Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

Peter having some sort of leadership and being protective, as being the oldest of the four; Susan being motherly, especially around Edmund, and very gentle; Edmund as going from a spiteful brother, especially to Lucy and jealous of Peter's leadership to being just and supporting Lucy; Lucy as an innocent child, curious, and adventurous.

Isn't that just how they're always portrayed?  

In the past, I've been dismissive of using Greta Gerwig's Little Women as an indication of her Narnia adaptations since, to my way of thinking, LW fits in better with her other movies than the Narnia books do. But she's recently stated that they and their author have had a major impact on her life in a positive way, which she's also said about Little Women and Louisa May Alcott, so maybe that movie is a good indicator. (I still can't quite convince myself of this but I'm trying to do so.) 

I admire Gerwig's Little Women adaptation for focusing on aspects of the book's characters which weren't developed in previous cinematic takes and combatting misconceptions of them which were common even among the fandom. For example, every other movie ends Meg's character arc halfway through the story with her giving up her dreams of wealth and marrying a poor man. Gerwig's is the only movie to focus on her life afterwards and how she handles the aftermath of that decision. The other movies are also mainly interested in Amy as a comic relief character. Gerwig's is the only one to really develop the dramatic side of her character. Her's is also the only one to delve into the vulnerable side of the girls' mother. Most adaptations just focus on her strength, which is certainly reasonable, but I'd argue her human weaknesses were always there in the book. 

(Of course, the flipside of that is that this version of Little Women didn't have as much time or as many good ideas for developing the character of Beth as others did. You can't have everything, I guess.) 

So that got me thinking, what are common misconceptions of the Pevensies that a new adaptation could counteract? The only one I can think of is the idea that Susan is really interested in guys. The books describe her as attractive to them but there's not really any indication that she's going after anyone. People just assume she's a flirt because in The Last Battle, she's described as being obsessed with nylons and lipstick but that's an assumption. 

Posted by: @col-klink

So that got me thinking, what are common misconceptions of the Pevensies that a new adaptation could counteract? The only one I can think of is the idea that Susan is really interested in guys. The books describe her as attractive to them but there's not really any indication that she's going after anyone. People just assume she's a flirt because in The Last Battle, she's described as being obsessed with nylons and lipstick but that's an assumption. 

That's possible, but I never thought of her as a flirt. She simply just lost interest in Narnia, thinking it's just for kids. I do not think she was going after anyone (even though she is courted during her reign as Queen of Narnia, which becomes a major conflict in HHB).

I would prefer a tad younger than they were in the Walden Media films. I also don't think that the films should give Edmund some victimization backstory as to why he turns bad. 

@jewel 

Right, though I think Georgie Henley was the right age when she played Lucy in the Walden's LWW.

As for the new franchise, they should at least look at the Timeline for a source of inspiration for age. According to the Timeline, Peter is 13, Susan is 12, Edmund is 10, and Lucy is 8. Though a film or series don't necessarily have to match the ages in the Timeline. Though at least they should get it pretty close.

Plus, I'm not too worried about their hair colors. CS Lewis never specified Peter and Edmund's anyways, though the adaptations had depicted them in various colors. CS Lewis described Susan with black hair and Lucy with blond hair (though the Pauline Baynes illustrations could never get Lucy's hair color right). Though I'm not too worried about that. I think what will really count if they are portrayed right.

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

Peter having some sort of leadership and being protective, as being the oldest of the four; Susan being motherly, especially around Edmund, and very gentle; Edmund as going from a spiteful brother, especially to Lucy and jealous of Peter's leadership to being just and supporting Lucy; Lucy as an innocent child, curious, and adventurous.

Isn't that how they are portrayed in the Adam adaptations? Although Peter was adapted to be a bit of an idiot on PC, he does not see it necessary to reboot LWW or PC. The way they are portrayed in both adaptations is 85% good. 

@jewel I agree with you about going younger than the Walden Media films to around the 8, 10, 12 & 13 ages.  However, I'm also keen to see what a grittier & more adult version of the story would look like rather than a typical schmaltzy kids movie.  I might be alone in wanting that 🤣 

Whilst i can see the temptation to want to cast  younger children in the roles who are much closer in age to their book counterparts, I feel casting a few years older ultimately allows you to get stronger performances.

Unless you manage to find four absolutely exceptional, once-in-a-generation talents, who are just absolutely naturally gifted performers, then I think you can work on the general rule of thumb that child actors will get progressively better at their craft as they get older.

Not only that, but I imagine it's also very hard to judge exactly how well they will grow and develop in their acting abilities as they get older. For example, if you wanted to be casting an 8 year old on screen, you might need to start the casting process when they are 6, and I can imagine that dealing with a 6 year old in any professional scenario is difficult, never mind trying to work out whether they will develop into a brilliant actor by the time they are 12 and you are shooting your third or fourth movie in the franchise.

Therefore, once you throw in all the other complications associated with casting very young children (schooling, union rules, labour laws, etc) I am more than open to skewing a little bit older with the ages if it helps the production process and allows for a stronger performance on screen.

It saddens me to say this since I'd like the characters to look the same age as they are in the book, but I have to agree with Icarus. The practical problems would ultimately outweigh the benefits. FWIW though having the actors be older than the characters doesn't necessarily mean the characters are supposed to be older. Of course, having actors be different ages from the characters doesn't work as well in movies and television as in theater. But I've seen young adults, for example, playing teenagers without it ruining things. I think the trick is to make sure all the other kid characters, like the extras, are played by older actors. If you have "real" kids on the screen at the same time as the "fake" kids that breaks the illusion. 

I would say it would be hard to get child actors for the Pevensies, especially if their ages were to match up with the books. There is the technology of de-aging if they had older kids doing it. Though that would look kind of odd if they went that route.

So child actors would be still be idea. As long as they could get the characters of the Pevensies right, it should count for something.

Posted by: @col-klink

It saddens me to say this since I'd like the characters to look the same age as they are in the book, but I have to agree with Icarus. The practical problems would ultimately outweigh the benefits. FWIW though having the actors be older than the characters doesn't necessarily mean the characters are supposed to be older.

I was just thinking this myself. If they can get good actors who are slightly older than the characters are supposed to be, but can convincingly look and act younger, that's probably the best idea. For example, Judy Garland's performance as Dorothy in the 1939 film of The Wizard of Oz was an absolute classic — she was 17 at the time, but playing a character who is supposed to be probably only about 10 or so (I don't think we're ever told Dorothy's exact age in the original book, but it's many years since I last read it). And yet Garland did a beautiful job of it, most critics would say. Whereas that role was originally offered to Shirley Temple, who was 11 at the time — much more like the age that the actual character is meant to be — but I think most fans of classic movies would say she probably wouldn't have played Dorothy nearly as believably! Or at least, she would have given such a different interpretation to the role that the whole film would have had a very different tone to it.

That's perhaps an extreme example, and I don't think casting older teenagers as the Pevensies would work well, but it's possible that, say, a 12- or 13-year-old girl might be able to play 8-year-old Lucy believably (that's the age she is in LWW, according to Lewis's later timeline), if she's small for her age and can act well. 

Posted by: @courtenay

I was just thinking this myself. If they can get good actors who are slightly older than the characters are supposed to be, but can convincingly look and act younger, that's probably the best idea. For example, Judy Garland's performance as Dorothy in the 1939 film of The Wizard of Oz was an absolute classic — she was 17 at the time, but playing a character who is supposed to be probably only about 10 or so (I don't think we're ever told Dorothy's exact age in the original book, but it's many years since I last read it). And yet Garland did a beautiful job of it, most critics would say. Whereas that role was originally offered to Shirley Temple, who was 11 at the time — much more like the age that the actual character is meant to be — but I think most fans of classic movies would say she probably wouldn't have played Dorothy nearly as believably! Or at least, she would have given such a different interpretation to the role that the whole film would have had a very different tone to it.

That's perhaps an extreme example, and I don't think casting older teenagers as the Pevensies would work well, but it's possible that, say, a 12- or 13-year-old girl might be able to play 8-year-old Lucy believably (that's the age she is in LWW, according to Lewis's later timeline), if she's small for her age and can act well. 

Anything is possible. I think Peter Jackson was able to get away with aging Frodo down in his Lord of the Rings Trilogy, who's actually 50 when he sets out on his adventure in his 50's. Even Prince Theodred was about 40 when he was killed in an ambush in the book, yet he was aged down to 20's or 30's in the film.

I think they could get away with a 9-10 year old playing Lucy, especially if the actress look as she's eight years old. Even a 11-12 year old could possibly be Edmund. I know a lot of us would like the ages of the children in the films to match up with the ages they are according to the Timeline, but they don't have to a 100%. CS Lewis didn't plan out the series in advanced anyways.

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

I think they could get away with a 9-10 year old playing Lucy, especially if the actress look as she's eight years old. Even a 11-12 year old could possibly be Edmund. I know a lot of us would like the ages of the children in the films to match up with the ages they are according to the Timeline, but they don't have to a 100%. CS Lewis didn't plan out the series in advanced anyways.

Edmund is 10 in LWW, according to the timeline, although there's a discrepancy there with the actual book, which tells us there's only a year's difference in age between him and Lucy. Regardless, we have a general idea of the ages Lewis thought of them as being, but the fact that he never mentions their exact ages in the books themselves suggests he wasn't intending for readers to focus to much on that anyway!

It's probably more important that the new productions find actors who can portray those characters believably and appealingly, whether or not they're the exact same age that the children in the books supposedly are. That goes for any screen adaptation of any book, really. Aging Frodo down in LOTR wasn't a bad choice in itself (Hobbits age more slowly than humans, anyway, as they're not considered adults until they're in their 30s), but the film also changed his character to be a lot less active and openly courageous than he is in the book. One of the few drawbacks of what was largely a brilliant and mostly faithful adaptation!! (I just remember a send-up of the LOTR movies in some satirical magazine years ago that had Frodo, in the midst of danger, staring at the viewer with a haunted look in his eyes and saying something like "All I know is that sitting here with this look on my face has somehow saved my life 15 times so far!" )