Episode 72: Thoughts post-Dawn Treader
Runing time: 40 minutes
Well, we’ve seen the film, many of us multiple times. The NarniaWeb council reconvenes this time with Gymfan15 and Warrior4Jesus joining in some overall discussion on Voyage of the Dawn Treader as a film and as an adaptation. Don’t worry. More episodes of analysis to follow! Until then, merry Christmas, and long live the true king!
Podcast: Play in new window | Embed
I really think Dragon/ Deathwater was the best of the islands. That's when I actually had a few tears shed( I had never cried at ANY movie before) when Reepicheep comforted Dragon Eustace. I think that was a scene they really got right between the two.
If The Silver Chair gets made, I have a feeling it will feel less rushed. I feel that Walden/ 20th Century Fox were just trying to hurry to get the film done after all the delays, and didn't want us Narnia fans to wait until 2011 for the film.
In the meantime, Happy Holidays to all and to all a good night!
Gloria in excelsis Deo. Vere resurrexit, alleluia.
Film: Mediocre at best
Adaptation: Dreadful
I can't believe I am saying this…but I was bored, just like Rilian, for much of the film. Nothing could have prepared me for that. That was the biggest shock for me.
A big part of that was the editing. Like Warrior said, I never felt like I was having this experience with the characters. The story flies by in a blur. There was no time to get emotionally invested in anything, so I didn't care about what was happening to the characters.
I like GymFan's approach of the scale. She felt the film had a lot of amazing stuff and a lot of bad stuff. For me, the film had some okay stuff, but most of it was just bad (some just dreadful).
Not everything is weighted the same. While I got a surge of joy to see the dead bluebottle on the windowsill in LWW, that took up just as much screen time as Father Christmas saying, "The hope that you have brought, your majesties, has weakened the witch's power." The damage to the themes done by the latter was far more powerful than the faithful adherence included in the former.
This is one of your best podcasts. I have seen the movie five times. I agree that the green mist and the seven swords are a stretch at best. I like Rilian's comments about the tone of the adaptation and the change of purpose. I miss that Lord Bern does not have a family in the movie. The whole Lone Islands misadventure was a shot gone astray. The Eustace – Reepicheep interaction was well done. In the book it is the Lucy – Eustace interaction. Lucy give Eustace her water. In the movie Lucy the Valiant is not very valiant. This bothers me a lot. I understand Lucy acting like a teenager, but do not change her nature. For some of us Lucy is our favorite character. We miss the entire adventure from Ramandu's Island to Aslan's Country. I think that more time should have been spent on the Magician's Island. As a movie this is very enjoyable. The end is great. The sets are great. The set of the Dawn Treader is worth the price of admission. The photography is great. As an adaptation this movie is fair to poor.
Three years ago when I walked into Prince Caspian, I got more than I thought I would. This time when I walked in, I got some more and some less. I think that the film series is over. I think that Walden worried too much about what ministers would think and not enough about what audiences would think.
I agree, it was painfully dull. Sedated, really. It has a very hesitant, almost anxious, feel to it, throughout. As if everyone involved in the production was affected by the intense pressure on this film to perform. Instead of "full speed ahead, and [darn] the torpedoes!", it was more like: "Steady as she goes, and everyone watch for icebergs." And, then, as you mention in the podcast, the editing pace is almost manic. So, the end result is unnaturally accelerated boredom mixed with obsessive hesitancy.
I found it especially maddening and bitterly disappointing because, similar to Rilian's feelings, I think 'Prince Caspian' is, easily, the best adaptation of the three scripts. "Best" in the sense that it was able to generate a very passably entertaining cinematic product from a relatively uninspiring book that didn't give the writers much to work with. There were some aspects of it that I hated, thematically, but, as a film, it's a very respectable and creative representation, overall. So, when I saw what they could do with THAT book, I had high hopes for what they could "mine", cinematically, from what surely was a fertile mother lode of creative ideas in 'Dawn Treader'.
Well, so much for that.
I don't want to be 100% negative, though, as I've been ripping on the movie for weeks. I will say this: I REALLY loved the last 60 seconds, or so. There was something very powerful, and genuinely moving about Eustace's final journal entry, and Lucy shutting the door on Narnia, literally and figuratively, forever (or, so she thinks, at this point). Eustace's words here were a rare moment of subtlety and grace for the film. They summarized, perfectly, what he, as an observer of the proceedings, really should have felt: "My cousins will never again see this place that they love, and the subjects who love them will never see THEM again, either. I feel so badly for them all." This, followed by the BEAUTIFUL Pauline Baynes end credits made me really sad that the previous 113 minutes felt like they were from a completely different, woefully inferior, film.
I wish there was *something* more than that to salvage the film for me. I desperately wanted to like it. But it's just so achingly mediocre, so desperately average in every possible way, and it made me feel nothing but disappointment and regret at an opportunity lost.
I was bored as well. And it's a NARNIA film! It went to fast for me to understand or care what the characters were going though.
I felt the same as Gymfan did. There was some really bad stuff in there, but overall, the good outweighted the bad. I thought it was a pretty good film, but also a pretty bad adaption. A goal for SC (if it's made) is to try to bring back the core of the books and try really hard to prove to both fans and nonfans that that movie meets both expectations. There's a lot of mixed feelings on VDT, and I can understand why, but this shouldn't happen this badly again.
Superb Podcast, and I cannot wait for the next upcoming podcasts! Let the anilizing begin, and Further up and further in! š
By the way, the podcast was awsome! One of my favorites.
having seen VotDT three times, I just LOVE this movie! best Narnia movie thus far, IMO!
it's amazing. I just love it.
I cried and laughed so hard and it made me so excited! I was not bored, not in the least!
I want them to make SC!
further up and further in!
15 people went to see it because I told them to and they all loved it!
my pastor and his family love it!
it's amazing! I just love this movie!
I love it!
yay for Narnia!
yay for Dawn Treader!
yay for this movie that made me so so so happy!
it's epic!
it's exciting!
it's awesome!
Hey, I've been on and off here a lot. I should really join the site. I might do that today…
Okay I represent some of the Narnia fans from the fanfiction area. And if I was suppose to rate this movie from 1 to 10 I would give it an 7.8.
Why that? Because I knew the franchise almost died. About a year ago we about lost it all. I wasn't expecting the best movie yet because of that. Their budget was cut, the time of the movie shrunk by half an hour, and I feel like this movie was a build up for Sliver Chair. I think SC will be made for sure. It might take ten years but I know it will be made. I had the same feeling of being numbness I had from the first two films I came out of.
Also, another reason that I gave it a bigger number was because I do come from the fanfiction side of things so I was pretty open for anything to happen.
The second time I watched it I was with a group of 21 people. 5 kids from fifth to sixth grade, 2 freshman (including me), 6 juniors, 2 senors, and the rest where graduates and college students. Three quarters of us including all of the grads loved the movie. This is a youth group to let you know and we found all the morals in it so that was one of the better parts of the movie.
There was too much green mist. I would tolerated it if they didn't have that big huge seen at the Lone Islands. That was cheesy for me. The dialog sounded bland and cheesy the second time watching it in general. The actors sounded like they read off the script. Adamson in the last two used the script as a base and getting a feel of the characters situation and emotions and changing it to match that. Thank goodness they got rid of Caspian's Spanish accident! What I wanted to see more of (this is showing my fanfiction side of me again) was Caspian's father: the nightmares and the musings of him. And Edmund's angst too because Lucy's seemed to outweigh his way too much.
They need new scriptwriters for SC PLEASE! These people had no feeling for the book and the movies at all. Everything else seemed fine for me except the dialog.
Okay and the funny side of the movie. In the Dark Island seen. Did anyone think GhostBusters? The Ectomobile should have went past on water skis and Caspian and Edmund should have had jumpsuits on and proton packs on their shoulders. That would've been awesome and hilarious! Where was Bill Murray when you needed him. Anyways, I not a big huge GhostBusters but I think the mist did that to me.
In conclusion to everything I like this movie, but not as much as LWW. However a thing I ran into LWW was the middle ran way too slow. People would fall asleep. This movie though I didn't see anyone sleeping. The fast pace was a little too much for me. But the others seemed to like it. I'll probably won't see this movie again until it comes out on DVD. This is all I can give everyone. But to make everything clear. I give the movie itself a 7.8 and the adaptation a 5.
I have read Narnia and had Narnia read to me for as long as I can remember, and VDT is one of my favorites. I have to admit, I came into the movie almost desperate to like it. That may have influenced my perspective of it, but I've got to side with Gymfan. There were horrible things and there were amazing things, but I really felt like the latter outweighed the former. The things they got right just felt so right, and the overall feeling was very Narnian. I personally feel that it is a much better adaptation than PC.
I'm a big Lord of the Rings fan, both the books and the movies. However (and this is a big however), the books blow the movies out of the water. Each time I re-read the books, I am reminded of the cringe-worthy changes made in the movies–the characters cut out, the characters ruined (such as Faramir), and the things in the movie that don't even make sense. But there is so much that they got right that I still love them. I think that's the way I'm beginning to feel about the Narnia movies. No, that is not the way I would make the movies, but (beyond pressuring for change in the next movie) there's nothing I can do. So I'm going to appreciate the things that are right and try to deal with the things I hate. I'm sure there are lots of people who will disagree with my way of approaching the movies, but that's all I've got!
Adaptation: Horrible, Movie quality: Decent, Acting: Medicore, Script: A bit choppy, plot seemed rushed, CGI: awesome.
I thought the adaption was better than PC, and about the same as LWW. But one reason why I may like VDT more than LWW is because it "felt" more like Narnia to me than either of Adamson's films.
I like (and agree) with Warrior's comment that the added plot "MaGuffin" drive didn't actually fix the story's episodic nature. It just further confused things. Also, since when does a film's "drive" have to be something literal?
The search for Aslan's country could easily have been the drive—and it would have been a very good and different movie if it had. If that had been the theme, imagine: you set the tone for the whole movie, and this way the islands, far from being cliche pitstops and interruptions, are unexpected adventures that challenge the sailers' mettle and determination.
I really do NOT believe The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is about temptation. Temptation is something that shows up all the time in Narnia (not to mention real life—it's a disease!). It couldn't ever be the "drive" of a story.
I also challenge the filmmakers' assertion that the story is "episodic" and without purpose. In terms of character development, the islands are absolutely crucial. The Lone Islands test Caspian's leadership. He really shines through there. In the movie they have him say, idiotically, "fool, I'm your KING!" Dumb.
The problem, I think, is that neither Michael Petroni, Stephen Markus or Christopher McFeely or Michael Apted understood VDT in the least.Maybe Gresham didn't either. They didn't recognize the real theme. They didn't seize on the book's strengths as they were. If VDT is, in glumpuddle's words, about "longing for one's true home" and the search for Aslan's country, there are plenty of ways to make this work in a movie. The voyagers must doubt and debate whether Aslan's country is physically attainable. They must also face the false options: a lot of the islands are a chance to give up the search, a chance to say, "I haven't found my true home or Aslan's country, but this is good enough." There's plenty of action and drama to make it interesting, either way.
I'm back to the point where I was before VDT: feeling like there is a vendetta against Narnia and an agenda by certain folks to distort these books because they hate them.
Roger, if Walden cared so much about ministers' perceptions of the movies, they would've endeavoured to make them more biblically Christian. As is they're a confusion of biblical Christianity and humanism.
What about what CS Lewis thought? That to me is the important thing. How Lewis specially had his stories reflect Christianity is the important thing to get. There's no need to care about what minister's think.
I think that Lewis' stories are so strange to modern audiences, christian and non-christian, that his real themes and purpose elude them. Yes, anyone can read Narnia for the first time and recognize Christianity. But how many readings does it take to reconcile Bacchus' presence and alliance with Aslan in "Prince Caspian"? Or Emeth?
It may surprise some here, but certain segments of Christians find Lewis too "pagan" and not a sincere christian. My point is, I guess, that there is enough in Lewis already that nobody needs to be importing anything from ministers or humanists. Lewis is complex enough on his own. Don't let's muddy the water with our boots!
EXAMPLE (of Christians who don't think Lewis was a sincere Christian):
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/cs_lewis.htm
I completely hated the seven swords plot and mist. They should have kept with the tour of islands….still disappointed and sad. š It's like they don't trust the intelligence of their audience (even non book fans).
Hey guys, I think you all are being hyper-critical. Yeah, of course, it had weaknesses, but I think there was a huge effort to be true to Narnia. I've seen it three times and liked it better each time. Personally, I liked some of the changes the made to the book. A literal adaptation of the book would've been pretty boring on screen. I do wish that the search for Aslan's Country would've been the driving theme. Overall,I thought the movie was great and very Narnian.
They don't trust intelligence. They only trust "tried and true" box office formula. They think one can simply make a "blockbuster." But blockbusters don't come for the asking—blockbusters are movies that audiences en masse decide they like. Christopher Nolan's "Inception" is such a film. By regular standards it should never have been made. It didn't follow a prescribed plot that CEOs decided would make the most money.
BTW, I've been a NarniaWeb fan for 6 years – thanks for maintaining this great site! It's very much appreciated.
To each their own :-).
Personally I dislike fast-paced hyper movies. I like my movies at a leisurely pace. Dawn Treader (the book) is leisurely, if nothing else.
Boring movies are not always slow. Slow movies are not always boring. I would LOVE a literal adaptation.
Agreed. If any story were to have temptation as a central theme, I would think it would be The Silver Chair. Gaining wisdom is a much more important theme in Dawn Treader, something that did not come across here.
As for the theme of adventure, that's not a theme. It's really just the nature of the story, and why would that be unique to Dawn Treader? There's no adventure in Horse and His Boy?
We'll have to agree to disagree. I agree that Reepicheep's longing for Aslan's Country drives much of the story but for me, the main theme has always been temptation and only being able to truly overcome it and change a new leaf with Aslan's help. But that's just me.
I think, more broadly (as this covers both your points), the dominant theme is transformation and personal/spiritual growth. Eustace seeing himself as he really is, and finding the courage and grace necessary to ask for help, Edmund and Lucy transcending childhood, Caspian evolving into a self-assured sovereign, and, most memorably, Reepicheep leaving behind a life of violence and indescribable longing, in exchange for a better, infinitely more beautiful, existence.
To me (and, I do not claim to have any more valid an opinion than the next person in this regard), the "drive" for the story (and, subsequently, the film), then, should have, indeed, been Reepicheep's desperate, manic longing for Aslan's country. Why? Because, while all of the characters are facing change in some way, and are all looking for something elseāsomething betterāReepicheep is the only one who is able to effectively VOCALIZE what he wants, and what he's prepared to do to get it. Reepicheep understands that he's been on a journey all of his life. To what, he doesn't know. But he is willing to DIE, just to get a GLIMPSE of The Undiscover'd Country. And, finally, when he gets to the end of his life-long journey, and he throws his sword away into the sea, it is such a critically important moment in the series. It says: "I'm BETTER than what I've been all my life, and I don't need this THING, this instrument of violence, to validate my existence any more." How beautiful is that? Next to Aslan singing Narnia into existence, I can't think of a more graceful, hair-raising moment from the books. And it saddens me to no end how the filmmakers just did NOT get this, At all.
Sorry, this isn't related to this podcast. I tried to download some of the earlier podcasts, especially Episode 13, but I couldn't download it. Is there anything wrong with the link? Are they archived elsewhere? Help, please.
I do not work for NarniaWeb, but I would go to the Contact Us in the upper right corner, and click on E-mail us(not send us a spy report). I would probably do that if I were you, as explaining might take too long.
Literal adaptations rarely work. What you have to do is make a great film that honors the essence of the book.
PC made many changes, but I thought they captured the sadness of the old days being gone and the hope that they might return. That was the essential theme of the book to me.
BBC made literal Narnia adaptations…and they're really really painfully dull. Not everything that works on the page will work just as well on the screen.
Walden's VDT is both a bad film and bad adaptation.
Well, I don't think that's necessarily the case with Narnia. I've seen movies, like "The Princess Bride" and "Holes" which were essentially the books transferred to film. I suppose it helped that in both cases, the script was written or aided by the author. But still, I don't think literal adaptations HAVE to be boring. The boring-ness comes from the inability of the filmmakers to put life into the material.
In the case of the BBC Narnia, I don't think the problem of dull-ness was the fault of the book, but the way in which it was done. Yes, certain parts of the BBC productions were word-for-word. Incidentally, those for me are the parts that worked the best. But I noticed, watching BBC Silver Chair last night how far those productions strayed from the books. For instance, they included a dragon on the journey towards the Giant City Ruinous. There's no reason for it whatsoever dramatically—but there it is.
However, what the BBC version of SC did get largely right was the sequence in the witch's underground house. Albeit, there were moments of painful over-acting, and the special effects are primordial, but they actually managed to get the gist of the book's message across in that scene. They stopped short of having the witch deny Aslan's existence, but still, it was an admirable if far from perfect effort.
Also, the Focus on the Family Radio versions are what I'd call literal adaptations. Everything in those versions is done for practical and dramatic purposes. They change a few words here and there for the purposes of clarity. I don't consider the added Miraz scene of the VDT dramatization to be a departure from the book. Those kinds of additions don't bother me. The PC movie adaptation was, for the most part, a great adaptation. But what it ultimately lacked was showing the return to Old Narnia. It traded Aslan's Holiday for a cheapo romance-on-the-rush. To be an ideal version Adamson should have included Aslan's Holiday, minus Bacchus (if he was really too weird for the movie).
Here's the reason I advocate a mostly-literal adaptation: Lewis' dialogue is brilliant. It's human, funny, and lofty, when needed. The worst part of Walden's movies for me is the dialogue which never seems to properly do the job. In the VDT book Caspian gives a great speech about "bestowing the name of Dawn Treader on your descendants." It's hard to do Lewis one better in that case. The most recent movie completely botched this opportunity. Instead they gave us the worst speech ever. It included phrases such as "the world in which we live…" The reason that the FotF productions work so well is that they preserve Lewis' dialogue for the most part. I think the filmmakers should try to do this a little more. Especially in the case of Prince Rilian, I can't imagine any other kind of speech than the Shakespearean/Hamlet-esque kind that Rilian speaks. Beautifully quirky phrases such as "…it pleases me to be principally obeyed, old mutterer." Give this to scriptwriters and they'll think: "well, Lewis's dialogue just isn't efficient enough. So I re-wrote that phrase to say: 'I'm a prince! Obey me, dummy!' …because no modern audience can understand that other stuff."
I'm sure you and I agree on a lot, glumPuddle. I'm not one of those folks who doesn't think changes are wholly unnecessary. I just don't think the filmmakers have to this point seized on the strengths of what makes Narnia great and different. The LACK of literal adaptation is what has resulted in the series often looking like a rip-off from other series.
correction: "…who things changes are wholly unnecessary…"
correction to above correction: "…thinks*…"
I've always thought that Silver Chair was about perseverance and that The Magician's Nephew was the story about temptation.
While I agree that I wasn't overly ecstatic over the film after seeing it, I've seen it several times now and each time I see it I understand how the film works a bit better. Several parts of this film were just plain contrary to the book, and they didn't take any time to develop the plot, however I don't feel like the film was a total loss. I will be hoping and praying for a better adaptation of Silver Chair, but in the mean time I can appreciate the many good parts of VDT. On the whole, I think they got the characters in this film right, and that is more than they did with PC. And speaking purely in terms of visuals, the movie was very beautiful.
Good point, Movie Aristotle, about coming to see the filmmakers' POV after several viewings. I'm sure there's a logic behind their choices. My problem with that is that they shouldn't expect audiences to go along with it on the first viewing. I have no doubt that the filmmakers are proud of what they accomplished, and it makes sense to them. But not communicating well with the audience is the problem–if a filmmakers fails to do that on the first or second viewing, they've failed any box office hope.
My problem with the VDT script is not so much that it's muddled, but that it's so different. It really isn't an adaptation at all. They didn't even try. It's (to coin a word) an "aptedation." They made it up whole cloth.
I seen the movie and I did get bored, but I went and gave it another chance and I really liked it. It's not the book which will be the best of course, but I liked it. The ending was very good and moving. It's not the best Narnia film, but I liked it.
Okay well I have now somehow managed to see this movie 5 times and i just comment on a few of the things I didn't like
( And believe me if I got into little details there would be a lot more)
1:I absolutely hated the editing. It was extremely choppy and in one or two scenes the camera even "jiggles" a bit.
2: The adaption was terrible (Even though I expected that)
3: I was at least hoping I could look back and say it was a great movie but it wasn't even that good of a movie.
Even though I disliked so much about the movie. i would still watch it again and again. The reason being that I am a true lover of Narnia and if I have to suffer through the bad to reach the good like I will. Because i deeply enjoyed the moments that made me smile and made my chest swell with the thought of pride for a country that " Is like a dream or rather a dream of a dream"
~ For Narnia and For Aslan
You know what's funny… I'm pretty sure most of you who don't like the VDT movie much are teenagers/adults, right? Well, I went to the movie with a youth group and later bumped into a some preteens I know. Their reactions? "It wasn't like the book, but an AWESOME movie!" Weren't bored a bit, apparently. The only thing that had them confused was Eustace's undragoning.
Looks like this movie is more for younger kids. (Admittedly, that sort of makes me cringe, since VDT should be for all ages, but there's my one cent.)
I certainly do agree that the editing was choppy. However, this affected the overall story more than any one scene. Many scenes were played out at a comfortable pace, i.e. the scenes with Eustace on the VDT. It's just that the script was so bad that no matter what, they were focused on the wrong things or on the right things for too little a time.
I agree with you. As an older adult I felt that the movie talked down to me. The green mist pointing out all the moral lessons really offended me. The movie is too simplistic. This movie was perfect for a youth leader trying to minister to young people. I am very glad that young people enjoyed the movie. Except for the fight sequences this should have been a "G" rated film.
Wow, soccerlassie, I completely agree with everything you just said. I, too, was determined and desperate to like the movie, so I interpreted everything in the best possible light and found the good parts to be very good and the bad parts ignorable. š
And I commend your comparison to LotR, excellent point.
I was one of those Narnia fans who was extremely disappointed with the movie adaptation of Prince Caspian and spent months trying to convince others to see why it was worse than no movie at all.
I didn't want to do that with VDT. I hate the feeling of disliking something so much. So I stayed spoiler free and determined to like the movie as much as I could.
And you know what? It wasn't that bad. Sure, there were a lot of cheesy lines, a silly plot addition (the green mist and seven swords), and the makers obviously didn't know how to make a good fantasy movie, but that wasn't important to me. The values, characters, and relationships of the book were what I was looking for in the movie, and that was what I found.
Particularly, the four things I was most worried about (Caspian's character, Reepicheep's character, Eustace's acting, and Caspiandil) turned out to be the best things in the film.
They seemed to have really studied each character and relationship in the book. Most of these were brought out and portrayed very well.
I have to say, multiple viewings of the movie is important. As everyone has said, the movie is far too fast-paced, so I only caught the real relationship depths and strong values on my second and third watch.
An excellent post, Clive. I agree that "literal" adaptations are not, inherently "boring", and should never be considered out of the realm of possibility. There are numerous examples of films that are, for all intents and purposes, literal adaptations of their source material that HAVE worked. This "it's not cinematic enough" or "it's too episodic" nonsense is the rallying cry of the lazy filmmaker. Are some books more difficult to adapt than others? Obviously. But to say: "Oh, that wouldn't work in film." is just the easy way out. A literal adaptation doesn't have to include every written word in the book. It just has to represent, faithfully, with light and sound what the author is attempting to convey with ink on paper. That does not include the filmmakers discarding (or, worse, adding) key thematic content or scenes to make the source material "fit" with his or her "vision".
I also agree about the BBC adaptations. It's not the fidelity that brings them down, it's… everything else. I do really love 'The Silver Chair', though. It's… flawed, but, boy, does it have a really good "heart".
I have seen it for the 2nd time now, this time in 3D, and I came away with much the same feeling as I had the 1st time: Great start, lost it somewhere in the middle, ended well. I personally don't think the 3D added to the film. It felt disjointed……again. To sum it up, the whole thing just feels really low budget compared to the other two films. I mean there are many points in the film where I think "MOVIE SET", eg. Aslan's table, The Lone Islands. Also, I think the performances from the actors (Georgie and Skandar) has gotten gradually worse from film to film. I may not be their fault, but they were far and away more believable when they were in LWW, a little bit less in PC, and in VDT they just look like they are acting. I wish I could like this movie better, I really, really want to, but it's hard.