14 Responses

  1. Roger says:

    Excellent podcast. As I have written before, the movie was good but not really based on the book. They took the characters and some of the situations from the book and wrote a new movie. Comparing the book and the movie is futile. The part you podcasted about here had no real story or good acting to pull it through.

  2. This should be interesting to listen to….

  3. Non-Negotiable Comment says:

    Adamson deserves criticism, not bashing. I agree that he's the closest thing to Peter Jackson that we can reasonably expect at this point. Not that I find anything particular exceptional or moving about Jackson's films, but, you can't argue with his approach to adapting Tolkien's books. He was/is ('The Hobbit' begins filming today, coincidentally) perfect for that franchise. That same balance of passion for the material, technical expertise, vision, and sufficiently distanced objectivity, is exactly what the Narnia films need to succeed. As a starting point, anyway.

    I would say that Adamson has done a fantastic job of bringing Narnia, the world, to life. His vision of the *place* has been consistently believable, wondrous, and achingly beautiful. His almost complete eradication of the divine nature of Aslan, and, subsequently, the entire purpose BEHIND the place, has been, unfortunately, just as consistent. That's what makes him so frustrating—he preserves enough of Lewis' intent to represent the stories well, and in a sufficiently entertaining fashion. But, he discards the more subtle, delicate, personal aspects that make the Chronicles more than JUST entertainment.

  4. glumPuddle says:

    Gym, I would still like to hear some concrete reasons why you felt VDT-Reep had more depth than PC-Reep. And I suspect many fans would as well, because PC-Reep was probably the only thing in the movie that was almost universally loved, by both fans and non-fans.

    PC-Reep was faithful to who he was in the book: Little more than a fun gag. VDT-Reep was ruined. They took something very profound and turned it into comic relief. VDT-Reep is the heart of the book. Some fans would argue he is the protagonist. In the movie…there is actually a long stretch in this movie where VDT-Reep disappears and we don’t even notice.

    In the PC book, Reep is established as a character who longs for adventure, honor, and glory. That’s about it. In the VDT book, that is fleshed out. We see that his longing for adventure comes from his longing for something beyond the world. Lewis took a little gag and developed it into a universal idea of feeling like you don’t belong. It was the heart and soul of the book… and it was little more than an easter egg in the movie.

    VDT-Reep shouts “Yoo-hoo over here!’ in the movie. I rest my case. 😉

  5. I totally agree. I miss Andrew Adamson so bad. He even had the sense to cut out some of the Suspian scenes. He HAS to come back to direct the rest, or the series will be lost forever except for in the books.

  6. Gymfan I probably have the exact same opinion of the movie as you.

  7. Roger says:

    The problem is not that VDT-Reep got changed. Everyone got changed. I enjoyed the movie, but it was not Narnia movie. The movie took the names of the characters and some of the scenes from the book and created a whole new movie. My question is: When is Walden going to do a movie about the book VDT?

  8. stateofgreen says:

    Walden won't do it. It will have to be another attempt done by someone else entirely who will be faithful to the book.

  9. Rilian The Disenchanted says:

    I prefer VDT Reepicheep, was way more cheerful and amusing. In PC half his dialogue is about him being small and a mouse ("Yes i'm a mouse" – slicing a Telmarine throat; and so on. I agree they should have given Lilliandil way more screentime. I mean if they really wanted to cut Ramandu, at least make sure his absence is countered by making his daughter a bit more important/ flesh out her role.
    I loved it when Dragon Eustace pulls the ship, it's a bit unrealistic for him to pull that giant ship, but this is a magical realm after all isn't it?
    I hope that after you're done with the film analysis, you're going to spend some podcasts about the different looks/designs of the islands. Was it how you imagined it? And also the magical creatures cause this film is really full of them, Tavros, Naiads, Dufflepuds, Aslan, Reepicheep, Sea Serpent, Dragon Eustace, Lilliandil (well not really a creature but a Stargirl)

  10. Princess Lucy says:

    Haha Rillian you made me laugh about the liliandil…her hippi look…the love traingle etc…that was hillarious…well my friend who hasn't read the books didn't like her either…thought to tell yous…so it proves you are right…and ohh its a shame it wasn't like the peter jackson's galadriel with the extra sparkle and beauty…that would make it alot more appealing…and also what you guys have stated about the romance between liliandil and caspian…literaly a glimpse…hmm if they make SC…do you think they show the wedding…that would be soo nice…the wedding of the narnia series…ohhh that would be soo cool…but my hopes are dashed since they thinking of doin MN…hmmm what happens next????

  11. The love triangle was just another one of those facepalm moments in which I felt like being swallowed up by my seat from the sheer awkwardness (the other moment in the film similar to this being the Luspian moment… *shudder*
    I really couln't take Lilliandil seriously when she was glowing blue – it was so cheesy that I could barely stand it! I agree that a little (okay, a lot) more subtlety would not have gone astray in this movie, especially in this scene. And let's not start on the swords!
    I actually didn't mind the dialogue between Lilliandil and Caspian, I thought it was okay, but there was no indication in the film that they get married, and that's pretty important, I should think!
    I do believe that PC Reepicheep was a lot more in character than VDT Reepicheep. I'm so disappointed that the filmmakers didn't expand on Reepicheep's role from the book, because then the film could have been so much more meaningful and in-depth than what it was!

  12. stateofgreen says:

    I think I think the same way about VDT as Gymfan too. I did like the Reep and Eustace relationship the film VDT, it was warmer and fleshed out their friendship, but it would not have hurt the movie to incorporate more of the book Reep in, the serious part about him wanting adventures and Aslan's country. And they could have milked lots of emotion out of Eustace's predicament as a dragon, all the good points you made about them leaving the bit out where he slinks off because he feels he's a burden to them. Full circle change. *Big sigh of disappointment*

  13. Lillyput90 says:

    I guess for me, from "Ramandu's Island" onward is my favourite part of the book. It has the beginning of the end of the world, the heavenly singing birds, the dim purple smell….I was terribly disappointed when NONE of these elements were in the film. Even now, when I watch the LWW DVD I feel the excitement, I wish I was in Narnia etc. With VDT I just never felt like what I was seeing was real. At all. I didn't wish I could be there, there was nothing to draw me into the world. I love how in the book Lucy decides she is the luckiest girl in the world because she is spending an entire summer sailing in the dawntreader, waking up to the reflection of the sunlight on the ocean spilling around her cabin, in the film it just seems like no one is happy to be in "Narnia", or if they are, it's never stated, or put across. The magic of approaching the end of the world is totally lost in the film. No drinkable light, no sun becoming larger with every passing day, no beauty in the last passages of the world. It was all just mist and darkness…….and even at the end, everyone still seems to have issues. Especially Caspian, I mean, in PC he never mentions anything about thinking that his father would be ashamed of him, where did THAT come from! I will say that the silver sea was excellent, but it wasn't explained, it was just there. Great Podcast!

  14. glumPuddle says:

    I don't think it's fair to go so far as to call it a "love triangle." That implies something more developed, and with more conflict. I wouldn't give the screenwriters that much credit.