Why are they charging the timeline at all ?  I think if they had sets and clothing which looked something like the time of Charles Dickens it would be accurate enough to the book.  I actually wouldn’t mind it if the movie looked like a version of A Christmas Carol even though that period of time was only a few decades before the time setting of the book.  London and Victorian England probably didn’t change very much in appearance during those few decades. I think it would be better than moving the story to modern times. I don’t like old stories being modernized (e.g. Great Expectations moved to modern New York).  The 1950’s time period is too modern for The Magician’s Nephew.  The time and location should be preserved or the story loses its charm.

@narnian78 Dickensian London (mid 19th century) was quite different from the turn of the 20th century. I don't fancy MN set then, any more than I'd like it in 1955.

There's quite a lot of the story that depends on the correct time-setting.

@coracle 

I don’t think there was much difference in appearance. I would not be offended if they built sets that looked a little old fashioned for the time. I don’t think there was as much of a change between Dickens’ time and the time of The Magician’s Nephew. Probably many of the buildings looked the same and the clothing didn’t change that much. The men still wore stovepipe hats, the women had similar dresses and most of the streets still had gas lanterns.  It wouldn’t be so out of place as looking like the styles of the 1950’s.  

There is no reason for me to spend the money to watch Greta Gerwig’s version of Narnia.  I think it is better to go back to the Walden films or the BBC version because they at least have some resemblance to the books.

Posted by: @coracle

I was about to say that nothing else links GG's information to a faithful adaptation of MN.

Then I remembered the two confirmed castings:  Jadis and Mabel Kirke. 

Oh yes, good point — I'd forgotten about those. I had been wondering if the fact that nobody officially connected to the production has yet called it The Magician's Nephew, only "Narnia", might mean that they are writing some kind of totally new Narnia story and not basing it on any of the actual books, or only very loosely drawing on them at most. But yes, we did get confirmation of the casting of those two characters, both of whom specifically appear in MN and not in the other stories (except of course Jadis being the White Witch in LWW, but she's only once referred to by her name in that book).

So the only logical conclusion is that it's The Magician's Nephew, but not as we know it...  

My most comfortable explanation is the framing device of a narrator (probably in the role of Lewis, or whoever else Jack Lewis was in his little asides to his readers) and an event in 1950s that he links in to the story he actually wrote, set in 1900.

That's the safest explanation I can think of as well. Lewis-as-narrator is very much a "character" in the books (there's no evidence that he intended his narrator-voice to be anyone other than himself), and we had quite a lively discussion here a few months ago about the idea of having a narrator in these new Netflix adaptations, and the pros and cons of that. If that's what they're going with, it's an unusual choice — the sort of thing that can easily become a bit twee, even in a film aimed at children. But if they really are leaning into the charming oddness and quirkiness of Narnia, having a narrator — especially Lewis himself — might just work.

If that's what they're doing, I would hope they limit his scenes to the beginning and end of each movie, and preferably not have him interject / interrupt regularly the whole way through. That works with movies that are deliberately playing on the narrator-telling-a-story trope (The Princess Bride springs immediately to mind ), but I can't see it being a good thing in a Narnia movie. Too much disruption / breaking the spell, I reckon. Just the beginnings and endings will do.

(I know I mentioned in that earlier discussion on narrators that I can't really see any way of doing the ending of The Last Battle effectively without a narrator to speak the closing lines of the book, and of course it would be bizarre if a narrator-voice just comes in out of nowhere at that final moment without having been used before in that film or any of the previous ones. But if it's established right from the first instalment that Lewis himself is "telling" us these stories, then that takes care of that issue.)

If the 1950s setting is going to be a framing device, we still don't have any explanation for why these scenes we've glimpsed are being filmed mainly in London. Lewis never lived in London, only in Oxford and (part-time) in Cambridge. And if the narrator is adult Digory / the Professor, well, it's slightly past the time period of the end of the series. (I did wonder if the apparent 1950s setting could in fact be late 1940s, but if you look carefully at a couple of the advertising posters in the photos of the set, they have 1955 as the date on them. Actually, it could be 1953 — it's hard to see exactly — but I think it's '55.)

Here's another thought — if the date of the events of The Last Battle has been changed to some time in or after 1955 (making the younger characters a bit older at the time of the railway accident), perhaps the movie opens with a gathering of the Friends of Narnia somewhere in London, and Digory / the Professor and Aunt Polly start telling their story of how they were there at Narnia's creation? I would think they'd have shared that with the younger members of the group much earlier, but it's certainly a way of establishing the stories and using the Friends' meetings as the framing device. A bit awkward, but not impossible...

Or else, yes, maybe the whole of MN is set in the 1950s and the atmosphere of the story will be completely changed accordingly. I still can't understand why they'd do that, but I'm still willing to wait and see what it all turns out like before I give a final judgment.

And absolutely none of these theories explain the 40 boys in the swimming pool yet, either...  

Hmm... it does appear that this scene which was being filmed does appear to be in 1955, as has been pointed out.  Although that said - a little side note, those dates that appear on some of those posters also line up with 1949.  Only issue is that one (or some?) of them, as has been mentioned does appear to read 1955.  Either way, I do have some thoughts on the whole 1950s or late 1940s scene...

1)  As @courtenay suggested - possibly a tie in with The Last Battle and the Friends of Narnia and perhaps pushed forward to the year 1955, or else it could be 1949 which would tie in a bit better with Lewis' timeline.  A thought on the possibility of 1955 though.  This could be done as a nod to LB celebrating its seventy years since being released next year - the year the movie is due for release.

2) As others have suggested, this could be a framing device of some description.

3) A few times in the book there are references to possible future occurrences or future scenarios - could this 1955 scene be a flash forward of what things may have been like (eg - Jadis saying she and Digory could rule this world together, what would have happened if Digory had stolen the fruit, and of course there's Aslan describing what the future would look like, to Polly and Digory).

Another couple of thoughts - I may be being overly optimistic (I hope not), but, if this 1950s setting of a scene or scenes from the film are a tie in with LB - I like the idea, and I think such a scene could help to tie it in with an LB film (if there is ever one made).  The other thing that gives me some cause for optimism - that picture of the Lion on that new world new home ad, appears to be so similar to the obvious memorable images of Aslan standing on the cracked stone table (concept art) from Andrew Adamson's LWW that it kind of gives me hope that perhaps Greta Gerwig is not planning to stray too far from how Lewis presents Aslan in the books.

All in all, whilst I still have many questions about this (especially the Meryl Streep question) - I think this over all has swayed me to a more positive feeling.  Although it does leave me with a rather big question - but not on the scale of Meryl Streep playing Aslan - if the whole of our world scenes were to be in 1955, how would Strawberry/Fledge come into the story - as a hansom cab being recklessly driven around London in the 1950s would be rather out of place! Curious to see how she works this all out.

The last hansom cab left London in 1949. But there have been police and palace guard horses in London. The only thing I can think of is a plausible alternative is that Strawberry and Frank are in one of those roles. 

For what it's worth, under the NarniaWeb news article that gave us these photos from the sets yesterday — First Look at Netflix's 'Narnia' Set as Filming Begins — this comment has recently been posted:

Alex m

August 11, 2025 at 4:59 AM

I can confirm THE WHOLE FILM takes place in 1955

Myself and other supporting artists have been receiving multiple enquiries for 1950’s scenes

I don't know if Alex is known here in the forums, or to the news team, but he/she apparently has some inside information. I'd love to know more, but presumably this person's hands are tied (or lips are sealed) during the filming process, which is understandable.

If it's true, this definitely upends all our expectations of The Magician's Nephew. And I also don't know how Strawberry / Fledge — if he's in it at all — is going to fit into a time period where there are no longer horse-drawn cabs in London.

(In response to @starkat, having him as either a police horse or a royal guard horse just does not fit with the story as we know it — Frank's humble and honest nature just about requires him to have a lowly working-class job. I can't see him as a member of the mounted police force, let alone as a royal guardsman (they are actual serving members of the armed forces, not ornaments for tourists to gawk at).)

Well, if this is what we're getting, I would far, far rather have had a true-to-the-book adaptation of The Magician's Nephew before we get a radical-experimental-rewrite version. But, well, if this one turns out to be a total flop, at least it means it's unlikely the sequels will go ahead — and perhaps it'll increase the chances that a different and more faithful film director will seize the opportunity in several years' time to make a more genuine adaptation of the Narnia books!

I agree, but it does fit with a completely rewritten story unfortunately. 

I did also wonder what they'd do about Fledge/Strawberry. Well, they'll definitely have him, I'm confident of that. Those who know the stories best know very well the Baynes illustration of the children astride the flying horse – one of my favourites. 

It's trickier to place a horse-drawn carriage on the road in the '50s. (Another shame to think what we've lost in modernising the story.) It's also important, as Courtenay says, that Frank remains an 'umble, working class fella and a horse guard or policeman just wouldn't work. I did think that if it was along such royal Londony lines, he could be employed by the Royal Mews, which looks after horses to be used for drawing the royal coaches around for ceremonial occasions and the like. I believe they employed the more 'working class' in the roles throughout the decades. This could also provide another reason why the talking Fledge is rather haughty towards his former master.

I'm kind of thinking they won't go this route, though, which still leaves me unsure how they will actually tackle the cabby and ol' Strawb.

Posted by: @courtenay

And I also don't know how Strawberry / Fledge — if he's in it at all — is going to fit into a time period where there are no longer horse-drawn cabs in London.

There are some horses in the set photos. I'll try and track them down again on Instagram when I get home.

At least three identical horses were on set. All red-ish with blonde manes, which makes me think they are all doubles for Strawberry.

There was also a police man in the vicinity, though he didn't look like a mounted police officer. But police horse is maybe an option.

Update:

Try here for horse photos:

View this post on Instagram

I suppose I've officially moved to the acceptance phase of mourning a close adaptation to the book. Because my first thought when seeing the photos was "I wonder if Polly is meant to be older, or if they're going to film in a way that makes the children look the same height?"  

I hesitate to speculate too much yet, because there's very little context for these photos, but I am intrigued. This won't be a Narnia story but I'm hoping for a good movie.

I guess I am resigning myself to Greta Gerwig placing Magician's Nephew in the 1950s. (Although, I think that will cause major political commentary in the rest of Narnia series. Eustace is one character I am worried about when it comes to the political commentary if it is set any later than the 1940s-1950s. If it comes to that, I will probably end up skipping any England or our World scenes to just get to Narnia and hopefully forget about anything that the directors endorse. I think this is where a director could go wild with making up a lot of original material and therefore, these movies would essentially be original movies with inspiration from Narnia more or less depending on the director. ) 

As for the pool scene, I think it is most likely a flashback that Digory is having, maybe Digory is afraid of water because he got pushed into a pool and almost drowned and so, he will think about that when he jumps into the pools in the wood between the worlds. It's either that or he is really good at swimming, I see this scene serving no other purpose if it's not one of these two ideas, both would be flashbacks, or openers to the movie. 

It's looking less likely that the 50s stuff could be some kind of framing device (perhaps with a boy and girl asking C. S. Lewis to tell them a story) and more likely that they're resetting The Magician's Nephew in the 1950s. (As hokey as that possible framing device I suggested sounds, I'd prefer it to that.)  

I'm disappointed and also rather frustrated because if this were an adaptation of other Narnia books, ones in which moving the English time period to the 50s could be more justified (I've read that Lewis was somewhat inconsistent about whether they took place in the 40s or 50s), I'd be loving the sets and costumes. I really wish the director would just tell us about her vision. Maybe it'd sound really great to me as it does to the Netflix producers. Or maybe it wouldn't sound great but at least then I'd know for sure that I wasn't going to be a huge fan of this adaptation. 

Alex M's comment is really disappointing (though I'm grateful to him for sharing the insight - just the news itself is deflating).  To me, some possibilities are:

1. They are moving the time period to the 1950s (which given the information above sounds like it is almost guaranteed to be the correct option).  This would probably delay the rest of the stories until later.
    A. If they make Digory a very old Professor (i.e. in his eighties) in the later books, then they could be set in contemporary times.  I know the standard timeline has him much younger when he meets the Pevensies, but this would fit with the description of him being a very elderly professor.
    B. If they stick with the age of the Professor as set out in the standard timeline, then this would place the subsequent stories in the 1990s.  This does not make sense to me.  I guess this would put those books in the time period when Gretta Gerwig likely first read them, but I don't know why children today would prefer nostalgia for the 1990s over nostalgia for the turn of the Twentieth century.

    C. They make the events of The Magician's Nephew happen after those in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (and probably some of the subsequent stories too).  This would be crazy!  I can't think of why you would want to do this.

Honestly, if something like any of the above is being done, it will be interesting - certainly it is hard to even anticipate what this film series would end up being. It is so different, that I would see it as pretty much its own thing, completely irrelevant to the books. It feels depressing though, as The Magician's Nephew had so much potential as a fresh story that hadn't been told on film before. As many of us have been saying, it is such a loss not to have this movie set in its original time period.

2. As several people have mentioned, perhaps the 'Friends of Narnia' could be used as a framing device for the story.  (Everyone would have to be a bit older - but then if only Eustace and Jill were still at school, this would make more sense if the story took place a little later).  This seems unlikely for so many reasons: Alex M's insight, the extent of the sets being built for the 1950s settings, etc.  But this would be my favorite option.

3. Possibly the movie is not only about the Magician's Nephew, but to some degree, is an anthology film about the Chronicles as a whole.  If this were the case, then I would pick Susan Pevensie, rather than C.S. Lewis as the narrator. "Lady Bird", "Little Women" and "Barbie" all are told from the perspective of the young heroine of the story. Thus, I would expect it to provide some sort of redemption arc for Susan. This would make some sense of the 1955 setting (Susan grieving the loss of her family and coming to terms with her past). Seeing that picture of the lion could be a trigger for her to recall suppressed memories of her experiences and those that she had learned from the Professor and her siblings / cousin.  I think this is VERY unlikely and I am not sure how well it would work.

Can not think of many other options that even vaguely make sense.

I was going to comment a few days ago based on the swimming pool casting call, but I guess I'm glad I waited!

I don't think changing the time period is going to ruin the adaptation, per se, as long as the main points of the story are transfixed. Though I wonder how that would impact LWW and its setting over fifty years later in the 2000's or so. What would the children be fleeing from in the countryside if not war in England? Unless perhaps one of the Pevensie parents was deployed in a modern war and the children needed to be sent away to process their trauma or something alike. 

Well, this depends if the two children pictured are really Digory and Polly. And I must say that these two children look adorable, and it's good they actually look their age.

Back on topic. As for why it is set in the 1950's, could this be to help differentiate between adaptations? Walden's LWW was clearly set in the time period as the book. And if this movie is intended to be as global as it, there would need to be something to make it stand out. Or as time moves on, is it just that the setting would seem unfamiliar to newer generations as their grandparents grew up in different times than the WWII generation? I think the latter would be rather lazy as kids have always loved learning about different time periods. 

Well, I best read the books again as it has been ages, because I can't comment further as to why Greta wants to make this decision.