So my first reaction to seeing the logo yesterday, is that to me it looks intentionally incomplete...  probably so it could be put on the back of a director's chair. I suspect it will be a good deal more dressed up for the official film.

My second thought is that it looks (and I'm not quite sure if this is the best word to use) organic? Like the hills of Narnia springing to life as Aslan is singing?

What do you all think?

What was your first impression of the BBC Narnia and did you like it on the first viewing?

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is releasing on HBO Max this December (Christmas?) 2026.

And as we all know, Narnia is releasing on Netflix around Christmas 2026 (don't have the exact date in my head).

I'm not the biggest Harry Potter fan, but I enjoyed the first three books, so I was curious about the trailer. It looks good! The cinematography at Hogwarts was especially fun imho.

Anyways, I was a bit annoyed to find out once again Harry Potter and Narnia were competing for views (Walden's LWW came out Dec 9, 2005 while HP and the Goblet of Fire came out shortly before on Nov 18, 2005.) For once, I'd like Narnia to have a chance to shine on its own (assuming it's good, that is).

But mostly I was annoyed that Harry Potter has a trailer and we Narnia fans are still sitting around begging for even the tiniest scraps of info.....like a cast list. *pouts* {ym}:waiting: {ym}:sigh: {ym}:eyeroll:  

I was thinking the other day, whilst driving between jobs and it occurred to me that whilst there's several things I could think of that I love about each of the Narnia films, there are also things that stand out that I particularly don't like.  I was reflecting about how in the era the Narnia books were written and published, a lot of the books aimed at boys in particular but probably for all kids, characteristics such as respect, honour, humility, and chivalrous characteristics were endorsed and encouraged.  In the books, these characteristics are exemplified too IMO.  Some examples from my observation:

Peter's portrayal throughout the book exemplifies many of these characteristics, how he submits and to Aslan's leadership, follows instructions and how he conducts himself both as the oldest brother and as High King of Narnia.

Caspian - how he honours and respects not only Aslan but Peter and other Pevensies and the humility with which he takes up the Kingship of Narnia, recognising that he doesn't feel himself sufficient to take up the kingship of Narnia.

I could probably list so many other examples and specific examples too of these characteristics.

My issue with the Walden Media films in relation to this however is that these characteristics appear to be lacking in the characters in the films - examples of this:

In LWW Peter seems practically to be dragged kicking and screaming into the calling Aslan has for him as High King, only doing it because he has to, and even considers sending his brother and sisters back to our world, rather than how he embraces the whole adventure in the book - saying that He is longing to see Aslan - even if he does feel frightened when it comes to the point.  This is followed up in PC by him being WAY too emotional and appearing to see Caspian as a competitor rather than being supportive of him and helping to establish him as the King of Narnia.

Caspian in PC also appears to lack all the characteristics that he seems to have in the book, but seems to also see Peter as competition for him.  He also seems over-the-top emotional.

Then there's another little example - the portrayal of Lord Bern in the film of VDT - he seems to be portrayed as a coward hiding away in a dungeon rather than how the book portrays him - challenging the Governor Gumpus  on the slave trade and also quietly working against Pug's trafficking of slaves.

So is this just my opinion or did they take away or downplay these characteristics - if so, why? {ym}:hmmm:  

In an interview, Gerwig has mentioned that something she finds interesting and unique about Narnia is how it includes things from different mythologies in the same universe. For example, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe features both a faun and Father Christmas. I suspect she's trying for the same effect by setting the story in the 50s but using musical influences from the 70s and cameras from...whenever they used 70mm. 

If true, does this make me like the approach? Well...not really. I don't see what was wrong with the original time period in which the book takes place. And I personally think rock and roll music sounds ugly and I want the music for MN to sound beautiful. (My apologies to all the rock and roll fans reading this. I will say though I don't know anyone who associates that style of music with Narnia.) 

But if my theory is correct, it does make me respect what Greta Gerwig is trying to do. I can follow her reasoning anyway and see this as a genuine attempt to capture the spirit of the Narnia books. What about you guys? What are your theories as to "the code?" And how do you like mine? 

I am pretty sure there has been threads like this one in the past, but I cannot find an exact match (or one near enough that it doesn't feel like I'm derailing the conversation off onto a tangent).

I keep saying repeatedly that "I want a faithful adaption of the books" - I think I like this phrase because it is vague, malleable and can mean whatever I want it to mean; I do not really define it.  But if that is what I am saying, it is not really fair for any film maker to be expected to create anything with that expectation - in fact, it is basically impossible for them to do so.

I personally find the 1979 Cartoon Adaption of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, the 1988-1990 BBC adaptions and the 2005 Waldon adaption of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe to be faithful adaptions of the books.  I struggle more with the 2008 Prince Caspian, as it took significant liberties with character arcs and motivations and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader likewise had significant changes.  I cannot bring myself to say that these two are 'unfaithful adaptions' as the film makers did clearly try to largely follow the books, but I cannot bring myself to say that they are 'faithful adaptions' either.

I remember in 2005, having a conversation with someone who loves books, but is not such a big fan of movies.  That person was very critical of both the Peter Jackson 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy and of the 2005 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' for not being faithful to the source material.  I was surprised because I thought these were examples of movies where the film makers had gone to much trouble to ensure they respected the source material.  Talking further with that person, my impression was that they did not understand that in order to adapt a novel to film, you have to move from one media (narrative text) where certain artistic techniques work really well to a different media where other techniques work better.

Even the fact that 'a film script is usually written in double-space large font such that a page of script takes about one minute to read at a leisurely pace and maps to about one minute of screen time in the finished film as opposed to a novel, where a single page can contain twice as much text' made no impression on them.  My point was that to make a carbon copy of 60 pages of a novel would require a 2 hour film and that it is not realistic to take the 170 pages of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and expect a carbon copy of it to fit in a children's movie runtime.

To me, this seems extreme - and a movie does not need to be identical to the book to be faithful.  But what is required for it to be faithful?

I have heard people criticize the BBC adaptions as being too wooden and hitting the 'word-for-word' adaption, but lacking the heart of the original stories.  I have heard people criticize the Waldon The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for not matching the 'feeling' of the book - which surprised me as it very much 'feels' like the book to me (I thought they nailed it).  So what is it that we really want from a Narnia film adaptation?

Recently, I felt somewhat frustrated with how the new adaption of The Magician's Nephew looks like it won't be faithful and entertained myself by taking Pauline Baynes art and using AI to animate it.  I think this was my little rebellion of "if they won't do a faithful adaption, then I'll make a pathetic little trailer of what I want, myself!"  But having worked on it, I discovered that what I was really dreaming of was a kind of "video book".  I.e. We have dramatized audio books, where a narrator reads the text with actors sometimes speaking the roles of individual characters to give a semi-audio play feeling to it.  I was imagining in my head a similar sort of thing, but with video added in to the audio.  (I was thinking of something like the children's shows: "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" where Ring Starr reads the books and acts the characters dialog for them, or "Peppa Pig" where the narrator essentially tells the story, except when characters speak their lines.  While I like watching Peppa Pig and Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends with my son, in practice, this would be basically a carbon copy of the book and not an adaption at all.  And I don't actually think I would find such an adaption inspired or enjoyable.

It also raised the question of "Why do I think a Narnian movie rendered in the artistic style of Pauline Baynes would be more likely to be a faithful adaptation?"  When I was wondering this, I came across this video about how Peter Jackson used the artwork of Alan Lee and John Howe for the design of the look of Middle Earth. It details why these Tolkien artists were essential for acceptance amongst the fans of a Middle Earth Adaption: The Artwork That Imagined Middle Earth.  I think the creator of this video makes a really good point.  I remember in 1992, seeing all the Tolkien Centenary books, with "Tolkien's World" - a collection of artwork inspired by The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and the illustrated Alan Lee edition of The Lord of the Rings.  Artwork inspired by Middle Earth was everywhere in bookstores for the next decade.  When I saw the Lord of the Rings movies, I thought "Wow!  That looks exactly how I always imagined it!"  The creator of the video points out, that for fans who had drenched themselves in all the artwork, we were always imagining Middle Earth the way that Alan Lee and John Howe had imagined it.  Hence, when we saw a movie where they were two of the main designers, of course it felt 'authentic'.  Do I like the idea of seeing Pauline Baynes art animated simply because I have trained myself to associate Narnia with the look she put in the illustrations on those pages of the books I read?

So I am now wondering, "What is it exactly that I actually want?" How far is too far when adapting?  And what do you think characterizes a good adaption?

I am not sure I have any answers to these questions (except I know what is too much when I see it).  I am curious though as to what others think?  What do you think makes a good Narnian adaption to film?

One of the positive outcomes of Greta Gerwig's writing and directing of THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW is that she will using little to no CGI compared to Disney, which went overboard on the CGI Narnian creatures used for their films, one of which was a major success, the second becoming a failure, and the third being directed by 20th Century Fox and Waden Media. Instead, she is relying more of real-life animals, animatronics, and puppeteering strategies which is slightly cheaper than CGI and more realistic, even though it will be a little expensive to work on hundreds of talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, fauns, dryads, and naiads. Nevertheless, if Greta Gerwig can produce a book-to-film story running at 120-140 minutes long, excluding the 10-12 minutes of ending credits, it might be the best film adaptation of C.S. Lewis' first Narnian chronicle. Plus, if we give a double or even a triple thumbs up for the success of this film, there's no doubt that after a six-month rest break after the film comes out during Thanksgiving and Christmas, Greta Gerwig could begin a live adaptation of the sequel novel, THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE.

Even though the setting of the story in the film takes place in 1950's London, possibly between 1950 and 1955, we can get a look at the growing friendship between Digory Kirke and Polly Plummer. With his mother (played by Carey Mulligan) stricken with illness, Digory Kirke meets Polly Plummer, who is feeling a bit lonesome with most of her friends away on holiday, and the two children become friends. They accidentally stumble into the private study of Digory's uncle, Andrew Ketterley (played by Daniel Craig), while exploring the rafters in the attics of the row of houses where the two children lived separately. What follows is the beginning of a series of adventures in the land of Narnia, beginning with Digory and Polly getting tricked by Uncle Andrew to put on magical rings and travel to the Wood between the Worlds, travel to the ruins of the city of Charn and accidently awakening Jadis, the last queen of Charn, and last of all, travel to a dark world only to witness the birth and creation of the land of Narnia by Aslan. By spending nearly $200 million to bring to life a wonderful film adaptation of THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW with an estimated runtime of 120-140 minutes excluding the end credits, I have no doubt that Greta Gerwig will produce a fine Narnia film that marks the promise of a series of magical, fantasy-based, and adventurous films with deep moral values of love, courage, betrayal, forgiveness, friendship, kindness, and family.

And one last thing. If THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW is a major success by the start of the new year, I've no doubt that Greta Gerwig will rest for a couple of months before beginning to write a script and start directing the film adaptation of THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE at least six months after the release of the first Narnia film. And if it comes to that, I believe that by Thanksgiving and Christmas of 2028, the new second Narnia film will be released and watched and admired by millions of Narnia fans. If Greta Gerwig, who set THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW in the 1950s for Digory and Polly in their world, sets the film setting for THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE in early 1990's London, then this might want to take place during a similar bombing of the city of London. If the second film takes place in the early 1990s, then maybe Greta Gerwig might have the bombing event which forces the Pevensies to be evacuated out of London and sent to Professor Kirke's country house to take place during the IRA bombings in 1993. Professor Digory Kirke, who was about 12 in the first Narnia film in 1950's London, would likely be around 50 years old at the time when the four Pevensie children are taken to his home in the countryside where they would be safer. The child actors to play the roles of the four Pevensie children should also be played by a boy of 14 or 15 (Peter), a girl of 12 or 13 (Susan), a boy of 10 or 11 (Edmund), and an 8-year-old girl (Lucy). Let's see what Greta Gerwig has in mind when she decides to begin production of THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE 6-9 months after the release of THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW.

What are your thoughts? If that one thing was different, how would your perspective on the movie change? 

For me, I think it is the 1950s setting. I dislike a female Aslan more, but going back to the original time period would settle me the most and make me feel like it was still "The Magician's Nephew." It would also give me hope that "Hey, maybe this one is rough, but the next one in the series might be better."