Intriguing Detail Revealed about the Dawn Treader Storyline
In a recent interview with Examiner’s Carla Hay, Ben Barnes dropped a very intriguing tidbit about the overall The Voyage of the Dawn Treader storyline.
Letâs talk about the “Dawn Treader” movie. I know you canât reveal any spoilers, but whatâs in the movie thatâs different from the book?
Barnes: Theyâve stolen a couple of ideas from some of the later [“Chronicles of Narnia”] books. [Itâs] a very difficult book to adapt, because itâs very episodic. Itâs chapter by chapter. They go on the voyage, they go to one island, a bit more voyage, another island, a bit more voyage, another island. Itâs very satisfying to read; every chapter by chapter, itâs very exciting. But it has no real through line. And so they have to kind of steal other elements to sew it all together. I think theyâve done it in a really clever, unobtrusive way.
Could this perhaps have something to do with the “unfathomable fate” we’ve heard about in the production’s written movie synopsis? It certainly seems like a strong possibility, but until we get more information, let the speculation begin!
Thanks to JadistarkilleR for the heads-up!
thats kind of wierd but like cool at the same time… đ
wow! That's really interesting!
Oh yes. They're all difficult to adapt, aren't they. *annoyed huff* Let's hope they keep this one boring and to the book, because really, moviemakers, we'd like it that way. đ
No kidding! I am not too happy about the idea, but I guess we'd better wait and see what they mean. But this could be really bad…..
Im just hoping that they dont mess up this movie too much…Hmm..imagine if *cough* Disney *cough* was still doing this. I bet they would mess the whole thing up.
I kind of disagree with you on the boring part lol
Totally agree!!!!!!!! What do they need to borrow stuff from the other books for!! Why don't they just use Voyage!!! I for one think that VDT is one of the best books in the series!! It dosen't have a lot of battle scenes but its the islands and the adventure that is sooo much fun!!!!!!!!!!
boring and to the book?? Please no lol I'd rather change some things up and have the final result amazing then go word for word play by play and be blah.
Actually, honestly, boring and bookverse don't really fit into the same sentence together. I, personally, would rather it be bookverse than movieverse no matter how hard it is to adapt a 'episodic' plot into a movie. Not that anything with a blond Caspian, dufflepuds, Reepicheep, the Pevensie Royals and Useless C.S. could be boring, mind you…;D
"But it has no real through line"-
not sure we read the same book. Each island is distinct, but the connection is still very clear IMO.
*a little worried now*
I'm a little worried too, especially about the "stealing elements" of the other Narnia books. That could end out bad, or it could turn out all right. But it makes me a little nervous. I just hope Ben meant what he said when he said "clever and unobtrusive." *crosses fingers once again*
Hmmm, I'm not sure that this is very comforting. I don't know what this says about Gael either, I mean the only "little girl" character mentioned in any other Narnia book is Gwendolyn in "Prince Caspian".
I totally agree with you!
Yeah i see what everybody means. But as i mentioned earlier, the filmmakers/scriptwriters may have added the part of the MLG to emphasize how much Edmund's character has matured and how Caspian's already is to contrast with Eustace's obnoxious personality. Kind of adds to their heroic icons. This is just the kind of thing that filmmakers have to do because in books, the readers are left to do all the imagining. But to bring it to the screen, everybody involved in the making of the movie has to pitch in and to the imagining for us. So we shouldn't complain or make assumptions before we see the fruits of their efforts:) because Ben (Barnes) has a point. We don't want the movie audience to be bored because a movie lacks develpoments in the plot (not that VDT will đ ). But then again, pitched battles that aren't in the book aren't exactly the way to go, either. *winces, memory of castle raid in PC* So anyway, it all requires a delicate balance.
hear, hear, I agree with 'Long Live King Skandar' it sounds daunting, but these sort of alterations are necessary if you want a good movie, not just hollywood creating your imaginations for you on the screen. they're supposed to be different, so let's just all hope/pray that they manage the difference well and not judge it till we see the final product! đ
*Spoilers for Last Battle* Stolen things from the other books…I don't like the sound of that. Sounds like another dying dryad scene. (I mean that scene was directly taken from the Last Battle.)
Interesting how movie people think they have to do things that in reality they probably don't have to do.
Let's hope whatever it is won't cause any fans to think: "how ridiculous and unnecessary". đ
Aye! Sometimes they are so preoccupied by putting their own spin on things that they lose sight of the actual story.
Finding Nemo had a similar structure to VDT, and it was a great film. Marlin is trying to find his son, and Caspian is trying to find the Narnian Lords. Finding Nemo is a series of eposodic adventures, VDT is a series of eposodic adventures. If it worked for FN, can't it work for VDT?
That's very true..ive never thought of that before.
hey, I never thought of it that way! Clever,FriendOf Narnia2! đ
You know people need to stop compairing the book to the movie. To make a movie fun to watch they have to do things that are not in the book. So why don't eveybody go see the movie when it comes out and enjoy it and don't compair it to the book. Thats where people who read the books go wrong. I read the book and I also read HP books and saw the movies and enjoyed every book and movie, but went with a open mind when it came to the movies. I loved Prince Caspian and I can't wait to see VOTDT. no matter how it turns out I love adventure movies and I beleive this one will be one. So have fun with it and enjoy it. But don't compair it Ben, Skander, Georgie and the rest of the cast are good actors so I am not worried about the way it is going to turn out. I just wish it was this time next year.
It's easy to say to go into the movie with an open mind, but it's much harder to do. The first time I watched Prince Caspian I knew I wouldn't be able to help comparing it to the book, but the second time I went determined to enjoy it just as a movie… and failed. I still love to watch it, but I will always be disappointed not to really see the book become a movie.
It also makes me somewhat sad that, for many children (and others) the world over, the movies will be the first introduction to Narnia… a Narnia that's not quite the REAL Narnia. They're good movies, but it's bittersweet.
Ya thats how I fell in love with narnia was by the movies and I feel disapointed that I didn't fall in love with the books like others and I wish I could change that, but I know I can't and hopefully I will teach my kids to fall in love with the books and not the movies.
Wow PaigeReeder, that's just how I feel too, but I hadn't yet been able to put words on it….you saved me the trouble đ
Oh, sorry about that Aravis Tarkheena. At least you can fall in love with all the books that haven't been made into movies yet!
When I first watched LWW I had only read three of the books. So I fell in love with the books and movies at the same time. Plus I was only eleven at the time, so it all felt very magical.
True True leolani.
I definitly agree, good way to put it.
You know something? This is part of why the internet, useful tool that it most certainly is, is such a double-blade. It seems that there are fans that consider other fans 'nominal' because they haven't gotten nearly as bent out of shape over page-to-cinema changes in an ADAPTATION of a work. No amount of consolation over all who are involved with the production's love for the source material seems to matter a whit if this or that thing is somehow not a carbon-copy of what Lewis wrote in the original text.
Pardon me for asking the obvious, but HOW in the world could that EVER be so? There is a reason that pages of books are not filmed, then shown onscreen. Every adaptation of a written work (yes, EVERY single one of them) has suffered through some sort of change(s), be it Jane Austen or Spider-Man (both of which, btw, I enjoy immensley for different reasons!)
Cease the bleating, and stop wringing your hands over the cinematic changes, and even more importantly, stop verbally stringing up those of us that note the changes, continue to enjoy the films, and continue to revere the source materials from which they are culled without sacrificing an ounce of reverence either way.
I understand were you are coming from and some of us, yes, should stop picking things apart so much. But, there are alot of us that feel as though a movie, if is being based off of a greatly loved book, should still maintain the main story plot and characters through-out the film. Yes, they can't making it word-for-word, but they shouldn't have to add extra main characters to the story. Also, there may be certain scenes in the book that have been left open for some creative license on the producer's part. But from all the comments I have been reading, I think a lot of Narnia Freaks, such as me, are worried that they will blow as they did with Prince Caspian. Yes, it was a great movie for those who were looking for a fantasy/action/mild thrill type movie, but they really blew it when it came to keeping the main story and characters at their places.
So, there are many things that we can't change, no matter how much we comment or "belly-ache", but this is a public chat site where everyone can express their opinions in a clean fashion. đ
Narniafan4ever…
I'm not totally disagreeing with you, nor would I impinge upon anyone's 'right' to express discontent with this or that element of change. But there are degrees of that sort of thing to which some kind of limit must be drawn, I think; I don't see the same level of outcry given to the old BBC puppet-versions of the Chronicles, if you follow me, and they weren't verbatim, either. Likewise, in another comment that I've posted here, I don't recall anyone genuinely coming out of their skin when the Elves appeared at Helm's Deep, either, except for a few folks who already boasted a long laundry-list of grievances with that particular production in the first place.
Why we, collectively, cannot simply enjoy what is done in the spirit of the series, if not the exacting letter of it, is truly beyond me. Discussing it is fine; haranguing those who disagree is not.
Wyldeirishman:
Well my guess is that they there wasn't much outcry for the other one because it was pretty lame and we were all hoping that the Narnia movies would be made at a better quality.
And as far as the elves at Helm's Deep goes, I really don't understand either. Over all, like I said before, I think that some of us are just over-speculating because of how badly they messed up Prince Caspian. But, we can never truly know what the VDT movie is like until Dec 10th. Either way, I am sure that I will enjoy it, but I think that for it to be worthy of the name "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" that they should stick as close to the story-line as possible without making the movie seem to be a snoozer for those who aren't Narnia Freaks.
And I know that you aren't infringing on people rights to express their opinions. You had the courage to tell everyone that however the movie comes out, we should enjoy it and be thankful that they are puting so much time and effort into these movies. đ I admire you for that.
I feel the same as you do. The films are a separate piece of work as were the BBC minis and radio dramas. If I want a strict story I'll just pick up the book and read it because nothing is more faithful than the source material. But I can read those and still enjoy the films' vision of Narnia.
You are Right!!!
im with u. u r right, peopple need to watch the movies and not compare it with the books. Every movie that is based from a book it will never be the same as the book. So enjoy the movies and books. Cant wait for the movie im so exited!!!!!!!!!
I agree cause my friend emily loves the Harry Potter and Twilight series of books and not the movies because they don't relate to the movies and the characters look nothing like in the book (she even glared at this backpack withedward and bella on it).
You make a very good point, Kell, and I feel the same way you do.
The problem is, I think (and all of you diehard book fans out there, please don't shoot me for having my opinion) that many people don't understand the scriptwriting process, especially when translating a book into a movie. Several of you have pointed out that VDT makes very good sense and has a very "through plotline" that weaves together beautifully, which it does…for a book.
Let me explain. As a writer and an aspiring author, I have come to understand what goes into writing a book. I am also very fascinated with the movie-making process and have payed close attention to the way movies are put together and what makes them work. The thing many people don't understand is that what works for books doesn't always work for movies. I guess you could say it's kindof like the difference between a concerto and a sonata (sorry if some of you are completely lost, but that was the best analogy I could come up with): both are beautiful works of art, but they each have their own set of rules and expectations.
I guess what I'm saying is, books can have things like long descriptions and character's thoughts and journal entries and things like that, while movie directors have to worry about continuity, screen time, and explanations. I can definitely see why they would need elements in the movie to make the plot fit together in a way that would be easy for the audience to understand without lengthy explanations and other such unnecessary fillers that work perfectly well in a book.
In other words, please give the movie-makers some credit. They work very hard to please the diehard fans as well as the naive movie-goers (like several of my friends who thought the professor was really Aslan in human form in the first movie). They are not superhuman, and I think they've done a very good job so far.
Wow, I totally wrote a mini-novel there. :S
Sure, we understand the difference. I know most of the changes are made to fit the book into a movie form. The only thing is, I (as well as many others) grew up with these books, literally. When I heard they were being made into movies, I was (and still am) ecstatic. Why? Because I wanted to see my favorite stories which to some extent defined my childhood on the screen. I don't want to see some other movie with the same name and a few similarities. Now I'm not saying VDT is going to be changed /that/ drastically, I'm just trying to make a point: after seeing other books completely botched by movie attempts, that extreme haunts me just a bit. When I see a new change, I think I'm entitled to be a bit apprehensive – after all, it's almost like their messing with a good friend or something, that's how important these books are. If the change is necessary, and sticks to the basic theme of the book I'm absolutely fine with it. No problemo. But if it's not… *sigh*.
I have to agree with what Crimson Dragon said.
I still like to watch the movies, but it's saddening. It wasn't how I hoped or expected. As I watched the news and then the clips that came in, I was very excited. It looked really fabulous and exciting. I went into it with a open mind you might say. And came out disappointed… So I'm a little apprehensive as I watch the news this time. Oh sure, I'm still excited and I can't wait to see the finished project, but worried when they mention later books and changes. Besides, I don't like that much some of the later books as some of the others.
That's exactly how I feel! I was very disapointed with PC, and have been hoping DT would be better, but now…well, I just hope they don't change too much. This is my favorite book of the series, and I think they would do good with it if they tried. I mean, I know the BBC version was kind of boring, but they got it right, didn't they? Why not make it like the same, but a little more amped up?
I agree with you Fire Fairy. Trying to put a good classic book into visual form is always difficult. And there will always be unsatisfied viewers…there is no getting around it. But one of the great difficulties in making a book into a movie is the fact that you can put the person's thoughts in the book way easier than in a movie. Also, you don't want to have too many lengthy explanations of situations in the movie otherwise the viewers become dis-engaged. But, I think that a company can successfully make a book into a movie without adding characters or changing the plot of the story. That is what makes a producer a good one…..is being able to stay as true to the book as possible without making it too boring and un-engaging to the audience.
There is my novel for you. đ lol.
Allow me to add something to my earlier comment. I wrote it early this morning (for me anyway) and I realize I left out something important – I do love these movies and I think that Walden Media and the rest involved are doing a GREAT job, better than many other scenarios we could end up with. I am very grateful and I feel that all they have respect for these stories. As I said before, I don't like big changes that deviate from the main theme; but I don't want to seem ungrateful for all their doing. God bless them in their endeavor to translate these wonderful stories to the big screen.
Great word, Crimson Dragon! God bless them! đ
I agree, making a movie out of a book is a hard thing, because what would be enthralling for us Book lovers would not be as likely to attract casual moviegoers. i suppose that's why C.S. Lewis never wanted his books made into movies : Aslan on screen could never be big enough, golden enough, terrible enough and wonderful enough to be the Aslan that exsists in our hearts and minds. But for me, seeing the stories played out on screen makes them so much more real, and that makes me happy! đ
In a way, I agree with all of you. The problem is, when classic books like these are made into movies, many of the book fans are going to be slightly disappointed one way or another. The problem is, we've all developed our own ideas of what Narnia really is and how the books should be played out. And there is no way the movie-makers can live up to the expectations of every single diehard Narnia fan. Personally, I think Andrew Adamson did a magnificent job (except with a few issues in PC, like the Caspian/Susan episode, among a few other things, but PC was a very difficult book to convert into a movie). I just hope Michael Apted does as well as or better than what Andrew Adamson did. If somebody other than Andrew Adamson directed the first two, I get the feeling we'd end up with a movie as messed up as Ella Enchanted *winces*.
I just don't see why the directors have the one idea of how a movie HAS to be… that it HAS to have a clear outline or a dramatic action sequence. Who can say that if you make the movie like the book it will be a flop.
I agree about Ella Enchanted. Yes, I understand the complexity of tranferring a book into a movie and that there are nessesary changes/addition. However, they must remember that it's still the original author's story, not theirs. Again, I'm an aspiring author and I admitt that movies and books are on two different playing fields. Nevertheless, if the movie-people (no disrespect intended) do not wish to go by the book, they should create their own brand-new movie with it's own title. Otherwise you get movies like 'gulp' Eragon, inwhich they took the very basic idea and names and changed the rest completely. Am I making myself clear?
Agreed, Fire Fairy. Although I wish they'd keep changes to a minimum, I can understand why some might be necessary in order to make a good movie. However, if they take these changes to an extreme, I probably won't be as willing to just "go with the flow". Let's just have a little more faith in the production and hope that whatever changes they make will ultimately add to the theme and make a better movie.
Hear hear!
The implication that fidelity impedes adaptability is only valid in three cases: 1) where there is an excessive, ridiculous, amount of detail in describing events or items only peripherally related to the core story; 2) when the book is just too darn long to include everything in a 120-page script; and 3) when the book is just AWFUL. Whether or not you like Tolkien, I think we can all agree that no one wants to watch Bilbo and Gandalf having tea for an hour in the upcoming 'Hobbit' film. Thus, I think Tolkien's work is a clear example of the first instance. In the second case, Dickens' classic works have been made into numerous, truncated films, that are usually reasonably representative of his intentions. In the third instance, I'll give you two examples of simply awful (yet HUGELY popular) books whose film adaptations bear only a passing resemblance to the source material: 'Jaws' and 'The Godfather'. In those cases, yes, definitely, the screenwriters improved the source material. DRASTICALLY.
With that said…
There are DOZENS of great film adaptations that have been almost religiously faithful to their source material. Tom Wolfe's 'The Right Stuff' (almost scene for scene), Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird' (one or two scenes rearranged), and Daphne DuMaurier's 'Rebecca' (one change due to censorship) are three of my favourite books whose film adaptations are virtually identical to what the respective authors wrote. If you give me time, I can cite a bunch more. The point is, it IS possible to retain fidelity while creating something cinematically worthy. The two are NOT necessarily diametrically opposed. Is it possible to ALWAYS achieve a high level of fidelity and make something worth watching? Obviously not. That doesn't mean it's "bleating" to want the writers to *strive* for it, given the right material. I don't contend it's the right approach for ALL books. Conversely though, I can't see it as the WRONG approach for all books.
Are they making the Hobbit into a movie?
And in regards to the "not wanting to watch them have tea and talk for an hour", yes I agree with that. But, they should still have a scene with them talking together as they did with Frodo and Gandalf in the Fellowship of the Ring. đ
And those movies were good examples of a producer sticking to the book and keeping and character's personalities and the scenes very much the same. Those movies were very well made, imo. haha….maybe we should have Peter Jackson do the Narnia Films….lol
Yes narniafan4ever, they are making the Hobbit into a movie. Two actually. The first part will be released in 2011 and the second part will be released in 2012. They are currently in pre-production, writing the script and all that good stuff.
Who is producing it?
Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh are producing it. Guillermo del Toro is directing it and Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro and Phillipa Boyens are writing the screenplay. So even though there is a different director, pretty much everybody that was involved in LOTR is going to play some part in the production of it. I'm am really excited about it! đ
oh wow! That is really exciting to here! Are they using the same actors as they did for the LoTR? I sure hope they do. Of course the only one that they really need to keep was Andy Serkis, and the guy who played Bilbo (???) and the guy who played Gandalf.
Wow, now I have two movies to look forward to! đ
Ian McKellen has already said that he definitely wants to come back for the role of Gandalf and I think Andy Serkis has expressed interest in reprising his role as well. Hugo Weaving is also rumored to be playing Elrond again. But it would be nearly impossible for Ian Holm to play Bilbo. He is 78 years old and the character of Bilbo in The Hobbit is supposed to be around Frodo's age in LOTR. But I think that they will get an equal talented actor to play Bilbo and that it will still be amazing. đ
Wow, I didn't realize that he was getting that old. haha. Well, I just hope they make sure the actor looks alot like the old Bilbo…only a younger version…. đ
Agreed! đ
And just to prove the point…I actually ENJOYED the film version of PC. Noted the differences, acknowledged that there were certain things that might have been handled differently (or better, if you like)…and thoroughly enjoyed myself anyhow. đ The book still exists, in several handsome editions, and is readily available for purchase or rent; therefore, the book has NOT been 'ruined' by an adaptation (degrees of deviations/distractions aside) of the book. đ Likewise, my children note the differences, and we have discussed them sans vitriol for the filmmakers; even at ten, seven, and four years old, they, too, are able to appropriate the whys and wherefores of adaptation. They (and I) really like the film versions, and truly adore Lewis' written works. đ
If you are a Lewis fan and not an Adamson fan, you will see why the rest of us are bent out of shape. I'm amazed that 'Lion' was not changed very greatly, considering all the changes supposedly necessary in 'Caspian.'
The fact that you attempt to posit that one cannot be a fan of one without despising the other is all the proof that I require of the fruitlessness of continuing this conversation.
Obviously.
I should clarify that I do think one can like both the movies and the books, as you do; but PC is a bad exception. PC I do despise; even if not compared to the book it is fine. I loved LWW, and I liked Adamson's take then. But then he took too many creative liberties with the sequel for my taste. But that's my last note to clarify.
Hmmmmm. I'm not sure what to make of that. So far I'm not that impressed with all of the "artistic liscence" that Fox and Walden Media are using. I almost think they are using too much!
I still can't wait for the movie to come out, though, hee hee.
This kind of thing is expected. Sounds exciting to me. As long as they get the key elments and incorporate Aslan and make him as important as he really is, then Im good.
Exactly!
I doubt anyone expects a word for word copy of the book, but they screenwriters should at least try to keep loyal to what Lewis intended.
Though I must admit the hint at romance between Caspian and Susan was a bit much, in the last movie.
I agree. I would like to see at least one movie that sticks to the story line of a book without changing anything..which may be a little difficult with the Narnia series..but It is still doable!
yeah, the romance wasn't needed to make PC a good movie. It wasn't in the book, for one thing. And second, Caspian ends up marrying someone else in the next book/movie! It's just my opinion, though.
I absolutely 100% agree with you on the Caspian/Susan thing, puddleGlum! That just wasn't necessary!
It wasn't at all necessary for an Elvish army to cinematically march into Helm's Deep, either, was it?
Who on earth was genuinely rankled by that?
Nope, wasn't necessary. Nor was Haldir's death. I think their point by all that was trying to make Helms Deep seem all the more heroic. I don't like it, but I didn't have time to build up a total loyalty to LotR as I did to Narnia, and thus don't mind it as much. đ
The chronology of your fandom is NOT an adequate barometer by which to judge whether or not a change is disastrous or not, is it? If so, how do you honestly remain objective in your opinion?
The point is that yes, the change could be viewed as unnecessary simply because it IS a deviation (in letter, not in spirit). The degree to which we choose to become agitated says alot about our understanding of adapting a certain type of written work for the cinema, as well as our own impatience. A few folks that I know were totally put out by the elements in LOTR which we have been speaking of, but, to be perfectly honest, they already had a very long list of grievances to carry around with them regarding that particular adaptation/production.
I'm NOT saying that all changes are unnecessary because they are deviations. If you pay attention to what I write, what I write is that the movies should be different from the books because otherwise people will fall asleep out of the boredom. In LWW, for instance, I was not put out by the changes because it made it into a much more exciting movie. (If the Pevensies had been traveling a couple of hours ahead of the White Witch and her wolves, instead of having the dramatic river scene, it would have made it more boring, even if it was fine in the book the way it was.)
Nor was I put out with the changes in The Two Towers. The Elves marching into Helms Deep made it much more heroic, much more âlast-standish.â But in the end, it was not such a big detail. As far as I recall, the Elves did not drastically change the outcome of the battle. (Although PARDON me if I am wrong, because AS I said, I have read the Narnia books many more times than LotR and I am prone to missing something.) In the end, nor it nor Haldir's death contributed anything, now did they? Hence my point: it was unnecessary. I don't think people would have missed it if it had not come. And also, if I recall correctly, Sam and Frodo should never have passed through Osgiliath at all, should they have? But LotR is a 1000-page book and a change like that isn't totally rewriting the story.
'Prince Caspian' was another issue, and as I said in a different thread, the changes were unnecessary and based more on what the filmmakers wanted to do than what they had to do because the book would work no other way to be adapted into the cinema. They wanted the book to still revolve principally around the Pevensies than around the title character, Caspian. And I can understand the changes they had to go through in making it into an adaptation: they did not want half of it to be told in flashback. But using the sequence they use in the movie, they could have kept everything in it but had the Pevensies arrive later. I would have had no objection with the castle raid IF the Pevensies had not been there, because yes, it has whatever little founding in the book it has.
Also, the filmmakers seem to be attempting to make Narnia into thriller movies, meaning there has to be a lot more action then there are in the books, correct? LotR was a thriller.
I can continue on this, but my own point happens to be: yes, films have to be changed to some extent. But if some of the changes are not there, it would still have had the same effect.
I do my honest best to keep an unbiased outlook on issues such as these, so I attempt to look at it from the filmmakers' point of view and from mine as a fan's. No changes from the book will make it absolutely boring (Have you ever seen the old cartoon The Hobbit), and to totally rewrite it is to ignore the biggest audience to the Narnia franchise, the real fans who have read the books.
It would seem, then, that we are at odds with what 'totally re-writing' the story means, even though you had only just previously gone to great lengths to set out your case to the contrary. This is confusing, but no more confusing than referring to LotR as a 'thriller,' when it's most definitely a 'snoozer.' đ
*ducks from the shower of Gondorian arrows*
*sigh* I donât think either of us is going to convince the other of anything. And exactly what do you mean when you said I had just gone previously to great lengths to set my case to the contrary? All I said to you that I recall is that I disagree with the Elves coming to Helms Deep, because it wasnât necessary.
Iâm not all bent out of sorts over it like I was with Prince Caspian because it was NOT CHANGED AS GREATLY AS PRINCE CASPIAN. Iâm not bent out over it because it is like the excitement added to LWW. And if my loyalties here are hard to define, that is because I am indeed attempting to be neutral.
I think you've misunderstood me, or I have just been inadvertently obtuse đ The very same crowd that bemoans what, in the end, amounts to the displacement of a handful of stones in Middle Earth DOES, in fact, consider it a complete re-write when Sam and Frodo pass through Osgiliath. Admittedly, I find much more in common with those that protest against that particular example because of what should be the obvious ramifications given the already-established cinematic perimeters(whew!) than with the very vocal group that simply likes to complain over-long that the entire production is ruined because of such an obvious adaption-related misstep.
Your insistence upon lending credibility to not only the authorial intent (which should go without saying), but also to the filmmakers that diligently strive to maintain the same air while wrestling with notions of compressed narrative and other perils of adaptation, go along way to prove that we aren't enemies after all (though, regrettably, I cannot speak for everyone here in that regard!)
We ALL want it to be great; the difficulty, then, is sifting through exactly what that means, and I appreciate your candor and honesty in doing so.
I appreciate yours as well. Everyone's opinions will be different, and unfortunately it turns quite complicated. We are all entitled to our own opinions.
Oh, and I'm sorry for the amount of irritation which may have gotten through to you. The thing is, this all turns into such a heated debate. I'm certain that you like the books just as much as I do, we just have different ways of looking at it.
It's no problem, really đ Very often, it's easy to read something of a tone into cold, hard text that may not even be there; then again…seriously, I'm just not ready to throw it all away based upon speculation and hearsay. I get enough of that with fellow comic-book 'purists' that insist that the Spider-Man films are absolute feces because of this exact type of mind-numbing nit-picking. The big nits may need to be picked, I will grant that…but the little ones are of no consequence (whether they tend to add or detract from the source material). I find it increasingly easier to enjoy a film adaptation for what it is, not dump on it for what it fails to be (unless the failure is EPIC in scope, purpose, and scored poorly to boot).
Thanks đ
Amen! Aslan is the best part!
And, for the record, I have, of course, read and re-read the Chronicles more times than I can actually recount; seeing as how I'm not become mentally unhinged by several of the changes made to the stories during the course of their adaptation to the cinematic format, do I still count as a 'real fan?' đ
In my opinion you do. I couldn't help but feel pinged when you mentioned comic book purists. I feel like comic adaptations are even harder than book ones because there's a visual element some fans expect to stay the same. Yet several comic book movies have been a huge hit anyway. The Dark Knight was a huge success while borrowing elements from several bits of Batman history. It still wove an enjoyable Batman story. Constantine rewrote a storyline and dramatically altered the entire setting of Hellblazer, far more than both Narnia movies combined, but I suppose it didn't get as much flack as other adaptations because not enough people are loyal to Hellblazer or even know what Hellblazer is to begin with. Yet it brought attention to the comic anyway, just as Watchmen brought interest back to the comic. Are those new fans worth any less than someone whose first exposure was the original? It just goes back to what you mentioned about feeling nominal.
I continue to find it entertaining when folks here insist that the LotR films were concretely faithful to Tolkien's written work; if I were of a desire to be a 9th degree black-belt in anal-retentive nit-picking, I could shred that notion fairly simply (albeit with a list as long as my arm!).
But why would I? Why would I not simply satisfy myself with what the filmmakers HAVE done, in an adaptive format, than go all foamy over what they FAILED to provide? Granted, I'm a much bigger Narnia fan than that of all things Middle Earth, but the point remains the same.
Fanboys, after a point, need to make it a point not to ACT like fanboys (or girls) in order to simultaneously remain civil and respectfully enjoy another's take on a given story/character. Otherwise, I'm afraid that all they have in store for them is an ongoing and acute case of ringworm!
I'm in such absolute agreement with you. I could pick and pick and pick at comic book movies until the cows come home. The list of "trespasses" could be so long, but like you I just don't feel some of those things are worth criticizing as a travesty towards the source material. I guess where Narnia is concerned a connection to a fan's childhood makes it more sacred, in which case I feel like those people can't be pleased because it must be done "only the right way" and the "right way" will still vary from fan to fan because everyone interprets words on the page differently.
Wyldeirishman – about LotR, I know what you mean. As I've said, I'm not so much a LotR expert, and I like Narnia better. I don't really like it when people continually compare Narnia to LotR as the standard to hold the movies up to. (They are really different in flavor, and Narnia is NOT Middle Earth. But that's getting off-topic slightly.)
As mentioned in our other conversations, there are really a lot of changes in LotR that people have simply failed to notice. I think people are swept so away in the grandeur and epic stuff of Middle-Earth that they don't notice the changes (As I also could list a TON of nitpicking in errors)! My point: LotR movies are not as solid on the book as many may like.
This is basically an agreement with you. đ
Stop the presses!!! đ
totn: Thanks! It doesn't win me any prizes, to be sure, but that is exactly the way I feel, and you appear to understand perfectly! There are (and remain) things within all of the various comic book adaptations that I would have either liked to see handled differently, or that WERE handled completely accurately and just didn't translate well onscreen. (The exception to either of these is the film version of 'Daredevil,' which should never have been allowed to get past the script editing phase :P) Mostly, however, they maintain the spirit, if not the actual letter, of their source material, and I can ill-afford the time (or stomach cramps) for the rampant cynicism that so over-plagues today's film-going audience.
Arya: again, my thanks. The prominent examples of both the LotR and HP films should continue to suffice as excellent examples of work adapted from marvelous source material (though there's no accounting for taste, as I know plenty of folks that don't care for one or the other…or either!). After a time, I sincerely believe that the degree of outcry over such things must be measured against the principle of subjectivity that colors all of our memories, thoughts, and feelings when juxtaposed to that of another equally passionate fan. The most recent Spider-Man film was, for my circle of nerds, a perfect example of this, as I have always found Venom (that's the black-clad Spider-Man villain, in case you didn't know) to be the most singularly overrated character in the web-slinger's orbit, and I was thrilled that his on-screen incarnation didn't survive the single film that he appeared in. I mean it: I was literally giddy; my friends were less than thrilled, however, and many of them took to the personal verbal thrashing that you see so often in many an on-line forum, to the point of disparaging the entire picture's worth. I can certainly respect the genuine differences of opinion when they surface (and, as we have noted, they most obviously will), but I don't think it's too much to ask that the respective connoisseurs be grown-up when discussing things that bring such child-like joy đ
Ok I was trying to think about the sceens we've seen and they can relate to the other books, but I drew a blank so I went to the website to see if there was anything else about VDT. Since I couldn't find anything here that isn't already here I looked at the website thinking it was another aulstrailian website, but no it was a Salt Lake City, Utah website. I felt like I was going to explode. Was there another narnia lover in Utah besides me? so Whoever posted this Do you live in utah? sorry I have to pull all of you in to my teen drama life.^^
There are Narnia lovers everywhere. Are you just wanting a Narnia friend on this website who also lives near you? I wouldn't feel isolated just because you like Narnia and everyone one this site seems to be from somewhere else. You'll find out how many actually are really excited about this where you live if you go the first night this comes out. (Near SLC myself)
REALLY! sorry(Aravis be calm). In my town as far as I know I'm the only person who likes narnia. so it very exiting to find some one who lives near me who likes narnia also, but your right I'll find lots of people who live near me on opening night.^^
Ditto. You'd be surprised how many of us are nearby.
Well the real truth is that I think most of you are in different states and different countries exept the creaters(which proplaby is family, a school groop, a group of friends or something)so its exiting ifnding someone from your own state or city. And I got over exited^^
Borrowing from later books sounds better than making stuff up, as long as it doesn't interfere with anything major when they get around adapting the later books in question.
I'm very curious.
I agree – if they are borrowing from other books, at least they are staying within the bounds of the world Lewis created; at least these things DID happen in Narnia at some point! If well handled, any changes will not seem out of place but will feel consistent with the world of Narnia as conceived and perceived in the books. This to me is better than throwing in some random monkeywrench of a storyline to satisfy our modern cultural sensibilities… (*ahem Peter the troubled aggressive teenager) đ
Hopefully what Ben thinks is true, that the way they've borrowed elements around will be clever and unobtrusive. Maybe it'll be parallels to events in Horse and His Boy or foreshadowing later events in canon which would be interesting to me but also depressing if they're hints at Silver Chair or Last Battle, sad books. I'm curious but December 2010 is so far.
Wo Wo Wo I can live with books that take place in Narnia and the north, but not the Horse and His boy. I mean it takes place in the deseret with 14-15 year olds escaping to narnia. It just wouldn't mix. (sorry if I seem crazy I just need to get some sleep).
No worries, and I'll be the first to admit when I saw those pictures of Caspian in his new armor I did think he had a Prince of Persia look to him.
Speaking of A horse and his boy, is there any rumore of that being made into film?
Puddleglum,
Walden Media has repeatedly said that they are committed to making movies based on all the book as long as the series continues to receive adequate support from movie goers.
Then let's get as many people to show their support as possible!!!!! đ
*sigh* That may not work so well. Some people may be so totally turned off to PC now that they don't plan to go to VODT. Just look at how much money LWW made in comparison!
I don't pay attention to that stuff, but you never know cause it doesn't matter on the money they make on opening night it matters how many fans ther are because you never know how many fans there are. I mean I didn't go on opening night and I fell in love with narnia by Prince Caspain movie. You never know how many will fall in love with VDT or the others because the letter they sent to the cast and crew with all those signatures were more than prince caspain and thats not including the ones who don't know narnia web exists so there are many fans.
That won't be too bad at all. Don't forget that in the first movie there were several references to The Magician's Nephew (such as the carvings on the wardrobe and the silver apple container on the professor's desk that he keeps that stuff for his pipe in).
I love those kinds of hints at canon in adaptations! Though Ben seems to imply that whatever this is is tied to the main plot. Very intriguing.
This worries me a little. I can handle it when they add stuff (I think), but if they're taking it from another book, how's that going to affect future Narnia movies? I hope that Ben is right when he says it's "unobtrusive."
my money is on Silver Chair and/or Last Battle stuff getting mixed into VDT. Silver Chair makes the most sense, since it essentially forms the trilogy in the Caspian story arc, and thus "sews it together". i understand what others have said about old scripts and mysterious blonde actresses popping out of nowehere, but theres something about these little telltale signs that i cant shake. somethings afoot, and Barnes just chucked in another clue on that side of the scale.
I've always felt it would have been interesting in the books if Caspian had done something between the years of VDT and SC to give the Lady of the Green Kirtle reason, so that her treachery was more than ten years in the making.
Now that's an interesting twist! I've never heard that one, but that does make a bit of sense.
It's something I've always wondered about in the books. I have a habit of wondering and trying to fill in "the missing years" for a lot of stories. Narnia definitely stokes my imagination.
"something's afoot" Yeah, and it kind of scares me. What will the end product be of all these deviations from the book? It could be acceptable, or it could be appalling.
But I've still got my happy face on. đ
Maybe adding "stolen ideas" from other Narnia books won't be so bad. I hope.
as long as they steal from Narnia and not another book like Twilight or HP *cough*Suspian*cough*
Dare I even begin to wonder! I can't wait to just know so I can figure it all out in my head how it will play out! All I can do for now is just pray and hope!
I'm gonna go out on a limb here. If they were to borrow from the later novels, it would make sense for them to set up the "order of witches" talked about in the Silver Chair.
I always felt like that was a bit of retcon in the books, and it would directly set up a sequel . . .
Thoughts?
I was thinking along the same lines as well although I don't remember it being addressed in Magician's Nephew despite it being written later than Silver Chair. Still it would make the existence of more witches fluid for the film adaptations, especially if they intend to turn Silver Chair into a movie. I would cry my eyes out because that book depresses me but would love to see the film continuity expanded anyway.
I don't think that the Silver Chair is sad so much as intense and "scary"…full of mystery and darkness. Just my opinion. đ
I'm pretty sure they've talked about doing all of the books.
narniafan4ever: I agree with you that SC is also dark, complete with elements of possession and cannibalism, but everything about Caspian in SC just breaks my heart for him. I would absolutely watch a film version of it and if it's Walden Media behind the production well I am pretty sure they will make me cry my eyes out. They've fleshed out the characters and portrayed interpersonal character relationships in a way I utterly enjoy, so just imagining Barnes' Caspian sobbing makes me sad. But in a good way! I have that much faith in the moviemakers' ability to move me.
Fire Fairy: If they do produce all seven I will be right there to watch them!
There is nothing germane to the central story of Dawn Treader that is at all "difficult to adapt", cinematically. Not to a writer with half a clue, anyway. The more I read of this nonsense, the more frustrated and angry I get. I was, at first, more nervous about whether or not the more important SPIRITUAL aspects of the book would be included in the film, because, like many others, I thought that the basic story was so good, so clearly laid out, that there was no way they'd "mess it up". THAT part, I thought, was a given. Now, I have serious doubts as to whether this thing will even be recognizable, in ANY regard. And, worse yet, by "stealing a couple of ideas" from the later books, they not only risk compromising THIS film, but any potential adaptations of THOSE books, as well. Sounds like the "unfathomable fate" is what awaits us in theatres in December, 2010.
Woah! Calm down a bit! I think you should consider the screenwriters a bit…they have a tough job! Have you ever adapted a book into a movie? Especially one as big as Narnia? On the same note, have you ever written a book? Please be a little more understanding of the writers, especially if you've never experienced the writing process.
Are you for real? I can't express an opinion of a ludicrous course of action because I'm not a professional writer? No, I've never adapted a novel for a screenplay. I've also never butchered one, either. It's so frustrating how easily people accept the tired old excuse of 'Oh, it's sooooooooo hard to adapt a novel to the screen.' That's why there are so many mediocre adaptations. Because writers aren't taken to task ENOUGH. Anyone who can read knows that 'Dawn Treader' is a very straight-forward, well-constructed, easily accessible story that does NOT need to be doctored to this extent. This is yet another example of Hollywood a)underestimating the intended audience; and b)thinking they know better than the author. There are many great films based on infinitely more complex novels than this that are straightforward, recognizable adaptations. Read the book, understand the book, respect the book, and then REFLECT the book. That's how you make a successful adaptation. I don't see evidence of ANY of that so far. I'll give writers credit where credit is due. I thought 'Wardrobe' was a fantastic adaptation, with a few disappointing moments. I thought 'Caspian' was a passable, if somewhat compromised, interpretation of a not-so-great book. 'Dawn Treader' HAS to be good. There is no safety margin for mediocrity with this franchise anymore. The reports I am reading here are NOT inspiring confidence, and I certainly don't see how "Trust the writers. Cuz they're writers" is helpful AT ALL. If this site is to be useful, to any significant degree, that CANNOT be the rallying cry of the masses. That's my amateur opinion.
Iâm not certain itâs totally because of the writing process that makes the movies different. I think itâs what the filmmakers have an idea of in their heads.
1. They wanted Prince Caspian to still revolve principally around the Pevensies. They said that half the book is the Pevensies sitting around a campfire listening to Trumpkinâs story. I have no objection to the order of events in which they placed the movie; it makes it more straightforward. But if they had made the movie to revolve more around Caspian than around Peter and Susan, I think it still could have worked fine. What Iâm getting at is that they wanted the Pevensies to be in it from the beginning of the war, not just come in at the end; hence the castle raid. The filmmakers could have kept the movie the same sequence they do have in it, just included the battles to not have the Pevensies. If the castle raid had occurred before the Pevensies came, as something Caspian himself did, I would have had no objections.
2. They know that many crowds want a thriller-movie; not one that is technically an adventure but rather one that has action sequences. Many of the effects in Narnia seem to be copies of Lord of the Rings, which was a big âthrill.â As a matter of fact, many think that Prince Caspian should be a PG-13 movie (LotRâs rating); it has a high amount of violence for the rating of PG.
I know that books need to be dramatized in order to make it an interesting movie, thus my reasons why I said elsewhere that there should be changes: such as instead of Caspian overthrowing Governor Gumpas with dialogue, perhaps this should be changed into an action sequence. If it is left as dialogue, the audience may have a difficult time understanding it. Although on the other hand Iâll bring to your attention that The Fellowship of the Ring had quite a bit of dialogue in the beginning, giving the history of the Ring and everything. (By the way, I think LotR was quite well-written.)
Lookat Lord of the Rings. They kept then very much like the book andthey were great. I think they should do the same for these books.
"There is nothing germane to the central story of Dawn Treader that is at all "difficult to adapt", cinematically."
Whoa, take a breather.
How do you know that, first off? And remember, they have to make a movie that stays true enough to the book so books fans will like it, a movie that is interesting and understandable to people who have never read CoN, and make enough money for a profit.
They can't make the movie geared straight towards book lovers.
First of all, I'm not out of breath, nor do I need to be "woahed". Second, I "know" because: a) I can read; and b) It's a one hundred and seventeen page CHILDREN'S BOOK. This is NOT a vast, sprawling, epic Russian novel, OK? The concepts are SIMPLE and already "accessible", the plot is well mapped out, and digital technology can translate the more fantastic aspects of Lewis' vision. Again, there are INFINITELY more complex properties than 'Dawn Treader' that have been adapted almost verbatim to the screen. There's no need to augment it, and certainly no need to "steal" from the other books. The ONLY part of the book that really requires some creative problem solving is Eustace's transformation into the dragon, and the most effective way to convey his thoughts. glumPuddle has an excellent thread about this in the forum. But, that's a PRESENTATION issue, not a PLOT issue. And, I'm quite familiar with the filmmaking process, thanks, and all of its related marketing aspects. Honestly, if you're happy to accept whatever the writers give you, then God Bless You. I'm a bit more concerned that they get this right. There are no more second chances for this franchise, and I'd REALLY like to see all of the books adapted.
Hey, I'm sorry if I came across as accusing and critical. I didn't mean to shoot down your opinion. I'm just getting the feeling that you're being a little closed-minded, that's all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blindly accepting what the writers are coming up with. I just feel like the need a little bit more credit for what they do. I'm a writer myself, so I've had a glimpse of what writers go through. Yes, there were a few adaptations I disagreed with, but I also understand that some things do not translate well onto the screen. I do respect your opinion; all I'm asking is that you don't blame everything on the writers. They do the best they can. I also feel that you need to understand that the writers don't always understand the books as well as we do, and therefore make a few mistakes in their translation of the script because they don't always understand the importance of some elements. They are doing their best.
The other thing I would like you to consider is the plotline. You've pointed out that VDT is a children's story with a simple, straightforward plotline–which it is. I, however, feel that that is only on the surface. As you start to dig deeper into the books, you may be surprised to find how complex and theological the plotlines can be.
I'm not one of the writers, so I can't tell you their exact intent. All I'm asking is that you be a little more open-minded and understanding. I'm very sorry if I offended you.
uh oh
I don't like this at all….
Let's all calm down here. Frankly, the book is meant to be a book, not a movie. I would prefer a couple changes here and there, and the general essence of the book to be present. And if they are stealing from "later books", it's not entirely untrue. Now some of you are going "Yes it is!" right now. I have one word for those of you: the kiss. Can't get much worse then that.
Yes, but the kiss only took 5 seconds, and another 5 seconds of odd flirty glances. You can ignore that – but structural changes to a story, or tacking on some fake urgency with some danger of Narnia being destroyed, is much harder to ignore.
Actually, I think it could get MUCH worse. I'm picturing like Jadis attacking Caspian, or Ed liking a slave girl or something. I think any HUGE changes to the plot of the book are more upsetting than a little romance and kiss.
AAAAHH!! Don't jinx it, please!!!!
I also felt the kiss was unrealistic, in that if they were going for romantic drama they fell short of the mark. However if the kiss is a symbol of fleeting youth, regret, change, etc. then the kiss doesn't bother me. Interpreted from that point of view, I think the kiss is almost poignant and bittersweet, especially for someone who has strong feelings about Susan's status in LB. Peter said they weren't needed in Narnia anymore, passing authority to Caspian, the new King of Narnia. You can just as easily see Susan's kissing Caspian as her way of kissing Narnia goodbye. I found their hug AFTER the kiss to be much more moving.
Anyway I guess I'm just echoing that the kiss is not the worst they can do, by far.
The flirtation did not take only five seconds. It was Susan's motivation for almost everything she did. She was backing Caspian instead of Peter throughout the entire film. It is like the are trying to go along with the ridiculous idea that the reason Susan did not come to Narnia at the end of The Last Battle was because she did not like boys. That is not why. She didn't come to Narnia at the end of The Last Battle because she lost faith.
The kiss was pretty terrible. Ugh, it just makes me squirm! So wrong!
I really believe this is good news! We were pretty sure that they added this "unfathomable fate" thing, but if they took it from another narnia book, it makes me feel a lot better. After all, it ĂŹs from the books, so it'll probably be OK.
Borrowed from other books? It's better than making stuff up, but it will take away from the other books. And yes, VDT is rather episodic, but it is tied together quite well with finding the lost lords, and Aslan's country.
It sounds like the filmmakers think that there isn't enough grand scale action for modern film viewers, so they want to add pitched battles and unfathomable fates. I don't mean to rant, but what ever happened to just telling a good story?
It's so hard when it comes to changing a book into a movie. I am a hardcore Narnia fan (so much so I should probably change my screen name here), but I don't think the movie should be the same as the book. I mean, believe me, I can rant about all the unnecessary changes in Prince Caspian! But I was in a drama of VoDT once, which very closely followed the book, and it was actually almost all talking and very little action. Well, except for various little parts, but I think the movie will need to be dramatized in order to keep people from falling asleep!
Trust me, VodT is a VERY good book and I don't like a lot of the changes I've been hearing about. (Such as Gael.) But I think it needs to be changed to some extent. For instance, on the Lone Islands, Caspian walks in to Gumpas's office, gives a bunch of dialogue, and thus breaks the slave trade. It could do with more action at that point. Although some of what it sounds like they're adding is already unnecessary. đ
You make a very good point, Princess Arya. I have a hard time getting people to understand how difficult and yet how necessary it is to adapt a book into a movie. A few changes in any book are always necessary.
Fire Fairy, I have adapted books into screen plays, and yes, a few changes are necessary to adapt to film. However, we are not talking about a few changes. The night raid in PC was not a little change, neither was the romance for that matter. And it sounds like this film is taking the same stance. I am sorry if anyone misunderstood me. I am not against "making a few changes" I am against changing the story. If the changes we are hearing about enhance the story and tell it even better, then I am all for it. If they are merely to adjust the story so a modern audience will go see it, then I think the movie should not be made. The power of the story could very easily be lost in too many action scenes and tiresome romances. I hope this is not the case.
Sorry, daughter of the king, I do understand what you meant. I'm just saying that a lot of people are blaming everything on the writers, and think that everything in the movies should be exactly the way they are presented in the book. I, too, feel that some of the story changes were unnecessary. However, on the other hand, I do feel they did a fairly good job and am not too upset with the overall outcome, even though there were several things missing that ultimately disappointed me.
It's okay, Fire Fairy, I'm not mad at you. Personally, I'm not mad at the writers, I'm just not fond of the directors. I didn't like Mr. Adamson's take on Narnia, and now I'm waiting to see if I'll like Mr. Apted's.
……….which puts me on edge(sorry, wrong button!).
I think I agree. As I indirectly hinted elsewhere, I don't think that all the changes are the writers' responsibility. It IS the director's as well.
I know. I'm trying not to get frustrated, but it is getting harder. Hopefully he just means a few little changes here and there, hinting at future events.
*makes toilet flushing noise* Grrr…VotDT has a VERY clear "through line" – the quest for the seven missing lords!!!! I really hope that actors, as usual, have no idea what they're talking about in terms of over-arching plot.
I am so excited for this movie. All I know is that it is going to be very interestint..with all this plus the MLG. I can't wait.
Hi, everybody!
I'm one of those people who HATES them to change the books, but I did enjoy the Prince Caspian movie. My only real problem with it was that they didn't show enough "pro Narnian" Telmarines, so the ending, with all those celebrating people, didn't make quite as much sense as I would have liked.
I think that whether you find a "through line" in Dawn Treader (the book) depends a little on who you think is the hero of the story. A lot of the book is from either Lucy's or Eustace's perspective. But, having read "Planet Narnia" (great book, BTW!), I've become convinced that Reepicheep is the "hero" of the story. But I don't think they're going to film it that way. đ (Actually, filmmakers tend to misidentify the hero a lot — look at LOTR! —but that's another story).
If they do make Reepicheep the hero, they don't need to change anything much. He's the driving force of the story in a lot of ways, and a great foil for the boys, and sometimes Lucy.
But if they center the movie on the human characters, I can see them bringing other elements in.
Jargon, what you say about the "order of witches" makes a lot of sense. And, personally, I think they could bring that in fairly easily, especially in the Dark Island scene — which could be expanded.
There are already references to The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe on Ramandu's Island — but am I alone in thinking that they could also bring elements from The Magician's Nephew into the story, both on Ramandu's Island and later on?
BTW, Aravis Narnia, that's really cool that your friends thought Professor Kirk was another form of Aslan!
Actually that was me, Fire Fairy, but that's okay.
You make a very interesting point about the hero of the story. I never thought of Reepicheep as being the hero, but, now that I think about it, it does make sense! He never doubted nor faltered in the entire adventure.
Reepicheep is ABSOLUTELY the hero of the story. Or, to put it more accurately, it's really HIS story, ultimately. It's a fantasy/quest story on many levels, but the real quest is for Reepicheep to find a quiet, lasting peace. Remember when he throws his sword over the Silver Sea? At that point, he's finally at peace. He's finally "come home". Sadly, I have ZERO faith that we'll see this reflected in the film.
Well, Eddie Izzard has a lot of fans. Will Moseley and Ben Barnes included, they have said so themselves. So I think that they're's a pretty good chance that they'll make Reep as funny and "chivalrous" đ as possible, as well as expand his character. Plus, we know from pics from the set that they're taking the part of Reepicheep seriously, so lets not lose faith đ
Btw, did you take your name from Great Expectations?
Close. He's a character from 'David Copperfield'. I'm sure Reepicheep will have a fair amount of screen time, but it'll probably be more along the lines of comedy relief. I can't see the writers "getting" the significance of his story. Especially since the more spiritual aspects of the books have already been marginalized in the previous films. It's a shame, really, because Reepicheep's journey elevates the book so far above the status of a standard "quest" tale. That element, plus Aslan's revelation at the end, are SO much more important than anything else in the book, I just have a terrible feeling that the only two things I REALLY want to see in the film will almost certainly be cut or diminished somehow. I hope I'm wrong, but…
oh, right…how could I forget…*smacks self on forehead* james…davy…etc.
and yeah i know what you mean now… Reepicheep represents an absolute faith in Aslan and the better world awaiting everyone who's willing to believe in them. I thought LWW portrayed a similar faith well, although PC did drift from that focus. I hope, as you do, that the people working on VDT don't feel like they have to tone down the truly important message just because they don't want to "insult" anybody or anything. Which would be a lie; look at how successful LWW was. All this just boils down to one thing: the truth is what's important and you just shouldn't miss out on the big picture. Hopefully they've learned a lesson from PC. I know that this is what everyone's been saying but I think you had a good point that other people had overlooked.
*Hopes they aren't stealing LotGK from SC*
The first time I tried to read "The Chronicles of Narnia", I didn't get all the way through. After that, I kind of forgot about the books. Then I heard that "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" was to be made into a movie. I, of course, went to see it, and instantly it became one of my favorite movies. Then I read the books, all seven of them this time. I very much enjoyed all of them this time around, and that's how I became a Narnia fan.
I counted the days until "Prince Caspian" came out, and I'd been looking forward to it so much that I didn't let myself be disappointed, at least not too bitterly. I tried to think of the things that I did like, and then the next few times I saw it, even the things I hadn't liked at first seemed all right to me. After all, reading the book, I tried to picture myself a screenwriter or director or whatever, and really, I would have had a tough time with it. Not even BBC could make that story into a movie that was word-for-word like the book.
Now, if possible, I am looking forward to "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" even more than "Prince Caspian". I fully anticipate the movie being different from the book in some ways, but that's all right. The one complaint about "The Lion, the Witch, and Wardrobe" that I've heard in person is that the movie is too much like the book. I don't really agree, but whatever. However, they did have a point. If a movie and a book are exactly alike, then why read the book when you can watch the movie, or why watch the movie when you can read the book? You get the same thing out of both! As for myself, I like a lot of the things they changed in "Prince Caspian". To me, it brings out the meaning of the book that I could never see before I watched the movie. Now I can see it in both.
In conclusion, I like them to stay very close to the book, but a few differences are okay.
I couldn't have said it better, Reepicheep. My story about becoming a fan of Narnia is very similar except I watched the BBC versions as a kid, but I didn't really become a fan until LWW came out. I like some changes too, because I like some surprises. Like the Castle Raid in PC was a big surprise, but I really like that scene. I LOVE the gryphons! I have always been a fan of uncommonly used mythical creatures. But I am definitely excited about a more desperate reason why they are searching for the seven lords. Because just finding them to find them (to me) isn't that big of a drive to complete their quest. Now if finding the lord to find them because they have some sort of special information to save Narnia to something and if they don't find it something bad will happen to Narnia. That's much more desperate. I am waiting until the movie comes out the pass my judgement and they haven't really let me down yet (though a little in PC), so I'm going to trust the movie makers and anxiously await 12/10/10. I also wonder what exactly their stealing, but I just gotta wait. *grumble grumble* So with that said. Sail on VDT and long live King Caspian! Long live Aslan! đ đ
That almost exactly portrays how I became a Narnia Fan, except I saw the BBC LWW, PC, and a little bit of VDT, and I also saw a play version of LWW in elementary with only two actors (that was pretty cool, actually). I always loved the story of LWW, but I wasn't really a big fan of the books until after I watched the movies. Once I did read them, though, I realized how well written they are and how many connections there are to Christianity and the Bible. I think that's why I became a Narnia Fan; not because they are "cool" (even though they are), but because of their spiritual significance. I do have to say, though, that there were a few things in PC I was disappointed in, but it was much better than the BBC version. (Actually, they're all better than the BBC versions).
*Has a flash back to the early concept art with the green snake and the creepy cave that looked like a snake's mouth*
(O.o) what if they combined VTD and SC?? that would be just creepy!
Oh yes that would be BAD!
Don't give them any more ideas…. đ
From later books? Not from Silver Chair by any chance? *shudders*
While it's good to hear it's 'unobtrusive', it still really makes me uneasy.
Borrowing from later books? Fascinating….but please don't tell me the Emerald Witch is involved!
Emerald witch? Do they ever refer to the Lady of the Green Kirtle as the Emerald witch?
No, they don't. Some people do on the site, but i always think it is because they can't spell Kirtle. It bothers me, but there are worse things in the world.
Hmm…I'm sure I heard it somewhere (in descriptions of SC maybe). *shrug* Green Witch, Lady of the Green Kirtle, basically all the same.
The Emerald Witch description might be on the back of old copies of The Silver Chair. I'm talking the older publishing of the books, NOT the ones that came out in the changed order in the 1990s. I would double-check to be sure, but I don't know where my copy of SC is at the moment. (It could be in one of a dozen places, lol.)
Interesting…I had just never heard of her referred to as "the Emerald witch". I can see why they would do it early on, though…probably so people could have a connection with the "white" witch. Who knows?
Ok, I hope they don't totally ruin the movie. this is getting kinda scary
I completely trust the makers of this movie and know that they will do an excelent job. Honestly I wouldn't worry too much about it from what Ben said it sounds like they are doing a fantastic job! Sail on VDT!!
This sounds really cool, not scary! I say this everytime I post a comment.. The book is not the movie! So judge them differently and enjoy them in different ways!
ya know, i agree with Ben of how its very episodic, chapter by chapter. it really is, i mean, even though they just go to island to island, Lewis did a good job in making it interesting enough. but in a movie, its different. they cant make it episodic, they have to change it up a little. as long as they dont terribly screw it up, im fine with it.
I think we've been too hard on them, I meen, they are out to make a movie here, not film a book. As long as they keep it "Narnia", and do the story justus, I'm happy. Sail on Dawn Treader!
i think is true what barnes said.the book is very interesting to read but to make it a movie its has to have some purpose and more details to make it a movie.i think its gonna turn out great. and don's be frighten about changing the book sometimes it makes it better!!!!
So with stolen storylines from other books, how is it going to be when they get to that book. Does this mean that they plan to end with this movie? That would really stink if it did.
No, they've talked about making all of the books.
Into movies, I mean.
Wait, what exactly do they mean by 'stealing ideas from other books' ??!?! I'm getting a little nervous…. *bits fingernails and will keep doing that until 12/10/2010*
yikes.
Hmmm…. Very interesting…. Stolen story lines from other books…. Is it just me, or is anyone else breaking into a sweat?
Loved the books when I first read them at age seven (won't mention what year that would have been!) and loved the movies, though they lacked much of the depth that won the books a lifelong place in my heart. Maybe I went to the movies expecting little to nothing much and so was pleasantly surprised.
Who knows what this new production/creative team will come up with for VDT? Hopefully, they'll understand the books well enough to make a movie that does justice to them. I'm really grateful that there's a studio willing to try.
I'm curious; what do others here think of the way that the first two films handled the underlying themes of the books?
I think they did very well in LWW, with the theme of discovery and faith. PC, I'm not so sure, but they still did a pretty good job.
Fire Fairy; what did you think of Edmund's character journey of redemption as portrayed in PC? To me, it was the most satisfying part of the film, especially in that moment when he rejects the White Witch's proposal out of hand, no consideration offered. He's come round 180 from his attitude in LWW; that of excusing evil if it will get him what he wants. He's had a change of heart, a rebirth, and isn't going there ever again. I found that a refreshing change from the usual Hollywood attitude. And soooo cool!
On the other hand, it was disheartening to watch Peter be reduced to a selfish, doubting young man, even though I understood why the writers needed his character to go that way for purposes of conflict. I just wish they'd looked a bit deeper. Not all conflict has to be of the obvious, surface sort.
Decarus; I have to agree with you that the Aslan scenes are dissapointing. I felt slightly embarrassed by them. On the other hand, I'm curious about your assertion that Aslan isn't portrayed as God. While he isn't overtly named as such, I had the impression (and maybe that was simply wishful thinking on my part) that the filmmakers deliberately implied it in as subtle a manner as they could. There is that scene in the beaver's house where Mr. Beaver calls Aslan the "head geezer" and "king of the whole wood". And Aslan does command the elements of nature. And he can show up in people's dreams. And he tests their faith. Aslan is not overtly named as God in the books, either, as I recall. Now I think of it, the Aslan scenes in the movies felt embarrassing to me because they came off as portraying God by someone who wasn't really sure what God ought to act like. It almost felt like the director was a bit uncomfortable with those scenes. Of course, that's probably projecting a lot onto them. Feel free to disagree!
As for VDT and all the discussion of whether or not the book has a continous story thread running through it: I wonder if that thread isn't actually found in the underlying theme of the story rather than in the surface theme of finding the lost Lords. Although, even with the search for the Lords there is a stated objective on Caspian's part that plays into the underlying story of redemption. Caspian says he must look for them as a point of honor and to expunge the evil done by his uncle, Miraz, and the other Telmarine oppressors. There's plenty to work with there, but I think to find the real story you have to look to Eustace, of course. He and Reepicheep are the main characters of VDT.
Reepicheep's character journey takes place mostly before this book begins, offscreen, so to speak, and that makes him a perfect candidate for writer's license. By the time we see him on the deck of the Dawn Treader, he's changed from a shallow, self-serving ideal of honor and glory knighthood to the more expansive ideal of self-sacrifice and nobility through service. There's a whole story begging to be told, there.
Eustace goes through a similar journey of change as Edmund did in the first book, and that's probably where the real narrative lies. The scene where he is changed from dragon back to boy is one of the most simple, profound discourses on the process of repentance ever written. I strongly doubt whether it's going to get more than a nod from the filmmakers, but it seems likely that Eustace is where they'll focus they're attention in looking for a strong narrative thread to follow.
Anyway, (and I apologize for taking so many words to say it) the point is, I believe there is a strong storyline in VDT, but you have to dig beneath the obvious elements of the physical journey to get to the real one, and I'm curious to see how close the filmmakers will come to it.
I think in general in the films they make it seem as if Aslan is sort of the one in charge, but he is not god, but like a good King who comes now and then to help out.
In LWW the film, they imply that the children coming into Narnia is what causes the seasons to change and not Aslan's coming which is why the seasons change in the book. In LWW they did a much better job though in general with making Aslan seem like god because it is the most comparable to real events with Aslan dying on the stone table for Edmund and they still had Aslan kill the White Witch.
PC is an entirely different matter. Almost all of the dialogue and action about Aslan is ridiculous. The worse line is when Peter and Lucy are at the foot of the stone table and Lucy says 'maybe we need to prove ourselves to him'. That is utter nonsense. God does not expect us to prove ourselves to him. Faith is a gift from God and not of ourselves. The reason it is so much nonsense is that we cannot prove ourselves to him.
There is also the change of the line that in the book is 'Aslan, you're bigger' 'I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger.' to in the film 'Every year you grow so shall i.' suggesting that Aslan is sort of a magical creature that changes based on the person instead of him being the same and as the person grows they see God as bigger.
Also the line was changed from in the book where it said 'To know what would have happened, child? No. Nobody is ever told that.' to in the film being 'We can never know what would have happened.' suggesting that Aslan does not know what would have happened whereas in the book he knows, but does not say. This line is actually also in VotDT where Aslan knows, but does not say.
Also a line the repeat in every book is that 'after all he isn't a tame Lion' and for them to send Lucy to go find Aslan in the woods, just didn't work for me. I am not exactly sure how they could fix this, but having Peter say 'Aslan [is] somewhere close. We don't know when he will act. In his time, no doubt, not ours. In the meantime he would like us to do what we can on our own.' as he does in the book. Maybe if they had sent Lucy to safety instead of to find Aslan. I am not sure, but the dialogue surrounding that and the scene in general did not work for me. It was as if Aslan was just waiting out there for them to come find him instead of waiting to do things in his own time which is just nonsense.
Okay, that is all for now.
Aunt Letty, on the subject of Peter, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It seems in their attempt to add more depth into him they have totally switched his personality. Susan's and Lucy's as well were swapped.
I agree with all of you, I think. This all seems so deep I'm getting confused, ha. I'm not certain if the filmmakers take out Christian symbolism on purpose, though. They may not expect people to read into it as deeply as "we can never know what would have happened." It could possibly be simply a matter of wording.
I'm just saying that the filmmakers may not have done it on purpose because I'm trying to be neutral. I read very deeply into things and so that is why I'm surprised I never caught the changes between the sentences "No one is ever told what would have happened" and "We can never know."
The thing is that it does not need to be 'Christian symbolism'. They just need to treat Aslan as if he is 'GOD' in Narnia. Most gods, regardless of religion, are all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc. The thing is in the books Aslan is very much god in Narnia and in the films he is not. They don't have to make it Christian. If you don't want to see it that is fine, but Aslan should still be the god in Narnia.
The implications of how this could change in VotDT with the possibility of them messing with Eustace's undragoning. It may be easier in VotDT because it is visual where Aslan says that he has to undragon Eustace and that he can't do it on his own. It am fairly forgiving of changes because i know that they will happen and there are a lot of changes in the film, but i am not forgiving of them not having Aslan be 'GOD' in Narnia.
Oh, I will certainly see the movie. I plan to watch all of them, bad adaptations or not.
Eustace's undragoning is Christian symbolism. The Narnia books are allegories. (C.S. Lewis called them suppositions, but what I mean by allegories is that they have deep Christian meanings.) You may still like the books without knowing that it's there, but they really are.
I am fairly certain that Aslan is God in Narnia in the films as well. I never thought any different. I know by the discussion here that many disagree with me, but it seems like the children treat him just as they do in the book. The first thing Lucy does when she sees him in PC either in the book or movie is she runs to him and buries her face in his mane. It's not like they treat him as if he is a god in the book and then have disrespect for him in the movie. And it seems to me like they did quite well in making him God, although I will watch those scenes again just so I can get another take on them.
I am not saying that Narnia is not Christian symbolism. I definitely see it, but i know that the people who make the films may not want them to be overtly Christian. I don't think the books are overtly Christian, so i do not think they need to dumb down Aslan's divinity to make the films less Christian.
That is the only reason i can think of as to why they are changing Aslan's character. They are trying to treat Aslan as if he is not the god of Narnia and i do not understand that. The children may treat him the same, but his character is not the same in the film as it is in the book. He is more in the book and the films are less for the change.
Aunt Letty, on your question about how they portrayed Edmund in the film, I must say that it is quite satisfying that someone found something they liked about the film! I, too, found it very satisfying. I know a lot of people were upset that they actually call upon the white witch, whereas in the book they don't go through with it, but I actually kind of liked it. I especially like how Edmund is the one who "saves the day". In LWW Edmund slices the witch's wand and stops her from turning people into stone, but is wounded and is unable to defeat her. In PC, I love how they made it so that he was the only one who had an idea of what to do; he understood the witch and her ways better than the others and knew to stop listening and start acting. The way he shoves his sword into the ice and therefore gets rid of the witch, to me, felt like it was giving him a sense of closure. In a way, he was finally able to do the witch justice and rid himself of her haunting presence.
I'd join everyone else on the discussion of Aslan, but right now I don't have time to get into the deep analytical discussion I would so love to be involved in. If I wrote any more right now, I'd probably end up writing a novel (come to think of it, you probably could write a novel on Aslan and how he's portrayed, and whether or not he should be protrayed as a God, and all that, and if I'm not careful I'll get myself started on it. I better stop). đ
I think the biggest fault of the films is that Aslan is not god in them. In the books, Aslan is the god of Narnia, of that world, in the films, he is more like a helpful powerful friend. He isn't god which is the biggest reason that i have a problem with the films. It was a lot more of a problem in PC then it was in LWW.
I totally 100% agree!!!! That was the complete and total problem with PC (Overlooking the fact that when Trumpkin meets the Pevensies in the film there is no way he can know anything about Caspian at all unless the Telmarines told him [UNLIKELY] as he ran off and attacked the Temarines and was carried into Miraz's castle then taken to be executed in the rowboat) this really bothers me. In the book Aslan frees Narnia from the oppression of the Telmarines with delicacy (Saving Caspian's old nurse, the nice young school teacher, Gwendolyn etc.). In the film he just sits there and waits for Lucy to come in the last hour of desperate need, sends a few trees etc. THAT IS NOT THE ASLAN I KNOW!!! I'm done now:)
Book line: "To know what would have happened? No, no one is ever told that." Movie line: "We can never know what would have happened." They have killed Aslan more subtly and more horrifically then the White Witch ever could have.
Lillyput90, Lucy asks Aslan why he didn't come roaring in like last time to save them. "Things never happen the same way twice, dear one," he replies. (As far as I recall, that is book accurate.)
I agree however on the part of Trumpkin. How would he know anything of Caspian?
Daughter of the King – I can't believe I never caught that. Ugh. Aslan really does know everything, he just doesn't tell people what would have happened.
I totally agree! Although the previous movies had many mistakes in them (not the least being the ridiculous Susan-Caspian relationship), the number one problem with the whole series so far is that Aslan is tame. He is not the powerful, majestic Christ-figure that C.S. Lewis created. If they fix that in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, then I can probably overlook any other mistakes they might make. If they get it wrong again, it won't matter how many other things they get right.
You think he's tame? I'm not saying I disagree, I'm curious. How so? He seemed just like Aslan to me.
I think the reason why Aslan seems tame to me is because it seems like in the films that he is part of the kid's plans instead of the kids being part of his plans. In the book, Aslan is definitely the causer and he doesn't quite seem like that in the film.
Yes, I have to agree. The changes to his character/nature are quite intentionally subtle, but they're critical. I was shocked by how LITTLE I was moved by the Stone Table scene when I saw 'Wardrobe'. I was certain that it would be the emotional centre of the film. It is always the most heart-breaking aspect of the book when I read it, so I thought it would translate easily to the screen. But, it didn't! It was so mundane, so matter-of-fact. And, I realized, it was because, on-screen, they had killed a talking animal, not Christ.
Hmm. Good point. It moves me every time I see it, but I can see what you're saying.
I never really thought about Aslan's death in the film in that way, but i think i agree. I know that when i watch LWW i usually fastforward through that part of the film. It may have been because in the book Aslan's death and return is very much the climax and there is a lot more build up with Aslan talking to the girls on the way to the stone table, and then staying with them as they were at the stone table after his death, and then the celebration game after.
Aslan is just very different in the films then in the books for me.
Wow! I never caught that before! I really hope that they end up redeeming that and making Aslan into what he is supposed to be…..God and Savior of the world. đ
Wow. It's great to read everyone's thoughts on this. I sure agree that Aslan was somewhat dissapointing in the film, and the changed lines you pointed out, Decarus, sort of pinged on my radar, too. Especially the one, "we can never know what would have happened". That made me cringe a bit. I still feel that the intent was to portray Aslan as a god, but I also agree with those who felt He didn't come off as the God they knew in the books.
The bit with Lucy running off to fetch him bothered me but also it worked for me. I liked that they seemed to have come to the mindset of "we'll do all we can to work for this good cause, but we know where our real help comes from and where our real hope lies." On the other hand, it did feel uncomfortably passive on Aslan's part. I didn't like that feeling.
And, I have to say "amen" to the person who said that the stone table scene fell flat. When I read that scene as a child, it was late at night on a school night and I went to the busstop the next morning with red eyes from crying as I read, and a light feeling in my heart from the implied message of redemption that I only partly understood. The movie missed that entirely. Words like "dead" and "empty" come to mind in trying to describe how that scene played on film. There was no emotional engagement for me at all. So sad.
All that aside, I just want to say that I was mostly pleased and favorably impressed with how well the filmmakers managed to stay true to the spirit of the books. I actually love to watch the movies over and over, something I can't say about my copies of the LOTR movies, another story that I've read many, many times. I am very grateful that these films exist and that dvd technology permits me to enjoy them at will.
Ps. I apologize for starting a discussion, if that is not true to the intent of this thread, as someone said above. I didn't realize.
Aunt Letty,
It seems to me like that is exactly what this comment area is for đ Even if it was for only comments before, it's definitely a discussion area now. Besides, I enjoy it!!!
The line that made me want to throw my drink at the screen was 'maybe we need to prove ourselves to him'. That is just nonsense. I know so many people that think they are not good enough to come to church and the thing is you don't have to be good whatever good is. We are all lawbreakers. 'For it is by grace you were saved, through faith – not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not by works, so no one can boast.'
This is the biggest change of Aslan's character that he expects that the kids do something for him to help them in the film. He expects them to prove themselves to him and then come to him before he will help them. That is so not the character of God.
The VOD book has so many good parts that It'll be interesting to see if any of parts in the book will be dropped to save money and time in the movie
they've taken story ideas from the later book???? how could they do that??? the stroy better not get all messed up and different! just gonna have to wait and see/
i think its not that big of deal cause he says unobtrusive which means not noticeable so im not worried. im not worried about anything their doing
Oh great. They varied from the book with Prince Caspian, and things didn't turn out so well. This is making me a little hesitant. I still say–IF YOU STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL BOOK, THE MOVIE WILL BE AWESOME!!! Obviously, Fox doesn't agree with me. đ
Looking forward to seeing the MLG more than anyone else.
Uh oh….. This sounds a bit worrisome. I hope they don't do anything drastic, like steal characters from later books! AHH! Just the thought makes me cringe. They had better keep the changes simple, and they had better be necessary.
That green witch is going to show up…I just know it. There's going to be a personal grudge between her and caspian and THAT will be the reason she takes Rilian and kills his wife.
That makes so much sense that's creepy!
Wow. I can see that. Not sure how I feel about it though…
Wow…that would be kind of cool…Then again, the reason I thought that she took Rilian was because she wanted to take over Narnia again like she once did in LWW. so, maybe if they put her in like that, it would be changing the story too much. hmm…
The Lady of the Green Kirtle isn't in LWW. That's the White Witch.
The implication in SC is that she's of the same 'stock' as Jadis but the Lady of the Green Kirtle isn't Jadis herself.
It has been suggested by people that the White Witch and the Lady of the Green Kirtle are the same person. I have never thought that and still don't, but i guess i could see why people would want to think that.
I think that it is the white witch at heart. I think she represents Satan. He has been defeated by Jesus, but he is still trying to take over the world, only he comes in different forms. Same with the white witch. She was defeated when Aslan rose from the dead, but she is still allowed to live on earth, only she appears in different forms (sometimes trying to appear good on the surface) trying to deceive as many as possible. But she is eventually defeated in the Last Battle, only I think that she is in a different form again (that weird Tash-lan character). idk. I guess everyone has different views when it comes to this, but this is how I have always viewed it. đ
I have never seen it that way because then it is like two equal opposites. Aslan on one side and the White Witch on the other. Like how people think it is God on one side and the Devil on the other. I don't think it is that way because God is on the top by himself and he created everything including the devil and everything God created was good. The good was then perverted and things were used in ways they were not meant to be used and that is evil. Evil is not on one side and good on the other. Evil is a perversion of good things.
I don't want to give evil that power because if it is an opposite that is equal to God then either choice is valid and then all of morality breaks down. There is no right and wrong.
I hear what you are saying in making the White Witch the ultimate bad guy and i do agree that her evil is very like the evil that the Lady of the Green Kirtle did and that Tashlaan did, where they were trying to set themselves up as the 'real' ruler. I just think that they are separate individuals committing the same evil.
decarus,
I believe that God created Lucifer. But he became Satan because of his free will and his choices.
Yes, God is "on top". He is the Great Ruler. But Satan has always been jealous of that power and His position that He is always trying to get it. That is why he[Satan] was cast to the earth with a third of the angels that he has deceived. God is definitely more powerful than Satan. That is for sure. But Satan also has more power than some of us realize. Satan cannot create. He can only re-create and distort things. But I think that there was evil at the beginning of the world. If their wasn't, then there wouldn't have been free will and a choice. The angels along with Adam and Eve had a free will. Sadly, some Adam and Eve made the bad choice and were banished as a result. Sin means death. Since they knew what Good and Evil were, they would have that choice. And because of it, they could no longer be allowed to eat from the tree of life.
So, I see what you are saying, but I think that whatever is good, holy, admirable…(everything mentioned in Philippians 4:8) Is of God. Everything else is of Satan. So, yes they are opposites. But not equal. Just because they are opposites doesn't mean they are equal.
But as far as the White Witch and the Lady of the Green Kirtle being the same person, I am still thinking that they are the same person, just in different forms.
This is just my personal opinion. Please respond cause I would like to know what you think about this. đ
decarus,
one more thing….Do you believe that there is no right and wrong? Or were you saying that as a result of morality breaking is that there is no right and wrong? I am just curious.
Also, when I said that God created Lucifer, God created his very beautiful, and very powerful. He was the "second in command" pretty much. (that is, highest AFTER God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit)
Again, I would like it if you would respond to my comments cause I would love to continue discussing this issue. đ God bless.
I like the idea of her appearing in different forms. However it's not supported by Lewis's text. SC refers to her as "maybe being one of the same crew" as the White Witch, and then it goes on to talk about how the Northern Witches always have a different plan for taking over Narnia.
I entered in "Lady of the green Kirtle" on Wikipedia, and this is what Wikipedia says about it:
"The story never makes clear who the Green Lady really is or where she comes from. Some readers believe that the White Witch (Jadis) and the Lady of The Green Kirtle are the same person; Jadis, however, is slain by Aslan several hundred years earlier in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
The source of the speculation is probably the set of character sketches included in later editions of the books: the sketch for Jadis describes her as "completely evil, even in The Silver Chair." Since it is the Lady of the Green Kirtle who appears in The Silver Chair, some conclude that this must refer to the Green Lady. The character sketches, however, are recent additions to the books; they were not written by Lewis, and, in this regard, are not supported by Lewis's text.
The BBC cast the same actress for both roles in their TV adaptations. This choice was due at least in part to the limited budget of the TV productions;[citation needed] several other actors were also cast in multiple roles to save money.
The mechanics of how Jadis could return are never made clear, since she is killed at the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, her last appearance in the books except for the prequel The Magician's Nephew. In Prince Caspian, Nikabrik and his companions suggest that the White Witch could be resurrected â "who ever heard of a witch that really died?" In Lewis's text this plan is never put to the test, though the Disney film adaptation introduces a ritual that begins to pull Jadis back to life before the spell is broken."
Yes, in the book Lewis referred to the Lady of the Green Kirtle as "one of the same crew", through the mouth of a character (Puddleglum, I believe) and clearly intended her to be a separate individual from Jadis. To me, she seemed a somewhat diminished version of Jadis, as well. I've always thought of her as more of a follower of Jadis, although that is just my impression. Where she comes from is anyone's guess, but that demonstrates one of the many things that I love about the Narnia stories; the vast amount of material that is only barely hinted at. I get the feeling that these could have been every bit as complex and richly structured as Tolkien's works, if Lewis' bent had been in that direction, but it wasn't. I'm sort of surprised that the filmmakers haven't dug into the loads of potential story-behind-the-story that is present in CofN, (often with not more than a sentence,or even a phrase to suggest it). I'm also glad that they haven't; it could get disastrously ugly.
I don't think that freewill or choice is in and of itself evil. I think that God created us with freewill and choice from the very beginning. The trees always existed. Choice in and of itself is not evil. I don't think there is Good and Evil as separate opposites. I don't think evil existed on earth before the choice to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Evil is not something separate that just exists out there. Evil is pain and suffering. There is only Good and evil is a distortion of the good.
I don't think that all evil belongs to Satan. I think our evil is our own: personal evil, societal evil, and humanities evil. I think I disagree that Satan has always been jealous of God's power and position. I just don't think that is something we can know. I am not sure we know enough in general about the fall of Satan. I do think that demons and Satan can impact the world, but much in the way the Snake whispered into Eves ear, it does not take away the responsibility we ourselves have for the evil we do.
I do believe that there is right and wrong. If God is on one side with Good, and Satan is on one side with Evil, then that makes both choices equally valid which they are not. The reason they are not is because God exists on top and all that he created was good, but through choice we did evil, by distorting the good things and doing evil with them. This does not make choice in and of itself wrong because without choice we could also not choose to do good. There would be no love without choice.
I agree! Choice and free will are good things. But it is when you choose the wrong thing is when bad things happen. Kind of like temptation. When you are tempted to do something wrong, it isn't until you follow that temptation that you are sinning.
Sorry about the confusion with what I said about evil always being around. I was wrong. As it says in Romans 5, "by one man, sin entered the world…" So, it wasn't until Eve fell into temptation and ate the fruit when sin entered the world.
Yes, we can know if Satan has been jealous of God's throne and position. Look in Isaiah 14:12-20. That talks about Lucifer and when he was cast to earth.
And I agree with you in that we are definitely responsible of our own sin. It is a result of what happened in the garden of Eden and now we all have a sin nature. Man is not basically good, but has sin in them. You don't have to teach a little child to lie….You need to teach them not to lie and to tell the truth.
Now, I don't think I quite agree with your last paragraph. Yes, I also believe that there is a right and wrong. Good and Evil. But I don't understand what you mean by making the choices between the two "equally valid". Could you help me understand?
It is very difficult to explain what I mean, but I will have another go at it.
If there is Good out there that just is and Evil out there that just is then you could strive for either good or evil. Both choices would be equally valid. We couldn't suggest that striving for Good is what people should do if there was no moral truth upon which right and wrong are based. God is that moral truth. God is good and before there was anything else there was God and he was good. He created us and gave us freewill. Through are choices we did evil. It is in that moment that we caused pain and suffering which is evil. Evil is pain and suffering. Before that moment there was no evil in the world. We distorted the good by doing evil with things God created for good. If there was Evil out there that always was and was equal to the Good then both choices would be valid. The thing is evil isn't anything it is only the distortion of good. It is only a distortion. If Evil was something that was then it would be a valid choice, but it is nothing. Good is something that is and always was and that is why it is the correct choice and why evil is not. Good has always existed, but evil has not.
I do agree that at one point Satan was jealous of God, but I am not certain we can know that he was always jealous of God. I am also unsure whether that passage is talking about Satan. I really don't think we can know enough about that and maybe I don't think it is important because what is important is our choices. We are responsible for our evil, we are responsibility for our societies evil, and we are responsible for humanity's evil. Though I am not saying Satan is not real or that he does not impact our world in some way, but, as I said, he impacts the world through temptation and does not in any way take away from our full responsibility for our actions.
Okay, I understand now. And I agree with you on the good and evil thing. I think we were both essentially saying the same thing, only in different words.
And I don't think that Satan has ALWAYS been jealous of God's positions and power, but he has been jealous ever since the day he schemed to become as great as God.
As far as those verses go, Satan is referred to in the Bible as the Prince of this World or son of the morning. So, it is definitely talking about Satan. Satan WAS Lucifer, as beautiful and powerful being until he became Satan through his own actions.
Uh-oh. This could be an okay thing or a really bad thing, depending on which books they're stealing from and just how "clever and unobtrusive" it is. I just don't understand why this is a hard book to adapt. I could understand why Prince Caspian was tough, because half of it is told in flashback, and so forth, but Voyage just begs to be a movie! What was wrong with the original "find the seven lords" plotline?? I will never understand movie-makers.
I was thinking about what Ben said about stealing ideas from other books, and trying to tie a bunch of episodes together. May Gael be based on Gwendolyn? That's the only other little girl I can think of.
LW&W was a fantastic adventure in both book and film while PC is definitely great in book form, I thought the film was good albeit the castle raid and turning Susan into a killer, but however, VTD is an exciting adventure that can easily translates to film. I hope with FOX and Michael Apt, they should bring the NARNIA franchise back to it's root. Stick with the original source and improvise where it is necessary needed to adhere for a more cohesive plot, but don't go on making drastic changes like PC. So far from leaked images of the DAWN TREADER, the LAMP POST on the deck irks me a bit. If they were thinking that the lamp will guide the Narnians out of the Island That Dreams Come True and leaving out the great albatross, I will be greatly disappointed.
I usually try to not be very biased or overly opinionated, but if they leave out the albatross some head will roll…
I mean heads.
That's interesting….
I'm SOOOO excited for VDT to come out!!! Aaaaaahhhh!!!!! đ
I came across a comment and response attached to a blog entry on the Walden Media site that may or may not relieve peoples' fears. Perhaps this has been posted before, but it seems appropriate to post it here.
wisewoman
Dear Walden:
We are fans of the Chronicles of Narnia, and have done a lot to help promote the first two films in the franchise. We are looking forward to doing even more for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and were very interested to see the recent press release. As dedicated fans, we have some concerns about the direction of the story.
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a story about discovery. It is a wonderful, episodic sea-voyage with plenty of humor and serious moments as well. Our concern is that the movie may take a more âepicâ and dark direction, with the introduction of plot points like the children having to save Narnia once more, etc.
There are several reasons that this creative approach â while great for other movies â will not work well for this story.
⢠First, changing the motivation for the voyage will make the story much darker. This isnât what Lewis intended, and will cloud the important themes of the book (discovery and exploration) by substituting something that is, quite frankly, somewhat clichĂŠd. âBigâ and âepicâ has already been done countless times in fantasy films, and will not capture the heart of Narnia.
⢠Second, the reaction to the leaked script is a good indication of how the fanbase feels about major plot changes. It is the bookâs plot that is classic, that people have loved for over fifty years. Some changes are inevitable when translating a book to the big screen, but they should be avoided wherever possible, out of respect for the integrity of the story.
⢠Third, such major changes to the original story could jeopardize the filmâs financial success. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was a much more faithful adaptation than Prince Caspian, and its greater success is partly related to that fact. The bookâs many fans would be disappointed to see a different story on-screen, and that disappointment will result in bad word-of-mouth reviews and lower box office earnings.
Once again we want to thank you for bringing the beloved Chronicles to life. Please know that we really want the Narnia film franchise to succeed, and believe that The Voyage of the Dawn Treader has the potential to be absolutely fantastic on the big screen. We are really looking forward to it, and want you to know that we support your efforts. Thank you for considering our suggestions.
Sincerely,
The Fans at NarniaWeb.com
08/03/2009 @ 1:12 PM
walden's avatar
walden
We are thankful for your interest and support in the Narnia franchise. We feel positive that you will be happy with the screen version of the VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER as we have worked very hard to stay true to the themes of the book.
Link: http://www.walden.com/blogpost/narnia_voyage_of_the_dawn_treader_begins_filming/
Fascinating. When I see evidence of the additions such as Gael I can still worry, but I think Walden should have caught the point from what happened with PC. I imagine Gael is probably something to add in another female heroine and to tie it all together, perhaps, as I said, having to do with the whole plot on Gwendolyn in the book PC.
I think that if they've stolen ideas from any of the books, chances are it will most likely be Silver Chair. But I don't think it would be that bad if there was dramatization in that, such as what someone mentioned above: that there may be some sort of grudge between Caspian and the Green Witch (or whatever you want to call her), out of which comes the plot for SC. I think it really would make it more exciting. In the book it is fine, but the Witch's plans are out of the blue, and she apparently singles out Narnia to take over for whatever reason, when she could have just as easily chosen Calormen or Archenland.
I hope they know what they're doing!
Cross your fingers and pray really hard that they do!!!
I guess I'm in the "may not" category at this point. I mean, what are they supposed to say? "The writers think they can vastly improve on this already beloved book, and we're betting you won't care enough about the many changes to not spend your money to see the film."? Staying true to the "themes" of a property is not hand-in-hand with faithfully adapting it. 'A.I.' was "faithful" to the themes of 'Pinocchio'. It's not 'Pinocchio'. We'll see…
That's a bit of a relief to know that they have "worked very hard to stay true to the themes of the book". Let's just hope it's up to our expectations. We'll just have to wait and see…
So does this mean that they wont be making all othe other movies? I really hope not. Keep the story of Aslan alive (the one true story)!!!!!
ok,everyone, I read all of the comments above, some I agree with, but I do think we should all talk about the movies and books from a positive standpoint,seeing how that is what this comment area is for. thanks
I think, ever since they changed the format of the comments, this has become more of a discussion board than simply a place to put your comments…
The books already exist, I just want it to be a good film.
se parese bien sisisisi quiero que ya lo termine eso jajajaja bye
ÂżSabes InglĂŠs?
But what could they steal? The only later books are SC and LB (I guess he could have meant books that have yet to be made movies, which would also include MN and HB).
I like raz' idea about the LotGK. That's the only thing that makes any sense that I can think of.
Any other speculations?