The fact that they win by NOT fighting is memorable, funny, and unexpected. But if that was the whole point of the scene, I'd call it a worthless scene and wonder why Lewis put it in. All that just for a laugh? Lewis is a better writer than that.

This also could be a good way of getting the audience to start liking Eustace. He has been a brat for most of the movie, and now the audience has to see that he has changed. This scene would actually give the audience a chance to root for Eustace. And he would save the lives of all the other characters.

But if it's just a cheap excuse to throw in another action scene and make it more epic....

Ok, I agree saying 'it was whole point of the scene' is an overstatement. But come on, glumPuddle. Do you sincerely believe there's any way this change could NOT be an excuse to satisfy our desire to see two amazing mythical creatures tear each other apart on screen and draw in more young action-hungry viewers like us ? They could stick to the book or show Eustace's change of character in almost any other way, if they really wanted to. There's a million of reasons they could come up with to justify their going for the full battle. But deep down, they're just giving the public our visceral wants - or what market research and profiling says we want.

Take a look at some of the changes they made so far:

- the Castle Raid (The REAL ISSUES BEHIND IT:We need to draw in more male young viewers. Wouldn't it be cool if there was more action going on in this story? There's not enough going on. What if the Pevensies met Caspian earlier and fight Miraz somewhere? THE EXCUSE: Oh, we found this line in the book that said Reepicheep suggested an attack on Miraz's castle during a discussion).

- The Susan-Caspian kiss OR 'How to help market a medieval nerd movie to all the modern and independent teen girls drooling over Ben Barnes in the audience' (The REAL ISSUES BEHIND IT: This Ben Barnes guy could help us attract teen female viewers. C.S. Lewis is so patronizing to females! Wouldn't it be romantic if Caspian fell in love with Susan during the movie and kissed her goodbye? Filming isn't finished yet, so why not give it a try? Wouldn't it be empowering for girls if Susan became a female version of Legolas from the Lord of the Rings mixed with Hermione from Harry Potter on the next Narnia movie instead of the gentle, mother-like cautious girl she is in the book? THE EXCUSE: Susan's a teenager, she'd probably have a crush on Caspian if she were around his age and it's just sexist to assume she would ever want to sit around and feast with Aslan and Pan while the boys were fighting).

The list goes on and on. This method of making changes to the story - going for what the general public seems to want - has had very mixed results so far. Some of results ended up being very satisfying (like the castle raid). Some I wish had never happened (the Susan kiss, the waterfall), but I'm sure some of the teen girls on this forum will say otherwise.

To be fair to you, I'm against the battle mostly for philosophical reasons and respect for the author. Dude, as a 23 year-old male, I'll tell you I wish Lewis had written a huge battle involving not only the Dragon and the Serpent but all kinds of other mythical sea creatures for VTD. I wish he had described the Last Battle for Narnia in LB in all its gory detail - and that the characters wouldn't die and walk into 'heaven' (the new Narnia) by falling through an ordinary stable door, which was kind of a letdown for me. But like it or not, he didn't write things that way. He thought he could display Eustace's change of character better if he helped defeat the serpent in his human form with the others having humbly listened to Reep's wisdom, whereas before if he ever got involved - which is unlikely - he'd probably just whine around and fend for himself. The collective spirit involved and the 'mind over muscle' angle is part of what makes this sequence so memorable. By calling Lewis' sometimes simplistic, and maybe even humorous story decisions silly just because he didn't do things my own way would be a little arrogant on my part and indicate a slight lack of respect for his creation (and credentials) just as much.

Maybe a better solution to show that aspect of the story could arise if I tried to imagine the reasons Lewis didn't do it my way. But that takes time, right? It's much easier to go the easy way. As in: 'The research we did indicates some of the young action viewers are not very strongly drawn to this franchise so far. This book doesn't have so much action, but we can always take these two monsters in the story, make them fight each other and come up with an excuse so it fits the story. It will look 'epic' for the trailers!'.

A couple of explosions and predictable stories are said to be what huge box office numbers are all about - we know it's not always true, but it sounds true. If the battle is going to be well done and help draw in more viewers, I say bring it on, then. This is a movie supposed to make profit, after all.

What makes me disappointed is the scriptwriters keep on making all the easy story choices. King Kong vs. the T-Rex, Polar Bears fighting each other for Lyra on The Golden Compass, Optimus Prime vs. Megatron... it's been done countless times before. A monster trying to protect some humans from another, in some cases, redeeming the monster, as in King Kong. The Narnia books' greatest strength is their uniqueness. No two stories are alike and the series has a unique identity of its own. It seems like they've been taking their greatest advantage and throwing it out the window, by trying to make it look more like any other fantasy adventure out there. Narnia, as it's been portrayed so far, seems to be little more than a miniature version of The Lord of The Rings with some Harry Potter, Zorro, Eragon and Beowulf thrown in, if that makes any sense. I'd like to see them embrace the moments of the stories that make these books unique and give the movies their own distinct identity.

Ultimately, if they can't - or won't - be faithful to this part of the book, I'm favorable to anything that helps keep audiences happy and the movie series alive. And in spite of the controversy, I'm sure I'll enjoy seeing a dragon tear a Sea serpent apart in the end, even if I don't agree with that decision.

BTW, this is a cool thread. And yes, this post was way too long.

- the Castle Raid (The REAL ISSUES BEHIND IT:We need to draw in more male young viewers. Wouldn't it be cool if there was more action going on in this story? There's not enough going on. What if the Pevensies met Caspian earlier and fight Miraz somewhere? THE EXCUSE: Oh, we found this line in the book that said Reepicheep suggested an attack on Miraz's castle during a discussion).

In the book, Lewis tells us about several battles that happened between the Old Narnians and Miraz in a few paragraphs, including one where they try to capture Miraz and it goes very badly. For the movie, they decided to cut out all the battles except for that last one. The movie made two changes to this battle: 1) The battle takes place at Miraz' castle, 2) The Pevenseis are involved in the battle.

This battle is an essential part of Peter's arc. After this, it's the darkest point for the good guys. They realize they need to call for help (In the book, that help is the Pevensies, in the movie that help is Aslan). That is the point where Peter realizes he cannot do this without Aslan. If you take that battle out, his entire arc would make no sense. He would just mysteriously suddenly humble himself.

It's also very important thematically. This is the point in the story where it really becomes clear that this is not the Narnia from LWW. All those Narnians getting trapped behind the wall and being slaughtered.... something like that would never have happened in LWW. The magic and innocence of Narnia has been wiped out. Very sad. That's the main idea behind PC: The sadness of the old days behind gone, and the hope that they might return.

Also, just like in the book, the low point for the good guys results in "short tempers" in the army. In the movie, this was Peter and Caspian. Not very well executed, but the idea behind it was a good one.

If you take out the Castle Raid, the whole story would make no sense whatsoever. To say that it's a pointless excuse for action is to not understand the story, or the important themes behind it.

- The Susan-Caspian kiss

I hated this change. The idea behind it that Susan is struggling to let herself reattach to Narnia because she knows it won’t last (as she tells Lucy by the campfire). She ultimately learns that it is better to have loved and lost then to never have loved at all. The way they went about this was awful. To Caspian, Susan is a figure out of myth and legend, not some cute girl.

To be fair to you, I'm against the battle mostly for philosophical reasons and respect for the author. Dude, as a 23 year-old male, I'll tell you I wish Lewis had written a huge battle involving not only the Dragon and the Serpent but all kinds of other mythical sea creatures for VTD.

I cannot relate to you on this at all. Why would you want to include a pointless battle? Lewis doesn’t write scenes just because they are cool or funny or whatever. Everything serves the story or the characters. Throwing in battles just to be cool is an extremely annoying idea. Lewis is a much better writer than that.

Maybe a better solution to show that aspect of the story could arise if I tried to imagine the reasons Lewis didn't do it my way.

In the book, Eustace’ transformation occurs very early in the story. We learn a lot about Eustace as a character from the narrator. In a book, we can hear the characters thoughts. Lewis even lets us read Eustace’ journal for a while. So all the internal conflict is told that way. However…

In a movie, you usually cannot hear the characters thoughts. It’s not a very cinematic way of telling a story. So as filmmakers, they have to say ‘How can we show this VISUALLY’? I suggested months ago that they move Dragon Island to later in the story, giving them more time to develop Eustace being a brat before he changes. That’s one thing I find very encouraging about this news: It looks like they have made that change and moved the dragooning to later in the story.

So, Lewis simply tells us, as a narrator, how Eustace’ attitude changes. You can’t do that in a movie. So they had to come up with a way to do it visually. So perhaps they came up with the idea of having DragonEustace save the lives of the crew by defeating a sea-serpent. That would VISUALLY show Eustace’ newfound selflessness. It would also bond him to the crew, and the crew to him. It would also give the audience a chance to start liking Eustace. He has been a brat for most of the movie, but now we get to actually ROOT for him.

If that's what they're doing, it sounds like great adaptation. I really hope they do that.

So perhaps they came up with the idea of having DragonEustace save the lives of the crew by defeating a sea-serpent. That would VISUALLY show Eustace’ newfound selflessness. It would also bond him to the crew, and the crew to him. It would also give the audience a chance to start liking Eustace. He has been a brat for most of the movie, but now we get to actually ROOT for him.

I must confess I don't like the idea of Eustace being a dragon for longer in the story (I just don't LIKE it. ) I guess I just don't want him to be bratty for the majority of the film. I would rather a battle with the sea serpent not come at the end where Eustace has barely a chance of showing how he is changed after that (once he is turned back into a human again). (I'm saying this with the assumption that the battle would come at the end and then Eustace only be turned into a human for a short time before Aslan sends the kids back to earth.)

Eustace realizes when he turns into a dragon that he wants to help, so it would be a good way, in my opinion, of showing how he is changed. And it would be a lot more exciting than listening to a monologue of Eustace's thoughts to the other-worldly type of music. (I must say that I will have to withhold my final judgment until after I see the movie as a whole, however. )

I think it depends on the ideas of a good adaptation: one way is to say that as long as the whole plot of the story is preserved, and the other one is to make it as like the book as possible. I would say that PC did pretty good, if you think about it the first way -- the same story was still told in a different way. Everything came out to the same thing in the end, and there were parts of the book that still made it on screen. For those who think about it the second way, on the other hand, they want to see the actual story play out on screen. They may be looking forward to seeing something specific play out on screen, but it wasn't there.

Narnia, as it's been portrayed so far, seems to be little more than a miniature version of The Lord of The Rings with some Harry Potter, Zorro, Eragon and Beowulf thrown in, if that makes any sense. I'd like to see them embrace the moments of the stories that make these books unique and give the movies their own distinct identity.

I can't say how much I agree! I don't know if it was intentional but I certainly find so many similarities between certain scenes in Narnia and LOTR, especially. It is as if the filmmakers have seen what works well in the cinema, and now all they want to do is imitate it. Granted, certain things appeal and work well in the cinema, but over-use of those things is what make fans groan about cliches!

If Eustace is a dragon longer than he is in the book, then that could mess up a lot of things.....

I don't think he is a dragon longer. I just think the transformation takes place later in the story.

- The Susan-Caspian kiss

I hated this change. The idea behind it that Susan is struggling to let herself reattach to Narnia because she knows it won’t last (as she tells Lucy by the campfire). She ultimately learns that it is better to have loved and lost then to never have loved at all. The way they went about this was awful. To Caspian, Susan is a figure out of myth and legend, not some cute girl.

At least we both agree on THAT one. C.S. Lewis must have been rolling in his grave.

To be fair to you, I'm against the battle mostly for philosophical reasons and respect for the author. Dude, as a 23 year-old male, I'll tell you I wish Lewis had written a huge battle involving not only the Dragon and the Serpent but all kinds of other mythical sea creatures for VTD.

I cannot relate to you on this at all. Why would you want to include a pointless battle? Lewis doesn’t write scenes just because they are cool or funny or whatever. Everything serves the story or the characters. Throwing in battles just to be cool is an extremely annoying idea. Lewis is a much better writer than that.

Agreed. I guess I wasn't clear at all, but the point I was trying to make is, if the filmakers kept on following their own instincts turning their "gut feelings" and "child memories of the book", as they have already mentioned in interviews, instead of being true to what the book actually is, we'll just end up with another bunch of bland movies with no identity of their own based on mixed images from the collective consciousness instead of the author's - just as it happened with the last two movies.

And yes, I'll be the first one to admit I'm glad I didn't write the Narnia books. If they came from my mind, they'd probably end up being just like any other book out there. Lewis had a unique great way of writing these stories. His unusual methods of conflict resolution in the series is part of what sets it apart from other stories. Instead of having the Telmarine prince fight the Narnians, he makes him join their side. Instead of making the crew defeat the Sea Serpent in a gruesome battle, it simply gets pushed out of the ship. Instead of bringing Aslan into the warfare from the start, he feasts with Baccus, the forest creatures and the dryads. Instead of killing Rillian and taking the throne all at once, the Lady of the Green Kirtle enslaves him and tries to use him for her purposes. The gateway to heaven is a stable door. And the path into the magical kingdom of Narnia can be be just as an ordinary wardrobe, a train station, a picture, a puddle of water, a ring or a fence. Say what you will, but you can't deny he's original.

You might not be able to portray thoughts on a movie to convey a character's change, but you can indicate that inner change through dialogue, actions and more subtle ways in a movie (just like Lewis did, by making Eustace try to stab the monster before Reep had the idea that saved the ship) that wouldn't require something as drastic as changing the story structure. If you try to build upon that by using Eustace's dragon form instead of his human one, you might get a stronger moment but a much less original than the one he wrote.

As for the Castle Raid, yes, it somehow fit the story in the end, but I still think the stronger reason behind it was their needed to prove Narnia is an "all grown up" fantasy franchise to be reckoned with and thus, much more easier to market.

I am calm now. I will not panick anymore! I will have to just wait and see what is going to happen with VotDT on December 10, 2010!

Agreed. I guess I wasn't clear at all, but the point I was trying to make is, if the filmakers kept on following their own instincts turning their "gut feelings" and "child memories of the book", as they have already mentioned in interviews, instead of being true to what the book actually is, we'll just end up with another bunch of bland movies with no identity of their own based on mixed images from the collective consciousness instead of the author's - just as it happened with the last two movies.

This is the problem with turning the Narnia books into films. They CAN'T just stick to the books. THAT would be bland. C.S. Lewis writes in a way that doesn't give all the details. Instead of telling you what something looked like, he often tells you what it felt like to look at it. The only way to directly translate that to screen would be to have a character hold up a sign that said "it made them feel happy." The filmmakers HAVE to inject their own imagination, otherwise there would be no movie to speak of.

A good example of Lewis writing this way is when the kids hear Aslan's name for the first time. Lewis spends half a page describing what each character felt. For the movie, they should have found some way to show that visually (which would have meant making some significant changes). But instead, they just show the characters' faces. That was an example or very poor adaptation. They just threw the book on the screen instead of bringing their own imagination to it. The goal is to make a VISUAL interpretation of the book.

I think the main reason LWW and PC were not very memorable films is that Andrew Adamson just isn't that great of a director. He had some really great ideas, but wasn't able to execute them.

This is the problem with turning the Narnia books into films. They CAN'T just stick to the books. THAT would be bland. C.S. Lewis writes in a way that doesn't give all the details. Instead of telling you what something looked like, he often tells you what it felt like to look at it.

^^ that is SO true! and it has been proven in the last two movies, mostly PC!
I have seen so many movies that were made from books that had to change lots of things to make them work on screen.....so why should Narnia be any different?

just my two cents.....

For the record, that's what I love so much about the way Lewis writes fiction. He knows how to give you just enough information to make you feel the right emotion. And he withholds enough information to let you fill in the blanks for yourself.

It's amazing in the book. But it can't work in a movie. Films is just not able to do that.

I don't know if this has come up in the thread or not, but in an early story on Gumpas's character, when they were still filming in August or something, the news post acted like Caspian vs Gumpas would take place near the end of the movie... Does this have anything to do with what Apted mentioned in the Empire article?

Gumpas at the end of the movie? what????? that would REALLY change the story.....

Um, I don't remember reading that at all. Do you have a link 220? Or at least remember where it might have been mentioned?

ETA: Is this the article you're talking about 220? It's about the only thing I can find that has a line like what you're describing....

“Of course the heroes get caught up in it and Gumpas, being the baddie, gets his just desserts in the end. It’s a small role, but key to the story line.”

If this is what you're talking about, I'm 99% sure that he means the end of the Gumpas storyline, not the end of the movie. The production has referred to the Lone Islands as being the first place they go in the movie, I'm pretty sure.

fantasia: last night, I tried looking for the article I was thinking of and only came up with what you posted. So maybe I read it wrong or was confused...