Is there something to either one? I think in both cases, yes. From what I've read, CS Lewis had started down the road that led to a life of somewhat severe religious introspection before he started his children's series. As for King Kong, I have no idea whether the original intent was deliberate or unconscious, although the original film was produced by RKO, which had a New Yorkers reputation for more sophisticated fare.
Me, I'm a bit of a whore in this regard. My big thing always is, "Does the world I'm getting sucked into make sense inside of the universe being created?" As long as the director doesn't do anything that calls into question what's going on, I'm more than willing to suspend my disbelief. But show me something that throws me out of the world and back into reality--Julia Roberts throwing her ring into the toilet in Sleeping with the Enemy , say, or Anakin wiping out a bunch of little kids where he never before exhibited genocidal tendancies--and I get grouchy. Once you wake me up to reality, it's mighty hard to draw me back in.
It's similar to the old cliche for music: "Does it have a good beat and can I dance to it?" Only, my criteria allows me to enjoy a number of movies that don't have any beat at all. That's not the point. What's more important is: does something take me out of the dance?
The fact that Narnia was partially financed by a right wing evangelical looking to bankroll other movies containing themes more in keeping with his viewpoints may be of more concern. However, I can't help shaking a "big tent" feeling about things. This fact certainly wouldn't stop me from seeing the film, and frankly, I have to have faith that, the American people being who they are, they're more interested in the spectacle of Narnia, and far less interested in the message. Let that financier try to produce "God Hates Fags: the Musical," and see how successful he is.