How did Narnia do compared with other blockbuster films in the same genre? Averagely I’m guessing.

Surely that’s more relevant than comparing apples and pears.

Popularity is rarely a measure of quality and moreso a measure of being non-controversial. Brokeback is to me a more valuable film simply because it causes people to “think” - confront idea’s - and form opinions. Narnia was entertaining fluff with a black / white view of the world. You enjoyed the special effects - but you certainly didn’t leave the theater with any changed opinions, new information, or challenges to think about. II’ve read much ado about Narnia’s “christian” basis - and actually believe it was somewhat based in some loose metaphors- but frankly was a marketing ploy to pack the houses. And the silly saps fell for it - even though the film contains just as many anti-christian themes - like witches, fairies, mythical creatures,and animals with souls.

Voting with dollars. Interesting concept that anyone would believe that dollars somehow implies quality or value. In that instance we’d all be living on candy, smoking our lungs out, and burning as much fuel as possible. Oh wait - that’s right - we are doing these things - guess since all three are popular they must be qualitatively better than any of the alternatives.

There are also many factors to consider when figuring which movie has the greatest cultural impact, or even what makes a film the best.

Shrek 2 was *not* the best film of 2004 even though it made more money than anything else.

Fantastic 4 is not twice as good as brokeback, even though it has grossed twice as much at the box office.

When I read the Narnia books as a kid, I realized they are uninspired childrens fluff. This has carried over to the movies. Narnia is a poor substitute for LOTR. to think that this also-ran is going to have an impressive cultural impact is nonsense because it is merely recycling the territory of the LOTR films…. and critically, it does it worse.

You might also consider that most huge blockbusters are childrens-to teen movies. Very few adult films make it huge because you are cutting out major portions of your audience (parents who take their five year olds, young teens out on the weekend).

“It certainly shows the liberal political bias of Hollywood and the news media. If you were an average joe, wouldn’t you assume Brokeback was the $500M film?”

No. How much can you say about Shrek 1/2 or The Fantastic Four before you get sick of it? Even those red state folks are sophisticated enough to realise that films can have an impact beyond their box office.

I haven’t seen either movie, but how am I supposed to take a statement like that seriously? Clearly, there are people who think that Brokeback Mountain is better, so that’s just a patently untrue statement. This is the first time I’ve been to your blog, and that didn’t instill trust: if the topic is something about which I don’t have personal knowledge, I won’t have any way of knowing if your statements are reliable.

“I think opinions have entertainment value and that’s about it. It’s not as if people change their views because someone made a better argument. And rarely are opinions based on adequate information. So from that perspective, all opinions are equally (un)important.” - Scott Adams

It was based on a South Park joke.

I can’t believe this thread is still alive. Although, I did LOL this weekend when I heard my 14 year old son say to his friend in a mock-plaintive tone of voice, “I wish I knew I how to quit you.”

The movie at best was a bigger budgeted version of the PBS live action version of “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.”

“Brokeback” only has earned so little money because it had a very limited release at first and it is spreading but still limited. Plus, it’s only considered watchable by half of the population due to it’s controversial theme.

With Oscars one has to wonder who gets to vote…Oh that’s right, not us! It’s the members of the Screen Actors Guilde. Average Joes like us, can’t even buy tickets to get into the event.

“Narnia” was simply a remake of a remake. The original was a cartoon. The acting was okay for a bunch of children. The story is old.

“Brokeback” was an original, well thought out, and well acted. Sounds a bit more Oscar worthy to me in times of limited originality in Hollywood.

P.S. I loved Narnia but I am a big fan of whimsy and escape.

Those 2 movies cannot be compared any more than Mary Poppins and Rebel without a cause.

Maryl

Re

Really? And how many marriages would you have gone through already, blog responder?

I don’t know why ND30 asked this question of “blog responder” since I posted the comment that he was responding to.

I have been married precisely once, 28 June 2004, and we are still married. And, since we live in MA, we really are married.

But we have been together continuously since 2 Sept 1978.

but clearly, since many of the biggest fishes in pretending to believe in the sanctity of marriage have gove through multiple divorces, it’s merely pablum they produce for others to consume.

I do believe that you have hit upon another chemical element–Sanctimony. The biggest fishes, that you allude to, produce it by the bucket-full.

Therefore, since it obviously is not, the definition of marriage is not required to be changed for gays to have families.

Apparently you are unable to discern the distinction between “family” and “marriage.” “Marriage” is a legal relationship, “family” is not. “RightWingProf” opined that marriage was a pre-requisite to raising a family (and, incomprehensibly, “vice versa”), which is patently absurd.

You, ND30, are the one who makes it far too easy.

I have gone through precisely none. I have never been married. I have been in a relationship that lasted over five years — true, longer than many people are married — but never did get married myself. As a legal matter, we did get a domestic partnership, but no ceremony, no vows, no blessing of a divine spirit. There you go; now you know.

On the other hand, I do not think that divorce is necessarily immoral (even though I have never had one).

You would think that those who fulminate about the “sanctity of marriage” (as being threatened by same-sex marriage, etc. etc.) would find divorce impermissible, since divorce is obviously a greater threat to marriage than same-sex marriage could be, but clearly, since many of the biggest fishes in pretending to believe in the sanctity of marriage have gove through multiple divorces, it’s merely pablum they produce for others to consume.

You might say that that is an ad hominem argument, but then again my reasons for thinking that divorce is not necessarily immoral do not rest on their hypocrisy. My point in bringing up Newt Gingrich et al is rather that it hardly seems fair for him (et al!) to keep others out of marriage when he can hardly stay in one himself. Maybe the others will also fail to have long-lasting marriages. It’s probable that some of them will fail — just as married straights (obviously) have failed to do so. That’s the chance anyone takes.

Are you seriously contending that two adults have to be married in order to raise a family?

Therefore, since it obviously is not, the definition of marriage is not required to be changed for gays to have families.

Really, Raj. You make this far too easy.

Don’t forget, Bob Barr, also of Georgia, was the chief sponsor of DOMA in the House. Some of us wonder which of his three successive marriages he was defending. And Bob Dole was one of the sponsors of DOMA in the Senate. We also wonder which of his two successive marriages he was defending.

Really? And how many marriages would you have gone through already, blog responder?

…of the type we see in, oh, say, “family values” “Defense of Marriage Act” Newt Gingrich getting married three times

Don’t forget, Bob Barr, also of Georgia, was the chief sponsor of DOMA in the House. Some of us wonder which of his three successive marriages he was defending. And Bob Dole was one of the sponsors of DOMA in the Senate. We also wonder which of his two successive marriages he was defending.

It is worth noting that the divorce rate in the christian conservative areas–primarily in the south–is much higher than more liberal areas, such as Massachusetts.

>>>>>sorry prof, marriage is not a prerequisite to raising a family and vice-versa

That’s exactly what marriage is.

Are you seriously contending that two adults have to be married in order to raise a family? Sorry to disabuse you of that notion, but it is incorrect. Marriage establishes a legal relationship between two parties, detailing the rights and obligations each has to the other.

The obligations of father and mother to a child are completely orthogonal to that. I have known couples who, without benefit of wedlock, had children. The obligations of (biological) father and (biological) mother to the children have nothing to do with whether the mother and father were married.

Marriage does allow for a rebuttable presumption that the husband in an opposite sex married couple is also the father of children born during the marriage. The presumption is rebuttable, and DNA analysis makes it relatively easy to determine whether the husband is the father.