Great topic for a thread.

If this is indeed Digory, one positive to takeaway would be that it further cements him as the lead character.

Perhaps Gerwig thought Digory needed more time with Jadis in order for their climactic scene in the garden to really hit. Or could be that she didn’t want to spend the scenes in London away from her lead?

But then where is Uncle Andrew in all this? Lots of questions to be answered.

I'll have to really examine the photos (and since some of them are probably from between takes, even that might not help) but could it be that Digory is trying to touch Jadis with the rings but is having trouble because the horse is so wild? I'd assume it's something like that. Maybe, practically speaking, the moment he succeeds will be easier to stage if he's on the horse with her. 

This is probably one change I'm definitely on board with.

As the lead character narrative wise, it absolutely makes sense for Digory to be present for the main action set-piece of the story, rather than have it happen off-screen as it does in the book.

I'm sure they can easily write around who has the rings at any given moment.

Posted by: @icarus

This is probably one change I'm definitely on board with.

It's a very Hollywood thing to do imho. But if Digory does have the rings in his pocket, how will they explain why he doesn't use them? And if he doesn't, why not? 

In addition to that, once Jadis lays eyes on Uncle Andrew, Digory is completely ignored in the book. But clearly not here. So those are the changes I'm wondering about (to be a bit more specific).

• Possibly Digory loses the rings and is a hostage of Jadis. (Or perhaps only Polly was given the rings). Polly may need to save Digory using her ring.
• Possibly Digory does not want to use the rings (maybe he is helping Jadis - though that seems quite a large change from the books).
• Maybe Digory sees Jadis near the Tower of London and is only briefly on the horse with her before he uses the ring (maybe only Digory and Jadis go to Narnia - Polly, Uncle Andrew and Frank are left behind. I would hate this change as Uncle Andrew has some hilarious moments with the Narnians, King Frank and Queen Helen are heart warming characters and it just wouldn’t be the same without Polly in Narnia. Though I can see that Digory and Jadis are the non-Narnians driving the plot at that point in the story, you could remove the other characters to streamline it.)
• Hopefully, there is another, better explanation as I like none of these.

They are just changing way too much. Especially for a book that's never been adapted. It's like we're skipping ahead 20 years to the reimagining after the proper adaptation.  

I'm honestly struggling to find anything positive to say at this point. 

Posted by: @glenwit

Especially for a book that's never been adapted. It's like we're skipping ahead 20 years to the reimagining after the proper adaptation.  

Yes, that's what I keep thinking. If we'd had a reasonably faithful adaptation at least once, it would be understandable that a director would want to try something "different".

LWW had already had a couple of decent adaptations (the 1979 animation and the BBC series in 1988; not counting the mostly lost TV version from 1967), and even so, the 2005 movie still played it pretty safe and had no radical changes. Meanwhile, there was the now notorious (among fans) proposed "modern" version in the 1990s that would have turned the kids into present-day Americans and had the White Witch tempt Edmund with enchanted cheeseburgers. It never got anywhere near being made.  

And now this version of MN is sounding (and from some of the photos, looking) more and more similar to that proposed "update" of LWW, and yet it's obviously got the green light — without us ever having had a "traditional" adaptation to compare it with.

As I keep saying, I'll watch it once, if I can, just so I can judge the final product for myself. But I quite possibly may never want to touch it even with a bargepole ever again.  

Posted by: @courtenay

As I keep saying, I'll watch it once, if I can, just so I can judge the final product for myself. But I quite possibly may never want to touch it even with a bargepole ever again.  

Yeah, that's probably my position on the matter as well... although I really wish I could go back in time and tell my 2018 self not to get too excited  

I have been thinking, what if we could go back to 2005, before Waldon Media and Disney had released their first Narnian movie. What if the first set photos we’d seen had shown Peter with his sword drawn by a frozen waterfall before a wolf. What if other photos had Peter and Edmund practising their swordsmanship while riding on a Unicorn and ‘Phillip’ the horse with a caption that Peter says “Sword point up, Ed, like Orius showed us”. Other photos might show Orius next to Aslan and several shots of the battle at the end of the movie. (In the book, the battle takes place in two and a half paragraphs - less than a page of the book).

From the evidence, I would conclude that they had wanted to make The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe into a ‘teens save the world’ action movie with little faithfulness to the source material. The actual movie was far more faithful then I would have concluded from the original evidence.

I have concerns about what looks like a change to the plot, but it may not be that extreme and it does not necessarily mean that the film makers are going to ‘do their own thing’ and ignore the book.

Digory could have lost his ring (for instance, in the book Digory has to rush between the horse and some railings). What if, in the dramatic moment that Digory finally gets at arms length of the witch, his jacket gets caught by the railing, ripping his pocket and the yellow ring falls out.

The witch then attempts to turn someone to dust (just like she tried to Aunt Letty in the book) and discovers that her power to turn people to dust does not work in our world. Upon realizing this power is gone and she is outnumbered by the crowd, she picks up this silly little boy as a hostage who has come too close to her.

Then would come the set photos we’ve seen. Digory would be helpless. Polly would need to show up (just like she did in the books) and put on her ring to rescue Digory. If Polly and Digory’s conflict had been left unresolved from earlier (where Digory had apologized for the things he had done in Charn) this could be unexpected and possibly heart warming.

Would it be different to what C.S. Lewis wrote? Certainly. Would it sink the whole movie and make it the worse adaption ever? I think it would draw out this one scene and make it more exciting than the original, but it wouldn’t greatly change to the story from the book.

In my earlier post, I was just trying to think what could explain Digory being on the horse with Jadis and not use his ring.

1. If he doesn’t use the ring, maybe he doesn’t have the ring - what is the logical explanation for that? I guess either he lost it or never was given one.
2. What if he has the ring but doesn’t want to use it? I guess the most obvious reason would be that he is on Jadis’ side. I guess this would give him a more dramatic character arc later, when he encounters Aslan and resists the witch.
3. What if he does have the ring and wants to use it? Then I guess he would use it. But that makes it likely that only he and Jadis find their way to Narnia …

Im sure there are other possibilities though (I am not the sharpest tool in the shed). This could still be a good, faithful adaption of the book.

So I'm wondering why would they have Jadis rampaging London with Digory? Or is he even there for the whole rampaging? And where's Uncle Andrew? Is he not going to be featured in the film or is he actually somewhere else while this is all taking place? 

I guess only time will time. We'll have to see how this rampaging of London scene plays out. 

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

And where's Uncle Andrew? Is he not going to be featured in the film or is he actually somewhere else while this is all taking place?

The set photos from this article show Strawberry (or the horse anyway) with a wooden harness around its neck. This could indicate that it had previously been pulling a Hanson cab. It is possible that Uncle Andrew was left in the ruins of the Hansom. But guess we’ll see.

It seems inconceivable that Uncle Andrew will not be in the movie - how can Digory be ‘The Magician’s Nephew’ without his Uncle, the magician?

Posted by: @davidd

It seems inconceivable that Uncle Andrew will not be in the movie - how can Digory be ‘The Magician’s Nephew’ without his Uncle, the magician?

Oh, that's solidly rumored to be Daniel Craig. Even if Mr. Craig doesn't accept the offer, the fact that an offer was made for the role tells me the role is in the movie.

Posted by: @fantasia

Oh, that's solidly rumored to be Daniel Craig. Even if Mr. Craig doesn't accept the offer, the fact that an offer was made for the role tells me the role is in the movie.

Did we ever hear specifically that the offer was for the role of Uncle Andrew, though? I remember clearly that there were several reports that Daniel Craig was being offered a role, but none of them said which character. I know, because we here on NarniaWeb were discussing what his role might be, and Uncle Andrew was the obvious one, but a few people pointed out that he could be the voice of Aslan. This was before the Meryl Streep rumour broke!!

Also, I was just thinking, even if the London rampage scene has been rewritten to include Digory, this section of the original story does put Uncle Andrew in a key role, with him being simultaneously infatuated with and terrified of Jadis. I'm surprised we haven't seen at least a stunt double of him somewhere yet. But we still know so little about what these scenes will look like, and what kind of larger narrative they'll be part of, when the film is completed. 

My worry with this change is that, in the book, this is when Digory first overhears the 'land of youth' conversation with Aunt Letty. That moment is foundational to the entire thrust of the second half of the story, so I want that to be the filmmakers’ focus.

"At that rate there might be a real Land of Youth somewhere. There might be almost anything. There might be fruit in some other world that would really cure his mother! And oh, oh — Well, you know how it feels if you begin hoping for something that you want desperately badly; you almost fight against the hope because it is too good to be true; you've been disappointed so often before. That was how Digory felt. It was no good trying to throttle this hope. It might really, really, it just might be true. So many odd things had happened already. And he had the magic rings. There must be worlds you could get to through every pool in the wood. He could hunt through them all. And then — Mother well again. Everything right again. He forgot all about watching for the Witch."

If they’re adding what looks like an action sequence here, I hope it’s still framed in such a way that the audience comes away with the same concern Digory has in the book which is his desperate hope for his mother.