I understand the point the OP is making but I have to disagree. Jesus in the New Testament is the Christ. Aslan in the Chronicles on Narnia is a metaphorical depictation of the Christ. Unless Lewis was elevating himself to the level of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he was not writing about the actual messiah. Nor was he writing historical fiction about the guy who lived in first century Judea.
Within the story, Aslan is Jesus. Jesus is Aslan. That’s the point.
Suppose in the next Avatar movie, Robin Williams is cast as George Washington, who, time-transported to the future, is given a Na’vi avatar on Pandora so that he can act as general and lead them in another war against the humans.
complete fiction. But you wouldn’t say Robin Williams is portraying a Washington-figure. You would say he is portraying Washington.
If the film did not feature a Washington, but there was a Na’vi leader who resembled Washington in various ways, then that would be a Washington-figure.
Actually, that’s precisely what he was doing. He took the character of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, and imagined him in a sword-and-magic fantasy world.
His name in that world is Aslan, but he tells the children that he has many names, and they know him by a different name in their world. Edmund and Lucy are told they will not be returning to Narnia because they need to get to know him by his name in their own world.
Since CS Lewis specifically said that Aslan is Christ in another world, I’m sure sure what all the debate is about. Aslan isn’t an allegory, he isn’t a Christ-figure, he is literally Christ.
Note Neeson’s exact words:
As far as “Christ-like” versus “representative”, etc, it’s splitting hairs. We all know Jesus wasn’t a lion. “Symbolizes” vs. “represents”, it’s all relative.
Also, notice that Neeson said that he “for me”. Neeson was speaking about his own, personal perspective. He’s not trying to challenge Lewis’s own intentions.
(Note: Neeson is a devout Catholic, as well, if that makes a difference. I doubt he’s trying to downplay, or bash the Christian influence or message of the Narnia Chronicles.)
That would kick ass. Would his avatar be 100 stories tall and made of radiation?
I understand what you’re saying. But I’m still saying Jesus wasn’t a lion. When you transform Jesus into a character who has a different name, lives on a different planet, and is a different species, you’re haven’t got much of the real character left. You’ve crossed over from telling a story about Jesus to telling a story about a character who has similarities to Jesus.
So if I tell a story about a guy named Cassius Clay, about his growing up in Louisville, training to be a boxer, going to the Olympics and ended it in 1963, it wouldn’t be a story about Muhammad Ali?
Are converts to Islam no longer human?
What’s your point?
If I tell a story about a guy named Jesus who travels around and talks to people, and end the story right after he dies, am I no longer telling a story about the Son of God as described by Christians?
What if I pick up the story right at the end of the Gospels - as Jesus ascends into heaven and can no longer be seen by the folks on the ground, he becomes a flying space elephant, traveling the galaxy and having adventures? I’ve clearly set the guy up as Jesus, I’ve just taken him in fairly new direction.
Yes. “Allegory” in the strict sense that Lewis meant doesn’t mean “something to do with religion” it means a story in which every element must be understood as representing some person or phenomenon in the real world*. Lewis explicitly described his story as a “what-if” (what he called “a suppositional”) story - what if the Second person of the Trinity created another world and interacted with it in the form of a lion.
*Lewis did write an allegorical story - “The Pilgrim’s Regress” (obviously inspired by Bunyan’s allegorical “Pilgrim’s Progress”. “Animal Farm” is another allegory - the humans represent the upper classes in non-communist countries, “Snowball” is Stalin, the horse is the Stankovite worker, etc. And in SF fandom there’s an allegory called “The Enchanted Duplicator” in which Jophan travels from Mundane to Trufandom, encountering the Forest of Stupidity, the Canyon of Criticism, etc. There’s nothing like this level of allegory in Narnia - Peter is a person who succumbs to temptation, not a symbol of temptable humans.
How about if I tell the story of Jesus except that in my story, Jesus lived in twentieth century America. And his parents died when he was young. And he wasn’t crucified. And he fights criminals wearing a mask and cape. And calls himself Batman.
If you set aside the details I’ve changed, Batman is Jesus.
And here’s where you don’t get it. Lewis didn’t change any details. He’s saying “I accept everything in the Bible. Jesus is a great guy - that’s why I’m one of the foremost minds on Christian thought in the 20th Century. I’m going to take Jesus as everyone understands him, and write what he’d be like if he ALSO lived in a world with Mr. Tumnus.” (Nor did I change any details about Muhammad Ali - why in the world do you think your counter-example is in the least bit comparable?)
I’m sure Aslan does represent Christ literally, but one curious problem with him in that role is that, while he certainly is a god, or God (having sung the Narnian universe into being in The Magician’s Nephew), and while (almost) everybody in Narnia does what Aslan says when he shows up in person, nobody worships him. Calormenes worship Tash, but Narnians do not worship Aslan. There are no churches or temples to him, there is no Church of Aslan, there are no preachers or priests exhorting people to follow the way or the word or the commandments of Aslan, Narnians do not seem to pray to anyone or anything. When Aslan is not around, he’s just a story.
If they worship anyone, it’s the Emperor-over-the-Sea. And even then only in a rather loose sense.
That’s another thing: the Emperor-Over-The-Sea seems to be a completely separate person from Aslan. He seems to be more of a deistic type God. Heck, since Aslan does the actual creating, the EOTS doesn’t even have that.
I haven’t read them in a very long time. Aren’t Aslan and EOTS part of a Trinity (or at the least a Dualism), where EOTS is God?
Well, Lewis was Church of England, definitely trinitarian.
I’m going to have to go back and do some reading 'cos I just cannot remember Jesus killing any White Witch named Jadis. 
More seriously, I get what you are saying, but think you might be over-extending to claim that Lewis didn’t change anything.
The OP is defining “Christ-figure” in a narrow way that excludes a fictional character who is meant to be Christ. I find this odd.
Arguably Christ is a Christ-figure, but some comic book where Christ appears but doesn’t act like a Christ-figure would have a figure called Christ who isn’t a conventional Christ-figure. But Christ would be a Christ-figure in a story where he was presented as one. And at no point would any of those stories be about the real Jesus Christ; they are stories.
Aslan is a Christ-figure (and a Krishna-figure, & a Mercury-figure I suppose, though I have a hard time seeing him as Gautama or Mohammed) who is implied in a passage or two as also knowable in “this world” (or rather the fictional England of the books) as Mithra or somebody. 
But of course Aslan is a fictional character, a confection of Lewis’s dreams of a good god.
Lewis seemed to vacillate a bit on exactly how he wanted to treat the Trinity (though he did definitely always want to treat it). In Wardrobe, there’s a distinction made between Aslan and the Emperor Across the Sea, but the Emperor as Person seemed to be rather forgotten in the later books. Then there’s a scene in A Horse and his Boy which seems to imply that Aslan Himself is all three persons of the Trinity.
Or then again, maybe that shifting emphasis was intentional. It’s certainly not unambiguous how to count God; maybe Lewis deliberately made Aslan both one person of the Trinity and the entire Godhead in different books in an attempt to get at the nature of the Trinity.