Episode 66: Rilian and glumPuddle discuss the clips

Posted September 13, 2010 6:40 pm by Rilian

Running time 37:56
Rilian and glumPuddle pick apart the new clips as our first glimpse of some (somewhat complete) scenes fromt the film.
 

Download Podcast | Open Player in New Window

36 Comments For This Story

  • daughter of the King says:

    Big ditto to glumPuddle’s comments on Eustace talking about his undragoning. He should not have to tell the audience how it felt; it should be evident during the scene itself.

    • glumPuddle says:

      There’s nothing wrong with the clip of Eustace talking about it. But hopefully the dialogue will just cement what we already sensed from watching the undragoning scene.

      Either way, at least the filmmakers understand the importance of Eustace not being able to change himself, and the process being a "good pain."

  • Malfhok says:

    Great discussion, guys! (I got mentioned on a NarniaWeb podcast!!! *bounces off walls*) πŸ™‚

  • Starlily says:

    You know, I think that the reason Caspian sounds so half-hearted when he says, "I’m sorry," is because he and Eustace don’t get along very well (remember how Ben Barnes mentioned this in his interview with Empire), and so he doesn’t feel as upset about Eustace as Edmund does. I liked how Ben delivered the line, because to me it sounded like he was genuinely sorry for Edmund’s loss, and was kindly conveying sympathy instead of saying, "Bother Eustace!" like in the book. Yeah, I suppose I’m reading into the scene a lot, and it will probably be a lot different in the actual movie. Oh well. πŸ™‚

    I really hope Eustace’s transformation back to a boy is a stand-alone scene, too. I’m kind of worried about that now. It sounds like he’ll be a dragon almost until the end of the movie. What if they’re almost to Aslan’s Country, and then Aslan pops up and transforms Eustace at the last minute? I know that’s silly, but why else would Eustace be talking about it as they’re rowing through the lilies? And what if we don’t see the transformation at all? Maybe they should only show pieces of it, just enough to let you know what’s going on without actually showing the dragon’s skin being peeled off (that could be a bit freaky for kids). But I really want to see at least part of it! It could be a powerful scene if they handle it well!

    Probably I’m worrying for nothing. I’m sure there are much more important plot details to be worrying about. I can’t wait until we can stop speculating and know for sure what’s going on–although of course speculating is half the fun of these movies. πŸ˜‰

    Does anyone want to guess when we’ll finally get a glimpse of Dragon Eustace? I’m betting on October. That seems a reasonable time. Although–who knows?–we might see him tomorrow, next week, or maybe he won’t be revealed until the end of November. He’d better look good if that’s the form we’re going to see him in for half the movie. Okay, I’ll stop talking now. Man, I just read over my post and I feel like a motor-mouth. But I’ll post it anyway. πŸ˜‰

    • Eustace+Jill says:

      There’s also the possibility that we won’t see Dragon Eustace until we’re actually watching it in the theaters. It may be one of those things that the filmmakers are saving as a surprise for the actual moviegoer, instead of just anyone who watches the previews.

  • Sir Jack says:

    The river, that turns things into gold turns some people into dragons, and some into sceletons…
    maybe the smokey thing is Eustaces breath?! maybe they don’t let him become a dragon while sleeping, because they could also let him "develope" into a dragon.. getting more and more drangonish while picking up the gold.

    • Shastafan says:

      Hmm, I don’t know about himgetting more dragonish, but I do like your idea that some smoke comes out of him. It’s like a hint that something’s going to happen. πŸ˜‰

  • nathan says:

    The reason why they have a mysterious little girl, is because the monopods need a little girl to undo the spell. Geargie Henley is too old to be called a little girl. So they ask for the little girl to do it. But Lucy says, "I’ll do it." So Lucy goes instead.

    • Eustace+Jill says:

      But why would they let Lucy do it, if she was too old for it to work for her anyway? Especially if Gael is just the right age to do the trick?

  • Lucy Took says:

    I hate the skeleton! I am of the opinion that the old dragon was Octesion,not that the dragon at the Lord. However,Gresham is of the opposite opinion. I was really hoping that they would just leave it a mystery like it is in the book.

  • Heidi says:

    In the podcast, and on the board, I’ve noticed people mentioning Eustace’s voice at the beginning – having lived in the UK and seen older British films (i.e., 1940s/50s), his accent/voice in that initial scene strike me as being very posh/prim and affected in a very British way. I don’t mind it at all, because it sounds to me like Eustace was trying to sound older/more important/more upper class than he really was, which fits entirely with his character in the book.

    I think Will Poulter did a great job with that – I think he’s intentionally sounding awkward/odd, to show that Eustace is full of himself.

  • Gabriel says:

    I don’t see what they see about the dragon’s lair looking like deathwater

    • Eustace+Jill says:

      Well, we know that some islands ARE going to be combined, and those two would be very good candidates. Especially with all the gold laying out there in the open, and Edmund and Caspian sitting right by it. It would be the perfect spot for them to have the classic fight from the book over who owns the gold and the island.

  • The Rose-Tree Dryad says:

    Great podcast! πŸ˜€

    The orphans issue is really intriguing. A large part of me just doesn’t understand why the filmmakers would ever put that in there if it’s not true, because it would only confuse the audience.

    It WOULD be a really awful thing for him to say, though, and it’s hard to believe he would stoop that low. Then again, he was an particularly unpleasant kid. :/ It’s also possible that this scene is not immediately after the Pevensie’s parents allegedly die/were killed, and that might explain why Lucy and Edmund don’t react as strongly as one might expect. Also, they’re probably still going to boarding schools and would just spend their holidays with the Scrubbs, Γ  la Harry Potter, which would explain why Eustace calls them guests.

    But I really, REALLY hope that these concerns are unfounded and he’s not being literal. It would be an annoying, unnecessary change, would take up way too much screen time if it’s a major plot point, and people would start comparing Narnia to HP. Please, no.

    Would LOVE for the opening line in VDT to be worked into the movie somehow. πŸ˜€

    I didn’t know that Eustace’s shoe was partly charred! That throws a lot of light on that.

    The only thing I really don’t care for in the 2nd clip is the skeletonβ€”it just looks really fake to me for some reason. Probably because Eustace just shoves it over before we get a good look at it; it doesn’t get the usual "ooh, it’s a creepy skeleton" treatment. I do hope Eustace is at least a somewhat repulsed by the skeleton: "Is that a skeleton? How disgusting. . . . Wow, that bracelet is SHINY." πŸ˜›

    Lol @ the end of MLG’s arc!

    Hope you guys do another podcast soon! (And that there’s something exciting to do a podcast about in the near future.) I really enjoy listening to them. πŸ™‚

    • Starlily says:

      I really doubt that the Pevensie’s parents are killed off. That would be a MAJOR plot change, and it would affect the entire movie. They would have to spend several minutes at the beginning just to explain it and show Edmund and Lucy’s reactions. However…I have to admit it is odd that Eustace used the term "orphans" when any other word would do…

      As for the skeleton, to me it looks like Eustace is shoving it away really fast when he grabs the arm ring–maybe because he doesn’t want it near him. I’m going with what they said in the podcast, and what you said, Dryad. Maybe he’s grossed out by the skeleton at first, but then he sees the arm ring and is consumed by greed. ("SHINY.") πŸ˜› I hope that’s how it’ll work out. But either way it won’t ruin the movie for me. πŸ™‚

      • The Rose-Tree Dryad says:

        Same here! One of the things that was so exciting to me about these clips was that they seemed to be getting a lot of things right, so at this point I’m so happy about Eustace’s character and the faithfulness to some of the themes in the book, I don’t care if a skeleton looks fake to me, or if it doesn’t have the typical creepiness. πŸ˜€ (Although chances are it will look better/have that kind of atmosphere in the films, since these clips are very rough.) At any rate, certainly nothing that will make or break the movie for me. πŸ˜›

    • Tirian says:

      So just to clarify on the orphan thing, the guys were right: Eustace was just being nasty. The Pevensie parents have not been killed off.

      • The Rose-Tree Dryad says:

        Whew, that is GREAT news! Thank goodness. πŸ˜€

      • Rilian says:

        Excellent! Thanks Tirian.

      • Shastafan says:

        That’s good to know, although I was never worried about Edmund and Lucy being orphans. I could see Eustace calling them that since he’d do anything to insult the Pevensies. But if the "orphan" thing had been true, wouldn’t Lucy at least have acted more emotionly to it? Thank goodness that isn’t true! πŸ™‚

      • DOECOG says:

        That’s good to know. I’d hate for them to make that big of a plot change. I’ve been trying to figure out why he would call them orphans if they’re not. One theory is this is foreshadowing LB.

  • true-narnian_queen says:

    Great podcast!!!!! I do think that they have changed up the order of the islands, but we will never know untill the movie. Hope we get some more stuff!!! Further Up and Futher In!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

  • glumPuddle says:

    I somehow forgot to mention what I found most encouraging about the first clip! I love how Eustace makes fun of them for liking fairy tales. This is my favorite CS Lewis quote:

    "Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. … When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

    The very "nonsense" that Eustace is making fun of will ultimately be his salvation.

    • Lillyput90 says:

      I totally agree with you there! I’m still a little confused about the whole "orphan" thing. I could understand how Mr. Pevensie dies, maybe in the war, or from wounds or something, but Mrs. Pevensie? I mean, why would she have to die? And if they are both dead, what on earth is Susan doing? They’ll make it that she’s engaged or married, if the parents can be dead, then Susan can be engaged. By the looks of what I’ve seen so far, I would hazard a guess that

      A: Mr. and Mrs Pevensie are dead.

      B: Peter is off fighting in the war.

      C: Susan has gone career chasing or is engaged/married (there being no other pursuit for her really).

      D: Uncle Harold and Aunt Alberta don’t appear in the film.

      What do you really think about the whole Pevensie family situation? I know you are trying to be optimistic, but what’s your honest opinion?

      • Starlily says:

        Um, sorry, I know you’re aiming this post at glumPuddle, and I don’t want to sound like a know-it-all, but I just wanted to point out that Tirian (who I understand has some inside knowledge) has posted above that Mr. and Mrs. Pevensie are not dead, and the kids are not orphans. It’s just Eustace being a brat.

        Okay, I’ll back out now. Just letting you know in case you didn’t see Tirian’s post. πŸ™‚

      • Lillyput90 says:

        I did see it, I just didn’t think it was "official" confirmation of the fact that their parents aren’t dead. I thought it was just Tirian being equally optimistic, I mean, he didn’t state it was official.

  • Eustace+Jill says:

    Here are my thoughts:

    The issue of Will’s voice as Eustace sounding odd in some parts and normal in others could be explained when you consider that his voice could be in the process of changing, and the parts where he sounded normal might have been before it began to change, and the other parts were during his voice change.
    I agree with Glumpuddle when he said that the Eustace/Edmund conflict could become an important subplot. Especially when you consider that Edmund’s dad is fighting in the war, and Edmund wants to fight in it as well; meanwhile, Eustace, in the book, claimed to be a Pacifist and doesn’t believe in fighting. That could cause some major conflict between them, besides just Eustace’s overall teasing, beastly behavior towards them. (I know that Eustace brought up being a Pacifist because he wanted to avoid being in the fight. But that doesn’t mean he was lying. I believe he really was a Pacifist — especially when you consider how well it fits in with his parent’s progressive ideas and beliefs.)
    As for it being Goldwater Island and Dragon Island mixed, I definitely agree that it’s exactly that. But I think there IS a river there. I can see water shimmering down there just before Eustace falls.
    Eustace not being afraid of the skeleton didn’t bother me at all. He hasn’t read fairy tales after all, and so he wouldn’t know of all the stories about "skeletons coming to life" and all that. He spends his time reading books of information, which means he would have a more practical, scientific mind. A skeleton, to him, wouldn’t be something scary. It would be a mere part of human anatomy to him. It actually seems more accurate to me.
    I was wondering if maybe they changed what the water of the island actually does. Like, instead of it turning everything to gold, it does something else. I’m not quite sure what — maybe turns you on the outside into what you truly are on the inside. That way it would turn Eustace into a dragon — because he had a dragonish heart — and it turned the lord (whichever one he was) into something that killed him… Just a thought.
    I have my own theory as to why Gael is there. I think it’s not because she’s female and they wanted more women in the movie, but instead because she’s young. The two Pevensies are all grown up, and the filmmakers think they need someone to be the "Cute kid" to attract more moviegoers. Just like in sitcoms — like the Cosby Show. When Rudy was all grown up, they got Raven Symone to play Olivia so that the show would continue to have a "cute kid".
    I like the idea of Eustace being his bratty self longer. Not only is it beneficial to the way the movie plays out, but VDT is the only movie where we get to see that side of Eustace. We’ll see plenty of the new, transformed Eustace in SC and beyond, but VDT is our only chance of seeing him before the transformation. It would have been a shame if the filmmakers hadn’t taken full advantage of it, and I’m glad they are taking advantage of it.
    I completely agree that the actual undragoning scene needs to be left in and that it needs to be able to stand on its own. One, of course, for obvious reasons that it was a vital part in the book that needs to be done justice. But also because its the only real Eustace/Aslan moment. He is meeting Jesus Christ in that scene, and it is extremely important for there to be a scene that is Eustace and Aslan only. Or at least where they are the main focus. Otherwise the only time Eustace and Aslan will be together will be at the End of the World, where Aslan is mostly addressing the Pevensies. Hardly a fitting portrayal for a new convert not to have a real moment with his new Savior.
    So those were my thoughts.
    Great podcast, by the way! I can’t wait for the next one. πŸ™‚

  • Twinimage says:

    While I don’t think they will be orphans in the movie, if they were to be real orphans in the film, could the death of their parents possibly be related to the "lost souls" part of the plot???
    Everything else I’ve seen from those three clips have been either very encouraging or at least been positive. There of course still things that I question and wonder what they mean, but overall I’m happy with what I see so far. πŸ™‚

  • Twinimage says:

    Some more thoughts I’ve had about the clips.
    About Eustace and the skeleton. I agree, that maybe he’ll be repulsed by the skeleton, but then go ahead and take the arm ring anyway. It does seem to show the bullying side of Eustace’s nature. While he says he’s a pacifist, it is also noted that he likes bullying others.

    • Eustace+Jill says:

      He could bully people and still be a Pacifist. Especially if his Pacifism is more of a political viewpoint than a social one. He could disapprove of the war, but still be a bully when he’s with others his age.
      Besides, he’s more of a verbal bully than a physical one anyway. He teases and tattles, but I don’t remember ever hearing of him hitting someone or beating someone up.
      So he could easily be both a Pacifist and a tease. They don’t really contradict eachother.
      Eustace could also be a Pacifist just because his parents are, especially considering his age. He might not think about Pacifism much unless he can use it as an opportunity to get out of something — or to start an argument with someone, which is something he likes to do. I could easily see him using his parent’s Pacifist views to try to enrage Edmund, who’s father is in the war. And I can easily see the filmmakers taking advantage of that.

  • Shastafan says:

    If Malfhok is right that the dialouge in the third clip of Eustace’s undragoning doesn’t belong there, then could that be meant for Edmund and Eustace’s conversation? I hope so!

    I hope for another podcast soon. Thanks guys! πŸ™‚

  • pselpevensie says:

    really wish i had been able to watch these clips! πŸ™
    awesome discussion!

  • Peepicheep says:

    Great podcast, you guys did great!

1 Trackback or Pingback for this entry