New Behind-the-Scenes Videos on iTunes

New The Voyage of the Dawn Treader behind-the-scenes videos can now be downloaded for free on iTunes (the second video, “Making a Scene,” was released back in December). Download the videos here.

1. In Character with Georgie Henley
2. Making a Scene
3. In Character with Liam Neeson
4. Direct Effect: Michael Apted

You can also view the videos on YouTube: (1) (2) (3) (4)

The video about Michael Apted is probably the most interesting. He talks about the elements they injected into VDT’s plot:

“[VDT] is a sort of double adventure story. It’s an exciting chase for clues as to who is about to attack Narnia. But underneath that, there’s another journey which is into your own self. To find out who you are, what you’re made of, and whether you’re worthy to be what you are.”

“The book was very difficult to transfer onto a screenplay. It’s full of wonderful incidents, hopping from island to island which is wonderful as a bedtime book. […] It doesn’t necessarily have to follow on with great urgency, but in a movie that’s a death. A movie has to have a drive, has to have a motor. And there wasn’t really a motor in the book, so we sort of had to find a way to put one in. And the way we did it was entirely honorable because we looked forward into the next book, Silver Chair, and found there was a big chunk of that missing. For example, SC is about Narnia being attacked from the underground, but there is no mention ever of how these people get into the underground, how these people are kidnapped and sent underground to prepare for war against Narnia. So, that’s the element we injected into VDT to give it a kind of thrust to give it a slightly stronger sense of dramatic purpose than the book has.”

–Director Michael Apted

Of course, the big question fans are asking now is whether or not they will ever be able to connect this element to “The Silver Chair.” Right now, it is almost certain that if they make another Narnia film, it will be “The Magician’s Nephew.”

125 Responses

  1. Shastafan says:

    Hm, so the movie needed a motor? No offense, but although you gave it one, it was so broken that it didn't work that well. And we don't need to understand how SC works later on by putting it in VDT, because now, they've put yourself in a trap, and I fear that they'll add in something just as crazy and confusing as the GM and SS plot was…

    Oh, no! I'm turning into a pessimist! :O

  2. glumPuddle says:

    "and whether you’re worthy to be what you are."


    • adamie says:

      exactly what I thought! talk of a sentence that sounds smart, but really just has no meaning at all when you think about it.

    • Mike says:

      Maybe it speaks to the worth of people with no filmmaking experience presenting themselves as experts?

    • Mayor Wilkins says:

      I think this is what he means…

      Just because Caspian is a king….. is he really worthy of that title??
      Through the journey, they prove themselves worthy. The people have placed their faith in these guys, and now they test what they're made of. Whether they really are truly royal persons, not just in the sense of a title.

      Just because you are officially king, that doesn't mean you're a king. There's a kind of maturity and responsibility that should go with the title.

      I know what he was trying to say. He said it poorly on the spur of the moment. Maybe he was nervous. I know, odd that someone behind the camera might be nervous in front of one. That's impossible. That can't be.

  3. Behind the scenes!!! My favorite part of movies 😀

    • Praying Pevensie says:

      Me too !! I like them, bloopers, and the movie itself !! I do not have an ipod, ipphone, or anything like that. The closest I have is a CD player that picks up radio too. I love music and bradcasting even more than movies !!

  4. wolfloversk says:

    *would listen if she could hear over her father doing the dishes 😐

    For the record although they are not necessarily a war story both SC and MN (and the other two for that matter) have plenty of motor. Having to stop the Witch's rampage in MN and finding the Prince in SC should be plenty of emotional drive to carry the plot of the movie. Ignore the typical formula! You don't need a battle! You're better off without it!

  5. Are the videos free? Because I don't want to have to pay for them if they aren't.

  6. Lucy says:

    Don't me wrong, I LOVED the VDT movie to pieces, and I think they did a fantastic job with it, but am I the only one who is wondering what "people underground" this director is blabing about "borrowing" from silver chair? I thought, per my memory of SC, that it was Gnomes underground and we are told where they come from (Bism, right?). Well, Prince Rilian is not a Gnome, but we know where he came from and how he got there, too, so…

    • nic says:

      I thought that too when reading it, i don't get how the 'green mist' fits in that way relating to the Silver Chair.

      But i really liked the 'green mist', apart from it's introduction – which i found best to not get hung up on when watching film – it looked great especially in 3D, but more importantly, it's a really new way of playing the same theme that i find to be the underlying one in Prince Caspian.

      • glumPuddle says:

        "we looked forward into the next book, Silver Chair, and found there was a big chunk of that missing."

        It wasn't "missing," Mr. Apted. I was intentionally "left out." These filmmakers seem to view Lewis' intentional artistic decisions as errors.

        Basically, if it doesn't conform to the typical conventional formulas, the filmmakers view it as a mistake.

        This whole movie is one giant mistake.

      • A+ Sam says:

        Actually glumpuddle, I'm still pleased by the movie, but by reading those comments I'm surprised he did as good a job as he did… I shudder to think what SC will be like IF (big IF) they keep on this story path. "…and We find LOTGK in her hidden lair, all the people she had captured through the green mist doing her bidding outside of the fortress, but what's this? the dynamic duo escaped? nanananananananananana Batman!" But seriously if he continues on this train of logic he'll have book fans leaving in droves and screaming for a reboot, and he'll have movie fans saying "hey, didn't they destroy the green mist AND free all those people in the other movie? what happened in between this movie and the last?" AND screaming for a reboot. Such a shame, If he can leave the green mist out of SC (except in the form of LOTGK's green dust) and keep the underground gnomes, as gnomes, then he'd be a fantastic director for it, but really he's setting himself up for more plotholes by trying to avoid plotholes!

      • stateofgreen says:

        @A+Sam LOL at the Batman analogy! Hopefully Apted won't be allowed to direct any more Narnia films!

      • Lucy says:

        glumpuddle, maybe I'm just being a little touchy since I'm only on a few hours sleep cuz I am dog-sitting for my grandparent's dog that if you're not sitting in his line of vision starts barking and never shuts up, but this has annoyed me before, so I think I should like to say something. Here goes. I think it's sort of harsh the way you talk about VDT the movie sometimes. (Winces and waits for everyone to jump down her throat.) I understand perfectly well why you didn't like the movie (you've explained your point countless times, we all get it, dude, trust me) but to keep on saying things like "this movie is awful" and it's "anti-Lewis" and "a mistake". I know you have videos glaore on youtube stating passages from the books to supposedly "prove your point" and that is exactly what everyone is going to shove in my face when I make this comment (please don't bother, just keep reading), but the thing is that so much of Narnia is open to interpation by the reader and that is one reason it's such a wonderful series. So you didn't like the film-interpation that came out this year, okay, but that doesn't mean it's automatically a bad film. You can say all you like about plot-holes, bad editing, etc…but not everyone agrees. I have read the Narnia books COUNTLESS times since I was sixteen and they are amoung my favorites. I would not hestiate to say I didn't care for the movie if I truly didn't. But I did like it, and I'll say so. Just like you didn't, and you're welcome to say so (provided you state it as more of an OPINON, cuz that's what it is). Also, dude, although they changed things, you have to learn to separate the books from the movies (no movie/book adaptation is every without it's changes) they're like AU mirrors of eachother. For example, the writer of "The other Boylen girl" when asked if she liked the movie of her film said the book would always be her baby but that she still enjoyed the film. And think of count of monty cristo (they changed A LOT in that film and it was still considered a good movie on it's own merits). I know you don't think VDT is a good movie on it's own merits, but you have to realize that a lot of other people (book fans like myself and others who are not) DO.

        (okay, people, jump to his defense after only half-reading my comment…like you always do…I'm waiting)

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        "I understand perfectly well why you didn’t like the movie (you’ve explained your point countless times, we all get it, dude, trust me) but to keep on saying things like "this movie is awful" and it’s "anti-Lewis" and "a mistake". I know you have videos glaore on youtube stating passages from the books to supposedly "prove your point" and that is exactly what everyone is going to shove in my face when I make this comment (please don’t bother, just keep reading), but the thing is that so much of Narnia is open to interpation by the reader and that is one reason it’s such a wonderful series. So you didn’t like the film-interpation that came out this year, okay, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically a bad film. You can say all you like about plot-holes, bad editing, etc…but not everyone agrees."

        Totally agree.

      • Savber100 says:

        lol… why is it that Mayor Wilkins and Lucy are the ones that keep following GP's comments and replying to his comments all the time? It's his opinion so get over it. No need to constantly note about gP's 'negativity' ;P

        I also find it amusing how Lucy used the example that the author liked it therefore the movie is good. The author for Eragon like the movie Eragon… does it mean that movie was good? The author's opinion is obviously going to be biased.

        At the very least, gP's 4 hr commentary on VODT clearly explains the flaws of the film. While an opinion of a film is still based on opinions, films still have that BASIC standard that they must fulfill in terms of plot, pacing, and acting. Call me spoiled by well-made films but VODT fails Filmmaking 101 (and Screenwriting 101). First note of filmmaking: Always show, rarely tell. Film is visual medium and if you're going to tell me everything, I'll go listen to an audiobook.

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        Very well. I will stop replying to him then.
        Consider this my last comment on the subject.
        Life's too precious to waste any more time on Glumpuddle.

    • Eustace says:

      He is not making any sense. He definitely did not understand the next book SC if he thinks that people were capture and pulled underground. It more like they were bewitched underground and brought to a higher level of the underground closer to the surface.

    • Kathryn says:

      I was wondering what Michael Apted is talking about when he says that about "barrowing" from SC? the only thing that was "barrowed" or was a lead into SC was the green mist, it made me think of the lady of the green kerrdle, which i think it was suppose to. but the thing is what Michael Apted is saying (I think) is the people that are captured by the green mist is what leads into SC… but the mist source was destroyed by Edmond, and ALL the people were FREED!!! so what is the "lead into" or concept "barrowed" from SC??? I am just kinda confused about that… I really enjoyed all of the other videos tho!!! 😀

  7. Just because he thought the book didn't have a "drive" doesn't mean it should be ultra-sped up. I can understand some of his decisions but it just seemed like he could've done it much better.

  8. Starlily says:

    I think the book had enough of a "motor". 🙁 But oh well, we can't change anything now. Best not to rehash it. At least there was no Lady of the Green Kirtle.

    • glumPuddle says:

      The book is driven by the adventure of sailing into the unknown, strong charaterization, the mystery of what happened to the seven lords, and the longing for Aslans's country.

      I think the filmmakers didn't know how to do that, so they resorted to smearing green smoke on the screen and calling it evil.

      Bad film, dreadful adaptation.

      • Lucy says:

        "Bad film, dreadful adaptation" -um, says you.

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        glumPuddle didn't like the movie…….. I'm shocked. 😛
        He does not seem to like anything at all these days.
        Sorry, but I've said this before. Constantly talking about what you think is wrong with it in the midst of many people who do like the film is not cool. You are basically force-feeding your own opinion down people's throats. EVERY time there is any news about this movie, you post the same thing. We get it. I'm very sorry you did not like the movie. But many of us do. We respect your opinion. But please have some respect for the people who did like the film. Those who do like it are hurt when they see words like "bad film." If it's something one really respects and loves, one does NOT like to see someone constantly hating it.

        Simply avoiding your comments is a good idea, and lord knows I have tried. But it is quite difficult to do, in part, because you are a big name on Narniaweb and A LOT of people listen to you.

      • reepicheep's_fangirl says:

        ha, nice Mayor Wilkins 😉
        Well, we're all allowed to have our own opinions, just as long as we try not to force them upon others, it's perfectly okay on my part. I wasn't "in love" with VDT either, but for me it was more about some of the acting (minus Eustace's acting, which I found FANTASTIC ;):D ;)) and the music. The adaptation wasn't the best, I will admit, but I'm not a "purist", and I like to see people "make it their own", even if it's not my style. Yes, I was a bit disappionted too…okay, i was ALOT disappointed with VDT, but I still enjoy watching it and i can't wait for the DVD! 🙂

      • Shastafan says:

        Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion, whether or not everyone agrees. Even if that person's saying it's a "anti-Lweis film." After all, gP's not the only one on here to say the movie was bad.

        But I agree that it seems as if the movie makers had no understanding or faith in what they were adapting. Of course, somehow or other, they would've messed up somewhere, but we still would've be happy. I want to see MN (or SC, depending), and yet it's starting to harder to believe that they won't create another "Green Mist" disaster. Next time, they must get what MN or SC is about, because you can't make a good adaption if you have no confidence in it, or guts to follow the book without adding in something big and unecessary.

        Not the movie's bad, but to me, I wish I was positive about saying it's a great adaption, but I just can't do it. :S

      • Bookwyrm says:

        So gP isn't allowed to state his opinion because you don't agree with it? Typical. Quite frankly, I get tired of seeing ten year olds posting "OMIGOSH!!!11!! VDT WAS TEH BESST MOVIE EVAAAAA!!!111!!" on every news story, but I'm not going to post on every single one of their comments whining about them expressing their opinion.

  9. Hermitess of Narnia says:

    I would be perfectly fine with the storyline of the Voyage of the Dawn Treader book, I can see how some would be find the book storyline overlong, but I still loved the movie. None of the characters were ruined, they were tempted, the movie does come out and talk about temptation while it's not so out in the open in the book. This movie was way better than Prince Caspian.

  10. Seiko says:

    More evidence as to why "Silver Chair" must be next and "Magician's Nephew" should be done after.

    • glumPuddle says:

      More evidence that these filmmakers are trying to adapt books they don't understand.

      • Narniapinoy says:

        and the more evidence that you don't understand film making.

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        "and the more evidence that you don’t understand film making."

        Truth. 😉
        Translating the book exactly as it is onto film would NOT have worked.
        If you think the box office of the current film was lacking, the "direct translation" so many purists desire would not have made half as much money as the actual movie did. Sign of the times? Maybe. Nevertheless, it is true.

        Apted is right. This book is hard to translate into a film.
        Whether or not someone told him to say these things is irrelevant. It is still truth, no matter who says it. The episodic nature of the book needed glue to piece it together. Film is different from print media.

        And while it's possible to have a film without a villain, I doubt "Dawn Treader" would have had any chance at all without some kind of evil. Most people thought Miraz and company were weak. Responding to that with no villain at all would not have helped them. In my personal opinion, The Green Mist worked and it was more frightening than the Telmarines.

      • Shastafan says:

        I understand that you have to change things to make a movie. But VDT would've been cooler (to me at least) if it had been something that hadn't been done before: a tale with no main villian and one main purpose from the beginning to end, which is to find the 7 lost lords. The GM and 7S plot were completely confusing and had a insane amount of plotholes. If they had to put that in, fine, but could they have done it so it made sense and worked with the original story?

        VDT is a great book for many reasons, but as gP said, it's nearly like the movie makers didn't understand what it was about in the first place. If they knew what they had been doing, they would've adapted it to work as a film, but yet have the same central themes and meanings shine through, not hide them behind something that doesn't have anything to do with the book. Really, it's not that hard to be sucessful at adapting something, but do the movie makers know that they can adapt something without totally mixing it up?

        No offense to those who love the movie. (I dislike getting on people's bad sides, but we all deserve to say our own opinions). 😉

      • High Queene Shelly Belly says:

        they actually DO understand them, they are just intentionally secularizing them, that news leaked from inside sources in 2001.

      • narniafan#1 says:

        Dearest Glumpuddle, Lucy, and Mayor Wilkins,

        Please put down the mouse and step away from the computer! No one enjoys reading your ongoing argument. The post was on VDTs "behind the scenes". If you would like to comment on the videos, by all means go ahead. Otherwise please stop fouling up the comment page for the rest of us.

        Most Sincerely,


    • coracle says:

      Except that if Mr Apted actually READ Silver Chair he would discover that the underground army are NOT "people" (Narnian humans) but creatures who have been brought from deep in the earth to work in the somewhat shallower underground realm.
      And he would be horrified at what his script writers had done.

      • AJAiken says:

        But the audience won't sympathise with / find cute / understand strange creatures from lands far below. We found they complicated the plot, so we decided to make everything link in better and created a whole new sub-plot (which will actually be the MAIN plot of the film) about Narnians being kidnapped instead! Oh, you say that was the plot already? Well, who's going to feel worried about one lousy Prince?

      • lara says:

        One word: Dobby.

      • Dancinginrain says:

        Dobby! I Loved Dobby! Poor innocent Dobby…

    • McGunn says:

      I don't get how Apted can say that what they did to VDT fits with SC, as the green mist "disappares" at the end of the film and all the "lost souls" come back to their families. Now they will have a second plot hole to fill in – Didn't the children heroically save Narnia after all…?

      I think what they did to the plot was a huge mistake, but I'll still watch the film again just for the sake of what's actually in there of C.S.Lewis' material.

  11. A couple of days ago I dreamed that Andrew Adamson got angry with how VDT had turned out and decided to direct the next one.

  12. freshynfs says:

    Are you Kidding me????? A movie has to have a motor??? Now I know how they really screwed up this book. They didn't really trust C.S. Lewis's work in the first place, and then they looked for answers in the Silver Chair to try and sew everything together. *facepalm* I guess this means will be seeing more of the green mist in The Silver Chair. Apparently for the Silver Chair screenplay they will have the souls from the Lone Islands be taken by the green mist, and then they'll be plunged into the Underworld where we will again see Tilda. I really hope this does not happen, but I hope for the next film we get some new writers and someone who truly understands Narnia.

  13. Narniapinoy says:

    Off course I'm not the professionals, and most of the professionals says it's hard to adapt including the director, if just a fan like everybody here in NW saying things I really don't understand when it comes to film making I just care on a faithful adaptation. -_-

  14. WillowofNarnia says:

    Are these going to be on in the special features on the movie??? If so I kinda wanted them to be a surprise………OH I HAVE A HARD TIME AVOIDING SPOILERS!!!! 😛

  15. stateofgreen says:

    VDT and SC are set many many many years apart….there's no continuity logic in what Mr. Apted says about the "missing" chunk of SC that he created. There wasn't any chunk that was missing, just a terribly sad plot contrivances. 🙁 If they're smart they'll forget they ever added them to VDT and just make SC straight from the book plot.

  16. Demos says:

    You know, I just have to get my hands on the VDT DVD just to better understand the reasons Apted and the screenwriters did what they did. Every time Apted opens his mouth, he sounds like some alarmingly misinformed, befuddled has-been.

    He's obviously parroting what someone else has told him to say about "the book that CS Lewis didn't write" etc. In my opinion, he and the screenwriters are ultimately failures.

    A gifted screenwriter would have succeeded in providing a compelling adaption of the book, and a gifted director would have succeeded in bringing it to the screen.

    I'm still happy that the film was made – it was lots of fun. But one day someone will do better.

  17. Starlily says:

    Seeing the first video with Georgie and Will makes me want to see Will Poulter in Silver Chair so bad. I really hope they don't completely forget about SC, or recast Eustace. 🙁 I would love to see a more mature, nice Eustace in SC, and it would be sad if Will Poulter didn't get to expand his character like that.

    • stateofgreen says:

      I do so agree with that. It will be very sad if we can't see Will Poulter reprise Eustace at least one more time.

  18. Lucy says:

    What's with all the Apted hate? Narnia books are open to interpation, C.S. Lewis didn't write them in a detailed "lord of the rings" (I just started reading LOTR, and even though I like it so far, dang is that thing DETAILED!) style for a reason, so everyone could make up their own mind of what Narnia was like and what it meant to them. So you didn't like what it meant for Apted, or at least, how he chose to show it on screen? So what? Maybe he wouldn't like YOUR interperation or the changes you would make (and however faithful to the books you are, you have to make SOME). It's really sad that now so many of you are whining we want andrew back when after PC you all had a fit over one breif kiss scene AT THE END and were all, "Thank god there's a new director!"

    Humph! Fickle much?

    • nic says:

      I think M. Apted was a good choice for Dawn Treader. Some stylistic aspects not me as much as previous film PC but in the long term that will be good cause it gives the series more contrast. One thing i have thought is that M. Apted had more – might be the wrong word – 'interference, actually probably 'pressure' is a better word, whatever, anyhow something perhaps to deal with than wasn't the case with previous two films, yet for the most part everyone would agree that while we might having niggles here n there with it, VODT was another great Narnia experience on offer at the cinema – particularly after a first opening evening all hyped up viewing was out of the way:) -apologies for the never ending sentence!

    • Valiant says:

      Well even if we don't consider the adaption part of the movie, I think VDT had problems just as a stand alone movie…A big part of that is scriptwiting as well. I mean, the dialogue had a lot of problems. That's just one example of why people didn't like VDT.
      Also I think people have problems with Apted because he doesn't seem to like the source material. Now surely we can all agree that if a director isn't excited about the source material, the movie probably won't do well.

    • ChristProclamer says:

      We (The Purists, the book fans, those-who-agree-largely-with-glumpuddle) are not being fickle at all, my dear Lucy. Our wants and desires have not changed at all from film to film: We want good films that are good adaptations of Lewis' stories, beliefs, and vision.

      Filmmaker after filmmaker keeps missing the ball. We will keep pursuing our same end until we find one that understands Lewis and can do the job well. Will we LOVE everything about him/her/it? No, not all of us. But we will be satisfied if he gets the most important things right.

      Our goal is accurate film representation. We haven't changed one bit, darling. We still love the books, and we won't settle for anything less.

      • Narniapinoy says:

        Oh hail to the purist! Your all concern on how you believe is right adaptation without even considering the limits and the imperfection of the production. Your speaking like your the movie makers, please study it first and have an experience before saying anything oh so purist.

    • Mayor Wilkins says:

      I love this movie so much.
      Apted did a fine job.
      I also liked both of Adamson's films.
      I don't understand any of this backlash.
      Thing is, it's all totally shallow.

      The only reason you (universal you) don't care for The Green Mist is because "it's not in the book." Meanwhile, if C.S. Lewis had written about such a Green Mist, you'd probably all be saying how cool it was. I think many of you have put this idea down simply because it wasn't in the book.

      If you look at the movie, The Green Mist is a great visual symbol of temptation.
      It suggests an almost Satanic presence, which is quite frightening to think about.
      It was done very well.

      Also, didn't Lewis himself pretty much tell people to fill in the gaps in his writing by making up their own stories? I have the Paul F. Ford book in which such letters to fans are quoted. Perhaps Apted, and the production (who are said to have referred to this book), were simply taking Lewis's advice. They made up a detail (the mist) that could tie VDT to the plot of SC.

      Ford also suggests in his White Witch writings that perhaps The White Witch's sprit could live on by means of the Dark Magic. Hello, Dark Island anyone???

      Further more, Lewis hardly described what the deal was with Dark Island.
      Apted and co. interpreted it a certain way. The beautiful thing about the Narnia books is, if you want there to be a Green Mist at Dark Island, there's NOTHING that says it cannot be so. No where in that chapter did Lewis say "There was no Green Mist anywhere there." But he does mention a mist in the chapter.

      • Lucy says:

        Very good points! I couldn't agree more. And you're right, Lewis DID say to fill in the gaps ourselves, more or less.

      • Narniapinoy says:

        I also love the movie as a whole, and I love your point.

        Let's forget about the naysayers purist (not generalizing) here in NW they can't see how beautiful the movie is.

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        Thanks for your feedback. 😉
        Nice to see a few people on here actually embrace the films.
        Narniaweb is a good source for movie news, but they sure could use a re-fill on their enthusiasm for the project. I'm seriously considering avoiding the comments section from now on and just reading the news.

        But a salute those of you for bolding declaring that you liked the movie. 😉
        And you know something? I bet C.S. Lewis would actually like this film too. Why? Because it's a great celebration of the spirit of imagination in his books. He wanted people to imagine the world for themselves. Well, they did just that. Problem is, it's not what certain people imagined. Everyone's imagination is different and that's a beautiful thing.

      • Christ's girl says:

        I have not seen VDT but I cannot wait to! It would be cool to see the green mist. If it represents temptation OK. Every movie needs temptations, and every plot needs a problem, as long as the character(s) overcome it. I REALLY can't wait to see VDT. And I'm sure whether they make SC or MN the movie will be fine. Just bring on Narnia 4!

      • Clodsley Mole says:

        My concerns about the changes in this film:
        a) they don't fit in with the next book; the scriptwriters should have been asked to READ Silver Chair properly, to find out WHO the underground people were. They would have discovered these were gnomes from deep underground. No need to kidnap Narnians.
        b) they never explained or finished things off properly – I suggest they watch a few Dr Who stories to see how you manage these things. It's distracting to be sitting wondering where the people went to, how the rowing boats got taken out of the harbour full of people (did none of them try rowing back?), and where they were during the long time before being rescued.

    • demos says:

      I actually liked Adamson's "Prince Caspian"…

      My issue with Apted is his apathy and his astonishing lack of clarity on what Lewis actually wrote. I realize that he might have been working under parameters we are not yet privy to, but that doesn't excuse his ill-informed comments. He obviously hasn't read SC and that's pretty inexcusable.

      I'll repeat that I think VDT was a fun film – but it could have been so much more. One Apted-directed Narnia movie is quite enough, thank-you.

      • Talvi says:

        This. This exactly. It could have been SO much more – it was a passable general fantasy film as it was, but I think Apted really just missed the real core of the book – the real core of Narnia. He's just not the right director for Narnia – he never seemed to be 'in' it like Adamson was. Though Adamson did have some major changes in PC, I still LIKED it. Watching the making of, I was astonished just how much effort Adamson put into the movie. He did not cut corners, that man. He seemed to care. From what I've seen and heard from Apted, he really just *didn't*. That, and the sub-par screenwriting really just… just made it into a disappointment for me. 🙁 It was fun, but nothing compared to what it could have been.

      • Lucy says:

        I think it's a little unfair to blame Apted for not having enough "enthusam" like Andrew supposedly did. Yes, what Andrew did for Narnia was ah-mazing; the man went all-out making sure there was something Narnian in very tent in Aslan's camp, the cast was perfect for their roles and not just "the choclate box kids" and all that, no one is knocking any of that wonderfulness down. HOWEVER, how can you all just accuse Michel of not liking the project just because he, too, made changes but was unable to go "all out"? He probably didn't have the budget Andrew blew taking the cast to the most beautiful remote places to flim, likely he didn't have the money to have something "Narnian in every tent" so to speak. But come on, yes, as Andrew said, we as the fans notice there is something missing even if we can't see it, but does that mean we just tell the movie to kiss our butts? No! In fact when you just watch the movie without being critial, it's quite a beautiful film in spite of its smaller budget and shorter runing time. In my personal opinon it is the most moving film I've ever seen; I cried when I saw it. I know not everyone loves it, but you can't just go around saying "curse you Michel apted for ruining Narnia! Bring Andrew back!" and then make up lame excuses about how supposedly unnarnian the film was. That's so not fair. And need I remind you all that you HATED andrew's guts after PC when Susan and Caspian kissed? Several of you still whined about that one line in VDT where Caspian says "none to compare with your sister" to Lucy and still cursed Andrew's head off, so why the change of heart now? If you aren't fickle, than prove it. I also think it's unfair to say I can't be a book "purist" if I liked the movie; appeartly, to love or be loyal to the books you have to hate green mist with a passion that would be better put to writing our own fantasty novels! LOL.

      • Talvi says:

        Just saying, I liked Adamson's additions, including Suspian. 😉 I liked Adamson. I think he was right for Narnia. I've been with Adamson the entire time – I loved what he brought to the series. Though I'm not exactly a purist, I think, I just want the basic elements that I loved in the books to be translated to the screen. Adamson did that. I know PC wasn't a great adaptation word-for-word (there were some MAJOR changes, I know!), but it still was a good movie, and I liked it. It had the all of the elements that I loved from the book. I think he did a good job. I don't think Apted did. I saw his interviews, and I don't think he really cared the way Adamson did. I'm not talking budget or whatnot – I'm talking honest effort and interest, which is not something that is paid for, but something that each director just has – how much effort he himself puts in. I don't like Apted in Narnia. I didn't really like the movie – I love Narnia, but I think the movie was poorly done. I have never said anything different. Though I disliked some of his choices, I thought Adamson was the right director for Narnia, and even before VDT came out I was sorry to hear they'd hired someone else. Don't shove words down my throat and call me fickle, please – not all of us are. 😉

      • Lucy says:

        Oh, don't get me wrong, I loved what Andrew did for Narnia! LWW and PC were BRILLANT films, I've never said any less. HOWEVER, I liked what Apted did TOO. VDT, though I've only seen it once, is my favorite movie now. I think Apted did have enthusam, but in a different way than Andrew did; no two people show passion in the same way, some people are more all-out about it and others are more subtle. I don't think Apted was unenthuesastic, I just think he had a different approach. Which, I know might seem odd considering a lot of people didn't find the green mist "sutble" at all, but when compared to a big in your face night raid (which, don't get me wrong, I loved, though in a different way) it is.

        Also, I apologize if I seem to be "shoving words" down someone's throat here. I don't mean that at all. In fact, I feel as if I've had a lot of words shoved down my throat on this site and would hate to appear to be doing that to someone else. Please understand that that is not what I meant to do. Moreover if you liked Andrew's Susan/Caspian and you didn't scream for him to leave the project, then you aren't fickle, tis not you I am refering to. I was talking about those who DIDN'T like PC and now are all, "I love PC, all of a sudden, and VDT sucked and I miss Andrew even though I hate Suspian…blah blah blah.."

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        "appeartly, to love or be loyal to the books you have to hate green mist with a passion."

        I've never quite understood this either, as you know. The Green Mist was a high point of the film for me, actually. Brilliant symbol of the nature of temptation and evil. But I think so many people write it off because it is "not in the book." That to me is a shallow reason. One that really isn't much of an argument at all. What does that mean? Right, it's not in the book. So that equals bad? I don't understand how "not in the book" automatically means "unforgivable sin."

        As to it being the best of the films, I'd have to say no.
        BUT I'd say it's my second favorite after LWW. 😉
        I cried at the end of this. I hardly ever cry at the movies.
        It's beautiful.

      • Lucy says:

        LWW was hard to top as my favorite, but I liked the VDT movie enough that it topped it by the smallest franction possible. PC was awesome too, but I don't think it was QUITE as good as LWW or VDT was; although that might be because I liked the books of LWW and VDT a little better than PC when I first read the series, too.

    • Aslan's official fan says:

      Yeah for VDT! At least there was a smooching scene like PC!
      And I thought Apted did a wonderful job even if I would like the film to go with the book more but…hurray for VDT! 🙂

    • glumPuddle says:

      In the VDT book, the problem is internal (character flaws) and the solution is external (Aslan).
      In the VDT movie, the problem is external (the mist) and the solution is internal (character strengths).

      To say they misinterpreted the book would be an understatement. They made a movie about the exact opposite idea.

      • Lucy says:


      • Talvi says:

        That's not very polite, Lucy. He didn't blow *you* off – just gave a different opinion.

      • Bookwyrm says:

        Someone really ought to mail Apted a copy of SC since he's clearly never read it. Though hopefully we've been spared his mangling of SC by the decision to film MN.

      • Lucy says:

        Well, every time I actually expression my annoyance to Glumpuddle for bashing on the movie (which I suppose he's got a right to if he hated it that much, personal freedom and all that) everyone else gets mad at ME for saying, "Well, Glumpuddle, while you're entitled to your opinon, not everyone disliked the movie, I really liked it, actually" accusing me of being rude to him and of being a "ten year old" for liking such an "immaturely done movie" or some similar offencive comment against my liking the film. So this time I just threw in the towel and said "Whatever", let him bash the film I love best in the world, I've said my piece before, everyone's jumping down my throat, I'm done. Whatever. and I get in trouble for that, too. Figures. I can't win on this site. I get that Glumpuddle's been here longer than me and all, but geeze, if he's allowed to dislike the movie why can't I LIKE it and say so as many times as him? If he can repeat himself over and over, even though everyone already KNOWS what he thinks, why can't I? Why are you people so scared that someone actually might have enjoyed the movie? Is it because you're worried they'll make more movies you don't like just beacause people like me enjoyed VDT? Well that's not my fault, dears.

      • Bookwyrm says:

        You're playing the victim card again? Perhaps that might fool those who haven't watched your immature posting behavior over the last few months, but for the rest of us it is sadly transparent. Your posts rarely ever consist of something as reasonable as "Well, Glumpuddle, while you’re entitled to your opinon, not everyone disliked the movie, I really liked it, actually". No, the vast majority of the time you post to whinge, complain, and insist that all who dislike the film shut up and stop posting. I've yet to see gP or any of the purists who post intelligently engage in name-calling, but I've seen plenty of the pro-film people do so. The problem here is not gP or any other of the frequently commenting purists, it's the select irrational few of the film fans who apparently go into "Hulk Smash!" mode whenever they see an opposing opinion.

        And spare us the claims that you were "throwing in the towel". You posted your "whatever" comment in reply to gP to be deliberately provocative. If you were genuinely tired of arguing with him, you could have simply just stopped posting. No, this is a rather obvious case of Has-to-Have-the-Last-Word syndrome.

      • Talvi says:

        Well said.

  19. The Lady Arwen Undómiel says:

    You can't help island hopping if you're on a ship in the middle of an ocean and there is no land but islands.

  20. Serenia says:

    MN is one of my favorite books. I would feel much better if it were in Andrew Adamson's hands than Michael Apted's. Apted's comments betray his lack of passion for the books. I believe Adamson had both a passion for the books and a sincere love for the young actors that resulted in two films of much higher quality than Apted's VDT.

  21. ChristProclamer says:

    Fire Apted.

    That way he can be free to go write all the Narnian fanfiction he wants about unwritten books, missing chunks, and all the incredible mistakes Lewis made in his astonishingly unfinished Chronicles of Narnia. Give him a few years, and he may even publish an expose on all the shocking things Lewis forgot to put in his series.

    *Cue EPIC music*

    • High Queene Shelly Belly says:

      apted didn't write VDT, he was just handed the script. for all we know , he may have been just as baffled by that mishmash as we were.

      • ChristProclamer says:

        My problem is not so much with the script or the film. I could have dealt with the green mist. I did enjoy many parts of VoDT. It's Apted himself that irks me.

        His comments are blatantly insulting to Lewis. How dare a mediocre filmmaker insult one of the most celebrated writers of the last century, claiming that Lewis didn't know how to write his own series? He keeps saying that Lewis made mistakes, didn't complete his series, didn't do it right, etc. That's insulting and pretentious. If Apted doesn't like the Chronicles, he ought to go and write his own series to show just how it's done. Philip Pullman did that, and you have to admire him for taking up the task himself, rather just throwing out insults.

        Why would you offer to direct an adaptation of a book and author you clearly cannot bear? And what's more, why would Gresham hire a man so clearly anti-Lewis?

        Long comment short, it's not the film that I'm upset about. It's the clear disrespect to C.S. Lewis himself. I just want a director who will honor Lewis; not insult him.

      • Lucy says:

        Come now, I don't think he's anti-lewis at all. What I think is that you, and a few others are being a touch over-senstive (which is COMPLETELY understandable, I mean I'm a huge C.S. Lewis fan myself, so I totally get why you would take simple statments that seem to be "against him" to heart; I for example would not read any Pullman books for a long time even though I really liked his writing because I was stubbornly angry that he said horrible things about C.S. Lewis, although now I read whatever I like, including pullman, deciding we're all entitled to our own opinons and boycotts are pointless and lame). What Apted has been saying is being taken COMPLETELY out of context. He is not saying C.S. Lewis didn't know how to write his own series, he's saying that he didn't write (As I'm sure you can all agree) a movie; Lewis wrote NOVELS. So, to make it a movie (and not a "what Island are we going to this week, Lord Drinian?" tele-play), he changed things and claims to have gotten his "idea" by borrowing from SC. It's not a big deal. Apted is not Anti-Lewis. I mean, just look at Philip Pullman, that man out right says Narnia books are terrible and no one should read them, that they are raceist and sexist…etc… Apted doesn't say that; and I'm sure Douglas Grisham did NOT hire someone who did not understand the books. Quite frankly, he hired someone who imagined them and interperted them differently from some of you on here. And is that really so wrong? I mean, that's what Narnia is supposed to be all about, isn't it? Letting your imagination run free with the wonderful characters. Lewis wrote the books to be taken any way a reader wished; he never judged his readers, he let them do as they pleased. So what right do you have to judge your fellow reader. You don't know that apted didn't read the books. Even if he misquoted something from SC. I've read horse and his boy countless times, and in my first ever Narnia fanficion, I accidentally misquoted it. Stuff happens. We all need to chill out and stop yelling at the movie makers. They could just not make any movies at all, which I'm sure some of you (not me!) would want, but that isn't fair to those of us who do like it. Why is it that we who liked the movie have to be "fair" to you by not saying we liked it and think you're wrong by saying something as un-opinonish as "it sucked", "it was a bad film", "Lewis would have hated this" (um, dudes, his stepson didn't. And unless you're Jacksie Lewis's reincarnation, you don't KNOW that he would have hated it, you're just guessing). But none of you who hated the film have to show us or the director any respect for our thoughts? Branding us as Fangirls? It isn't NICE.

  22. Mayor Wilkins says:

    The Green Mist was my favorite part.
    Oh, and the Eustace Dragon.
    But I really did like the Green Mist. Really liked it.
    I guess I'm alone there.
    Oh well.

  23. ANÓNIMO says:

    my best friend loves this movie but for me it´s not enaught

  24. ANÓNIMO says:

    and she says that Eustace is handsome, put i think is horrifying

  25. fireheart209 says:

    When Mr. Apted says that the story as written has no drive or no "motor" that is his opinion. I disagree and that's fine. He and I have difference of opinion. But when he says that "there is no mention ever of how these people get into the underground, how these people are kidnapped and sent underground to prepare for war against Narnia" that is factually incorrect. The book "Silver Chair" very clearly states that the army underground was not sent underground but brought up from the land of Bism that lies even deeper underground. They were put under an enchantment and forced to serve LotGK against their will.
    Now Mr. Apted can have the opinion that this is a poor storyline and needs to be changed. That is an opinion. But to not even know who is in the Witch's army and how they got there makes me wonder if he has even read the book. It is mentioned. And clearly explained. I don't get why he would say that if he has read the book. And I don't understand why they would ask someone who thinks that VDT wouldn't make a good movie to take over the job of turning VDT into a movie. It seems he has the same opinion of Silver Chair. Which is why I hope he is not the one to direct Silver Chair if it is ever made.

  26. freshynfs says:

    Well I guess then that since C.S. Lewis didn't write about any green mist in VDT, then there is surely no reason why we shouldn't have Tilda Swinton play the White Witch in the next four movies. I can hardly wait!!!

  27. DominicLovesNarnia says:

    I'm hoping that someday when they will make another Narnia movies, and I wish it will be Silver Chair and Michael Apted will direct it again, I hope Andrew Adamson and Ann Peocock will Write the Script.

    glumPuddle is right "dreadful adaptation" but NOT BAD FILM, it is a GOOD FILM for me.:D

    • Mayor Wilkins says:

      It's a really good film version.
      Sad fact is the text as directly translated would not have worked without these changes.
      The changes WORK. Not only that, but they work very well.

      The one thing they HAD to include for me from the book was Aslan saying he was Jesus.
      He said it.

      "In your world, I have another name. You must learn to know me by it. That was the very reason you were brought to Narnia. That by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."

      I have what I wanted from this film.
      I love it. 😀

      • moonwood says:

        Wow ! I missed a lot of drama ! : )
        I have to agree with you once again, Mayor ( scrolling down the page ) …
        Glad you got the Paul F. Ford book ! Isn't it awesome ?
        I can say I loved VDT, it had by far the most Narnian feel to it ( though HORRIBLY edited ), but I find Apted's comments on the missing chunk of story, and underground army ( they are gnomes, you bozo ) bizarre, and out of touch with the series.
        I am sure there will, within the next 20 years, be a reboot.
        Thought you guys who do not have the Ford book
        might enjoy this ( it is not complete ! ) :
        Paul F. Ford's 'Companion to Narnia'; Under the heading: Aslan , sub-heading:
        The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
        "Significantly, only on LB is Aslan less on scene than VDT–in parts of little more than two chapters in the entire sixteen chapters of the voyage narrative.
        He is active with Eustace offstage at Dragon Island, in a apparition at Deathwater Island, with Lucy during her reading of Coriakin's book in the land of the Duffers, as an Albatross near the Dark Island, with Caspian offstage during the king's attempted abdiction on the Silver sea, and as the Lamb at World's End.
        The voyage is undertaken only because Caspian sought and recieved Aslan's approval to swear a solemn oath to search for the seven Noble Lords.
        Aslan's image in beaten gold is hung above the door in Caspian's cabin, a sign that this quest is made under the Lion's patronage.
        In Aslan's appearance to Eustace, a halo or aura of moonlight surrounds the lion, even though it is a moonless night. The sight of the lion excites in the boy-turned-dragon the fear of the holy.
        In silence, Aslan leads Eustace to a well in the middle of the garden on a mysterious mountaintop.
        And, again wordlessly, he instructs the boy to shed his skin. When Eustace tries three times and fails to really remove his dragonishness, Aslan askes permission to intervene to do the job and the boy submits out of his desperate desire to end the pain in his arm and to doff his dragon appearance.
        The pain ( paradoxically a pleasure, as he describes it like a 'scab coming off after an illness' ) that Eustace experiences as Aslan pierces through with his claws to his boyhood is a sign that this time the shedding will be complete.
        The Lion throws the freshly peeled boy into the well and he emerges Eustace again.
        Aslan dresses him and returns him to the King's beach camp, and to the fellowship of the Dawn Treaders.
        The wonderfull dreamlike quality of this scene, coupled with the reality that Eustace is changed back into a boy to begin trying to be a better human being, is perhaps the most beautifull visualization of the meaning of conversion and baptism in children's literature.
        When Eustace asks Edmund who Aslan is, and whether Edmund knows him, Edmund recites what might be considered the first adequate Narnian creed; most significantly, he reverses Eustace's phrasing to the proper biblical order: 'Aslan knows me' *
        In the crisis of greed on Deathwater Island, Aslan appears on the other side of the pool, 'Shining as if he were in bright sunlight though the sun had in fact gone in'. (a picture of his devine radiance paralleling his nighttime appearance to Eustace ).
        This vision seems to erase the memory of the explorers in a manner similar to the way in which the sight of Aslan seems to stay with people all their days ( as in the case of Digory and Polly in MN ).
        When the beautifying spell in the magicians book becomes a temptation to vanity for Lucy, an illumination of aslan's growling countenance appears in bright gold on the very page at which she is looking. When she recites the spell that makes everything invisible visible, Aslan appears, Standing in the doorway. From his willingness ro receive her embrace and kisses and the purring sound he makes, it is obvious he is glad to see her.
        He explained that he had been there
        all the time, **
        but that he has now become visible because he obeys his own rules.
        He declaires that she has been eavesdropping, overrules her silence, deflects her avoidance in an attempt to shift the blame to the technique ( magic)
        , calls invasion of privacy an evil, whatever the technique, and explaines that she misjudged her friend by failing to understand the pressure of human respect.
        In response to Lucy's lament about what could have been, Aslan again reminds her of the positivity of reality. He knows how difficult this confrontation with him must be for her, because he calls her ' dear heart' and asks her to speak her deep desire.
        He promises to tell her the story of Refreshement ' for years, and years'. more to come…
        * God's knowledge of us is primary, Lewis believed.
        Consider this exerpt from perhaps his single most important address, ' The Weight of Glory' :
        'I read in a periodical the other day that the fundamental thing is how we think of God. By God Himself, it is not ! How God thinks of us is not only more important, but infinitely more important.' ( p. 10, 103 )
        Lewis here is in line with the biblical doctine of God's knowledge. 'To know' in hebrew thought is 'To be on the most intimate terms with.'
        Thus for that first christian theologian, St. Paul, ' Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have fully been understood.' is the summery statement of our present condition, as well as of our possible future ( I Corinthians 13:12 ). The other possible future is summerized by Jesus himself: ' I never knew you; depart from me.' ( gospel of Matthew 7:23). Of all the characters in Narnia, Eustace has perhaps the deepest experience of being known. He has begun the process of learning to like the nakedness that God will eventually demand of all of us.
        Sais Lewis:
        'No possible complexity which we can give to our picture of the Universe can hide us from God: there is no popse, no forest, no jungle thick enough to provide cover . . .All that seems to devide us from God can flee away, vanish leaving us naked before him, like the first man, like the only man, as if nothing but he and I existed. And since that contact cannot be avoided for long, and since in means either bliss, or horror, the business of life is to learn to like it. That is the first and greatest commandement.' ( 'Dogma and the Universe' in God in the Dock p. 47, 38 )
        ** It is not clear from the narrative whether Lewis intends for us to understand that he is trying to give us a picture of the omnipresence and providence of God, or whether the Lion is present for the purpose of this story only

        Paul F. Ford: 
        'The feeling of solemnity diminishes for the reader as the next scene unfolds.
        Aslan is called 'sir ' by Coriakin; and during the course of their conversation,the reader discovers that the Duffers were given to the care of Coriakin by Aslan. The Lion promises the retired star that in good time the Duffers will be able to be ruled with wisdom rather than with magic.
        Aslan laughs at the thought of showing himself to the easily frightened Duffers.
        The Lion hastens away to speak with Trumpkin ( who was left in charge) in Cair Paravel , but not before he promises Lucy, saddened by his departure, that he will see her soon.
           When she asks what 'soon' means to him, he replies that all times are soon, implying that he has a perspective on time that she doesn't understand now. ' –2 Peter 3:8– 'Coriakin's colophon to this conversation is his recapitulation of the 'not a tame lion' motif already mentioned.'

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        The Ford book is like a Narnia dictionary. And I mean that in the coolest sense. His insights are, at times, rather awesome. More often than not. 😉 The only thing I would have liked is full-color illustrations. Whatever version I got did not have them in color. I don't know if they ever were in color, but they should be. They're really cool pictures. 😀

        As for "Dawn Treader," one thing I will admit is that I was quite captivated by the undragoning in the book. However, I feel this is an okay change for filmdom primarily because it was really cool to see Eustace attacking the Sea Serpent for a brief period. If you had the chance to show a dragon battling a sea monster, you'd probably take the opportunity.

        I was equally captivated by the entire Dark Island sequence as done on film. One of the smartest things they did was make the Sea Serpent an agent of evil, likely conscious of what it was trying to destroy. To me, and maybe me alone (that's okay). I found the enemy much more terrifying knowing it had raw evil intention. After spending the entire film trying to tempt them, The Green Mist showed itself as a true nightmare and tried to destroy them. This is the nature of evil. The temptations are hollow and the only thing it really wants to do is destroy you. If it can't destroy your faith in God (which would be more satisfying), then it will attempt a physical attack.

        The sea serpent as an animal driven by evil is, to me, more nightmarish than the dumb animal of the novel. In the film, you aren't sure how conscious the serpent is. Is it simply a tool of the Green Mist OR is it much more intelligent than in the novel. Is it indeed a manifestation of the Dark Island, sharply focussed on bringing the ship down in any way possible? You're not sure, but it definitely seemed more aware than the novel depicts.

        It provides a good climax, which is maybe as electrifying as the battle scene in LWW–maybe.

        But once again, lets remind everyone that the books and the films are different. They are both wonderful in their own ways. 😀

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        As to Apted's comments about linking with SC, ehhh….. I'm neither for or against that at this point. He is confused about the kidnappings, but that's all right. Honestly, they should probably only IMPLY a connection between the two films. Dark Island should not be a plot of The Green Lady. Dark Island should be a plot of Dark Island.

        Of course, you know my theory is that Jadis might have actually been present spiritually via the the evil magics there. And that the destruction of the island was the final destruction of her spirit. Hence the agonized, shrieking "Noooo" she gave out when the serpent was smote down.

        Dark Island to me is more a transition between Jadis and The LOTGK. It appeared as Jadis, but she was enveloped in green and the intensity of the green in her eyes was impossible to ignore. What we're seeing is a transition between the two.

        Here's how I think it plays out. Keep in mind that I only speculate and have no evidence to back it up. This is just what I think is going on.

        LWW—White Witch dies
        Her spirit, rather than go directly to Hell (which Ford says MIGHT exist in some sense), goes to Dark Island (which MIGHT have existed or come into existence upon her death–in the films).

        PC–1300 years later, the hag does her little spell and calls the White Witch's spirit forth (from Dark Island?) and the intention was to make her physical again, probably as her former White Witch self, judging by the use of ice and the wand and everything. This attempt fails utterly (should have hired some more guards–LOL).

        VDT—Jadis takes a much more active role in this picture. She appears three times to Ed, each time intensifying her temptations. We can only blindly speculate here about the plan of Dark Island. Perhaps the souls it took from the Lone Island were some kind of sacrifice or payment in order to bring Jadis back physically. A more complicated avenue to bringing her back than in PC. Perhaps Jadis would have been the reborn witch of "Silver Chair" if Dark Island wasn't destroyed?

        But it was. And so was Jadis. Thus, whatever evil controlled Dark Island had to start from scratch, find a new phyiscal vessel, a new body in which to inhabit. This person will become the Green Lady as she is depicted in the next book.

        I know there are tons of holes in my logic. But that's what I think is going on. Dark Island wanted to use the White Witch as the vessel of evil again, but it was destroyed before that could happen. So it takes the 50 years or so between VDT and SC to create the new witch.

      • Not Of This World says:

        Your theory is interesting and very well thought out 🙂

      • moonwood says:

        Very interesting, Mayor, and fun to think about.
        I have to admit I am too much of a purist to think along those line, but it is very creative, and more importantly, respects the mood of the original stories…I have to respect is in keeping with Lewis's style. : )
        I don't actually have a problem with the green mist either.
        Have you noticed there is a 'Star Trek: Next Generation' episode that is based on the idea ( the book's…) of the Dark island ?
        Don't know what the episode was called…they are stuck in a dark expanse, it is impossible to get out, no matter how far they go, and everything they imagine becomes real ( dangerous or no ), in this ship of their's.

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        I know I probably over-think the role of Jadis a little. But there's nothing to suggest my theory is completely wrong either. Douglas Gresaham implied that the spirit of evil as shown by the Green Mist might have been the same spirit as The White Witch, but would be reborn as the fresh Green Lady later.

        And you can make the argument that the White Witch has green eyes for a reason.
        Dark Island could theoretically be a transition between the two incarnations.
        Thanks for your feedback, guys. 😉
        Appreciate the kind words. 😀

  28. nic says:

    For me, the Green Mist represents the 'loss of innocence' from Prince Caspian taking a material form. Miraz, Peter & Caspian were the resonating protagonists for this in PC.

    This L-o-I is rather timeless in nature or less bound by time, so it is able to use young & old to feed it, & as it is more to do with the realms where Aslan comes from; the characters need Aslan's help to match it.

    The way this theme ended up being in VODT is not only really good fit for PC, but could work really well for Magician's Nephew & the fit with LW&W. Jadis & the world she destroyed is the personification of this theme, yet un like Narnia, this was a gradual development for Charn yet it enters in Narnia straight away & leads to the LW&W, a magic which by some accounts, rivaled even that of Aslans.

    • Mayor Wilkins says:

      Interesting theory.
      I've usually looked at the Green Mist as raw evil spirit. Perhaps the closest thing you could get to a Satanic force, embodied in The White Witch and then The Green Lady.
      But your theory is a good one also. 😉

  29. A "chase for clues as to who is about to attack Narnia"??? NO ONE is about to attack Narnia in the book! What is he talking about?
    I think that, despite his shocking lack of understanding regarding the books, Apted made a pretty decent movie. It kept the most important themes from the book (although it showed them in a much more heavy-handed, preachy manner). In that respect, I thought it was a much better adaptation than PC, which completely mutilated every important theme that Lewis was trying to convey. In fact, I would have LOVED the VDT movie if it weren't for the Green Mist. That addition was weird, cheesy, and completely unnecessary, and I certainly hope they don't try to bring it into the Silver Chair. But it didn't obscure the central themes TOO much – it just made them less powerful.
    I think the whole problem with the Narnia movies so far is that the directors (both Adamson AND Apted) don't respect their source material enough. They're always trying to "improve" on C.S. Lewis's stories, and they're not ashamed to admit it. No matter that C.S. Lewis was one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, or that his books have already been best-sellers for decades without any "improvements". I'm still waiting for a director who genuinely loves the books as they are and is willing to keep the storyline, characters, and dialogue (!) intact, even if they're not politically correct or don't conform to audiences' typical expectations for a fantasy movie. Not every fantasy has to be another Lord of the Rings. But it would be nice if every director who made a movie based on a book had the same respect for his material that Peter Jackson had.

    • moonwood says:

      Other than the green mist which frankly I don't have much of an opinion about, I STRONGLY agree with everything you said.
      Frankly, everything.
      Especially about 'improving his writing…I remember Adamson ( PC, what a disaster, Peter was a winy little b***h on top of that ) actually making fun of the story, saying ( paraphrased) " We couldn't have the children constantly looking back
      and saying 'Do you see him yet' " he also said we couldn't have most of the movie with just a dwarf telling the children a story on the beach.
      What kind of reasoning is that ? does he think we are simple ? has he seen 'The Princess Bride' ? that was told by an old man, next to a kid's bed. Oh, how boring !

  30. Dancinginrain says:

    You know "the book that CS Lewis didn’t write" was the story of what happened to Susan. Not in the middle of VDT and SC. Apted has really gotten on my nerves.

  31. Sorry, but you people are so dramatic. They took the book and turned it into a movie. It's called "BASED" on the book not that the movie is a book. You can't do anything about it. And it's not your place to yell at the makes for trying to please the viewers.

    • moonwood says:

      Don't be sorry, mean it, or don't write it.

      • I just didn't want to sound rude. but I knew a bunch of people would bite my head off lol. I personally like the movie a lot. yes the book was better, but they couldn't make a 20 hour movie. you know what I mean?

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        They took the book and from that made a movie.
        That is what "Based on the book" means. They used the book as a base. And built a film from that base. And for my money, it was the best film of the holidays. I'll probably watch it a zillion times on DVD. 😉

  32. Shastafan says:

    Boy, things can get crazy when Apted's quotes get on here. I fear what I'll think when I finally see VDT the 2nd time, mostly because the more I think through the movie, the more mixed I become.

    I think "VDT was too hard to adapt, so they had to add a big plot" doesn't make any sense. LWW and PC weren't the easiest of books to adapt either. Although PC was challenging, the movie makers were able to make changes and yet make it work to the book extremely well. The same could've been done for VDT, but for some reason, instead of just changing the way the story worked, they changed its plot too, the foundation of the loved C.S. Lewis book. I can't honestly say the real reason why they did it that way, but I'm having issues seeing how it really helped the movie.

    If VDT had been great to both the fans and outsiders, the movie wouldn't be quite as argued about and maybe it'd be less hard to say, "Wow, they did great!" But because of how the movie makers did it, although many fans still loved the film, many others feel disappointed and outraged by this, making a horrid scar in the fanbase.

    Like I've said before, whether they do MN or SC, they need to work on not bringing back the magic of LWW, but the magic of the books by C.S. Lewis. I have no ideas of what lies ahead for the movies, but I can only hope that there's a strong chance that we'll never get a "VDT disaster" again…

  33. freshynfs says:

    Well I think if filmmakers want to make a movie based off a book then they should write their own book and film it. I do believe though that if the filmmakers had it in their hearts and interest to film the books as they were written they could. Either they want to try and make it more appealing for todays mass audiences, or they don't think the way the book was written willl draw in a big enough crowd, or they just want to add in today's biggest Hollywoood effects and CGI special effects. Whatever the case may be sometimes this helps and other times it doesn't, but I know that they could adapt the books much better than they are now. Hollywood has always jazzed things up for the big screen even changing historical stories for a more action-packed adventure movie. That's why I don't agree with all the changes.

  34. moonwood says:

    What it boils down to is temperamental artists egotistically wanting to do their own thing…

  35. Did no one even like the movie?

    • moonwood says:

      I LOVED it, will buy the dvd, and will watch it over and over. as well as many ( most ) people on this site. I think it was the most 'Narnian ' of the 3. There is always room for improvement. Most of the critics who didn't like it, didn't like to because it was not the epic, epic movie that the story set it up to be…and many of us are concerned that they are on a trend…

      • Mayor Wilkins says:

        I like so many things about VDT's movie (including The Green Mist–yeah haters, I said it. The Green Mist rules! 😛 ), but one of the things I really respected was its distance from a LOTR setup.

        There were no massive armies. No gigantic battle clash on a field. Indeed, there was a climax, but it was against an almost Satanic enemy, mostly incorporeal, which played on fears, exploited weakness, and attempted to over power the world. Not through brute force, but through the darkness to be found in the souls of otherwise good people.

        VDT was the most unique of the films in its structure. 😉

        And before we start comparing the Sea Serpent to the POTC monsters…. don't even. 😛
        The Kraken had nothing on the Sea Serpent. Dark Island's Sea Serpent could kick Davy Jone's Kraken's booty any day of the week. If not for the intervention of Aslan's magic, Edmund would be in the serpent's belly right now. 😛 LOL

    • Lucy says:

      Have you not seen my comments? I've been defending the movie till I'm blue in the face (well, fingers, since i'm typing…lol). I wouldn't do that for a movie I didn't like. I loved vdt.

    • demos says:

      I think most of us liked the movie. You can like a movie and also debate on whether it could have been done better. I've already pre-ordered the DVD and can't wait until I see it again.

      The subtlety here is that it's fun to analyze and exchange opinions on what worked, what didn't, etc. If you love the Chronicles of Narnia, you care about the films, and will want to voice your opinion about future films, whether doing so will make a difference or not.

  36. Bookwyrm says:

    Someone really ought to mail Apted a copy of SC since he’s clearly never read it. Though hopefully we’ve been spared his mangling of SC by the decision to film MN.

  37. Heythere says:

    Glumpuddle, I love how everything you post is something negative about the film. It really makes me feel good *rolls eyes*

    • Heythere says:

      P.S. The fact that you liked that sick-agenda of a film "Black Swan" tells me a lot

    • Bookwyrm says:

      I think you're getting his YouTube videos confused with the news stories. Unless you consider facts negative.