@fantasia Thanks for the response. It sounds like you're more worried about plot implications and I'm more worried about iconic imagery. Both The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and The Magician's Nephew have iconic imagery in the "this world" sections of the plots, but MN has more that depends upon time period IMO. 

BTW, why would it drive you crazy if they made Digory a relative of the Pevensies? That change doesn't sound so crazy to me by Hollywood standards.  

Sorry, just reposting this, as there was a glitch as it was going through the first time, and now I've read your new post, @fantasia, it's a response to your points as well. (I've been having laptop troubles as well as website problems lately and I always save a copy of what I write here before posting!) 

@col-klink Must say I agree there. LWW has already been adapted twice (1967 and 1979) with an updated time period setting and it didn't have any major effect on the story itself. The entire concept that LWW depends on the WW2 setting is an interpretation cooked up by more recent adaptations and fans of the same.

How can we tell? Take the book itself, remove the one reference to the war in the second sentence, and if you read the rest with no knowledge of the period it's set in, what evidence do you have that it's a wartime setting? Absolutely none. It could be just about any decade in the 20th century, except maybe the 1990s. We really are not given enough details of the outside world, beyond the Professor's old house, to anchor it in any exact time period. 

Whereas in MN, Lewis invests a LOT more in the this-world setting. He makes a big deal of it in the first paragraph — locating the time period precisely by name-dropping Sherlock Holmes and the Bastables (from Edith Nesbit's The Treasure Seekers) — and going on to describe all sorts of little details throughout the chapters that are set in London. Things like how "everyone had lots of servants in those days", or the fancy clothes Uncle Andrew dresses up in when he's trying to impress Jadis, or all the excitement of the street scene with the smashed hansom cab and the "damaged" policeman and Uncle Andrew's top hat getting jammed over his head and all the various local Londoners calling out their opinions of Jadis and of the whole situation... Basically, you get the impression that Lewis is remembering snippets from his own childhood (though that was in Belfast, not London, but many of the details of clothes and social customs and so on would have been similar) and that he's having a huge amount of fun bringing these scenes to life as part of this story.

So no, I don't agree that the time period change will affect LWW (and the subsequent stories) more than it does MN. Quite the opposite, simply because Lewis makes a far greater deal of the specific period setting in MN (London, 1900) than he does in any of the other books at all. Changing that period setting for MN will definitely have an impact on the atmosphere of much of the first half of the story. Whether that will make it an interesting and compelling new "take" on the story, or else just ruin it entirely, remains to be seen. 

Posted by: @col-klink

It sounds like you're more worried about plot implications and I'm more worried about iconic imagery.

Yes on both points. You and @Courtenay both, and that's fine. I know I'm very much in the minority. But I think further discussion should probably move back to the 1950s thread.  

Posted by: @courtenay

I've been having laptop troubles as well as website problems lately and I always save a copy of what I write here before posting!

But to continue the off-topic conversation on this thread  I want to respond to this. The latest round to the big news has increased visitors to the forum, which has increased the load on the server. And the server isn't handling it well, as you've clearly noticed. The powers-that-be are going to try a fix sometime this week or weekend and when that happens the forum will suddenly change to read-only mode as they move it to a bigger and better server. HOPEFULLY everything will go well, but in the meantime you're wise to save your posts. 

I was wondering if some people would watch all three Walden films in order to evaluate them. Or would it be the same thing as contributing your money towards something that you may disagree with such as funding Greta Gerwig’s movies when you don’t like what she is doing with Narnia?  It is true that a few dollars won’t make much difference, but you may feel a little hypocritical supporting her movies. Actually, I don’t see why someone would want to quit after watching the first Walden film since all three of the films have something of the books’ spirit in them to make them worthwhile watching.  It is true that they are far from perfect, but they may turn out to be more faithful adaptations than what Greta Gerwig is planning.

I'm feeling disappointed right now. 

Don't get me wrong. The casting and the production design look promising (except for Jadis's costume and that might get replaced by CGI.) And it's heartening to see they're foreshadowing a maned lion and that despite the time period change, Strawberry will still be in the movie. But there are so many details that are different from the book. Not only is the story set in the 50s but if the audition scene really is going to reflect the final movie, Digory and Polly are going to meet when they find something magical lying in the street and they're going to chase a fox through London at some point (possibly a fox that will go to Narnia and gain the ability of speech like Strawberry?) and Digory is going to be sitting on Strawberry (or some other horse?) with Jadis. OK, I don't mind that one as much. The scene could still be true to the overall spirit of its equivalent in the book. Actually, any one of those things by itself wouldn't be so bad but all of them have a cumulative effect that make it feel like this really won't be that faithful of an adaptation. 

I was hoping that with a director/screenwriter who talked about being a big fan of the book since childhood, there would be a lot of fun little details from the book for fans. But so far, it's only the broad plot elements that are from the book. Every little detail we see is being changed. It's true that I had a hard time believing Gerwig's comments about being a fan of the books but it's not like I didn't believe her at all. I mean, she referenced the Wood Between the Worlds. Surely, that's something that only a genuine fan would do. Maybe it means that the stuff in the Wood, Narnia and Charn will be very true to the books and not so much the London stuff. But I don't see why the parts of the story that take place in London need to be greatly changed to work in a movie. 

If it sounds like I'm overreacting, keep in mind that for me, The Magician's Nephew is an A-list Narnia book whereas for some other fans, who prefer The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, it might be more of a B-list Narnia book. So to me, these changes feel like replacing Turkish Delight with cheeseburgers. 

I hate to say this but even my worries about Aslan haven't been completely removed by the foreshadowing-filled wall painting. It seems like at this point in her career, Greta Gerwig is increasingly interested in making her movies meta, like the audience is supposed to be very aware of them as movies and their relation to the outside world. (Not saying there's anything wrong with that BTW. Meta-ness can be fun.) It wouldn't surprise me if she wanted viewers to contrast the "traditional" portrayal of Aslan with the one in her adaptation and the foreshadowing were misdirection. I'm still somewhat hopeful the foreshadowing isn't misdirection though. Since the idea of making Aslan a lioness sounds so much like something from a parody, it also wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing were a misunderstanding. 

It certainly looks as if Greta Gerwig’s view of Narnia is very different from C.  S. Lewis’s. I can understand that some changes are necessary to adapt a book to the screen, but I wonder if she is going to change the actual plot of the story, and how much she will alter it. It would not surprise me if more were changed besides Aslan’s gender and the time setting. Or will she leave the plot mostly intact with moving certain events to different times like Peter Jackson moved the death of Boromir in The Lord of the Rings? I think the old saying holds true, “If it isn’t broken don’t fix it”.  I have decided to wait for reviews of the production to find out, although I still am reluctant to have a Netflix subscription and spend a few dollars to see it.  I have always been skeptical about Netflix’s reputation for quality.

Shout-out for the Talking Beasts team on a great new podcast episode!   I'm looking forward to the next one.

Like a few others in the comments under it, I was a bit disappointed that while they mentioned the Meryl Streep rumour a few times, they didn't go into that poster featuring a very prominent maned lion, which of course has got hopes rising that this is what Aslan will look like. Or is it a sort of bait-and-switch teaser so that we think Aslan will be male, until — surprise — she actually appears?? (The presenters did raise the possibility of Aslan being outwardly male but with Streep providing the voice, which one of the guys — I forget who, sorry — thought was still the most likely, but there wasn't any direct discussion of the poster and what it may signify.)

The main topic of the podcast was, of course, the switch to a 1955 setting and how that may affect the atmosphere of the film itself, and of course the fact that it means LWW and the rest of the series will be set in modern(ish) times — possibly 1995 if they stick to the canonical length of time between the action of MN and LWW, possibly later than that, maybe even the 2020s. We've discussed those things in forum threads as well.

I just wanted, though, to expand on something that comes up in the podcast that has got me thinking, and this does have to do with my "overall feeling about Netflix Narnia", which is why I'm posting it here. It's the question of what makes for a "faithful" adaptation. Is it doing absolutely everything "by the book", or is there more to it than that?

Thinking about it, I reckon I'd rather have an adaptation that gets the "feel" of the book right, even if important details are changed, than one that sticks really closely to the original plot but somehow loses the spirit of it. Here are a couple of examples.

I know I've mentioned many times before that I was crashingly disappointed with the 2005 movie of LWW and still can't bear to sit through it, and this is why. It's visually beautiful, the acting is excellent in most cases, and it sticks closely to the plot of the original book, with only a few changes that don't have a big impact on the overall story. But so much of the dialogue was changed that it doesn't come across at all like what Lewis actually wrote, and somehow the whole atmosphere of it — especially in the scenes with Aslan — just never really feels like Narnia to me.

(I should add it's not that I'm a purist for whom no adaptation is ever good enough. I absolutely loved Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy just a few years earlier — even though of course there were some changes from the books and favourite bits that were left out, I felt he got the vast majority of things spot on and I can watch those films any time and happily accept them as a brilliant imagining of Middle-earth. That made me all the more disappointed when the Walden movie of LWW just didn't come anywhere near the same level, for me at least.)

On the other hand, there's Disney's 2016 CGI version of The Jungle Book. Now most of the recent remakes of Disney's classic animated movies have been... not so good, for various reasons, but this one really hit the spot for me. The 1960s animated version of The Jungle Book is fun if you like cutesy cartoons, but it is SO far away from the atmosphere of the original stories by Rudyard Kipling that "based on" or even "inspired by" are barely accurate terms. But when they remade it with a combination of live action and (mainly) CGI, they didn't re-do the 1960s version frame for frame at all — they took a fresh approach and created something completely different. And while it doesn't follow the original Kipling stories ultra-closely — Shere Khan's death in this film is quite different and more dramatic, Mowgli doesn't return to live with humans at the end as he does in the books and in the first Disney version, and Baloo and Kaa retain the changes Disney made (a bumbling oaf and a sinister predator respectively, instead of the wise mentors to Mowgli that they both are in the books) — I felt it really does capture the spirit of what Kipling wrote, quite brilliantly, even with those changes.

So while I'm still wary about all these changes that Greta Gerwig seems to be making, not only to the period setting of MN but also to the action (from what we've seen so far) — and, like the Talking Beasts presenters, I'm wondering why she's decided to make these changes in the first place — I'm still holding out the hope that the end result could be a film that is different from the original book, but to me still feels the way Narnia (and especially Aslan) ought to feel.

That's definitely still possible, even if I'm not so sure it's likely, and so that's what I'm holding out to see.

My last post in this thread was pretty doomy and gloomy, so I thought I'd mention some hopeful things. My biggest complaint so far is that (except for Jadis's rampage through the streets) all of the scenes we've heard about are scenes that aren't from the book. But most of the book's scenes set in London are indoor scenes and we're less likely to get set photos of those. It could be that they're filming a lot of scenes from the book and we're just not hearing about them.

Also, even if I end up disliking this Magician's Nephew, I'm still holding out hope for The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Like I mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I'm more open to taking artistic license with that book since there have already been a number of faithful adaptations. I can kind of see the appeal of changing the time period for that story. Only kind of, mind you but still.  

Posted by: @col-klink

My biggest complaint so far is that (except for Jadis's rampage through the streets) all of the scenes we've heard about are scenes that aren't from the book. 

To be fair, the majority of the outdoor shots we've seen so far seem to come from just two scenes - the horse rampage which you mention, and what appears to be an extended sequence of Digory making his way home from School (which I think might form the opening title sequence given how long it appears to be) which sure, technically is not in the book, but feels like a perfectly valid way to establish Digory's social context from the book. Even if we are arguing that MN is set in the summer holidays, the easiest way to establish that fact visually is to start with the last day of school.

All the other little scenes we've seen then, which we have almost no context or detail for, mostly seem to revolve around children playing in various urban locations - but again only one of these is confirmed to actually involve Digory and Polly so far.

I do agree with your assertion that the majority of the books scenes take place indoors (or in other worlds) therefore we really don't have a lot of go on, even if we have admittedly seen a lot of set photos from these two sequences so far.

@col-klink yes, you're right. Good point.

It's late summer in England and outdoor shots have to be done now. Indoor scenes and most of the Narnia filming will be done on set. 

It's been a couple months since I last posted – my apologies! Many thanks to the NarniaWeb news team for all of their reports on The Magician's Nephew filming. I've been checking the site every day – just haven't had much time to actually post. That being said, I'm having lots of feelings about all of the production updates...

All of my recent posts were very positive and optimistic about this production. I'm excited to see an adaptation of one of the Chronicles we haven't seen yet. I love the production team. Even the Meryl Streep rumors weren't phasing me too much – probably because her involvement hasn't been confirmed yet.

Unfortunately, my optimism and positivity have been waning... I'm a very visual person, so seeing the behind-the-scenes photos from filming is having more of an impact on me than the rumors we've heard. Everything we're actually seeing is surprising me! The 1950s setting... Jadis' costume... These are interpretations I suppose I wasn't prepared for. I need to remind myself that we're seeing unfinished work. I'm just very confused by Jadis' silver, sci-fi, go-go boots costume. I'll be able to accept the 1950s setting for The Magician's Nephew – there's still a vintage, period piece element there. But having The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in the 1990s is not something I'm super thrilled about (I know we can now have 1990s period pieces, but it still feels somewhat contemporary to me).

Anyway... I'm still holding onto hope that Greta Gerwig will create a well-written and visually-stunning film. It's just not going to be what I expected. I love her previous work and I know she's taking her art seriously. As a Narnia fan, I was hoping for a faithful adaptation. If I want to enjoy this experience, I think I need to start changing my mindset – to prepare for an adaptation that is Gerwig's personal interpretation of the book.

(I do enjoy seeing the clever advertisements incorporated into the production design! "A New World, A New Home!" housing development with a lion, "Bring Your World to Life" paint... I swear I saw a video with one of the red double-decker buses having a coffee ad referencing snow, but I can't seem to find it now... These Easter Eggs are appreciated!)

Posted by: @silverchair

But having The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in the 1990s is not something I'm super thrilled about

Welcome back Silverchair! Good to see you again.

I just want to point out real fast that while we're busy shifting time periods around from the books, there's no hard fast rule that states LWW must take place 40 years after MN. All that's needed is for Digory to be an adult professor. He doesn't have to be an old one. 

@fantasia – That's a really great point that I hadn't considered. We could potentially see something in the late-1960s/early-1970s. I'm also trying to remind myself that not a ton of time is spent in our world during the remaining books. As soon as the humans change into Narnian clothes, I'd be less distracted by clothes that are somewhat contemporary.

If Greta Gerwig really is a big fan of the 1979 LWW cartoon and wanted to pay homage to that with her own LWW adaptation, then that would be a 24 year time jump.

Digory would then be in his mid 30s, reasonably old enough to be a university lecturer of some sort.

https://www.narniaweb.com/2025/04/greta-gerwig-loved-animated-narnia-movie/

I am nervous about the Netflix adaptions (though, to be honest I think they have done a lot to earn our trust and I should not be as nervous as I am).

When Gretta Gerwig was appointed to direct the first two movies, I was concerned that she would not respect the source material and instead create a ‘modern interpretation’ of the material.  Gretta showed in a couple of interviews that she really did respect the Narnian Chronicles.

For a while I was nervous that Netflix seemed to be secretive about which novel they were adapting.  But a number of people involved in the project have confirmed that the movie is going to be based on The Magician’s Nephew and there does not seem to be any secrecy involved.

The rumor about Meryl Streep and a gender-swapped Aslan made me really worried and looked like it may be confirming the worse.  I remember agreeing when people said that we need to see a picture of a gloriously maned lion to set our fears at rest – or some confirmation that Aslan will retain his mane and be the same character as we have always loved.  One of the first things pictured in the set footage was the fully maned lion with the logo “Coming soon … A new world, a new home!”  This is as close as Netflix could get to saying “Don’t worry, Aslan will not be gender-swapped.”

But when those photos came, they also revealed that this movie will be set in the 1950s instead of the 1900s. My immediate reaction was ‘oh no!  They are going to update the books to introduce modern themes to the stories.”  The change in era does not necessitate changing the stories in any significant way.

Recently, the shots that show Jadis using magic in London and Digory riding on the horse with her have again left me worried.  I think the magic makes some sense though: Emma Mackey is about 5ft 7in (which is admittedly taller than the average 5ft 4in for Caucasian women), but she is not as large as Jadis. I suspect it will be difficult to make it look realistic to show her having super-human strength as per Jadis in the book.  My impression in the book is that Jadis is larger than your average person and that she is proportionately more muscular, thus she can throw Aunt Letty without much difficulty.  Though the book only mentions that she is tall (not proportionately larger).

The last figure of all was the most interesting—a woman even more richly dressed than the others, very tall (but every figure in that room was taller than the people of our world), with a look of such fierceness and pride that it took your breath away.

When she stood up they realized that she was even taller than they had thought.

Digory suddenly remembered that Uncle Andrew had used exactly the same words. But they sounded much grander when Queen Jadis said them; perhaps because Uncle Andrew was not seven feet tall and dazzlingly beautiful.

There was no doubt that the Witch had got over her faintness; and now that one saw her in our own world, with ordinary things around her, she fairly took one’s breath away. In Charn she had been alarming enough: in London, she was terrifying. For one thing, they had not realized till now how very big she was. “Hardly human” was what Digory thought when he looked at her; and he may have been right, for some say there is giantish blood in the royal family of Charn. But even her height was nothing compared with her beauty, her fierceness, and her wildness.

If my image of Jadis is accurate, the film makers would probably need to use a mixture of green screens and forced perspective to make her larger than everyone else.  I am not sure anyone really cares about Jadis being taller than everyone else and hence she can be cast at a more normal height.  As such, I think magic may be needed to make her superhuman feats on screen plausible.

I am still concerned about why is Digory riding on the horse with Jadis, but given the film makers have been more faithful than I gave them credit for in the other areas, maybe it would be better to give them the benefit of the doubt until there is more information.