Yeah, I think the parts with Lucy not thinking she was pretty enough was the part that really ruined the movie for me. In my opinion, the relationship between Lucy and Aslan was the heart and soul of the story -- movies and books -- and when they moved her focus away from Aslan and onto herself, it just wasn't Narnia anymore. At least, that's how I feel about it.

I think what it all boils down to is that the filmmakers of VDT just didn't get it. They didn't understand the Narnia books, and they didn't understand Christianity. They just wanted to to turn out another cheap film. They were aware of how many teen girls feel uncomfortable about themselves, so they thought, "Well! This is something that they will relate to, and feel encouraged by! This will make them want to see the movie! Let's stick that in there!" And so, there it is in VDT.

I don't think the filmmakers put nearly as much thought into it as the loyal fans do when they read it. If they wanted to make this sort of movie, they should have just adapted a different book by a different author, or just made something up themselves. It would have suited them just as well. Hopefully sometime in the future, a real VDT movie will come out.

~Riella

Great subject, and yes it was time someone started the thread for it . I would love to write a post in here soon, but I've got school duties for the meantime.

I was under the impression that secular humanism was merely a translation of Christian ideology and was therefore nearly identical in intent. Instead of a "soul," we get "the individual." Humanism's artificial elevation of humanity above the organic natural system in which it evolved also mirror's Christianity's insistence that humans have dominion over nature. Egalitarianism too, which is the artificial removal of social hierarchy, also finds it's roots in Judeo-Christianity, which attempts to equalize kings and beggars by finding them all one and the same within Christ. (It's often assumed that Jesus himself would have had contempt for the Church on similar grounds... thus the tireless conflict between Catholicism, which represents old-world hierarchalism, and Protestantism.)

I see humanism and Christianity as two spokes in the same wheel and am not surprised that the makers of VDT would have had a difficult time reconciling the two without alienating half of their audience.

Berserker, what you've described is more akin to Pelagianism, an early-church heresy (contrary to established orthodoxy of the faith) that made God a means to man's elevation, rather than seeing God as the means and end of all history, all creation, and all redemption of people and the universe. A lot of this influence is felt in Western churches: preachers will ask people to consider if they've made room for God in their lives, and also encourage people to "try Jesus," or find hope in Jesus, or let Jesus improve their lives or marriages or family, etc. Yes, those are all good things, but:

1) As you asked, what's the difference between this and humanism?

2) This "Jesus" is a bit of a fool, to be used as a means to other ends.

But if Jesus is real, awesome and amazing, and if He really did come to Earth as God's Son -- and God Himself, made manifest in human flesh -- then He has His own agenda. And He said (in the Gospels and in other Scriptures) multiple times what that is: to die for the joy set before Him, to bring adopted sons into the Kingdom, and all to glorify His Father.

God's glory, not man's glory -- with God as a means to that end -- is the goal of all that God does. Therefore the "be yourself" claptrap is bosh and bilgewater. And it's a shame it got into Dawn Treader.

I, too, have been waiting for this topic to start, and had thought to start it myself. Right after seeing the film the term Pelagianism came to mind. But "humanism" is a very good one too, and in fact cuts right to the center of the movie version's mindset. Alas! As I said elsewhere, I suppose I should not have been surprised: when so many Christians are buying into using-God-as-a-means-to-other-ends-besides-Himself, why should I expect more from screenwriters who haven't professed faith?

Thoughts from several Tweets and a column I wrote on Speculative Faith:

Stories making God or a Christ-figure a means to fulfilling one’s Destiny, rather than centering on Himself, are little better than atheism. Sadly, the “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” film suffered from those wrong beliefs. Without knowing and loving God’s God-centeredness, so will other stories.

Much of C.S. Lewis’ genius, and Aslan’s grandeur, came from his knowing God is gracious *and* terrible. Miss that, and you de-claw the Lion.

Many other fantasies also want to imitate Lewis and convey truth about Christ. But they end up making Him a sidekick for humans’ adventures. Christ is not a sidekick. We are. He should be the center of all stories. Neglect that, and all Narnia-imitating hopefuls will ring hollow.

Sure, not every story can have an overt Jesus-figure or all the Gospel on all pages. Not even the Bible has that. Yet it’s about trajectory.

More thoughts on Pelagianism invading the Narnia films, especially the most recent one (where anti-book material was par for the course):

Fighting man-centered monsters in Christian fantasy — Dec. 16, 2010

Defeating man-centered monsters with greater stories — Dec. 23, 2010

This is probably very simplistic of me to post, but I have a very black and white personal opinion that humanism is basically whenever human energy and human focus is put over total emphasis on God's energy/power and total focus on God. Pelgianism (which I've never heard of before, as I'm honestly not a deep student of philosophy or theology) seems to be a variation of Humanism and seems to be yet another example of lies mixed in with truth.

The Lucy bit of the movie did bother me too, but of course this is still a film made by non-believers and I will never expect any future film ever in the series to be completely devoid of humanism of some sort.

I'm not at all sure that VDT reflects any humanism. I took my definition of humanism from the online free dictionary, which defines humanism firstly as: "A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth". I've also used a Wordnet definition of humanism which defines it as S: (n) humanism, secular humanism (the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural).

Now my idea of a secular humanist movie is Golden Compass, which criticizes the church through its depiction of the 'Oblation board', a member of which appears to be Lyra's own mother, especially the procedure of intercission which does the opposite of allowing children to achieve self-realisation. This movie was based on a trilogy which specifically rejects much of Christian belief, accuses it and other related faiths of maiming people's spirituality, and depicts 'the Ancient of Days' as captive to an evil angel called Metatron. As our own local minister reminded me, there is a bit in it where Lyra, the child protagonist, tells her companion, Will, that they only had themselves to depend on.

I can't believe that VDT (film) in any way could be called humanist. Since VDT is based on C.S. Lewis' Narnian supposal of what Christianity would be like in a different world, I doubt it really has to echo every Christian doctrine verbatim to hammer the point home. Even so, here on NarniaWeb, quite a bit of heat has been engendered over whether or not Eustace did anything to earn his undragonning, even before the movie was first released. Much of that concern, based on a rumour of a debate between Fox and Walden representatives, tended to ignore another Christian core doctrine, the need for repentance, which I think is depicted well in VDT. And the film also retains other Christian symbolism from the book, such as Aslan's saying he had another name in Lucy's world, and Aslan's table symbolising the communion table.

In sharp contrast to Golden Compass's Lyra, Eustace shows clearly he couldn't have undragonned himself without Aslan's help, and Lucy, again with Aslan's help, also is brought to realise exactly what is wrong with her saying the beauty spell. In being jealous of her sister's beauty, Lucy devalues herself, embraces Susan's materialistic point of view and denies what is unique about herself, specifically her relationship with Aslan and that it was she who was the first to find Narnia.

VDT has good messages about people getting along with each other, and that really it is ourselves who are our own worst enemies. We are all in some way part of the Dawn Treader crew. We are all in the same boat. This is why Temptation is so emphasized as a theme of the film. This isn't a point of view that is unique to Christianity. Gregory the Great, the Pope who was the Prophet Mohammed's contemporary, formulated the concept of the Seven Deadly Sins from his reading of the Scriptural and Old Testament book of Job. You could say that the idea of temptation and the Seven Deadly Sins is universal.

VDT the film could have emphasized that Lucy had committed one of these sins in being jealous of her sister's beauty, or of other school friendships. It could have somehow incorporated the tenth of the 10 commandments, which says it is wrong to covet, not only your neighbour's wife but also his donkey, or anything that is his. I think that covers other people's attributes as well, such as their good looks, or their popularity. But I fear that to do more than the film already did would be like using a specifically Christian cannon to flatten a universal blowfly. Especially in countries like China or Japan, where Christianity is very much a minority religion.

I realise there are other definitions of humanism, but these ones are to do with the Renaissance, when it was heresy to reject God, or to do with humanitarianism, which proclaims a duty to promote human welfare, and which is not at all at odds with Christianity, which urges us in the Gospel of Matthew to 'feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, tend to the ill and bury the dead'. I understand that secular humanism, more so than these other definitions, is specifically to reject religion and the supernatural. Thus I feel that using the term humanism to describe bits of VDT is not only an inaccurate use of the term, but also is less than a fair criticism to make of the VDT film.

And thank you, Conina for the thread. This is a good place to debate the way I feel that the term humanism has been over used and misused in reference to VDT.

The Lucy bit of the movie did bother me too, but of course this is still a film made by non-believers and I will never expect any future film ever in the series to be completely devoid of humanism of some sort.

The "non-believers" making these films write them to include humanist tropes only because the books invite them to. The Chronicles succeed as literature equally for their fantasies and human adventures than for their religious lessons, as was Lewis's intent, and thus they continue to be made into big-budget blockbusters, and not low-budget "special interest" movies starring Kirk Cameron.

Good point Berserker, that why they're still tempting to watch. I wouldn't necessarily have wanted VDT to be Fireproof and it is basically written for the broad moviegoing audience...

I believe it is a good thing to portray Christianity using movies in a way that the secular world can recieve. But it should not be done in a way that sacrifices morals or Christian teachings. Giving a Christian movie an "epic scale", a good cast, a talented director and scriptwriters, and overall good quality -- this is sufficient to appeal to a secular audience, allowing them to hear the Message.

However, secularizing a Christian movie is not the way to go about it. Corrupting or tossing aside it's values is more harmful than helpful. For the most part, either it causes the Christian elements to be completely ignored, or it causes people to believe they can accept Christian values and secular teachings at the same time -- which is a very dangerous thing to do.

And the latter, I'm afraid, is what the filmmakers of VDT have done...

~Riella

So what you are saying, Ithilwen, is that it is okay to make films, even very comparable films to VDT, like Golden Compass, based on books which clearly state their underlying philosophy as rejecting religion, the supernatural, and that people gain self-realisation through their own efforts and their own understanding of right and wrong?

And meanwhile, that it is dangerous to make films like VDT which is based on a pro-Christian book, with a directly opposite philosophy to that of Golden Compass? That we, ourselves, make a mess of our lives through our sinful natures, and our failure to recognise God's distinctions between right and wrong when tempted. That it is only through repenting of these sins and throught the help of our relationship with Jesus, that we can hope to rebuild our lives? As far as I can see, the Lucy reading the Magician's book in the film, merely underlines this distinction about self-realisation and self-empowerment. VDT is not in anyway humanistic, unlike 'Golden Compass' or that other humanistic fantasy film, Eragon.

It hasn't escaped my notice that BOM, which measures the earnings from these movies has just such comparisons on its VDT site, or that VDT comparisons between the more Christian Tolkien's LOTR and Harry Potter are also there to be noted, elsewhere on that site.

LOTR was never made for PG. In Australia, though quite small children went along with their parents to see it, the movie was primarily meant for adults to enjoy, rather than for its undoubted Christian content and messages, nowhere near as pronounced as that of the Narnia stories. Peter Jackson's masterpiece was cleverly done, using the support of the New Zealand Government, with a favourable exchange rate, filming all three movies at once and using groundbreaking technology and special effects. But it wasn't directly because of Tolkien's own Christian beliefs, which underlie his trilogy, that LOTR was popular. Nor was the original LOTR really meant for children.

J.K.Rowling was quite open about her liking for Eustace in this interview. She, like myself, grew up with Narnia, and openly told us of how she learned her then five-year old daughter, Jessica could read, when she read Voyage of the Dawn Treader to her. In this newspaper article, JK.Rowling even mentioned that Voyage of the Dawn Treader was her favourite Narnia book.

No wonder that when the latest, highly comparable, Harry Potter episode, which was released a fortnight earlier than VDT, tended to overshadow it, or that even reviewers have noted that the two series are cousins. There is quite a bit of religious content in HP, much of it highly similar to what C.S.Lewis's ideas about Christianity. However, the HP films have so far ignored these themes. Because Laura Mallory wanted the books banned from libraries, refusing to first check the contents herself, the mere publicity added to the books' popularity, and consequently the HP films' popularity. So far, the films have not felt constrained by PG concerns nor do these films feel obliged to ensure any remaining Christian themes meet the doctrinal inspection of church-going HP fans at every screen dump.

Not so poor VDT, the Narnian muse most responsible for germinating JKR's HP series. It is bad enough what happened to PC and now the knives are out from those humanist film reviewers who have openly criticised the fantasy series for its thinly disguised Christianity. All I am saying that in the episode mentioned at the beginning of the thread, is that criticizing it for not following Church doctrine down to the letter, is like blasting a universal blowfly with a Christian cannon, when the Narnian flyswatter used, would be a somewhat more appropriate weapon.

^^ I'm not sure what you just said, waggawerewolf27, because I couldn't understand your post. And I'm not sure what you think I'm saying, or what any of it has to do with LOTR, Golden Compass, or Harry Potter... Sorry for my not understanding.

All I'm saying is that mixing secular beliefs with Christian beliefs is a bad idea. Because then it can cause people to think they go together in real life, which they can't.

And my other comment was in response to Berserker, telling him/her that good quality is all that's needed to appeal to the general public and not a compromise of message. Because a lot of people think Christian messages have to be compromised in order for people to watch it, and that's something I don't agree with.

~Riella

^^ I'm not sure what you just said, waggawerewolf27, because I couldn't understand your post. And I'm not sure what you think I'm saying, or what any of it has to do with LOTR, Golden Compass, or Harry Potter... Sorry for my not understanding.

All I'm saying is that mixing secular beliefs with Christian beliefs is a bad idea. Because then it can cause people to think they go together in real life, which they can't.

What I was asking was if you think it is okay to make fantasy films that are clearly anti-Christian and secular humanistic in values, but not fantasy films that are just as clearly pro-Christian, even though they, too, echo everyday concerns? I am also asking you if you understand what the secular humanistic beliefs actually are about 'self-realisation' as compared with the Christian beliefs about 'self-realisation'.

What I think you are saying is that if films can't be specifically Christian, and from a directly Christian POV, then don't bother making them at all. Including the Narnia films, since anything that even hints of everyday concerns might contaminate their religious content.

And good quality is not enough, since the other films I mentioned, regardless of their quality, including both the LOTR and Harry Potter films, are not as obviously pro-Christian as is VDT.

The humanistic problems I had with VDT was not the parts that had to do with self-realization. The parts I had a problem with was when Reep said he hoped he would someday "earn" the right to go to Aslan's Country. The self-realization parts annoyed me, but for other reasons. I don't think that they are humanistic, necessarily.

And I do think good quality is enough to appeal to a secular audience. If you see a trailer for a movie that looks really well-made, then you'll want to go see it. And when they see it, they will hear the message (provided that the message is there).

And I didn't say Christian movies shouldn't echo "everyday concerns". I said they shouldn't have anything Anti-Biblical. Everyday concerns are not anti-Biblical.

I dont consider LOTR a religious movie. Peter Jackson even stated he didnt intend for it to be. It may have been the goal/one of the goals in the book, but it certainly wasn't the goal of the movie. I can't say anything about Harry Potter because I have not read the books or seen the movies.

If a filmamker wants to make a good Christian movie, and they put real, true Christian elements in it, and have good quality, then they have achieved their goal. I dont think they should put things that go against the Bible in a Christian movie, however, because that is sending the wrong message.

I have no idea why you're asking me if it's okay to make anti-Biblical movies... I believe in the Bible, so why would I have any interest in anti-Biblical movies? I haven't seen or read The Golden Compass, nor do I intend to after hearing all the anti-God opinions that the author has. Everyone (Pullman, Apted, Jackson, you, me, anyone else in the world) has the right to write any book/make any movie they want, because of freedom of speech; but I'm certainly not going to watch or support a movie or book (such as the Golden Compass) that runs down my religion.

Unless I'm just misunderstanding you...

~Riella

I'm telling you that VDT or any of the other Narnia productions, including the BBC ones, the Children's Television workshop productions are not Christian movies as such, they don't have to be Christian movies nor should they be expected to be Christian movies. It is enough they are Pro-Christian. By the way, I'm glad you don't see the LOTR movies as religious, because I don't think the Narnia ones should be expected to be much more religious than the books so far can deal with.

And I didn't say Christian movies shouldn't echo "everyday concerns". I said they shouldn't have anything Anti-Biblical. Everyday concerns are not anti-Biblical.

Um everyday concerns do tend to be anti-Biblical. Hence the literary furore over Susan not getting into Narnia heaven. There is also the theme of temptation in everyday situations, like wanting to be good-looking and popular with the opposite sex, like an envied big sister. Lucy, after all, was a girl in her early teens becoming aware of such teenage issues.

It is a real pity you haven't read the Harry Potter books or seen the movies, because, believe it or not, and despite what some Christian people said, these books and then the movies taken from them, were inspired by the Narnia books, in particular VDT, as I tried to make clear in my last post but one.

I'm not worried about what Reepicheep said about 'earning the right' to go to Aslan's country. This is a mouse that already has a deep and abiding good relationship with Aslan, as Aslan, himself made clear in PC. I think it is ungenerous and mealy mouthed to quibble, when I only wish I could be so fortunate.

If a filmamker wants to make a good Christian movie, and they put real, true Christian elements in it, and have good quality, then they have achieved their goal. I dont think they should put things that go against the Bible in a Christian movie, however, because that is sending the wrong message.

Now this is exactly what your problem is, Ithilwen. You want the Narnia films to be quality, but you don't want them to echo the actual Narnia books, which purported to be Christian supposals rather than directly Christian books. That is to say, you agree you want the films to be as near to how the books were written as far as the filmmakers can manage.

But instead, what you really want the Narnia films to do is to substitute for the minister's direct preaching or an equivalent Bible story, as if there aren't enough movies around which purport to do just that. I can't vouch for their historical accuracy or religious accuracy, however, when there are extras wearing wristwatches in such films, however good they might be.

And I don't see the Narnia movies as Christian movies at all. Merely pro-Christian fantasy movies that are a long way better to watch than 'Golden Compass' or Eragon.

I have no idea why you're asking me if it's okay to make anti-Biblical movies... I believe in the Bible, so why would I have any interest in anti-Biblical movies? I haven't seen it or read the books, nor do I intend to after hearing all the anti-God opinions that the author has. Everyone (Pullman, Apted, Jackson, you, me, anyone else in the world) has the right to write any book/make any movie they want, because of freedom of speech; but I'm certainly not going to watch or support a movie or book, such as the Golden Compass, that runs down my religion

But that is just what Golden Compass doesn't do, directly. It merely puts its own spin on moral dilemmas. Golden Compass was a watered down version of the original book, which is precisely why it should not go unchallenged by those who dispute humanistic views. I agree with you that Pullman, Apted, Jackson etc have every right to make any movie they like, because of freedom of speech. But you have also to believe that Apted has just the same right as Pullman and Jackson, neither more nor less, to make a film that is pro-Christian, as Pullman has to be responsible for one that is indirectly or directly anti-Christian.

I can believe you don't want to view anything that is contrary to your own religious point of view. I can understand that to a point, as I dislike man against machines films like Tron and A space Odyssey. I keep wondering why if they have such an issue with computers or any other machine, why they ever invented them in the first place.

Personally I am against boycotts and censorship of any sort. In the case of humanistic films like Golden Compass, when I am told not to watch them for their content, I tend to do just the opposite to see what the objectionable content is, and so I can decide for myself whether the minister is right or not. But then I am getting too old to be intimidated by bans, religious or not.

And if you don't really understand what humanism is, how can you understand what the ramifications might be? EG when your state legislature proposes getting rid of religious classes in public schools in favour of humanistic ethics classes.