Douglas Gresham on Twitter

Today, Douglas Gresham answered questions via the @CSLewis Twitter account. Check out some highlights below:

Q: Did CSLewis believed that other worlds (such as Narnia) may really exist?
: Why? Don’t you?

Q: What was the most emotionally difficult part of working on the Chronicles of Narnia films?
DG: The hardest part of working on the Narnia films was having to accept stuff that I knew to be less good than what Jack wrote.

Q: I’m curious about Lewis’s position on anarchy. Would he have considered Jesus to be an anarchist?
DG: No Jesus was purely a Theocrat not an anarchist. Anarchy is for fools and bullies.

Q: Is C.S. Lewis still relevant in the 21st Century? What would he have made of the current financial crisis?
DG:  Like me he would have shaken his head and said “Well here we go again-drat it.”

Q: Did he ever start works of fiction and then scrap them?
DG: Yes, every writer does. Lots of his attempts ended up in the wastepaper basket.

Q:  do you have a personal favorite that he wrote?
DG: Yes, I think the best fictional book he ever wrote was ‘Til We Have Faces.

 Notable Quotes

“Evangelical is far too broad a term and covers a multitude of sins. Jack was a mere Christian, as am I.”

(About the death of Lewis’ wife, Joy) “We grew very close in that time. I leant on him and he had only me to lean on.”

You can see a “replay” of the chat at

87 Responses

  1. Tirian says:

    It's definitely noticeable that he didn't answer any questions about future Narnia films.

    • Dylan says:

      I must say that I am somewhat disapointed that he didn't address that. Somebody must have asked that question, maybe he just didnt have anything else to say about the situation.

      • Odette says:

        Dylan, yes, several people, including GlumPuddle in several different ways, asked about the future of the films, but, like Tirian said, he ignored all the questions about it.

      • Dylan says:

        I bet he knows something we don't about the future of the films. Maybe Walden and the Lewis Estate haven't come to an agreement yet, what a shocker that would be.

      • Hmmm…That is most interesting. Perhaps he is not allowed to answer questions about the future of the films.
        Glad to hear he wasn't happy about all the changes. Still, you would think he had more influence with that. :-[ Hmm…

      • Dylan says:

        I think he had plenty of influence, I just wish he had a chance to make some adjustments to make the movies more like the books.

      • Yes, I think he could've truely done SOMETHING if he REALLY wanted to! I wish he had. If it was someone's book in my family, or my book, I would be doing everything I could to make sure they were faithful! I would be like "No, I'm sorry, you CANNOT put this in the movie." Even if it meant they wouldn't make it, I would just find someone else (easier said than done, I know) to do it. I would rather my books not be made, then to be ruined. And I can imagine since I love to write stories myself. (Although I have never finished one =\)

      • Dylan says:

        They didn't completely ruin Prince Caspia, yes, there were plenty of issues with the film, but it wasn't destroyed. Voyage of the dawn treader was a disaster, I really wish they could have stuck to the book and not orient the movie towards 5 year old kids.

      • Well, I'm still not sure which is worse. This was the case for me: They did well on LWW that I thought PC would be great. We really did not get much info on the movie PC, so I wasn't knowing what to expect. When I saw it I was completely shocked and disappointed. I knew so much that was going to be in the film VODT, so I wasn't really as shocked, so I decided the movie "Was not as bad as PC." Because I was expecting all those changes. Now every time I watch VODT, I realize more and more how…well, what a disaster it is and I don't know which one to think is worse- PC or VODT. 🙂

      • Dylan says:

        The only thing that really missed the target for me in Prince Caspian was the brattiness of Peter and Caspian. I guess you really can't blame Caspian, losing everything he knows, but Peter had no excuse to act like that. They badly screwed the script. Voyage of the Dawn Treader was extremely dissapointing for many reasons, the cheesy acting, the predictabilaty (especially during the sea serpent scene, "Edmund, what did you just think of?" that was one of the lowlights of the film) also how many things they left out from the book that I think they could've easily included, even if there was a different goal in getting the swords to the table and defeating the mist i still think in some way they could have incorperated it somehow into the script. Like Gresham already said, the toughest part of making (and watching/waiting for us fans) these films is having to accept something definately not as good as what Lewis wrote, its very, very tough.

      • O, yeah I know! Peter had no call to act that way. In the book he said they had come to help put Caspian in his place. In the movie they acted like they were fighting against eachother! 😛
        Yeah, I think the CGI in VODT was pretty lame. Sorry, LWW looked really good, VODT just looked way too……I can't even explain it!
        C.S. Lewis' work was pure genius, the movies are just mediocre.

      • Dylan says:

        The only thing VDT really had going for it was the special effects. There was no plot to back it up, they marketed the whole movie on special effects alone.

      • always narnian says:

        Really? Did you like the special effects? I though it was sort of lousy. 🙂 The sea serpent….looked pretty…fake?

      • Dylan says:

        Well, the upside of the special effects was definately the tidal wave that Reep goes over, that actually looked somewhat real. The green mist animation sucked. Im serious, it was really cheesy. Everyhting else was fine, but the green mist sucked.

      • always narnian says:

        I think the tidal wave looked good. But the other stuff….like the lightening that strikes the sea serpent…was corny.

      • Dylan says:

        Eustace as a dragon looked fairly real, same thing with Reepicheep, but everything else was really not that good.

      • always narnian says:

        I liked the way Eustace looked as a dragon, but it didn't actually look realistic to me. Reepicheep was good. 🙂 I liked him.

      • Dylan says:

        I think Eustace looked real enough.

      • Cool, I guess I'm super picky!

      • Dylan says:

        The best part of the first film was that they didnt need that much CGI compared to VDT, which was all CG.

      • always narnian says:

        Yes, and Aslan looked AMAZING in the first movie.

      • Dylan says:

        Well he always looks amazing! Even in Dawn Treader, I thought the animation wasnt as good for him, but the end scene was quite beautiful.

      • always narnian says:

        I wasn't a fan of all that dark fur they put on Aslan. They said it would make him look more realistic, but I thought he looked more unrealistic in VODT. The end scene is pretty good. I really like the wave.

    • wolfloversk says:

      He probably doesn't have much more news, than what we already know.

    • Peter says:

      Quotes Always Narnian: "O, yeah I know! Peter had no call to act that way. In the book he said they had come to help put Caspian in his place. In the movie they acted like they were fighting against eachother!"

      Hahaha… In the Prince Caspian movie Peter put prince Caspian in his place though (namely good-for-nothing-useless-wannabee-king place), Caspian didn't accept it and finally Aslan puts Peter in his place (or something like that). In the book Peter is only bratty and adulty when Lucy says she has seen Aslan. And after that the gang really puts Caspian in his place as a king/prince/leaderthingy. Though Peter still fights Miraz (though I thought Caspian was wounded or had to be protected as the king or something).

      I really really really do not get what you all liked so much about prince Caspian though.
      The story: changed: Stupid Peter thinks he can slay an army by attacking its unguarded (relatively) castle, he openly doubts Aslan and he challenges Caspian. He blames Caspian for his own Shortcomings. In a scene (the Castle scene) that was NOT in the book Edmund is unrealistically clumsy with his pocket lamp. Then Susan falls in love with Caspian and has a hot, lovefull farewell kiss with Caspian, making it terrible sad and difficult for her to return to earth. I almost wish for them to *** up the story further by letting Susan stay in Narnia. Just because I can't believe Aslan would force a divorce between a couple in love. Either this was real love or Susan was being slutty or uncharacteristical.

      In short: In Prince Caspian they changed the story, they destroyed established good characters of Peter, Susan, Caspian and even Aslan. They also made a worthless romance.

      Finally they also made the story unrealistic because of time. Anyone wonder why the Pevensies travel through a large and wilderness Narnia just a little more than a day. Anyone wonder why in the meantime Miraz doesn't franctically search for his rival to the throne, anyone wonder why Caspian just comfortably seems to wait around for the pevensies in the forest and after that just attacks them (or gets attacked, without any guards detecting the attack [with good ears and noses animals have) well before it came.
      So Caspian: destroyed characters, changed story, destroyed realism.
      VODT: changed story, intact character and a mediocre realism.
      According to my calculations VODT wins with head and shoulders. Yes Lucy is relatively vain, but no, that doesn't totally disagree with the book. There she spies on an (ex)friend, and is hurt by her opinion on her or something. She is behaving vain and wrong in the book too. Edmund is just Edmund, he fights with Caspian (wrongly) but at least the feud is settled, and marked as influence of green mist and wrong behaviour. In PC people behave as if weird and vain behaviours are normal or ignore it altogether.

      So I grant the one that reads this whole story a kiss with a very high appreciation and I have blown off steam now :D.

      • Peter says:

        Shoot, this one is embarassingly long. Anyway I can remove it? :o.

      • Peter says:

        *** about being slutty and uncharacteristical: no offence. Of course the same would go for Caspian for kissing someone he wouldn't even really know that good and he wouldn't even really love.

        😀 oh no.. I only make it worse… just wanted to point out I don't practice sexism (or don't want to).

      • Dylan says:

        Okay, saying that Ed was uncharacterissticly clumsy is plain rediculous, anybody could drop somethign on accident. Secondly, saying that Susans and Caspians love was "slutty" is not entirely true. Yes, I agree you shouldnt kiss somebody you just met is crazy, but they werent being slutty.

      • Dylan says:

        Another thing, the reason that I think Voyage stunk, was how cheesy it was. Look at the films individually, disregarding that they are even related to the books at all, Caspian NAILS Voyage. Really, watch them over again, Prince Caspian wins if you ask me. Another thing that really gets me about Dawn Treader was the fact that it was absolutely nothing like the book at all. Prince Caspian at least has the same goal as the book, defeat the Telmarines. Voyage of the Dawn Treader's goal was defeat the green mist. If Lewis was alive he'd be like "Thats my book???". The only one that he'd really apreciate would be LWW, which I think stayed entirely faithful to the book.

  2. Fireflower says:

    I missed it. 🙁 Oh well. I DO like the question about the other worlds!

  3. Louloudi the Centaur says:

    As to Gresham not answering questions about the future of the Narnia films, I wouldn't be too surprised if he said nothing for a few years. Considering we still have 3-4 years left until production of another can continue at the least, he probably doesn't have too much of an idea himself on "Narnia 4", or whatever else could happen. Let's try to ask again in 3-4 more years. 😉

    But great interview. I like learning more about Lewis now that ever now that I am trying to read more of his books, or dying attempting to read them. 😛 (Surprised by Joy is indeed very hard for a fan my age.)

    • Dylan says:

      Yeah, Lewis' other works are pretty hard to read. I mean have any of you tried to read the Space Trilogy? The first book is alright but the second one is like trying to read a Dickens book….

      • Caspian says:

        …but then the third one brings in the Arthurian Legends, which is pretty awesome! 🙂 Yeah, Lewis's non-Narnian works are a little more difficult, but I enjoy them just as much. Like Mr. Gresham, I think "Till We Have Faces" is one of Jack's best works. And then there's "Mere Christianity" (Warning: attempting to read this book in one sitting may result in brain explosion) and "Surprised by Joy". The thing about his non-fiction is that you have to take it one chapter at a time, and spend a lot of time just thinking about what he said.

      • Dylan says:

        A long time thinking…………..

      • AJAiken says:

        I completely disagree, I found the Space Trilogy to be the best thing I'd read since I first started "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" years before! They made me feel like I did when I read the seven Chronicles books for the first time.

      • Dylan says:

        I love those books its just the second one wasn't my favorite. But the first and the third were really good.

      • Tradition says:

        As much as I love Narnia, I consider Space Trilogy to be vastly superior in pretty much every respect. And actually, Perelandra might be my favorite of the three. The last couple of chapters are indescribably magnificent–and painfully beautiful.

      • Tradition says:

        The Abolition of Man was also quite thought-provoking.

      • Dylan says:

        Sorry, Perelandra was a drawl by the middle of the book I just wanted to fall asleep. It was so stinking repetetive too, the whole "Ransom, Ransom, Ransom" "What?" Nothing, Ransom, Ransom, Ransom……." was so annoying. I still don't get what happened to Weston, was he posessed or something? Anyways weird book.

      • Dylan says:

        Oh and Tradition I'll have to agree on how painfuly beautiful it was, very painfully.

      • DaughterofAslan'sCountry says:

        I think Till we Have Faces is great, and I didn't have a hard time with it until the end, which I don't understand. Maybe I need to read it again.

  4. John Dunn says:

    I wonder if he knows anything about C.S Lewis' The Great Divorce, film? I hear it's in the works and it sounds absolutely incredible. Did anyone ask him anything about that?

    • Dylan says:

      John Dunn I'm pretty sure he might know something about it. Nothing goes by Gresham that has to do with Lewis without him knowing.

  5. csjesi1 says:

    I watched the whole Q&A session on twitter. I had sent in a question the day before, and I got an email from them today saying that I was the daily C.S. Lewis book winner.

  6. Braden Woodburn says:

    I'll answer these as if it were directed towards me…
    1. Yes, I believe other worlds do exist. How could they not? The galaxy and space is huge, who knows what could be in it besides us!
    2. I think the hardest part of not just the Narnia films, but any films is making it come to life, such as the magic and effects.
    3. I wouldn't know what to say about this, I'm not a religious person. I just love the fantasy of these films.
    4. No idea how to respond…
    5. I agree, in order to achieve perfection, its scrap after scrap until BAM, genius finally done.
    6. Never knew who he was until the Narnia films, then read the books and those are my only favorites of his.

    • Anhun says:

      1. The question was about other worlds, or universes, not other planets or sentient species. There are several parts of the series that suggest that the portals between our world and Narnia take a person into different universes, not different places within the same universe.

      • Dylan says:

        It shouldn't have been stated as other worlds, more like other dimensions. Which I do believe to be real.

      • Braden Woodburn says:

        Well yeah, portals then. My whole life I have always thought about being transported to another world (like Narnia) and seeing what life would be like. Although they seem to be VERY rare, I do believe in that which is why I am so addicted to this series… where as others are in it for the religion… but oh well, to each is own.

      • Tradition says:

        It's worth noting that near the end of Perelandra, the second book of Lewis's Space Trilogy, there is a brief mention of other worlds that are outside our world, but are intertwined with it as part of the "Great Dance" of Creation. Cross-reference that with direct mention in That Hideous Strength (Space Trilogy 3) of J.R.R. Tolkien's Numenor (aka "Atalante" or Atlantis; see The Silmarillion) as the indirect origin of Merlin's power, coupled with the fact that the dust in the magic rings from The Magician's Nephew originated in Atlantis, and you can imagine some pretty intriguing inter-textual theories.

  7. Forrest Schultz says:

    What was Lewis trying to tell us in "Til We Have Faces"??

    • Non-negotiable Comment says:

      To "have a face" is to know and accept who and what you are. To be honest about your true motivations. Orual's ugly, physical, face was not her "real" one. She earned her "true" face when she understood, and confessed, her jealousy of Cupid to the gods. We cannot see the divine to approach it, because we need the eyes of our true faces first. Sort of like the dwarfs at the end of 'The Last Battle' who refused to see the great feast in front of them, or smell Lucy's flowers. That's what I got out of it. Others, surely, have different opinions.

  8. gn says:

    I think Gresham should brush up on Lewis' politics. Lewis considered theocracy the worst of all possible human governments. A tyrant's evil may sleep, but a pharisee tortures with the approval of his conscience.
    If Gresham is saying that Jesus is our ultimate king, then it's true but completely unresponsive to the question… perhaps coyly on purpose. But my understanding is that Gresham's politics are pretty far removed from Lewis'.
    Not that Lewis was an anarchist either. But he seems to have had a deep respect for human liberty. There was a great fictionalized scene in Shadowlands where Joy said something like, "Back then everyone was either a fascist trying to conquer the world or a communist trying to save it," and Lewis quips, "I must have been otherwise engaged."
    Agree that Till We is Lewis' best, but probably not for the same reasons as Gresham, who seems to think that Lewis stole it from his mother and was too big a cad to give her the credit (apart from a dedication).

    • Not Of This World says:

      Are you Lewis' step son? How would you know more about Lewis Politics the he does?

      • gn says:

        Um, I've read his books? Sometimes I wonder if Gresham has. (For instance, he once said that Orual wasn't really ugly but just "thought" she was. This is pushing the technique of the unreliable narrator a little too far, and completely misunderstanding the vision at the end.)
        See also the "Mere Christian" thing: "I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions — as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall, I have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think preferable."
        And, oh yeah, claiming Lewis "wanted" the books reordered because of Lewis' patronizing offhand comment to a particularly dull child. And unilaterally undoing Lewis' improvements to the Chronicles. (I miss you, Fenris Ulf. Please come home.) I have very little doubt that he makes this stuff up.
        I'm glad someone's fighting for Lewis' estate, but the man doesn't speak for Lewis from beyond the grave. Lewis' own works do that. I love C.S. Lewis. I applaud Gresham's fighting for his works, but beyond that, the man's never impressed me much, and the few times I've interacted with him, I've found him very rude.
        I really do want to think best of the man, but I find his understanding of Lewis' works highly shallow, and his authoritarian tone in all things Lewis doesn't help.

      • Dylan says:

        And your one so high in authority to judge the man? He is the closest person to Lewis still alive, and you disrespect that? Just because you have read Lewis' books and claim you understand them better then Mr. Gresham makes your opinion 100% correct? Opinion is opinion, and everyone has one, but one is not greater then another.

      • Non-negotiable Comment says:

        He said Orual wasn't ugly?! For reals?


        Anyway, gn, two things regarding your posts here:

        1) I agree. With every single word. Especially about Fenris Ulf. *nods*
        2) It doesn't matter that you're right. Be prepared to dodge the pitchfork and torch-bearing gang. I've been down this road before.

        Excellent points.

      • Dylan says:

        Whats this about Fenris Ulf?

      • Anhun says:

        My biggest regret about the undone changes was Dark Island. It's gives you the chills to think that Dark Island can still be out their in the Narniaverse, waiting for another unsuspecting victim.

      • Dylan says:

        yah, that is a little weird, it just stayed in existence. The green mist is gone, but Dark Island is still there, weird……

      • Anhun says:

        The green mist was never in the books. Dark Island disappearing was in the UK edition, but he changed that in the American revision. I think it's better the second way.

      • always narnian says:

        Anhun: I think in the book it DOES say that the dark Island disappeared. Even in the US version…I'll have to check that out

      • Dylan says:

        I would provide a link to you to the site (cause i dont know how :)) but the site is Narnia wiki, and under the categorie "books" you can check out Dawn Treader, and it says the differences between the UK and US versions. Oh, and Anhun, the Dark Island did dissapear, even in the US version.

      • Anhun says:

        @always narnian: by American edition, I specifically refer to those books published before 1994. After 1994, Harper Collins undid the changes, so that all editions were like the British one.

        @Dylan: I think you are talking about this

        The differences section compares the British and American versions. In the American version Dark Island doesn't disappear, just as I said. I think you were confused because it said "So all afternoon with great joy they sailed south-east with a fair wind, and the hump of darkness grew smaller and smaller astern." It was growing smaller because they were moving away from it, not because it was physically disappearing.

  9. gn says:

    The "mere Christian" thing is also wince-inducing. Jack explicitly says in the preface to "Mere Christianity" that one should NOT remain a "mere Christian". I forget the exact wording, but it was along the lines of him expounding on common Christian principles, but that everyone should then find the church that they think fits them best while adhering to those principles. He was "boiling down" the essence of Christianity but explicitly not for one moment suggesting that they were sufficient.

  10. Not Of This World says:

    Awesome answer on the other worlds question!

  11. Steve H. says:

    For all those who are disappointed that Gresham didn't do more to make sure the movies were more like the books: You have no idea how screen adaptations of books work. You CAN'T include everything from a book in the movie version for a few reasons:(1)Not everything that "works" in a book "works" onscreen for the simple reason that words on the page evoke images in the mind of the reader, and those images will vary from reader to reader; (2)If you were to include absolutely everything onscreen, you'd have a ridculously long movie; (3) Although I love the Narnia books, I for one am glad Adamson made the changes he did in Prince Caspian—it was more dramatic and action-packed (Prince Caspian is my fave of the three films—more like LOTR).

    • Dylan says:

      I agree with you on that, but in VDT key characters and parts in the book are missing. You don't need to include EVERYTHING in the book, but just the important parts, which some parts were missing from the movie.

    • Non-negotiable Comment says:

      Steve H.:

      1) Mr. Gresham has/had next to no influence over the creative process behind the films. You're better off arguing that point, rather than going on about the adaptation process. But, since you did…

      2) As Dylan states, "More like the books" doesn't automatically mean "include everything". It means… I don't know… more like the books. Of that spirit. Recognizable as. Respectful of. Not necessarily "word-for-word".

      3) Changes are not *always* necessary for a successful literary adaptation. There is no blueprint for how to adapt a work of art to a different medium. I can cite several examples of well-known novels that were, for all intents and purposes, seamless, direct translations to the screen, with no, or very minor, adjustments. It is true, though, that changes are SOMETIMES necessary. It DEPENDS on the source material, and of the writer to have faith IN the source material.

      4) "Changes" are not, necessarily, anything to object to, even for a "book purist" as myself. BAD changes are. 'Prince Caspian' was a fine film, with (mostly) necessary and logical alterations to the story. I didn't like everything about it, but Adamson's overall vision resulted in a very passably entertaining adaptation of a pretty… staid… book.

      5) The changes made to 'Dawn Treader', conversely, resulted in an insulting adaptation, and a shockingly poor product of the cinema.

      The vast majority of us, I believe, are well aware of the constraints involved in going from the printed page to the big screen. We do not object to changes. We object to stupid, disrespectful, arrogant changes that result in a translation that bears no resemblance, in spirit or deed, to the stories we love.

      Good changes = happy/content
      Stupid changes = sad/angry

      • Dylan says:

        VDT was not in the same spirit of the book, was not aneccessarily respectful adaption of Lewis' work, and it was barely recognizable as an adaption of the book. Its not the "Oh VDT had a ship called the Dawn Treader, that makes it recognizable" excuse for the movie. It had so much added on that it just simply was not the book Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

    • Aslan's #1 fan says:

      Hm…I think that was the worst mistake Disney and Fox made. They compared it with Lord of the Rings. Narnia is Narnia and Lord of the Rings is itself you can't really compare them. And since LWW was made just after The Return of the King they were just copying it and not making it for story sake, and instead of comparing Narnia to every other movie they needed to just compare the scripts to the books. I think that was down fall of Narnia. It worked for LWW because it was has similar story flow as Lord of the Rings. Then they got cocky tweaked the story more for PC and that didn't impress Narnia fans very much. VDT was the proof that they were comparing Narnia to Middle-Earth. Show it as Narnia and not like a huge epic battle every movie when that wasn't the point and wasn't in the books. I mean think about it, Twilight didn't even have a HUGE battle scene and it still won out (granted it was zeroed in on sixteen year old girls) but they captured Twilight as Twilight and nothing more. Even though I don't really care for Twilight I think it's a good example. Food For Thought I Guess! 😉

  12. narnian resident says:

    Wow, i love this guy. i just dream of sitting down with him one day and having a chat (infortunately i missed this technological opportunity). my favorite was the answer to the belief in other worlds. he sounded so much like C.S. Lewis right there, it made me smile 😀

  13. nic says:

    I think Douglas Gresham was happy about LW&W & PC, but VODT less happy about in translating the novel & has decided to put a brake on that – I'm sure it's been a very big load emotionally that goes in to his commitment in seeing the films made & he feels the legacy involved in the chronicles of narnia deeply.

    Prince Caspian's the film that makes the narnia fims a trilogy to me and has my enthusiasm & investment in them as a series – but i skip the narnian underground bobbytrap addition/battle chapter after the first Telmarine catapult starts slinging after Peter/Mirz duel, which goes nicely to Lucy in forest finding Aslan and thus doesn't lose narrative beat of film which is important.

    Andrew Adamson's film style is abit like the Lady of Green Kirtles spells regarding narnia, kind of an all or nothing experience, very powerful but if broken hard to rekindle. They changed tack on what originally was to be done in the end battle & it does break the spell of the film to me, where as the battle in LW&W was awesome & extended addition even better still! But it might not have made a difference if done how originally envisioned, because it's really the Peter – Miraz dual & then Caspian's resolution to that which is really the culmination of main themes in the story & battle afters point is really just the magic coming back into Narnia after the aformentioned resolutions and not more ratcheting up of main character ups & downs in a big battle. So i skip all that, to the ending of the trees and river god entering the battle and that basically caps off an amazing rendition of Prince Caspian.

    I read the book PC last week, & it really is a good match to the film n a read between the lines kind of way from book to film. VODT is as reliant on it's connection to the previous two films as it is to the novel, in being a Narnia film so while not out of place, continuing in it's direction could have seen a film that didn't represent the Silver Chair novel very well. On a whole though, it's still been GREAT to have the Narnia film adaptions/adaptations to date the way they have come through 🙂

  14. Aslan's #1 fan says:

    I think Douglas is hiding something…maybe another big movie company put in a bid for the Narnia rights and we'll see more movies in a couple of years. Then again…he could be hiding nothing because there's nothing to say. I still like LWW the best, I mean I like all the movie with different degrees but that's my fav because it went with the book. 🙂

  15. Braden Woodburn says:

    Does anyone think that Voyage of the Dawn Treader was better than the book with the changes that were made in the film? I read all books and I actually thought the changes in the film version of Voyage of the Dawn Treader actually made it a lot better than the book. Do you think if they would have stuck to the book it would have gotten as far as it did today? Do you think the changes made it better or worse or in between? Thoughts?

    • Aslan's #1 fan says:

      Huh…I liked part that they did in the movie but most of them were because they were in the book, like Aslan saying they needed to know him in their own world. But the dark island was ruined in my opinion. In the book it was truly scary, I mean who doesn't fear that their worst nightmare would come true? In the movie it was changed cut to a less scary degree, and cut the nightmare part to just being a your fears thing. Don't get me wrong I really enjoyed the movie but compared to the book…it didn't go with the book, it wasn't really scary, and the only good thing was they didn't cut out Aslan like they did in PC. 😉

      • Braden Woodburn says:

        Yeah, I can understand that. But, these are childrens books, not horror books so no need to have too much scary. Especially in a wonderful place like Narnia.

      • Dylan says:

        Yes, but the book was more frightening then the movie, and it was written for children. The movie version of VDT almost seemed as if it was for little five year olds to be honest.

      • Aslan's #1 fan says:

        Agreed Dylan…I mean the books were very violent for Children books. I mean don't go over board of course and have kids in mind but next time they should rate the Narnia movie PG-13 so they can betray the dedragoning of Eustace well and stand up to the book in creepiness when it's needed. But of course don't go over board which would be easy, but if they go with the books it shouldn't be a problem! 🙂

      • Anhun says:

        Fan, you're forgetting that there's a HUGE difference between writing about something, and depicting it faithfully on screen. Some things that would barely phase a person on page, would terrify the same person if shown on film. It's a different medium. Lewis himself said that he did not want the films to be made into movies because they might turn devolve into "nightmare."

  16. Aslan's #1 fan says:

    Yes…I don't mean make a Horror movie. Just go with the book, I mean it wouldn't be that hard to make it at least as creepy as the new Christmas Carol which was a PG movie. I mean don't go over board but at least make it interesting for people who have read the book. Make it scary like the book but go no farther…I guess that's just my opinion. 🙂

    Where did C.S. Lewis say that???

    • Aslan's #1 fan says:

      P.S. Well what he meant from what you just said is simple. Of course he didn't want them into movies back then, they would be a 'nightmare' with special effects and acting and such (same reason why Tolkien didn't want the Lord of the Rings to be movies). They didn't have the capability nor the ingenuity to craft such epic books back then. Now we do it's just…instead of not having the capability we had stupid movie makers that would have excelled if they had a quarter of Lewis' genius.
      I don't think that 'nightmare' was pointed at being scary or whatever, if he had a problem with a little tenseness he wouldn't have wrote it in the books. That's my opinion though…:)

      • Dylan says:

        Anhun was using the quote by Lewis in the wrong context. I have heard that Lewis didnt want the books made into movies because of the special effects of the day, but I had never heard of him saying it would be a "nightmare" because of Dark Island or any other "creepy" scene.

  17. Tirian says:

    This comment thread got a little out of control so I'm going to go ahead and close it. Please take extended conversations to the forum and use this area for your specific thoughts on the topic at hand. Thanks!