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.”
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.
and the more evidence that you don't understand film making.
"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.
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. 😀
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.
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.
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!
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! 🙂
One word: Dobby.
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.'
I agree
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.
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. 😉
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. 😀
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.
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.."
"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.
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). 😉
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.
Your theory is interesting and very well thought out 🙂
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.
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.
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 it..it 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.
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 !
LOL
better pessimist than green mist! 🙂
they actually DO understand them, they are just intentionally secularizing them, that news leaked from inside sources in 2001.
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.
very alone. sorry.
ditto.
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. 😀
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. 😉
Dobby! I Loved Dobby! Poor innocent Dobby…
I wish he would!!!
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.
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,
Narniafan#1
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.
I loved VDT! I only hope that SC gets made.
Also, I like your thoughts on Jadis, Mayor Wilkins. It's a very interesting idea.
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…
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.
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.
Don't be sorry, mean it, or don't write it.
What it boils down to is temperamental artists egotistically wanting to do their own thing…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4oKXagF3IE
Did no one even like the movie?
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?
Thanks, you too.
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…
whatever.
no, you're not alone. I too enjoyed the green mist subplot.
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.
That's not very polite, Lucy. He didn't blow *you* off – just gave a different opinion.
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.
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. 😉
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Glumpuddle, I love how everything you post is something negative about the film. It really makes me feel good *rolls eyes*