I've said it before and I'll say it again even more bluntly: if this is to be a whole series of movies based on all seven books (and since Netflix has the rights to all seven, it would seem that's what we can expect), and if they're to bear any real resemblance to what C.S. Lewis wrote at all (looking fairly doubtful with the first one so far, I know), Narnia HAS to be understood as a real place, NOT something imaginary that the children themselves, knowingly or unknowingly, have created.

Apart from the quote from VDT that @col-klink has shared above, there is also the notorious twist in The Last Battle when we find out Susan has rejected Narnia as nothing more than "all those funny games we used to play when we were children". It's a biting commentary on someone trying to be "grown up" in the wrong way and loftily dismissing the things that are truly the most important. And it works precisely because we, as the readers, KNOW that Narnia is real and that Susan is kidding herself. She's basically done to herself, in our world, what the Green Witch tried to do to Jill and Eustace and Rilian and Puddleglum in the Underworld in SC.

Of course it all ultimately ties in with the concept of rejecting God as just a fantasy believed in only by children and weak-minded people — the stance that Lewis himself proudly took as a teenager and young adult, so he does know exactly what he's talking about and why that line of reasoning is so attractive. But this whole essential element of the Chronicles falls apart if we start from the premise that Narnia, nice though it is, is just imaginary, something the children have created themselves, consciously or subconsciously, in order to cope with the "real" world or make it nicer. That's completely contradictory to what the books portray.

I really, seriously, honestly hope the Netflix Narnia film(s) will NOT do that, or even hint at it.

Now here is a different scene featuring Jadis, from the Logos Theatre; not actually part of their LWW production, but a fun behind-scenes take!

It does not appear that any of the changes that Greta Gerwig wants are really necessary.  Why does the time setting and Aslan’s gender have to be different than in the books?  C. S. Lewis wrote the Narnia books in the way he wanted and there is no need to alter the basic story beyond what it is necessary for adaptation.  The BBC series and the Walden films proved that a television production and a series of films can be made without altering the story too much. Focus on the Family’s Narnia radio dramas preserved much of the original story on audio and they were quite successful. So Greta Gerwig did not need to make any changes from the basic plot of the book, and she could be making a much more faithful motion picture.  But unfortunately it does not appear that she is interested in preserving the Narnia that C. S. Lewis created. 

My thoughts on the time shift are... complicated. My head and my heart disagree.

I've been thinking a lot about what Lewis wrote in the preface of That Hideous Strength, "a modern fairy-tale for grown-ups" that took place in what was then present day:

I have called this a fairy-tale in the hope that no one who dislikes fantasy may be misled by the first two chapters into reading further, and then complain of his disappointment. If you ask why--intending to write about magicians, devils, pantomime animals, and planetary angels--I nevertheless begin with such humdrum scenes and persons, I reply that I am following the traditional fairy-tale. We do not always notice its method, because the cottages, castles, woodcutters, and petty kings with which a fairy-tale opens have become for us as remote as the witches and ogres to which it proceeds. But they were not remote at all to the men who made and first enjoyed the stories. They were, indeed, more realistic and commonplace than Bracton College is to me: for many German peasants had actually met cruel stepmothers, whereas I have never, in any university, come across a college like Bracton.

It's easy for us who were born long after the Narnia books were published to lose perspective on how they would have been experienced by the original audience. I first read them in 2005, and the 1940s world the Pevensies lived in felt quaint and almost magical. There was a novelty to reading books about child characters who were old enough to be my grandparents if they were still living.

But that wasn't what Lewis intended. To him and his early readers, the world presented was just the ordinary humdrum present day world. The slang was modern slang, the clothes were modern clothes, and the attitudes were modern attitudes. The ordinariness of that setting was then contrasted with the much older and magical world of Narnia, which was full of castles, ships that still had sails, nature that hadn't been defiled by modern "advancements", creatures people no longer believe in (if they ever did), and with philosophical views that had long fallen out of fashion (e.g. that the universe has order and purpose, that balls of burning gas are what stars are made of but not what they are, and that our deepest spiritual longings have their fulfillment in some other world).

With all that in mind... it kind of makes sense to give a modern adaptation of Narnia a modern setting. It's impossible to fully put yourself in the mindset of a 1950s reader, but this would be a different way of trying than researching the historical context that the books were written in. It's an interesting idea, and one that my mind is curious about. If it's faithful to Lewis's beliefs and themes, I'm open to it.

And yet.... if the setting is moved forward, I can't help feeling like this new adaptation just won't be for me. It won't be the Narnia I fell in love with as a child. The world is so different now, it just can't evoke the same feelings as the book. If I see the Pevensies using modern slang or scrolling on smartphones, I think part of me will die inside.  

The modern world seems so unmagical. With the way the internet, high speed travel, satellite imaging, globalization etc. has shrunk the world, it seems more unlikely than ever to encounter a faun or dryad in the woods or stumble into another world. I don't know if I can fall under the spell of Narnia in the same way if the child characters exist in the same era as TikTok. But then that raises objections. I know that Lewis felt similarly about his own era, that it was an era of disenchantment, and my feeling that our era is so much less magical than the 1900s or the 1940s is, to some extent, a matter of perspective. And if our era is so unmagical then don't we need Narnia more than ever, and wouldn't the contrast between worlds be even greater?

I don't know.

@reepicheep775
This is very thought provoking.  @Pete has an awesome post in another thread that sums up many of the thoughts that I have on moving the timeline to the 1950s.  (Essentially if one has a look at the scenes in the books that take place in our world, these scenes do not necessarily depend on the era in which C.S. Lewis had originally written them to take place.)  There are actually very few scenes in the Chronicles of Narnia that take place in our world.

I have a nostalgia for the era portrayed in the books, but as you point out, this was contemporary for C.S. Lewis.

At the same time, I think of what C.S. Lewis had to say about the 1937 movie, "Solomon's Mines" based on H. Rider Haggard's book "King Solomon's Mines".  C.S. Lewis gave a scathing review of this movie.  His main criticism was, as I understand it, about the change of tone and themes.  The story in the book was one in which the heroes are trapped in a mine and know that they will eventually starve to death - or  exhaust their oxygen supply - and have to deal with the ever present dread of approaching death.  This fear, drawn out over a long period of time gives the tone and the drama of the book.  (Think of "Buried' starring Ryan Renolds - which is actually very similar to the premise of the book and is actually a very underrated movie.)

In the film version, they added in a subterranean volcano to make the presence of death more immanent and more exciting.  Lewis commented that if people want excitement, then the film is the better version.  But he loved the book for its skillful portrayal of this approaching death with its psychological effects on the characters.  For him, the original book had been ruined by the film because it was no longer really the same story (I think today, we'd say that it may be a good movie, but it is not really a faithful adaption of the source material).

In 'The reading of Old Books', C.S. Lewis talks about how old books do not reflect the biases and fashions of our own era.  He saw this as a huge plus as it wards off 'chronological snobbery' - the idea that we know better today than what they did back then. Old books often had a chronological snobbery of their own era - where we can now see that what they saw as an 'advancement' was really a mistaken journey in the wrong direction and this warns us against the unproven ideas of our own generation. Moving the setting of the book does not necessarily change the themes of the story, but it does bring more opportunities to do so (and the temptation to introduce modern themes "relevant" to the modern setting).

In a similar (although different vein), old crochety Star Wars fans have often complained about the updating of the original Star Wars trilogy. The complaint often stems from the fact that these were movies made in the 1970s & 1980s and reflected both the technology & world view that was present at that time. The updates to these movies often replace 'dated' elements from the original movies with equally out of date elements from the later eras when they were updated. These fans comment that its better to let the art remain as it was and reflect the era in which it was made.

When Jane Austin wrote Pride and Prejudice, it was a contemporary story.  (I certainly do not live in a world today where women can lose their inheritance because only a man can inherit the family estate. Jane Austin faced this reality and it shows up as a theme in several of the novels she wrote.)  There have been at least 17 film and tv adaptions of Pride and Prejudice.  Of those 17 adaptions, "Bride and Prejudice" and "Bridget Jones' diary" are the only two adaptions to move the story out of Jane Austin's time into our modern era.  I would argue that neither of these was the most faithful adaption of the source material - nor are they the most relevant to audiences today.  I suspect this opinion is not a controversial take.

C.S. Lewis had children live with himself, Warnie and Mrs Moore in their Oxford home during World War II, who had been evacuated from London for their protection while London was bombed in the Blitz.  During the stay of these children, Lewis was surprised and disappointed at how few imaginative stories these children had been exposed to. Many people have commented that this experience had some influence on the writing of "The Lion, the witch and the Wardrobe".

 (Andrew Adamson commented that he added the scene of the Blitz to the 2005 movie, because when C.S. Lewis wrote the book, everyone remembered the Blitz and he need not say much for people to get the context. However for us, many years later, we need to see it to understand what the context of the story was.)

Similarly, in The Magician's Nephew,

.  In 1908 (when C.S. Lewis was 10 years old), his own mother died after a slow fight with cancer.  The Magician's Nephew seems to contain a nostalgia for that earlier era even when C.S. Lewis' wrote it. In "Surprised by Joy", C.S. Lewis describes the innocence of his childhood before his' mother died. C.S. Lewis was shipped off to boarding school in England soon after his' mother died - and his description of what he thought of England could probably be summarized as 'a beastly hole' too.Thus, I can't help but feel that there is something of the 'soul' of this story in Lewis' own experiences.  By moving the story out of the era it was set in, there is a chance of losing the heart behind it.

If I am honest, I am more worried about 'why is the change of era necessary?'

Other than that, there are no scenes in our world. None of these scenes necessarily wed themselves to any era. It is perhaps silly to say it ruins the integrity of the story to move these scenes to a different era, but it is equally silly to say that these scenes need to be moved to a different era.

From the limited photos we have:

there is a scene of Digory walking down the street (not necessarily a radical change to the story or its themes),

Digory and Polly apparently meet on the street instead of Polly's back yard (again, likely just aesthetics - though there are other kids around and possibly new characters will be introduced to the story either to flesh out one of the book's themes or to add to it),

Someone (probably Digory) goes to a boys swimming pool (too early to judge - maybe the story does not take place during a wet summer holiday - but this is not a radical change),

Jadis and Digory both ride on a horse that is wearing a harness for a carriage - but without the carriage. (This seems to indicate that Jadis will initially be on a carriage and then she cuts Strawberry's ties to the carriage after the crash. Though it also seems to indicate that Digory will not be on the ground, trying to grab her heal to transport her back to her own world, but rather, he will be on the horse with her and unable to put on his ring for some reason. This seems to indicate that the scene in the book will be expanded upon.  Does Digory travel through London with Jadis?  Does he jump on Strawberry too rather than just Jadis when the carriage crashes?  Does she bring him with her after the crash - i.e. is he a hostage?  Will Polly need to save Digory?  Is Uncle Andrew present?  There does seem to be a significant change to the story hinted here.)

Honestly, the evidence is so thin at this point, that probably it is unwise to jump to any conclusions. I just hope the film honors the themes that Lewis put in the book.

@davidd actually it would be quite exciting to see it through Digory's eyes, not just what the jeweller, etc complained about - the raid on London is 'off-stage' in the book.  

@coracle 

I can certainly see that if they have Digory travel with Jadis through London, then the movie will be upholding the principle of “show, don’t tell” – which does make for a much better cinema going experience.

And apologies if your comment about “more exciting” was a joke and I am just too ignorant to appreciate it 😊.

I spoke of C.S. Lewis’ criticism of “King Solomon’s Mines” to point out that ‘exciting’ is not always better:

(NOTE: The following is my own scribing based on an audio book – so the punctuation may not be correct to the original.)

…

At the end of Haggard’s book, as everyone remembers, the heroes are awaiting death, entombed in a rock chamber and surrounded by the mummified kings of that land.  The maker of the film version, however, apparently thought this tame.  He substituted a subterranean volcanic eruption; and then went one better by adding an earthquake.  Perhaps we should not blame him; perhaps the scene in the original was not ‘cinematic’ and the man was right by the cannons of his own art in altering it.  But it would have been better not to have chosen, in the first place, a story which could be adapted to the screen only by being ruined – ruined at least for me.  No doubt, if sheer excitement is all you want from a story - and if increases in dangers increases excitement - then a rapidly changing series of two risks (that of being burned alive and that of being crushed to bits) would be better than the single, prolonged danger of starving to death in a cave.

But that is just the point.  There must be a pleasure in such stories, distinct from mere excitement, or I should not feel that I had been cheated in being given the earthquake instead of Haggard’s actual scene.  What I lose is the whole sense of ‘the deathly’ - quite a different thing from the simple danger of death; the cold, the silence, and the surrounding faces of the ancient, the crowned and sceptered dead.

You may, if you please, say that writer, Haggard is just as crude or vulgar, or sensational as that which the film substituted for it.  I am not at present discussing that.  The point is that it is extremely different.  The one lays a hushing spell upon the imagination; the other excites a rapid flutter of the nerves.  In reading that chapter of the book, curiosity or suspense about their escape from their death trap makes a very minor part of one’s experience.  The trap I remember forever; how they got out I have long since forgotten.

…

Having Digory travel with Jadis would allow us to witness several things that we did not see in the book.

However, in the book, it is during Uncle Andrew’s and Jadis’ absence that Digory hears the idea of ‘fruit from the land of youth” which is of major importance to the rest of the story and this scene would either have to be lost or shuffled to a different time in the film.

Again, I just don’t want the story of Digory’s love for his mother to be lost or for the themes in the book to be overridden.

 

Posted by: @davidd

I can certainly see that if they have Digory travel with Jadis through London, then the movie will be upholding the principle of “show, don’t tell” – which does make for a much better cinema going experience.

I'm also a bit surprised at the apparent stunt doubles for Digory and Jadis riding on Strawberry together (there's another thread discussing whether the guy could actually be Frank, but going by the outfit, I'd say it's meant to be Digory). But it's possible that this scene only happens during the last few minutes of her rampage, and Digory hasn't been with her the entire time.

Having Digory travel with Jadis would allow us to witness several things that we did not see in the book.

Actually, while of course almost the whole book is told from Digory's perspective (he's not the narrator, but there are only a couple of scenes that he doesn't witness directly), the film doesn't need to follow that exact same format. It could be that we do see scenes of Jadis in London — I hope we do — but Digory doesn't absolutely need to be there for that to happen.

The film could easily cut back and forth between Digory anxiously waiting at home, wondering if Jadis is going to "blast" the Houses of Parliament and so on, and scenes of what Jadis is actually getting up to, with poor old Uncle Andrew in tow, simultaneously besotted and terrified as he is. The book itself sets up that contrast implicitly, because Lewis reminds us that Digory doesn't know that Jadis's magic powers don't work in our world. So he's quite naturally on tenterhooks watching for her, while in fact her shenanigans are far less dangerous, though still disruptive and shocking for the ordinary Londoners she encounters, as we learn from what we hear after she reappears. The film can switch narrative perspectives easily in a way that the book doesn't (it could, but Lewis doesn't do it that way).

However, in the book, it is during Uncle Andrew’s and Jadis’ absence that Digory hears the idea of ‘fruit from the land of youth” which is of major importance to the rest of the story and this scene would either have to be lost or shuffled to a different time in the film.

It wouldn't need to be, if the film switches perspectives back and forth between Digory at home and Jadis in London.

Spoiler

Minor spoiler

(Moving the scene may not be a bad thing, if Digory becomes fixated on ‘another world where the fruit can heal the sick’, he may be keener to participate in Uncle Andrew’s experiment early on.  It may even provide him a better motive for striking the bell and awaking Jadis in Charn.  At the risk of being arrogant, the motive of striking the bell ‘because he convinced himself that he would go mad if he didn’t’ has never felt like a compelling motive to me. If Digory thought that awakening this dangerous woman could save his mother’s life, it could potentially make for a far more persuasive setup.  It would also contrast better with the later scene where Digory encounters Jadis in the garden.)

Not quite sure why the spoiler, as I would guess it's safe to say that everyone here on NarniaWeb has read the book. But one vital element of the scene where Digory strikes the bell is that he doesn't know what will happen if he does. That's exactly what the wording under the bell says:

Make your choice, adventurous Stranger:

Strike the bell and bide the danger,

Or wonder, till it drives you mad,

What would have followed if you had.

So all Digory knows at that moment is that there will be danger if he strikes the bell, but if he doesn't (so he's told) he'll go mad through wondering what would have happened. I think it's made clear enough in the book — Digory admits it to Aslan later — that he's actually only kidding himself and making excuses for his behaviour. He tells himself that he'll go mad if he doesn't ring the bell, and even that he's under an enchantment, but it's really only his own impulsiveness, and possibly a desire to show off in front of Polly, that drives him to do it.

The point is, though, that he doesn't know what will happen, except that it'll be something dangerous. He has no notion that striking the bell will wake the woman in the last seat in the hall of images. So that doesn't really fit in with the idea that he did it on purpose to try to get her to help his mother.

I would actually suggest the scene is more powerful because Digory's motive for striking the bell isn't some burning, overriding desire to do something to save his mother's life. It's quite normal human curiosity and impulse and the temptation to think that we need to do something we've been warned against, just to find out what will happen — very human faults that we all have, but if we allow ourselves to indulge them, they can lead to severe consequences. As they do for Digory, and for others because of him.

I've always found it a very relatable scene. I would hope I'd be like sensible, level-headed Polly, who isn't the least bit tempted — "No fear! ... We don't want any danger" — but would I...?  

Again, I just don’t want the story of Digory’s love for his mother to be lost or for the themes in the book to be overridden.

No, nor do I. I'm hoping against hope that the basic story will still be the same and will keep the spirit of the book, even where it doesn't stick to the letter, so to speak.

Pulling this over from a different thread. And to give some context before I reply below.... I mentioned that the change of time to the 1950s doesn't necessarily bother me for MN, but it does for LWW because there's not as good of a setup I can think of for the Pevensies going to stay with Professor Kirke (evacuating the bombing in London during WW2). I mentioned a thought they might pursue is that the Pevensies are actually related to Digory, which would drive me crazy.

Posted by: @col-klink

BTW, why would it drive you crazy if they made Digory a relative of the Pevensies?

The sudden revelation of relationships was used to great effect in Star Wars Episode V between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. But it's a gimmick that has (for me at least) become very overused in Hollywood. It's hard to find a movie nowadays where there's not a romantic relationship or a familial one. That's why it bugs me that LWW can't really take place during WW2 anymore because that's the entire reason why the Pevensies went to live with the Professor. Pulling that situation out of that context, you have four kids going to live with a stranger, and in this day and age that's downright creepy. I have trouble thinking of a workable solution besides either a fostering situation or have them be relatives. 

 

Posted by: @courtenay

Actually, while of course almost the whole book is told from Digory's perspective (he's not the narrator, but there are only a couple of scenes that he doesn't witness directly), the film doesn't need to follow that exact same format.

Very true.  I would still prefer it if Digory waits at home as per the book.  Cross cutting between the two scenes could be a lot of fun.  Either way, showing the chaos that Jadis causes, rather than merely hearing about it, could be a good change.

Posted by: @courtenay

it's possible that this scene only happens during the last few minutes of her rampage, and Digory hasn't been with her the entire time.

Agreed .  I still wonder why Digory can not just put on his ring and transport Strawberry, the Witch and himself back to the Wood Between the Worlds when they are riding along.  If he has the ring in his pocket, he does not even need to hold onto the witch's ankle as they are both touching Strawberry. (I guess, technically it's her boots touching the horse so maybe this would be like wearing gloves.)  I would have thought it would be a lot easier for Digory to get a hold of Jadis and put on his ring in this scene than it was in the book.

Posted by: @courtenay

But one vital element of the scene where Digory strikes the bell is that he doesn't know what will happen if he does. That's exactly what the wording under the bell says:...

I know - I was thinking that the wording could be changed or some premise could be given to indicate that maybe striking the bell could aid Digory in helping his mother.

Posted by: @courtenay

I would actually suggest the scene is more powerful because Digory's motive for striking the bell isn't some burning, overriding desire to do something to save his mother's life. It's quite normal human curiosity and impulse and the temptation to think that we need to do something we've been warned against, just to find out what will happen...

True!  Like Augustine and others, I have done things for not in spite of them being wrong, but especially because they wrong.

I'm actually kind of divided on the time setting of MN. According to the Timeline, it was 1900, which was the turn of the century, and I believe it was a year before the end of Queen Victoria's reign. The book even mentions Sherlock Holmes still living on Baker Street, but it wasn't relevant to the plot (much like the war was in LWW). 

So if MN is going to be set in 1955, it seems that the other ones would be set in the following:

LWW and HHB (HHB takes place during the evens of LWW so I kind of had to put them together)- 1995

PC- 1996

VDT And SC- 1997

LB- 2004

(I'm sure we could have a whole discussion in another thread about updating Narnia to, though). 

So I would have much preferred to see MN set in 1900, I'm just going to wait and see how this 1950's setting turns out. Who knows? It could turn out better than we thought. 

Posted by: @fantasia

That's why it bugs me that LWW can't really take place during WW2 anymore because that's the entire reason why the Pevensies went to live with the Professor. Pulling that situation out of that context, you have four kids going to live with a stranger, and in this day and age that's downright creepy.

I totally get that.  In 2007, they adapted "Bridge to Terabithia" to the big screen.  The movie was set in then contemporary times (the kids had access to the internet and mobile phones).  But in one of the crucial scenes, Jess still accepts his teacher's invitation to go on an excursion to the Smithsonian Museum.

In 1977 it was rare, but not unheard of, for teachers to take gifted students on excursions to encourage and inspire them.  In 2007, major questions would be raised if a teacher took one of their child students on an excursion on the weekend.  When I see the movie, I find myself thinking "this part of the movie is really taking place in the 1970s" to get around the dissidence and discomfort that I feel.  (And this is a very innocent scene in the movie that should not be invoking this kind of reaction.)

Just wanting to continue a conversation from the "What is your overall feeling about Netflix Narnia?" thread, which got sidetracked a bit into the topic of the MN adaptation being moved to the 1950s, and how the period change may affect that and/or the other stories, or not. This is copied from Fantasia's recent post there:

Posted by: @fantasia

I only speak for myself, but none of the rest of the books besides LWW, and maybe a tiny bit SC, matters what's going on here on Earth in terms of time period. With LWW the children are sent to stay with a complete stranger due to the war. Something that is a bit harder to reproduce in other ages outside of wars. Did that happen during the Vietnam, Korean, or Gulf war? Not to my knowledge. And England wasn't being bombed at that time. Will they go in a direction like a fostering situation? Or, they may choose the Hollywood direction that drives me crazy, and make Digory a relative to the Pevensies. 

Unlike a plot that's driven by the time period like LWW, in MN the importance of what's going on on Earth is that Digory is living with distant relatives because his mother is extremely ill. Uncle Andrew is attracted to power. Frank is a hard-working but poor laborer. All of these things can happen at nearly any time throughout history. 

I've also responded in the other thread, as has @col-klink, but I just thought of a few more points that would probably be better off in this thread that's more relevant to the subject.

I think it really does come down (as Col Klink also said in the other thread) to plot implications versus iconic imagery. And actually, if we're really going to boil it down to the basics, I would argue that the exact period setting isn't absolutely crucial for any of the books, LWW included.

There's been a lot of discussion, in these threads and in past ones, over whether the WW2 period setting is essential to LWW. Atmospherically, it can be made so, as it is in the 2005 movie and in some stage adaptations, to great effect. But factually — from the standpoint of what C.S. Lewis actually wrote — it isn't.

As I said in the other thread, if you cut out that one reference to "the war" at the very start of the opening chapter, and read the rest of the book with no knowledge of the time setting, there is absolutely nothing in the story that grounds it in a particular period. Especially because all the this-world action takes place in the Professor's old house, which apparently has very little contact with the outside world. It could be taking place in almost any decade of the 20th century.

(And even if it took place in the 1980s or '90s, I can imagine adult Digory, as the slightly eccentric scholarly sort, not having a television — let alone any of those new-fangled computer thingies, which in those days wouldn't even have had the option of an internet connection.)

And the argument that the war is necessary as the premise to get the children out of their home and away from their parents and into this old chap's mysterious house... well, I'm again repeating something I've said before, but there have already been two screen adaptations of LWW that set it in then-modern times (1960s or '70s) and just skimmed over why the children were staying there. I believe the 1967 TV adaptation stated that their parents were away on an archaeological expedition!

The thing is, canonically they're there in the summer holidays (Lucy tells Mr Tumnus that it's summer where she came from, and there doesn't seem to be any fuss about the children having to attend school somewhere, or having lessons from a tutor). As for the possibility that Digory / the Professor could actually be some kind of relative of the Pevensies, in fact, going by the earliest fragment of the story that we have — a draft of the opening paragraph (in which the children were originally called Ann, Martin, Rose and Peter!) — Lewis initially DID intend to make the old Professor a relative of the children's mother. So that's not absolutely non-canonical, let alone a "Hollywood" notion. He could perhaps be a cousin of their grandmother or grandfather, which would put him in the right age bracket and make him distant enough, relation-wise, that it's plausible that they don't know him well and haven't been to his house before.

My point being that there could be various reasons why the children's parents are away, or otherwise unable to have the kids at home the whole time, over the summer holidays — especially if this is set later in the 20th century, when it's much more likely that both parents could have jobs that take them away from home for an extended period. And so arranging for the children to stay for several weeks with an older distant relative, who has a big country house and is willing to take them in, isn't an implausible plot device at all.

Now getting back to MN and the era it's set in... I did also recently write (here) that Lewis invests a LOT more in the period setting of this book than he does in any of the others. He gives us far more details and evocative descriptions of it than he does for the this-world scenes in the rest of the series. I think he did see the period atmosphere of this story as an intrinsic part of it, totally unlike his dismissive treatment of the wartime setting of LWW.

However, I do also agree with @fantasia that the essential elements of the "Earth" section of the plot — "Digory is living with distant relatives because his mother is extremely ill. Uncle Andrew is attracted to power. Frank is a hard-working but poor laborer" — could take place in just about any another era without changing the basic story. The original 1900 setting is very atmospheric, and Lewis makes the most of it, but it's not absolutely crucial to the plot.

And that, of course, is obviously the conclusion Greta Gerwig has come to as well.

So while I'm sorry to be losing the late Victorian setting, which I was really looking forward to seeing on screen, I'm still hopeful that the same basic plot will be played out in the 1950s setting. And that a 1980s or '90s setting is possible for LWW and all the subsequent Chronicles, likewise without any huge changes to the plot. Even if the atmosphere is quite different, the stories themselves could — and I hope will — be essentially the same.

@courtenay "Digory is living with distant relatives because his mother is extremely ill. Uncle Andrew is attracted to power. Frank is a hard-working but poor labourer"

In Magician's Nephew, Aunt Letty & Uncle Andrew are brother & sister to Mabel, Digory's mother. Yes, they are relatives because his mother is extremely ill, but they are not distant relatives. Small point & maybe not necessary, when I agree that after WW2, relationships tended to be more random and spread out, with some people unable to identify any next-of-kin easily. But I remember calling 1st cousins once removed, Aunt and Uncle, just the same, when neither my father nor my mother had siblings, & my mum was reared with her cousins. Maybe it is just me, but being abandoned to distant relatives is just as bad in a way as being shoved in a boarding school like Experiment House or being found washed up from the sea like Shasta. I always get the feeling that the more distant the relative is, the less responsibility felt, and Aunt Letty, at any rate, is deeply concerned for Digory and especially for Mabel, her sister. 

As for Frank being a hard-working but poor labourer, that could be true, but where did he get the horse from? The joke has always been that "Poverty is owning a horse". And as Frank says, Strawberry isn't just any horse, either. 

@courtenay As I said in the other thread, if you cut out that one reference to "the war" at the very start of the opening chapter, and read the rest of the book with no knowledge of the time setting

Yes, I agree that "the war" was only one reference in LWW, just as Queen Victoria was only mentioned once, on the first page of Magician's Nephew. But just as the reason for the Pevensies to be at the Professor's house was the Government's need to evacuate children from London, in particular, following UK's declaration of war, conditions in Victorian London also applied to Digory's being at his aunt and uncle's London home, with his sick mother, who at a later date would surely have been put in some clinic or hospital, instead, with Digory, himself, being sent to some family crisis home, maybe like a Red Cross home I stayed at, on about four occasions, or even Bushey, or St Margarets in Hertfordshire, England at the time, when I attended its Australian counterpart, which took girls as well, in 1955.