments. For me, and many other Christians, it would have been weird to see a character representative of Jesus having genitalia (and yes, I am aware that Jesus had a penis, a fact that I don't like to think about). For me, it's more of a matter of godliness. Having such a godly character be devoid of genitalia seems totally appropriate to me. It kind of lifts him up to a higher level.

Also, before anyone says anything, yes, Aslan was supposed to be representative of Jesus. C.S. Lewis is one of the greatest Christian writers of late, and he created Aslan as sort of an interpretation of what God might be like if a world like Narnia existed.