Although I'm open to seeing MN set in the 1950s and the other Chronicles subsequently set in more modern times — meaning I'm willing to watch this and see what they make of it — it's going to have to be done extremely well for me to actually like it.

And along with the still-dangling question of Aslan — although the maned Lion on that poster definitely gives me a lot of hope — there's also the question of what will be done with the rest of the series. Greta Gerwig has been commissioned to make two Narnia movies, we've been told. Presumably MN set in 1955 will be followed by LWW set in perhaps the 1980s or '90s. That too needs to be done in a way that makes sense and doesn't look ridiculous, if it's going to be a box office success. But then there are still the remaining five books, and if Gerwig doesn't do a good (read: sufficiently money-making) job on the first two, they probably won't invite her to do more. Or else she herself might choose to stand down after two movies so she can focus on other projects.

Regardless, if a new director needs to take  over the series after "Narnia 2"... what if they can't find one who agrees with Gerwig's radical and (many would say) totally unnecessary decision to change the time period of the stories?? This is one of the things I find most uncomfortable about that decision. Like the possibility of Aslan being female, it's something that will affect the entire series, not just one particular instalment. And if it turns out to be a decision that's not popular with viewers, that could sink the entire franchise. That's why I don't understand why they're making such controversial moves with the very first film.  

At this point I’m more confused than anything else! I’ve been too baffled this past week or so to truly feel half as much of the concern I’d otherwise be feeling lol.

I'm very excited about the project and can't wait to see it.

I’m confused and even somewhat concerned about what we’ve seen so far but I remain cautiously optimistic. I keep reminding myself of  some advice a basketball coach once gave my high school team when we were losing badly late in the first half: “Now is not the time to panic. There’s still plenty of time left to panic in the future.”

Something that just occurred to me about the apparent change in timeline - assuming MN works as a relatively faithful film set 55 years later than the book does, and LWW is the next film to be made and is set in a 1980s or 90s setting and again continues to be an otherwise faithful adaptation, IMO it would follow the rest of the films should very easily be made whilst being set in a 1990s era setting - excluding (of course) HHB, as it only takes place in the world of Narnia.  My reason thinking this is because even though Lewis' timeframe is well known, it's only really MN and LWW in which the timeframe has a significant bearing on the story - namely in things like the costuming, hansom cabs etc in MN and the reason for being sent to the Professor's in LWW.  The other stories, could just as easily be told in the more modern 1990s without changing the stories too much.  The main changes would of course be costuming and set designs.  Here's a little bit more of my reasoning for this:

PC - The kids being at the country railway station going to boarding school is something that could fit into the 1990s fairly easily - although possibly not as common, boarding schools still very much exist and are probably still more common in the UK than other nations.  

VDT - Edmund and Lucy staying with their cousin Eustace could just as easily fit in to the 1990s as in the 1940s.

SC - There have been "experimental" mixed schools in the 1990s as well.

LB - A railway accident could happen in any era including the 1990s, the only significant change there may be the type of train.

People reading the books will probably be confused by Greta Gerwig changing the time setting and Aslan’s gender.  They will wonder why the movie should be considered an adaptation of the book. It may not affect the books’ popularity that much, but I wonder if the movie will encourage people to read the books. They may feel as if the movie is too different from the books, and since much of the reading audience is children it may cause some confusion.  And when the books are taught in schools children may wonder why the adaptation is so different from the original story.  A good adaptation should only have changes when they are necessary.

Posted by: @narnian78

People reading the books will probably be confused by Greta Gerwig changing the time setting and Aslan’s gender.  They will wonder why the movie should be considered an adaptation of the book.

@narnian78 I don't think people who've already read the books will be "confused" by the movie, unless they're so young that they can't understand the difference between a movie and a book (in which case, they're probably too young to understand the story anyway). Most people will realise that the book was written first, quite a long time ago, and the movie is based on it. Rather loosely based, it's appearing more and more.

(It's also worth noting that while the time setting has definitely changed, we do not yet know for certain that Greta Gerwig has changed Aslan's gender. That's a rumour that came up several months ago and has never been either confirmed or denied by anybody directly connected with the actual project. It may be true, but it's not yet fair to claim that it is happening when we don't yet have proof. In fact, the poster from the film set with the image of a maned lion seems to be a suggestion that Aslan will be male, but we haven't had absolute confirmation of that yet either.)

I'm more concerned that the movie will be seen as the "real" story by people who haven't read the book, and so there'll be a lot of assumptions made about the story that aren't accurate to what C.S. Lewis actually wrote and intended. Just as there may be many people who've only seen the 1939 movie of The Wizard of Oz and don't realise that in L. Frank Baum's original book (and its many sequels), Oz is absolutely a real place and not just a dream Dorothy has that comes from and reflects her own hopes and fears and loves. Or people who have only seen the screen adaptations of Pride and Prejudice and don't realise that Jane Austen never had Mr Darcy jump in the lake (1995 BBC TV series) or tell Lizzy "You have bewitched me, body and soul..." (2005 movie). Or people who have only seen the Walden Media movies of Narnia and don't realise that there is never even the slightest suggestion of romance between Caspian and Susan in the books, or...  

But in some ways — and I think I've said this before — the more way-off-the-mark this adaptation of The Magician's Nephew keeps looking, the less upset I feel about it, ironically. If they really are going to make it SO different from the original story that it's almost unrecognisable, most people will see this is nothing like the Narnia they already know from the books and from previous screen versions, and the new franchise will be in danger of fizzling out (like the Walden series did after the third film turned out to be a disappointment to probably most viewers). And then perhaps, one day, we can expect to get a new adaptation of Narnia from another studio that actually does it justice at last...

@courtenay 

What about children (especially eight to ten year olds) when the story is read to them or if they read it themselves?  I remember decades ago when my elementary teacher read aloud The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, The Silver Chair, and The Horse and His Boy. At that time there wasn’t any movie that would interfere with our understanding of the books. Although it hasn’t been confirmed, it now seems very likely that there will be a female Aslan and we know for certain that the timeline will be altered.  If Greta Gerwig directs any more Narnia movies she probably will not be faithful to their original stories.  That could cause some confusion for the children that watch them.

@narnian78 But how do you mean "confusion"? Most kids will (I hope) be bright enough to realise that movies based on books are often different — sometimes very different — from the original book. I was familiar with both the original book and the 1939 movie of The Wizard of Oz by the time I was 5 or 6 years old; I could see the differences between them, I understood that the film-makers had chosen to change some things and leave others out, and it didn't confuse me or indeed bother me at all. I liked both, for different reasons.

Other films I saw were different from the original books and in most other cases, I liked the film less. An example is The Neverending Story, which I initially knew only from the 1984 film (big part of my childhood), and then some years later, I read the original book. Which, it turns out, is similar to the film in many ways (the movie only covers the first half of the book), but different in others. So there were some surprises, but I soon found out that the book is not only much longer than the movie, but much deeper in where it goes with its themes, and I soon came to prefer it. However, if I hadn't seen and enjoyed the movie beforehand, I might not have got far with the very lengthy and quite complex book!

I'm also sorry to see that Gerwig doesn't seem willing to do a close-to-the-book screen adaptation of The Magician's Nephew when there hasn't ever been one before. The new movie may turn out to be a good piece of cinema in its own right, even if it's not much like the book. But if it encourages more people (young or old) to try reading the original book — even if they're surprised at how different it is — that can't be an entirely bad thing. 

@courtenay

 Confusion is misunderstanding what Lewis originally wrote.  He intended the books to be set in a certain time and place and that Aslan should be male Lion.   If  a movie changes those things a child could think that Lewis wrote his books that way.  I will not support Greta Gerwig in any way because she is not being accurate to the source material, and I would not assume that any child could distinguish between her interpretation of the story and C. S. Lewis’. That is assuming too much. The movie shouldn’t offer a completely different story set in another time with lead characters of a different gender because children might confuse it with the real genuine version by the author.

Posted by: @narnian78

 Confusion is misunderstanding what Lewis originally wrote.  He intended the books to be set in a certain time and place and that Aslan should be male Lion.   If  a movie changes those things a child could think that Lewis wrote his books that way.

Ummm... if the same child actually reads the books, he or she won't think that at all. And even for those who don't read the books, very few people live in such a bubble that they won't encounter people (in person or online) who have read the books and who will point out the differences.

 I will not support Greta Gerwig in any way because she is not being accurate to the source material, and I would not assume that any child could distinguish between her interpretation of the story and C. S. Lewis’. That is assuming too much.

I'm still baffled as to why it's "too much" to assume a child can't tell the difference between a book and a movie, and have some basic grasp of why there might be differences between them. I certainly could, as I've explained above, by the time I was in early primary school or so. And I'm pretty sure I didn't know any other children (then or later) who couldn't grasp those things too, and make up their own mind which version they liked better.  

I went back and took another look at my (very negative) original post in this thread. Based on what I believed was going on at the time I wrote it, I still stand by that sentiment. 

However, I've seen a handful of maned lions popping up here and there on the set, and no further indication of gender-swapping Aslan. And so my opinion of the movie has been windvaning back and forth. Starting out years back I was really excited when Netflix first got ahold of the property because I didn't believe they were beholden to the "rules" of a theatrical production (isn't it ironic...) But over time that opinion became very negative when, as a Netflix subscriber, their content turned into hot garbage and I unsubscribed. Then, it shifted back to very positive when I read Ms. Gerwig's interviews and quotes after she was officially attached to the project, to very negative and pretty much writing off the film when the strong rumor of Meryl Streep being cast as Aslan came out, and now I'm swinging back again to pessimistic, but slightly hopeful. 

Interestingly enough, the change to the 1950s doesn't bother me as much as it has a lot of other people. I'm more curious about it to see HOW they change the details of the story before I get upset over it. The time change affects LWW more than MN in my opinion. Aslan's character and portrayal is still my biggest concern.

I guess that some people do not like the Walden films or the BBC series because of the changes that they made in adaptations or the BBC’s lack of technology due to the low budget.  But the shortcomings of those productions don’t seem so bad now and there is much to like in the older television series and films. I think they are more child friendly and accurate to the books than what is planned for Greta Gerwig’s films, although there is some violence in Walden’s Prince Caspian which would give it a PG rating. I would certainly recommend the BBC series and Walden films for schools and church libraries. At least they are worth your time and money, but I am not so sure about Greta Gerwig’s version of Narnia.  I think I will save my money.

Posted by: @fantasia

The time change affects LWW more than MN in my opinion.

I know we already have multiple topics about the implications of updating the time period, but could you explain why? I keep seeing fans online express this opinion and I don't get it at all. By my count, LWW only has 4 chapters (more like 2 and 3/4s, really.) that take place in England, and they take place in an ancient house in the middle of nowhere. That's a pretty timeless setting. MN has about 5 and they take place in a world capital that has changed a great deal over the decades. 

Posted by: @col-klink

but could you explain why?

Sure. 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.