C.S. Lewis took part in World War I and lived through World War II. He realized the world is sometimes a very violent place and this is why it's in his writing.

I don't feel the books or movies glorify violence and battles but they include them to acknowledge the ugly conflicts between good and evil. The movies omit a lot of the grit and grime in the original books (which does cause them to look too artificial) and if the filmmakers were accurate to everything in Lewis' stories, we sure would be seeing blood.

In fact, I once brought up the fact that the Stone Table scene in the LWW film is slightly weak because of the absence of any blood. Imagine how striking it would have been to see a small trickle of red run down into the ancient lettering on the table. That blood could have been a powerful visual symbol for Aslan's sacrifice.

I don't think the battles in the books are ever meant to be "Yay! Cool! Uber-violence FTW!" moments. The LB battle comes to mind in particular for the sheer despairing hopelessness of it all. I don't think Lewis ever intended the reader to come away thinking that battles were something to glory in. The movies give the direct opposite impression. LWW almost completely abandoned the destruction of the WW's castle and the freeing of the statues for more battle scenes, the main battle in PC is wildly extended, and the truly clever and funny Lone Islands takeover scene from the book is wholly scrapped in favor of yet another generic fantasy battle scene. Far from presenting violence in a negative light, the films seem determined to present violence as the only option.

I never once felt like the battles, duels, or war scenes in The Chronicles of Narnia are without purpose or glorified beyond their means. C.S. Lewis intended for there to be perilous and violent moments in the series, such as the death of Aslan or The Last Battle.

In a film, you must be able to portray that same sense of peril in a visual format; displaying violence is sometimes a means to that end. Sure, some people abhor seeing violence and death on screen even as tame as it is in the Chronicles of Narnia films, but I feel like the great perilous moments in the series would have suffered as a result of keeping things more PC.

The Chronicles of Narnia books display war with acts of violence. Protagonists and antagonists kill to achieve a means to an end. Removing these acts of violence is to paint a picture that wars are indeed not violent nor perilous nor without grave consequence is probably more harmful in my opinion.

I didn't intend to imply that the original Chronicles glorified battles and violence. I just felt like the movies painted a very unrealistic picture of what battles like.

The epic battles in the Narnia movies are the first epic battles that many children will see. In them, (except for the Night Raid), it just looks like people wave weapons at each other, hit each other, and fall down. And no important characters ever die. To a child, battles could look cool because you can just charge in, have fun knocking around a bunch of enemies, and then emerge victorious. Much of the seriousness of the battles is lost when elements of realism aren't there.

The books- no

The movies- at times... whether it's intentional or not I'm not sure, probably a mixture of both, but there's definitely an argument there... I would say though that stems more from our culture in that just about every movie glorifies violence in someways. Even things like The Lion King has elements of violence that have been "dramatacized" or "made safer"...

No they don't. Fighting for what is right, perhaps. Using violence gratuitiously for anything- absolutely not.

Note- I am not a pacifist. I understand that the military has many benefits. And just war has its time and place. So your opinion on this may vary.

But in no way do I think that the Narnia movies glamorize war and violence.

Then why did they put a fight in the place of cleverness and the characters using their brain? Apparently someone responsible for the creation of VDT thought EPIC! Battle scene > Intelligence. If that's not glorifying violence, then what is it? It's certainly sending the message that one is preferable to the other.

Even things like The Lion King has elements of violence that have been "dramatacized" or "made safer"...

But even the Lion King introduced the concept that important characters can die. And Simba ultimately didn't kill Mufasa or even use violence to defeat him.

I agree with Bookwyrm. The battles on the Lone Islands in VDT are nothing but mindless action. The battle versus the slave traders doesn't even have any visible strategic planning to it. It's just 60 seconds of random shots of Narnians kicking the slave trader's butts.

No I don't agree that the Narnia films glorify battles and violence. The White Witch was a violent character who would turn people to stone, much like a basilisk. She needed to be opposed. Boys who grew up during WW2 might be forgiven for glorifying war etc, but Peter in the films was a bit uncertain about having to fight at first. Although Peter and Edmund fought against the White Witch, she would have won if it hadn't been for Aslan's reinforcements coming in the nick of time.

In film PC Peter is getting into brawls and when he goes to Narnia, his night raid on Miraz goes seriously amiss. Peter gets reprimanded by the Warden on the station, rather than the other boys he complained about, and in the night raid, a lot of his followers got killed. When he faces Miraz in the single combat, Peter, in a deleted scene, discusses with Caspian what else he planned to do with his life, and he wonders what happens if he gets killed. Yes they overthrew Miraz, who right at the beginning of the film let known what his intentions were towards Caspian and then the Old Narnians. But in the end, Miraz was defeated by Aslan and the newly awakened natural forces as much as by armed opposition.

Film VDT starts off with Edmund lining up to enlist. Yes there is that violence in Narrowhaven, but for the remainder of the film the message is loud and clear that we are our own worst enemies, that when fighting, it is our own nightmares that assail us, and that there are other things that would be just as useful to do rather than fighting, like learning to get along with each other, even some mundane things like housework.

No, I don't think the Narnia films glorify battles and violence.

Very interesting topic. I thought I'd take the time to post since I think I have a fairly unique opinion here.

I went and looked up the definition of glorify to make sure I wasn't too far off.... It means to honor, exalt, or give praise to. For the most part I felt like no, the movies didn't come close to this. The characters did not always win, in fact, they learned some very hard lessons at times from being involved in battles. And when they do win, they win because Aslan arrives to save the day...

But there is one place that I did take issue with and I felt the filmmakers really cheapened Lewis's concept of war and battles.... and that was having Susan fight.

This change to her character actually made me more angry than her relationship with Caspian. She's the one character in the books who's actually afraid of going to war like I imagine many of us on this site would be. But instead of respecting that, Susan's turned into a warrior woman who gets more on-screen kills than any of the boys.

So if there's one place in the movies where I feel battles are glorified, that's it. Heaven forbid having a character actually be SCARED of going to war....

Battle scene > Intelligence. If that's not glorifying violence, then what is it?

I'd say lack of creativity and faith in the book material.

If you want to get all religious, that remember that although CS Lewis did not want it to be known as such, the Chronicles of Narnia, are, indeed, a form of allegory. That being said, one could say that there are battles in the Bible, and that is why they are included in Narnia. In the Bible, God believes in going to war if it is in his name. Peter's Army goes to war for Aslan, to defeat the White Witch.

Romans 3: (10-18)
As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
"The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

The Chronicles of Narnia aren't allegories but suppousals. In allegories everything means something and symbolises something; not so in a suppousal.

I don't think the movies glorify battles and violence. If anything they're tamer (but longer) than those depicted in the original books. There does seem to be a tendency to rely on creating interesting battles, rather than sticking to what's in the books. But that's something else altogether.

2) The battles lack any blood or gore whatsoever, making them incredibly unrealistic.

Five years ago, I was adamant that all Narnia films should be able to get PG ratings. Now, having seen three of them, I have had a change of heart on this issue.

I wouldn't want Narnia to become Saving Private Ryan, but I don't like the fact that the consequences of the violence are rarely seen, or even felt. I think Narnia needs to be a light PG-13.

The Chronicles of Narnia aren't allegories but suppousals. In allegories everything means something and symbolises something; not so in a suppousal.

Even a book that is not strictly "an allegory" can contain elements of allegory, which I think The Chronicles of Narnia, along with most books, certainly do.

That being said, I think the movies glorified battles in a way -- a cinematic way. One of the main points of making an epic movie is creating cinematic scenes that make people "ooh and ahh", because of the action, dramatic music, and bravery, etc. So it's definitely something "cool" cinematically to the filmmakers, and portrayed that way to the audience.

But I wouldn't say that they made it look completely harmless or pretty. I mean look at Reep and Trumpkin in PC. They were both in pretty bad shape by the end of a couple of the battles. And all the people they had to leave behind at the Castle Raid? That definitely shows ugliness of war.

~Riella