‘Voyage’ Reaction from Brock Eastman

Posted November 5, 2010 10:56 am by Glumpuddle

Brock Eastman attended the first test screening of “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” on Tuesday (along with our own Tirian). He has posted a spoiler-free reaction on his blog. Here are a few highlights:

This film has taken Narnia back to it’s roots. Given hope that the series can stay true to how it was written, incorporate the Truth, and maintain an action packed pace that makes the movie fly by. While quoted at 145 minutes, it sure didn’t seem that long and may not have been.
[…]
The screen play I felt was well adapted from the book, merges were made where needed, and yet the story felt completely told. As for the green smoke I won’t say much, at first I was like all right some one over dosed on LOST, I mean smoke monster and islands, come on. But no really the trailer is misleading when it shows the White Witch, Suzanne, and Peter. The Screenplay stayed very true to the books and was a wonderful adaptation. C.S. Lewis fans will not be disappointed in what the team has done.
[…]
So in my opinion 2 Big Toes and 2 Thumbs up. Well done Walden and Fox. Thank you for taking the movies closer to the books.
Read the full review

Just four weeks to go, NarniaWebbers!

65 Comments For This Story

  • Pepper Darcy says:

    145 min? I THOUGHT 120 seemed WAY to short! πŸ˜€ YES! It sounds amazing!! πŸ˜€

    • Pepper Darcy says:

      SUZANNE?! That’s funny! πŸ™‚ Wow, Glumpuddle, maybe you’re right. Maybe it [the trailer] really is that misleading! :/

      • Laura Elizabeth says:

        Yes, and I saw somewhere else where Edmund was called Edwin =D
        But I guess, if you’d never read the books, you could sort of mistake Susan for Suzanne.

      • HighQueenofNarnia says:

        Actually, no offense to gP, but I think it was his mistake, because the site reads "Susan".
        Although now that I think about it, that was probably a copy-and-paste… oh well, it’s been fixed by somebody somewhere, don’t worry. Susan’s name isn’t being changed.;)

    • Aslan's country says:

      well !45 min is alot closer to two hours,so in a way its better!!

      • Pepper Darcy says:

        120 minutes it 2hr exactly. 145 is 2hr and 25min. which is better. A straight 2hr seemed way too short. So that is sooo encouraging, especially after his review AND Tirian’s review!

  • glumPuddle says:

    Could it be that the trailer really is THAT misleading? I’m slowly becoming more hopeful. Could it be that the trailer makes it look like the worst Narnia movie but actually it will be the best?

    Oh how I would love to walk out of the theater totally stunned by how brilliant it was.

    • WarriorOfNarnia says:

      I don’t think it could really be that misleading… or maybe they, in the 3rd trailer wanted to add more White Witch-stupid fate-thingy, to make up for the first two trailers.

      • glumPuddle says:

        Well I’m still not expecting to like the seven swords and green mist…But maybe I’ll still feel good about the overall result. There were certainly things I hated in PC, but overall I still gave it the thumbs up.

    • Reepicheep775 says:

      Could it be?!?!

      Oh man I don’t want to get my hopes up, only to be disappointed, but I can’t help, but be encouraged by this.

    • Starlily says:

      I’m getting hopeful too, glumPuddle. But as Reepicheep775 said, I don’t want to get my hopes too high and be disappointed. Also, we have to remember that even if one person (or even most people) end up liking the movie, it doesn’t mean we will. I’m really hoping I’ll like it, though. And I’m sure I’ll at least like parts of it.

      • Duffleglum says:

        yeah.. It’s hard not to trust what they say….

        Keeping my excitement low so that it will soar come Dec 10th.

  • WarriorOfNarnia says:

    Suzanne? Uh der, her name is Susan!

  • Shastafan says:

    Whoopee! So the trailers might be misleading after all? My excitment went up to 200%! πŸ˜€

    Suzanne? I laughed when I saw that!! πŸ™‚

  • Bother Eustace says:

    I’m so confused… we get great reports on the one hand, and terrible spoilers on the other… I don’t know what to think anymore! In fact, I’m through thinking. I’m just gonna go see it first chance I get and try not to die from anticipation and speculation between then and now. =P

    • Pattertwigs Pal says:

      I agree. I am so confused right now. We are hearing things that are seemly very contradictory. As I tend to be a glutton for punishment, I’ll still think about it all. πŸ˜› I’m always skeptical when people reviewing VDT don’t get details about the book right and yet talk about how close it is to the book. I guess I’ll have to wait and see.

  • Aslan's Meadow says:

    Yipee! 145 minutes. If only we could get some solid proof on that. That is the perfect ammount of time. Suzanne? come on, really? Very optomistic and DYING for the movie.

    • David Sutton says:

      The film is not 145 minutes long. I know the runtime of the film, but I am not sure if I can report on it yet.

      • FriendOfNarnia2 says:

        Well, we’ve heard it is 115 minutes. Can you at least clear that up for us?

      • Aslan's Meadow says:

        Oh man! Are you sure you couldn’t tell us the run time? Doesn’t seem like a spoiler…but I’ll be patient. (at least try my best) πŸ™‚

      • David Sutton says:

        115 min is not accurate, but it is very close. The important thing is that the film has a perfect pace and is able to fit the key elements of the book into a very short amount of time. I do not agree with this review that it was closer to the books than the other films. There are some major plot changes, but as a whole the film was very enjoyable.

      • FriendOfNarnia2 says:

        So David, do you consider yourself a book purist? Did you feel like the themes of the book came through strongly?

  • Twinimage says:

    Well…. I’m jiggered.
    First off, I actually wish the run time were shorter. However, we’ve all waited so long for this might as well make it over two hours. πŸ™‚
    This review is encouraging, but I don’t want to get hopes up too much right now. However, this review actually made me smile and full of glee. πŸ˜€

  • Liberty Hoffman says:

    I am so happy with the reviews that are coming in! it sounds like this will be the best Narnia movie yet! awesome!:D

  • Manuel says:

    What is @bdeastman referring when says: β€œFurther several key scenes that may not fit the β€œmainstream” Hollywoodite concept of morality were left in the film”?

    • The Bulgy Bear says:

      I think what he means is that they will be more pro-Christian than Hollywood would normally have. Which is a good thing. =D

  • adamie says:

    wow! that is one early review.

    And could it be that the film is this good? this got me excited again! Might it be the best one yet after all.

    How is it possible that every bit we get says something completely different?!

  • narnia fan 7 says:

    145 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • LucyTheValiant says:

    if anything, this has given me renewed hope πŸ™‚

  • Tribunal says:

    I hope Fox steps up their marketing in the coming weeks. If they don’t get the word out, there won’t be a chance for future movies.

  • Movie Aristotle says:

    Perhaps he meant 1 hour, 45 minutes instead of 145 minutes. That would be closer to what was previously reported. Then there would be another ten minutes of credits which would bring it up to 1 hour, 55 minutes.

  • Louloudi the Centaur says:

    I have been feeling the same amount of positive attitude I had before those heart-sinking-into-your-stomach spoilers back in September. It is not sounding as bad, but I will have to wait until the first actual Narnia Webber gives a report or I see it for myself.

  • Narnian Meerkat says:

    Ahhh. . .Well, that was a big relief and very encouraging. Let’s just hope that it’s TRUE.

  • Queen Elizabeth says:

    NARNIA FANS!: This is for a very important poll. Who is you favorite Narnia character and why?

  • Noogah says:

    I’m a little hopeful now.

    But, Fox better get moving on advertisement. City of Ember (which wasn’t half bad) totally failed in the box office, because Walden Media totally failed to advertise it.

    Bad box ofice = no more movies.

    No more movies = one sad Noogah.

    • Queen Elizabeth says:

      I know what you mean by us needing advertising. I didn’t see City of Ember because I thought it look dumb and low budgeted. Anyway, we have the billboard now, and the trailer has been put out in some other popular movies. So I think the box office issue won’t be a problem.

  • Waleed Sajjad Khan says:

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH I’M GETTING TOO EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!!! Why does December take forever to come?

  • narnian resident says:

    misleading? well then, thats extremely relieving! now we can all calm down a bit.
    i had always thought that they just stuck in that headshot of Peter and Susan to tie in with the previous films and let people know "oh! its still about the pevensies." but hopefully it wont bother them once they see it that its just about the younger two.
    Suzanne?!? ok, now where did that come from? funny πŸ˜€

  • Anonymous says:

    This article sounds very misleading. It is hysterically positive and I don’t think this is as close to the book as the author make sit sound.

  • Warrior 4 Jesus says:

    Interesting review. I love the references to LOST and Smokey J. Very apt given what we’ve seen in the trailers.

  • Justin says:

    Why do I feel strange about trusting what he says about how faithful it is to the book when he calls ‘Susan’, ‘Suzanne’? Does that make anyone else think he isn’t the greatest person to ask about how faithful an adaptation is?

  • FaunFan says:

    Guys, Suzanne does not appear anywhere in the review. It is merely something that happened when part of the review was transferred to NarniaWeb. If you read Brock’s actual review on his website, Suzanne is not even mentioned. Susan is instead used.
    Also, Justin, I totally trust how accurate Brock will be. While he may be slightly biased, I do believe he is reporting his actual opinion BASED ON THE BOOKS. I’ve seen some of his other work at Focus, and he always does a nice job.

    • David Sutton says:

      Suzanne was in the original review, but he has corrected it. All of the main themes from the book remain intact. The movie makers were able to fit the key points of the book into a much shorter movie. I do not think the article was misleading.

    • High Queene Shelly Belly says:

      I love your name! : )

  • NarnianElf says:

    AWESOME!! I love it! GOO MICHAEL APTED!!! Personally I’m gonna be happy even if it is nothing like the book, and I liked the trailers ALOT, but this is AWESOME!!

    P.S. There is so much news on NarniaWeb that I can’t keep up! lol πŸ˜€

  • Denise says:

    All I’m gonna say is I hate how the directors and producers are ruining bit by bit the Narnia movies they make! It makes me sooooo angry!! Why would they want to? I don’t understand! πŸ™

  • thesithempire says:

    Fox has already dropped the ball. This film should by now be FAR more marketed than it’s been by this point. The movie’s a month away, but none but the diehards know that. Compare that to the marketing for Harry Potter which began months ago. The general public need to be regularly reminded that this film is coming. They, in addition, need to see something that intrigue them and makes THEM want to see the film, not just something they’ll drop their kids off to on their way shopping, if they remember.

    1. If Narnia is perceived as just a kids film, one of many — which is what I get from the trailers — you’re not going to get the numbers this film needs. Toy Story 3 succeeded so well because EVERYBODY, young through old, wanted to see that film. And the fact that it was a "darker" (more somber) film didn’t frighten away anyone, like some of you pedantic cowardly types seem to think happened with PC.

    2. Audiences need to be made aware this film is coming and is in theaters. There needs to be a buzz. Most people live busy lives. Marketing is all about pushing something to the top of people’s consciousness, which means competing with all the other things vying for their attention. If Fox doesn’t step up their game, the film will pass by without grabbing hold of a large segment of the population who might have gone to see it had: a) they been aware of it, b) been given time to see it. You hear that about a lot of films that people wanted to see, but didn’t realize was out, or missed because it left the theaters by the time they did.
    3. The first film is not this beloved thing that many of you think it is. Box office numbers don’t reflect that (see The Phantom Menace for proof). Many walked away from that film disappointed and didn’t see PC because they didn’t want more of the same, namely a plastic-looking kiddy-flick with so-so acting, so-so visual effects, and so-so storytelling. It’s significant that a lot of book fans felt the old cartoon was more compelling.

    That said, this film is a chance to get those people back onboard, but only if Fox knows what it’s doing (and I’ve not seen anything to convince they do). I don’t mean to sound like a Marsh-wiggle; I hope the film does crazy great numbers, as Silver Chair is my favorite book, and I want to see it made (and made well.) But I’m a little disgusted at the way Fox has ignored the points I raised above. They might be banking on a last-minute blitz of advertising, but that’s a cost-saving device for them that won’t work. If they’re genuinely interested in revitalizing this franchise, they’ll get new trailers and TV spots (and good ones) going now.

  • Lyle says:

    I’m glad the trailer was misleading with reagrds to Susan, Peter and the WHite Witch — it incurred alot of discussion and, therfore, buzz!

  • Miss Polly Plummer says:

    I thought that the first trailer was great! But then I saw the second one.That was SO NOT FOLLOWING THE BOOK!I am getting extremely worried here!

  • Reepicheep says:

    I’m glad, because I’m getting sick of fans being skeptical!

  • Chloe says:

    This makes me really happy. I was getting worried!

  • Queen Elizabeth says:

    YES!A whole 2 hours and 25 minutes of awesomeness!!!!

  • Arden says:

    I find it funny that he said that they couldn’t time the film because no *phones* were allowed in. Didn’t anybody wear a watch?

  • elizabeth says:

    how long is the movie in the usa?

  • Alambil and Tarvis says:

    145 MINUTES?!

    *dances around hysterically*

    These new sneak-peek reviews are really calming me down about the film. The trailers were so misleading on some parts LOL.

    As for the marketing…I think they’re doing a good job for not being Disney. Remember, Disney is the marketing god, so anything in comparison to their tactics seems to be not enough.

    But honestly…the GINORMOUS posters in practically every movie theater with the ship’s wheel that happens to actually spin (I was SO excited by that :p)? That’s totally not subtle. I DO wish there was more marketing going on in the U.S., but as for international marketing–they’re doing an awesome job. I mean, they’re having a cruise on a model ‘Dawn Treader,’ a special lights show in London, a Royal Premiere of the movie, not to mention all those contests to win tickets.

    Plus, there’s enough of us rabid fans to spread the news to our friends by word of mouth. I, for one, am a walking Narnia advertisement every moment of my life. πŸ˜€ I’m worried a bit about Disney’s over-marketing of Tron Legacy, but I don’t think it’s going to kill VDT at all.

  • Brock says:

    Everyone just needs to make sure they go see it. I was very impressed by the movie and am excited at the new direction. Thanks for posting my blog.