to a commenter

Wow, I would love to know who actually posted the following comment:

If you had done your research, you would note that The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe was put out as a movie YEARS ago, in a more modest and special-effect free version! Why make such a big deal over making a movie of a book. Some of us can take enough from paper, but others need a visual to stimulate the mind. Why not consider that people who see the movie may now want to read the book, and how knows..maybe devour the entire series. stop limiting the ways that God can work!

Dear Anonymous,

I have, in fact, seen the original BBC release of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. They weren't modest and special-effect free. They were cheesy and lame. The acting was pretty well awful, and that's just it. Did I think it was alright when I was ten? Sure, but I was ten. As this most recent release was the first one made as a movie, not a TV special, I will continue to consider it the official film release, just as I don't consider the 1978 version of the Lord of the Rings as the official film release. Hope that's okay.

Further to that, you say: Why make such a big deal over making a movie of a book. Some of us can take enough from paper, but others need a visual to stimulate the mind.

Did you read the article? It wasn't about whether or not making a movie was bad as an aid to people. The article was about the nature of art and whether written art can really be crossed over to audio/visual art. It was about whether the form art is done in matters. Why make such a big deal over making a movie of a book? Well, I guess it's because it's finally a chance for some dialogue on art in the little Christian sphere in which we operate. Christians are bad at art, and we're bad at understanding it. These aren't important discussions because a movie was made of a book. These are important discussions because Christians need really great art and because maybe our tendency to commercialize things isn't helping that.

Furthermore, I work as a book editor. I think I'm slightly inclined to be defensive about books. When Faramir is messed up in The Two Towers, I get a little bugged because that's not a good or even a mediocre use of artistic license. It's lousy art.

Finally, regarding stop limiting the ways that God can work! To quote Hank Hill, that is asinine. Sunrises in Italy. Inviting a discussion on the artistic merit of making Narnia, a work of children's literature (literature: imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value) into a movie is not limiting the ways that God can work. It's an artistic discussion. It's a good thing. It's good for us to think about what we're feeding ourselves on. It's not like I said "God will damn this awful film, its creators, and all those who enjoyed it." I think it's a great adaptation of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Minus that stupid waterfall scene, anyway. I just also think that we should be able to discuss the artistic merit of it without being attacked as though we're limiting the ways that God can work.

I guess what really gets me about this is the tone used... especially given that I really enjoyed the movie that apparently I'm being ridiculously, consistently negative about. I apologize if that's really how my post came off.