Posted by: @icarus

Here's the big question then... if everyone had to chose between the following....

• 1950s setting, but Aslan has a glorious mane
• 1900s setting, but Aslan is a Lioness

I know the ideal situation is for both, but if its only those two choices, I assume that poll is only going one way.

I'd rather have the latter. I'm not sure how popular of an answer that is, but the thought of moving LWW from the WW2 setting horrifies me more than reimaging Aslan would. I understand the argument about what Aslan means and how WW2 is only mentioned in a single sentence in the book, but to me that is such a core aspect considering Lewis' experiences that I have a very hard time understanding why they'd want to change that.

You can of course argue the same for Aslan. To be honest, it is hard to describe just why I feel so strongly about this. Part of the reason may just be that the evacuation scene in the Disney movie to me was just executed so well that started the movie with such a strong emotional core. I have a tough time imagining what else they could possibly replace that with.

Posted by: @narnian78

I think C.S. Lewis would have wanted to keep cell phones out of the story

I just thought I'd mention that some parents don't allow their kids to cell phones until their teens, if then, so you could conceivably reset the story of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in modern times without modern phones getting in the way. Just have the Pevensies' parents be like that. Of course, just because you could conceivably do that doesn't mean you should.  

Posted by: @reepi

Part of the reason may just be that the evacuation scene in the Disney movie to me was just executed so well that started the movie with such a strong emotional core. I have a tough time imagining what else they could possibly replace that with.

I don't feel like new adaptations have to replace old adaptations. Like, I know for some people, there is one movie adaptation of Dickens's A Christmas Carol that is The Christmas Carol for them but when Christmas comes around, there are four or five movie adaptations that I try to rewatch. Each has its strengths and weaknesses and I enjoy comparing and contrasting them. It'd be nice if I could someday say the same of the 2005 LWW movie and Netflix's eventual version. 

Posted by: @col-klink

Posted by: @narnian78

I think C.S. Lewis would have wanted to keep cell phones out of the story

I just thought I'd mention that some parents don't allow their kids to cell phones until their teens, if then, so you could conceivably reset the story of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in modern times without modern phones getting in the way. Just have the Pevensies' parents be like that. Of course, just because you could conceivably do that doesn't mean you should.  

Not only do I agree with that, but I'd even go one step further and say that I'd find it more distracting if children of 9, 10, and 11 did have mobile phones in a film. I don't think you even have to be a particularly strict parent for that to be true.

Either way, I think there is this prevailing assumption that children can't exist in modern times without being walking talking cliches of all the worst excesses of that decade - no one watches Harry Potter and wonders why Ron Weasley doesn't rock up to the Train station on a Skateboard wearing Parachute Pants and blasting MC Hammer from a Boom Box whilst shouting phrases like "Tubular" and "Gnarly".

Sure, those are all 90s things, but normal people still exist in all decades.

Posted by: @coracle

@narniafancem I love this framing sort of story. Unfortunately it appears that all this film will be set in 1955. We'll see if this is true.

@coracle, It may very well be true.  I think we know now that a significant part of the movie will take place in the 1950s, but I don't know why there couldn't be parts set in the 1900s as well.  To me, the poster with the lion suggests that characters will be remembering or making up Narnia.  I don't know why that would be necessary if you are playing Narnia as real and accessible to the 1950s characters.

I'll also add that if this is a time shift to make the characters more relatable to children today, I think it is very short-sighted.  The more modern characters will look ridiculous a few years from now, just like the 70s characters in the Bill Melendez animated LWW look ridiculous today.

Posted by: @davidd

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.

This is such a brilliant framing idea and does seem right up Gerwig's alley (as well as a good idea to draw in people aware of the so-called "Susan Problem"), I wish I could believe that is what they're doing. Unfortunately it does seem like a shift of the whole timeline starting with MN - and while I can get over shifting MN's timeline, I cannot imagine LWW, LB, etc, set in a 1980s or even 90s. How awfully banal and boring. I do ultimately have to agree with @icarus, though, that if we had to choose between a faithful setting with a female Aslan and a 1950s MN with a male Aslan, I would choose the latter.

Posted by: @icarus

To be honest, if you were to ask me to describe 1950s post-war Britain in one line, it might be "a new world re-emerging from.the death of the old world"

That doesn't necessarily sound completely out-of-touch with a book which features the death of one world (Charn) and the creation of another (Narnia).

That actually connects very well with the text on the full "lion poster" we've seen photos of from the set! "Coming soon! A new world! A new home!"  

The time period shift is not my favourite, but I'm actually willing to let it slide if the films are good otherwise.  I know that people probably won't like me saying this, but there have been so many LWW adaptations set during WWII at this point that I think it is justifiable to want to move it to something more modern to 1.) establish it as different from other adaptations and 2.) potentially have it resonate more closely with young people today.

I would much prefer the whole Victorian setting for MN, but I don't think we can be so dogmatic as to not allow any changes.  Gerwig does need to look at the potential success of the series as a whole and not just MN.  Narnia purists won't want it to be set in the 1950s, but Narnia purists don't and can't float productions financially (there aren't that many of us).  I don't feel this way, but I can honestly see a savvy director conceding that the 1940s vibe for LWW is stale because it is the only lens we have ever seen that story through.  One could argue that it is the only lens we should be seeing it through since it is the one the author decided upon, but, once again, it's an adaptation.

Gerwig needs to somehow adhere to the source material while also making the film successful enough for a major corporation to justify production of the entire series.  I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she will do a good job, but it's not an easy position for her to be in.  Part of me is optimistic and hoping some of these strange bits of information suggest that she will structure the series in an interesting, unorthodox way instead of it just being Book 1, Book 2, etc. while still delivering faithful renditions of those stories.  Part of me is afraid it's going to be a complete train wreck, but it's hard to imagine someone who has espoused that kind of reverence for Narnia, who clearly has an above average level of knowledge on Christian theology, creating something too disastrous.

I'm 100% against a woman voicing Aslan, but I'm just going to continue assuming it will not happen because I haven't seen anything to definitively confirm it.  It comes across as totally oblivious on Gerwig's part.  It's a completely pointless change that will not draw more people to the work and can only serve to alienate its existing fanbase.

Posted by: @phelanvelvel

I don't feel this way, but I can honestly see a savvy director conceding that the 1940s vibe for LWW is stale because it is the only lens we have ever seen that story through.

Actually, as I know I mentioned earlier, the mostly-lost 1967 TV adaptation and the 1979 animation of LWW both set the story in what was then the present day, and dropped the wartime associations entirely. But those aren't the best-known adaptations — I don't think they had a huge cultural impact even in their time, let alone now — and the 2005 film (which makes a big point of the wartime setting) and the 1988 TV series (which went almost 100% "by the book" but did feature the evacuation of the children briefly at the start) are the ones nearly everyone remembers when they think of screen adaptations of that story.

Posted by: @phelanvelvel

Part of me is afraid it's going to be a complete train wreck, but it's hard to imagine someone who has espoused that kind of reverence for Narnia, who clearly has an above average level of knowledge on Christian theology, creating something too disastrous.

Yes, that's why I've been surprised these past several months at the rumoured and (now that we have confirmation of the '50s setting) actual changes Gerwig seems to be making.

Posted by: @phelanvelvel

I'm 100% against a woman voicing Aslan, but I'm just going to continue assuming it will not happen because I haven't seen anything to definitively confirm it.  It comes across as totally oblivious on Gerwig's part.  It's a completely pointless change that will not draw more people to the work and can only serve to alienate its existing fanbase.

I have been wondering if the "female Aslan" idea was something Gerwig and her team were just toying with in the initial stages, and they let a rumour escape to see what the reaction from the fanbase and the general public would be, and now they've quietly dropped that idea since it became clear that the said reaction was about 99.9% negative, and in most cases extremely negative. And yet for anyone with a good knowledge of the books and of their Christian basis, that should have been obvious — as in on the "Well, duhhh..." level — without any need to test it out.  

Posted by: @phelanvelvel

It struck me more as a piece of evidence that Narnia is real and that there are hints of it in our own world, kind of like Aslan winking at the characters.  Just my personal interpretation.

Yes, I was thinking something like that too. I hope that's the tack they're taking, and not the idea that Narnia is a projection of the children's subconscious thoughts and feelings (a la the 1939 film of The Wizard of Oz, in which Oz — very much real in the original books — is portrayed as a dream Dorothy has after being knocked unconscious), or even that Narnia is a fantasy world the children knowingly and deliberately invent for themselves. Which of course would absolutely ruin the point of Susan rejecting Narnia as an adult — she's convinced herself that it was all just a funny game they used to play when they were little, when of course the others (and we as the readers) know it was real all along.

I did also think of The Last Battle in relation to the "A New World" poster with the lion, although not immediately (the creation of Narnia in MN sprang to mind first). But whatever they're aiming at exactly, I do think it's meant to be a hint that Aslan is in our world too, and could be telling us something in unexpected ways...  

Now I think about it, that concept does occur in The Silver Chair. After Aslan, apparently in a dream, shows Jill the words "UNDER ME", and she and the others then see those same words carved into the landscape by daylight, they're soon told by one of the giants that it's merely the final words of the inscription carved on the tomb of one of the ancient giant kings: "Though under earth and throneless now I be, / Yet while I lived, all earth was under me." In other words, nothing to see here, it's all just a coincidence. And yet, of course, those words — even though they were carved for another purpose — do turn out to be exactly the direction that our heroes need, pointed out by Aslan at the crucial moment where Jill had forgotten the signs and was in danger of missing this one entirely. So it's not outside the realms of possibility that a poster announcing "Coming Soon — A New World, A New Home!", that just happens to feature a huge golden Lion, could be simultaneously "only" an ad for a new housing development AND a message from Aslan for those who need it.

(And if nothing else, it's a message to me that the film-makers almost certainly ARE going to make Aslan a male Lion after all, which is the biggest relief I've had regarding this movie for months. )

Posted by: @courtenay

Posted by: @phelanvelvel

It struck me more as a piece of evidence that Narnia is real and that there are hints of it in our own world, kind of like Aslan winking at the characters.  Just my personal interpretation.

Yes, I was thinking something like that too. I hope that's the tack they're taking, and not the idea that Narnia is a projection of the children's subconscious thoughts and feelings (a la the 1939 film of The Wizard of Oz, in which Oz — very much real in the original books — is portrayed as a dream Dorothy has after being knocked unconscious), or even that Narnia is a fantasy world the children knowingly and deliberately invent for themselves.

Interesting you had the exact same idea about the Wizard of Oz @Courtenay. It also struck me earlier today with all the little Easter Eggs appearing on set pieces here and there. But my concern was a bit of the opposite, that they might try to make Narnia a "Did that actually happen? Was it a dream?" I liked Adamson's approach that Narnia was a real place and I hope Gerwig doesn't change that. 

On a separate note, I also had the thought that just because MN has been moved to the 50s doesn't necessarily mean that LWW has to occur 40ish years later like it does in the books. It just needs to happen afterwards when Digory is old enough to be a professor. 

The Prince Caspian movie plays that same moment of foreshadowing though - a lingering shot on an Lion statue.

I don't think that did anything to diminish the reality of Narnia in that film.

Posted by: @fantasia

My concern was a bit of the opposite, that they might try to make Narnia a "Did that actually happen? Was it a dream?" I liked Adamson's approach that Narnia was a real place and I hope Gerwig doesn't change that. 

I also hope the film plays Narnia as real, but it wouldn’t bother me if they pass Narnia off as a dream or fantasy if it is done in the right way.  After all, it is fiction.  C.S. Lewis even calls it a fairy tale in his dedication of LWW to Lucy Barfield. What Lewis does do is make it clear that Aslan is like Christ, who is very real in our world. I hope very much that Gerwig does the same, but I’m afraid that she won’t. I expect the similarities between Aslan and Christ to be clear, but I half expect something like a “Miracle on 34^th Street” message where we are told to believe not because of evidence, but because belief is magical.

Maybe having the bulk of the series set in the 1990s will allow for more diverse casting of either the Pevensies and/or Jill and Eustis, which I could see being part of an an effort to make the series more representative of more types of children.

If the story remained in the 1940s, they would have to address the topic of racism. Setting the real world setting in the 90s allows the filmmakers to somewhat skirt around that.

Maybe instead of the war, the Pevensies could be foster children — not even real siblings — who become a family over the course of the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Posted by: @narniafancem

I also hope the film plays Narnia as real, but it wouldn’t bother me if they pass Narnia off as a dream or fantasy if it is done in the right way.  After all, it is fiction.  C.S. Lewis even calls it a fairy tale in his dedication of LWW to Lucy Barfield.

Eh, in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Lewis writes this: 

Most of us, I suppose, have a secret country but for most of us it is only an imaginary country. Edmund and Lucy were luckier than other people in that respect. Their secret country was real. They had already visited it twice; not in a game or a dream, but in reality.

So I feel like having Narnia be fictional in-universe would be untrue to the spirit of the books. But I'm not worried. I think the image of the lion is just meant to be some fun foreshadowing. 

''Maybe having the bulk of the series set in the 1990s will allow for more diverse casting of either the Pevensies and/or Jill and Eustace, which I could see being part of an an effort to make the series more representative of more types of children.''

I had assumed they would make Jill mutiracial anyway. But, they tried as far as we can tell with Digory for this one too. By making the Pevensies not related may lead to other problems such as the audience wanting romance between them because they are not related so, I do not really want that. But,my mom suggested the day that maybe the Pevensies will be neighbors who come together to form a rock band called the Pevensies and then travel to Narnia together. I always thought if they want bring in several enthic groups of people they should just populate the land of Narnia with them. After all, we have, nyads, dryads, sea people, centaurs, fauns, mermaids,etc, why can't all these creatures be of different ethnic groups. Speaking of which, shouldn't we have different skin colors in Narnia, I do not imagine that a human marrying a nyad or dryad would create kids that looked the same as their human parent. I really do not think they need to change the time period to get different ethnic groups into Narnia. The Telmarines exist and so do the Calormens, the Marshwiggles and the giants, not to mention the Stars. 

Posted by: @ghost93

Maybe having the bulk of the series set in the 1990s will allow for more diverse casting of either the Pevensies and/or Jill and Eustis, which I could see being part of an an effort to make the series more representative of more types of children.

If the story remained in the 1940s, they would have to address the topic of racism. Setting the real world setting in the 90s allows the filmmakers to somewhat skirt around that.

 

Maybe instead of the war, the Pevensies could be foster children — not even real siblings — who become a family over the course of the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

I don't see why they would need to address anything of the sort.  The focus is on a specific family of siblings in England, created by a British author, who travel to a magical country.  Why do we have to strip away the author's vision to try and keep up with modern politics?  I agree with Eustace that there are many opportunities to cast a variety of different people in Narnia.  That's what they did in the most recent film adaptations, didn't they?  I recall the centaurs, for example, being quite diverse in their appearance.  I'm just not down with politicising Narnia in that way.  If an author is British and writes their characters as such, that's a reflection of their own unique perspective, upbringing, culture, etc. and not something that needs to be "fixed".  : /  Aravis is probably my favourite Narnia character, and she would be considered Middle Eastern.  I'm not Middle Eastern, and it doesn't prevent me from identifying with her.  For that matter, my favourite female Disney characters were Mulan, Jasmine, and Pocahontas, lol.  I think children actually put far less emphasis on this stuff than adults do.  Regardless, changing the ancestry of characters has never sat right with me.

Posted by: @col-klink

So I feel like having Narnia be fictional in-universe would be untrue to the spirit of the books.

Agreed.  The right way to do it if you are going to make Narnia fictional would not be in-universe, but in a framing device which is not in the same universe.  For example, a real 1950s Polly and Digory as inspiration for a fictional 1900s Polly and Digory who visit Narnia, as I originally suggested.