(rewriting this after seeing Courtenay's post)

I agree that the aunt and uncle who Digory and Mabel are staying with don't count as 'distant' relations. 

I have also remembered a common feature in children's stories from early to mid century (E Nesbit to Noel Streatfeild and Enid Blyton):
some children (often two boys and two girls, all siblings) go to an unfamiliar place to spend a few weeks while their parents are unavailable to look after them (for different reasons). It is is a growing and learning experience, and they usually interact with others where they are staying; there is often a play or show production involved, or a mystery solved.

Why were their parents unavailable?  Working overseas, on a special holiday, one ill and the other taking care of them, etc. If the parents worked overseas, it was a given that the children went to boarding schools in term time, and stayed somewhere else in the holidays. They were always middle class children.

The adult responsible for them was often someone they hadn't met before, someone eccentric, older but fun, challenging them, helping them learn and mature. Occasionally (Nesbit) there is a magical element or even a spiritual one (Susan Cooper 1970s, or John Masefield 1930s). 

Posted by: @courtenay

I agree that "distant" isn't really an accurate term for Digory's aunt and uncle, at least in terms of kinship — though it could be argued that he's not close to them emotionally, especially of course to Uncle Andrew. 

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

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.

Posted by: @coracle

I agree that the aunt and uncle who Digory and Mabel are staying with don't count as 'distant' relations. 

Apologies, I used the wrong term. I suppose when I think of close relatives (opposite term) I think parents, siblings, children. Extended family is perhaps better?

But even so, the sentiment is still the same. 

I've just been thinking further about MN being set in the 1950s (since it's pretty much a given now that all the Earth scenes will be set in 1955 and it's not just some sort of framing device) and wondering why, in particular. I know we've talked about how that time period could carry the feeling of a new world arising from the ashes of the old (post-World War 2), which ties in with some of the themes of the book. But it also occurred to me today: what if Greta Gerwig is planning to set LWW not in the 1980s or '90s, as we've speculated, but in 2025??

Thinking about it, if Digory is about 12 (his age in the book) in 1955, that would make him 82 in 2025. That's a much more likely age for the "very old man with shaggy white hair" that we meet in LWW, rather than 52, the age he must be if we follow Lewis's written-later-and-often-rather-problematic Narnia timeline.

What if Gerwig picked up on the discrepancy between the Professor's apparent age in the book and his age according to the timeline, and what if at the same time she had the idea that LWW, and any subsequent Chronicles she may adapt, ought to be set in the present day, perhaps to make them more relatable for today's young people? (We've had a lengthy and lively discussion on the pros and cons of that idea quite recently, well before anything came out about the time period change for this upcoming adaptation of MN — here it is for anyone who hasn't seen it.) Because if we combine those two notions together — having the later Chronicles set in 2025 and having Digory in LWW be a more credible age — then on that basis, it makes sense to have the prequel to the series set in 1955, 70 years ago.

I know it's a long bow to draw and we don't have any evidence; we'll only know for sure when, as we're assuming, Gerwig adapts LWW as the second of her two Netflix Narnia movies. If the franchise gets that far, that is. I'm still afraid that this version of MN could turn out so unappealing to established fans and newcomers alike that the Netflix head honchos will cut their losses and end it at that.  

Edited to add: I'm off to a stage production of E. Nesbit's The Railway Children tomorrow, and that reminds me I recently ran across this trailer for the legendary 1970 film adaptation. Charmingly quaint as it is (the trailer, I mean), gosh, what a reminder it is of the good old days when adapting a classic children's novel for the screen almost always meant reproducing the actual story that everyone knew and loved, as faithfully and accurately as possible!!!  

Posted by: @courtenay

But it also occurred to me today: what if Greta Gerwig is planning to set LWW not in the 1980s or '90s, as we've speculated, but in 2025??

An interesting thought for sure. She's going to be able to choose just about any time once Digory is an adult (i assume she'll want Digory as an adult). So that could be from the 1970s on. Hmmm.....  

I think it's entirely possible that she picked the time period for all the other six books (because they're all pretty close in time together) and then set MN to fit that. 

Posted by: @courtenay

I know it's a long bow to draw and we don't have any evidence; we'll only know for sure when, as we're assuming, Gerwig adapts LWW as the second of her two Netflix Narnia movies.

I'm assuming that too.

Posted by: @fantasia

I think it's entirely possible that she picked the time period for all the other six books (because they're all pretty close in time together) and then set MN to fit that. 

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Mind you — and I know I mentioned this concern earlier — we've all been told she's been commissioned to do two Narnia movies. But if they don't invite her to do any more than that, or if she decides to move on to other projects after MN and (presumably) LWW... what if they can't find another director who's willing to set the remaining five stories in the modern or close-to-modern time period that they'll now have to be in, following 1950s MN??

The more I think about it, the more I reckon — unless this MN adaptation somehow turns out to be INCREDIBLY good and an astoundingly popular success — it's looking like Netflix may be seriously shooting themselves in the foot here, on only the first instalment...  

Posted by: @courtenay

what if they can't find another director who's willing to set the remaining five stories in the modern or close-to-modern time period that they'll now have to be in, following 1950s MN??

Well, to go book by book.....

PC, the kids are at a train station waiting to go back to school (right?). This could be a bus stop? Waiting to be picked up by someone else in a car? A taxi/Uber?  

VDT, Edmund and Lucy are staying with Eustace. Nothing else.

SC, a bit more complicated because of the Experiment House, but really, it just needs to be at a school with the situation of bullying, and sadly, that's all too prevalent, no matter the time period.

HHB, we don't even see Earth in this book.

LB, all that's required here is some kind of accident that kills all of our main characters. This might be a bit trickier, but if everyone is in the same location, again, you could have it be a plane crash, bus crash, whatever. Doesn't necessarily have to be a train. (Btw, I genuinely don't know, do people still ride trains in England?)  

Soooo... you're welcome to disagree, but I don't find any other book with a really strong need to be set in the time period that Lewis wrote it. But I felt that way about MN too, and pretty much no one agrees with me on that.  

@fantasia No, no, I'm not disagreeing with your point that all the other stories could be set in modern times without making huge changes to the plot. I'm sure I've said something to that effect in one or two of my own recent posts. (I'm starting to get a little confused as to who said what when, lately. )

What I meant was: if Gerwig only does the first two films in the Netflix franchise, what if they can't find another director who wants to continue with setting the series in (or close to) the present day??

Although it's something that (as we've both now said) doesn't necessarily have an effect on the basic plots of the stories, it DOES have an effect on the atmosphere of them. Not every other director is going to agree with Gerwig's radical choices in that regard. Some (maybe plenty) of them might much rather set the books in the time period they were originally set in, just for the particular "feel" that fans are already familiar with, rather than having the children wear modern clothes and talk in modern slang (and, if the setting IS brought as far forward as the 2010s or 2020s, having social media / smartphone addictions that they'll need to get over while in Narnia ).

That's what's most baffling to me about the time period change for MN (and, by extension, for all the rest of the series). It won't necessarily ruin the basic plots of the stories themselves. But it's something that will change the atmosphere of them, and in ways that a lot of viewers may not be happy with. And why on earth Netflix is taking a risk like this with their very first Narnia movie — with something that has an inescapable effect on the "feel" of all the rest of the series too — I just can't understand.  

Posted by: @fantasia

Soooo... you're welcome to disagree, but I don't find any other book with a really strong need to be set in the time period that Lewis wrote it.

I kind of agree. Other than the general vibes of the stories, the real world scenes in the majority of the books aren't really significant enough to make the time switch all that detrimental.

They'll be some sad losses in the costume details.(long socks, braces etc) but the majority of the costumes can still be more or less the same (shirts, trousers, dresses, cardigans etc.)

The school settings would barely be noticeably different (aside from the lack of hats in the uniform) and even the mansion in LWW is Georgian era or older as it is, so that would still be the same.

Don't get me wrong, it's far from.the ideal outcome for the series, but the idea that the writers would have to give 8 year old Lucy a mobile phone, or that Susan would need to be a YouTube influencer, just really don't stand up logic.

Posted by: @fantasia

(Btw, I genuinely don't know, do people still ride trains in England?)  

Sorry, I missed this bit before. 

Yes, of course we do — why would we not? It's only the 200th anniversary of the world's first passenger railway service here in England this year and there are commemorations taking place all over the UK. We (I've been naturalised long enough to say "we") LOVE our trains over here. I'll be travelling on a few tomorrow, as a matter of fact! (On the way to see a play that features them, as I mentioned above.)

Do people not still ride trains in the US, then, if it seems an unusual thing from your side of "the pond"? They did the last time I was over there (2019), at least in Boston.   

Posted by: @courtenay

what if they can't find another director who wants to continue with setting the series in (or close to) the present day??

Gotcha. Though I can't imagine that would be an issue. 

Posted by: @courtenay

And why on earth Netflix is taking a risk like this with their very first Narnia movie — with something that has an inescapable effect on the "feel" of all the rest of the series too — I just can't understand

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm going to lay this solely at the feet of Ms. Gerwig, not Netflix (though I'm sure they gave their stamp of approval.... on the other hand, I can't believe they'd say no to her either). In my experience of watching movies, I find that the truly big name directors want to 'make it their own' so to speak. Change it just enough so everyone knows "Oh, that's Greta Gerwig's version." Because again, even though we've never had an adaptation of MN, there have been several LWW and she may be looking to make that one uniquely hers. And while us fans may not approve of the adaptation, I'd be shocked if this turns out to be a technically bad movie. They're aiming for Academy Awards for goodness' sake!

I can't help but think back to Matthew Aldrich, the "creative architect" from way back in the day. I don't know that they ever used HIS ideas, but clearly they were looking to do an overall outline for all of the adaptations (and I feel like I heard Greta Gerwig may have done just this!). I'd guess they have a rough draft of all seven book adaptations ready to go.....and then some.

Posted by: @courtenay

Yes, of course we do — why would we not? It's only the 200th anniversary of the world's first passenger railway service here in England this year and there are commemorations taking place all over the UK.

Because passenger trains are practically non-existent where I live. That's why I ask. And very cool!  

Posted by: @fantasia

Soooo... you're welcome to disagree, but I don't find any other book with a really strong need to be set in the time period that Lewis wrote it. But I felt that way about MN too, and pretty much no one agrees with me on that.

I would certainly agree with that.  The scenes from the books that take place in our world could take place in any era without dramatically affecting story.  If the studio wants to change the time period, this could be something innocent.

• They may simply prefer the look of the 1950s & either the 1990s or some time later for the other books.
• Maybe they want to differentiate this adaption from previous adaptions - though looking at other period pieces that have been adapted multiple times (Charles Dickens, Elizabeth Gaskell, Jane Austin, Charlotte Brontë, E. Nesbit, etc.) a good adaption can distinguish itself from others without needing to change the setting / plot.

This is probably paranoid: It worries me that the time period is being changed - not because the stories will not work if the era changes, but because if there is a reason why it needs to change then this indicates an agenda not inherent to the original material.

Another thing I'm kind of wondering about this 1950's setting is that does that mean the lamppost is going to be different? The book has the Victorian street lamps with the gas lamps (and MN gives the answer to "Whats a lamppost doing in the middle of the woods?) from LWW. 

But even if there's a scene where Jadis breaks off the lamppost in London, I guess we don't actually have to see it in the middle of the forest of Narnia. In the book, the iron bar that Jadis tries to throw at Aslan but misses acts like a seed and grows into a lamppost. We can see just see the characters' reaction as it's happening.

The question is, will the lamppost even look different? I would think that between 1900 and the 1950's, electric lights was coming into place. So would that mean the lamppost is going to have electric lights? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

@courtenay   As for Frank being "poor", he's not living in utter poverty — slum conditions, or the workhouse — but he is still very much lower class. I'm not sure what the new adaptation will make of him, since he can't exactly be a hansom cab driver in 1955, and he obviously still needs to own a horse somehow. 

Not so easy in the city at any rate, but Frank, when talking to Strawberry/Fledge did mention he lived in the countryside at some time or other, where owning a horse would be somewhat more practical, even in 1955, only coming to the city to get work, as many people did and still do, whether Melbourne, Sydney or London. Like the end of Queen Victoria's era, 1955 was a time of rapid industrialisation & mechanisation, following a time of post-war economic stagnation, you see.  

But even in 1955 Sydney, between Blacktown & Parramatta, was far less congested than it is now. Us girls in the end cottage, would go as a group, for long walks down Jasper Street, across busy Seven Hills Road, from the historic boarding school where we were enrolled, with nothing but green paddocks everywhere, except a lone house at the end, until Jasper Street Public School was finally built the following year, when that area started to be built-up with new houses. The school I was at had its own herd of cows, managed by the older boys. But in those days, maybe even in suburban London, like Sydney, milk and bread were both still delivered to one's doorstep, as well as rag & bone men, or even the famous South Sydney Rabbitos, in Redfern, so maybe a horse and a milk float or delivery cart would still be a distinct possibility in 1955. I wasn't referring to absolute poverty but to the mere cost of maintaining a horse would be difficult, unless Frank had been lucky enough to have won as steady a job as a hansom cab driver, before London's famous black taxi cabs finally took over.

Maybe MN starts with a flashback of C.S. Lewis releasing MN in 1955? 

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

Maybe MN starts with a flashback of C.S. Lewis releasing MN in 1955? 

All the images we've seen of sets and filming sessions so far are very clearly set in 1955 — including the two children who are apparently playing Digory and Polly, who are wearing 1950s clothes like all the rest. So pretty much everyone has now concluded that the entire film — the Earth scenes, at least — will be set in the 1950s, and this isn't just some sort of framing device before we jump back to 1900 for the main part of the story.

There's been no evidence at all so far that any part of the narrative will be set in the Victorian era. I saw that somebody in the comments section under one of the news articles claimed that because the Victoria Baths in Manchester were built during the Victorian era, maybe the scene there will be set in Victorian times — but whoever suggested that (I can't remember) has missed the fact that the casting call for that scene specified that the boys involved will have to be comfortable appearing in 1950s-style bathing costumes.

Basically, it's the 1950s and that's that. And yes, I agree with those here who've pointed out that the plot itself could be set in that era and still make sense. But I'm sorry to be losing the Victorian London setting, which is by far the most interesting and exciting and atmospheric out of all the Earthly settings in the books — as I've said, Lewis invests far more time and effort in describing and evoking it than he does with the mostly much briefer this-world scenes in any of the other Chronicles. That could have looked absolutely iconic on screen. Now we're not going to see it until perhaps some future director decides to do a new adaptation that's more faithful to the original book.

And yes, the makers of this version are obviously putting a huge amount of time and effort (and money) into it and it will still most likely be visually spectacular. And it may still stick largely to the plot of the book, although the snippets and rumours we've encountered so far — Digory and Polly apparently meeting in a street scene and chasing a fox, Jadis and (probably) Digory riding on Strawberry, and a scene involving a large group of schoolboys at a swimming pool — suggest that there will be a lot in this that doesn't seriously resemble the book at all. And since even these early scenes don't seem to be anything like what Lewis wrote, how many more changes may there be further down the line?

I will still watch the final product (if I can — I don't have a Netflix subscription and have zero desire to get one, so I'm hoping it will be shown at the IMAX cinema near me) and see what I think of it as a film in its own right, but I've just about given up any hope of it being a genuinely faithful adaptation of Narnia. 

To the point about the lamppost: I think it can still be of the originally intended type. Technology was moving on, but a lot of the traditional objects were still around. Still are around certain places, fortunately. The Narnia lamppost is iconic – she must give it the right appearance! My street light knowledge is not great, I must confess... but I would imagine they still retained a fancier look to them during the '50s. (Imagine one of our sleek modern street lamps welcoming the children into Narnia – no, thanks! :P)

Somebody mentioned before – sorry I forget who – Gerwig working it so that LWW could tie in to 1990s to reflect when she was growing up and discovering the books, and I do see that. It would make it more personal for her to feed such experiences she felt into it. But she has got to achieve with MN first to get to that point! 😛