One of the biggest concerns fans, including myself, have had about Narnia movie adaptations is the adding of dumb or pointless action scenes. I remember back when it looked like Walden Media might adapt The Magician's Nephew, there was a thread in this forum titled They Will Ruin MN If They Add Action Scenes. 
But I recently had a revelation about the issue, which is why I'm starting this thread, but there's something I'd like to say first.
Some have suggested that we don't have to worry about future Narnia movies adding action scenes (not the ones in the near future anyway) because the director/screenwriter is known for making dialogue-driven down-to-earth person dramas. I am not entirely convinced of this because (a) her last movie featured affectionate parodies of many famous films and some of them were action movies, so she's clearly capable of enjoying them, and (b) her last movie was also something a stylistic departure for her. I'm guessing she's entering an experimental phase, and I can see her wanting to try her hand at an action movie. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Greta Gerwig's Narnia movies never get made just as David Magee's Silver Chair movie and Matthew Aldrich's Narnia series never got made. But let's turn to less depressing matters.
In the past, I've definitely fretted over the added action scenes in Narnia adaptations. In fact, I've been doing so ever since the 2005 LWW movie. But lately I've had a revelation. I realized I don't 100% hate the idea of action scenes in Narnia movies. I just 50% hate it.
One of the things that made me realize this is that I rewatched the 2008 Prince Caspian movie recently and I loved Reepicheep's introductory scene, which takes something that wasn't an action scene in the book and makes it one. It still feels in the spirit of how C. S. Lewis depicted Reepicheep to me. (That doesn't mean I love every action scene in Walden Media's Narnia movies, just some of them. I'm doing a long series about those films on my blog, so I don't feel like getting into them here. 
)
Another thing was I read An Experiment in Criticism by C. S. Lewis, and this quote jumped out at me. In it, Lewis was partly defending the "unliterary" who just read books for the exciting plots and wish fulfillment. (I'm sorry this quote is full of literary allusions, making it hard to parse.)
Let us be quite clear that the unliterary are unliterary not because they enjoy stories in these ways, but because they enjoy them in no other. Not what they have but what they lack cuts them off from the fulness of literary experience. These things ought they to have done and not left others undone. For all these enjoyments are shared by good readers reading good books. We hold our breath with anxiety while the Cyclops gropes over the ram that bears Odysseus, while we wonder how Phèdre (and Hippolyte) will react to the unexpected return of Thésée, or how the disgrace of the Bennet family will affect Darcy’s love for Elizabeth. Our inquisitiveness is strongly excited by the first part of The Confessions of a Justified Sinner or the change in General Tilney’s behaviour. We long to discover Pip’s unknown benefactor in Great Expectations. In Spenser’s House of Busirane every stanza whets our curiosity. As for the vicarious enjoyment of imagined happiness, the mere existence of the Pastoral gives it a respectable place in literature. And elsewhere too, though we do not demand a happy ending to every story, yet when such an ending occurs and is fitting and well executed, we certainly enjoy the happiness of the characters. We are even prepared to enjoy vicariously the fulfilment of utterly impossible wishes, as in the statue scene from the Winter’s Tale; for what wish is so impossible as the wish that the dead to whom we have been cruel and unjust should live again and forgive us and ‘all be as before’? Those who seek only vicarious happiness in their reading are unliterary; but those who pretend that it can never be an ingredient in good reading are wrong.
Now I know Lewis went on record as detesting how filmmakers added action scenes to movie versions of King Solomon's Mines by H. Rider Haggard (someone shared a great quote from him about it elsewhere on this forum), so I feel dirty using his own arguments against him, 
but I feel like this quote could apply to movies too. Great movies, including Narnia movies, should not just be about action scenes. But there's no reason great action scenes can't be part of a great movie. When fans, such as myself, have turned up our noses at the idea of action scenes in adaptations, we may have been guilty of snobbery and elitism.
But the biggest thing that made me soften my stance on action scenes in Narnia has been the realization that there already are action scenes, even random action scenes, in the books. For example, there's the bear attack in Prince Caspian, the sea serpent attack in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the giants hurling boulders in The Silver Chair and the two lion chases in The Horse and his Boy. And if you take the time to analyze the placement of those scenes, mainly the bear and the sea serpent, you'll notice that they strategically occur at points in the narrative when not much is happening, and Lewis needs to do something to keep readers' interest-just like action scenes in a movie. We're not talking about Jane Austen books here.
That doesn't mean I think we should unquestioningly accept the addition of action scenes in Narnia. I agree that adding action scenes to The Magicians Nephew is a horrible idea because it goes against the spirit of that particular Narnia book. But I think adding action to The Horse and his Boy's story would be perfectly acceptable. (Let's say when Lasaraleen is taking the disguised Aravis to the Tisroc's palace. I'd be open to them bumping into Aravis's father and the viewers holding their breath over whether he'll recognize her or whether Lasaraleen will stupidly spill the beans. Of course, that'd be more of a suspense scene than an action scene. Oh well.) I have mixed feelings about adding action to The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I think action scenes in the first half or so would be acceptable, but I know the filmmakers would want to add them to the dreamy feeling final third and they'd be totally wrong there!
Of course, while I don't think action scenes per se are entirely contrary to the spirit of the books, the over-the-top-ness of modern-day action movies gives me a headache! (I blame the Pirates of the Caribbean series for the trend.) So, I guess I don't necessarily mind some Narnia movies being action movies. I just wish they didn't have to involve giant explosions and collapsing cliffs and whatnot.
There's more I have to say but I'll say it later since this post is already so lengthy. Here's the TLDR summary: Action scenes can be OK, even good additions the stories in theory but in practice, they tend to be annoying.
This topic was modified 4 months ago 3 times by Col Klink
For better or worse-for who knows what may unfold from a chrysalis?-hope was left behind.
-The God Beneath the Sea by Leon Garfield & Edward Blishen check out my new blog!
Topic starter
Posted : August 19, 2024 10:36 pm
But there's no reason great action scenes can't be part of a great movie. When fans, such as myself, have turned up our noses at the idea of action scenes in adaptations, we may have been guilty of snobbery and elitism.
I agree that is easy to be overly dismissive of Action Scenes in movies and to look down on them. However i do think that (as with everything in cinema) there is a very broad spectrum of action scene quality, and maybe the Walden Narnia movies didn't quite get it right every time?
If I were to, off the top of my head, try and come up with a general framework for Action Scene quality, it would probably come down to two or maybe three different factors - Storytelling, Spectacle, and/or Authenticity.
In terms of storytelling, at the top end of the spectrum you have your "organic" Action Scenes, which are intrinsic components of how the story is told, and in which the narrative is actively communicated through action, and/or in which the character development and growth is shown via kinetic activity (in this category I might have things like Casino Royale, Lord of the Rings, or most of the Christopher Nolan movies),
At the bottom end of the storytelling spectrum however you have movies in which the story will grind to a halt to deliver some tedious exposition dump, and will then completely put the storytelling on pause for about 10 minutes to deliver some mindless action scene, before resuming the narrative afterwards (most of the Transformers movies, and some of the more recent Marvel movies would end up in this category).
In terms of spectacle, there are some movies which manage to get away with having action scenes which don't necessarily service the plot, simply because they deliver on amazing visual spectacle. I'm thinking here about films with visuals of the highest aesthetic quality which just delight the senses regardless or whether it actually means anything to the story (in this category I might have things like Mad Max Fury Road or Tron Legacy, both of which have strong visual vibes... the finale of The Lone Ranger is also incredibly fantastic, even if the rest of the movie is not up to much).
Closely tied to both of these factors though is the idea of authenticity. For me, the number one thing which disconnects me from an action scene is feeling like its just a weightless CGI mess, where nothing really matters, and thus there is no real tension or stakes (again, see most recent Marvel films). For positive examples in this category though, I would say that movies like Top Gun Maverick and Mission Impossible Fallout (both unashamed pure action movies) manage to deliver high levels of excitement and tension because they provide authentic visuals, backed-up by genuine narrative stakes.
Perhaps a good point of comparison for all of these factors would be to look at the Lord of the Rings films in comparison to The Hobbit films - the action in the Lord of the Rings feels intrinsic to the plot, delivers on top quality visual spectacle, looks authentic to the world as presented, and has high dramatic stakes which are relevant to the plot. By contrast the action in the Hobbit films (such as the Barrel Ride scene and the Gold Melting Scene) feel like a diversion from the storytelling, don't do anything particularly new or visually interesting, looks fake CGI and cartoony (even within the context of a fantasy world) and the dramatic stakes of these sorts of scenes can best be described as "mild peril".
All of which finally brings me back to the Walden Narnia films, whose action scenes all tend to fall somewhere in the middle of all these categories, and thus feel just somewhat unsatisfactory, even if there is nothing outright "wrong" with them.
Scenes like the waterfall scene in LWW sort of tell us something about Peter's character journey, but not a lot. The waterfall looks better than a lot of CGI rubbish, but the set still isn't really all that convincing in terms of authenticity. The scene also isn't really delivering anything truly awe inspiring or providing that "wow" factor to the audience, and the dramatic stakes can again best be summed up as "mild peril".
Some of the other action scenes in Prince Caspian i think fair much better (the Night Raid i think works well as a solid dramatic beat) but overall i don't think any of them are anything to write home about, and most of the time they just feel like boring side-diversions, rather than moments of genuinely captivating storytelling, which is what good action scenes should deliver on.
Posted : August 20, 2024 12:46 pm
Courtenay liked
Yes, too many action scenes can a be a concerned among Narnia fans, including myself.
Now that's not saying that the Narnia films won't have any. I would say that it can be a good thing to be dramatic at times, though there has to be a time and place for it. Not only that, but it's probably best not to overdo it. It can get distracting at times.
This would be especially for the ones that Walden Media didn't adapt: SC, HHB, MN, and LB. So I will break this down where tension without just action could be.
SC- It could be where Puddleglum, Eustace, and Jill are going on this journey. They reach the castle of Harfang, and Puddleglum says, "Oh we need to speed more time here! Have you looked at these stone-" And Eustace and Jill say, "Oh stop! We're cold!" That could be pretty dramatic, and it doesn't have to be an actions scene! Probably the closest we get is the fight with the serpent, and I honestly don't know how they would do that.
HHB- Well, there could be tension with Rabadash and his father, as his making out a plan to invade Archenland and Narnia. Then of course, there is tension between Shasta and Aravis. Then the Battle of Anvard: I don't know if they'll show the actual battle or they just going have the Hermit of the Southern March explain it as he watching it through the pool. Though I could see Edmund and Rabadash having a duel in slow motion until Rabadash is hanging from being caught with a hole in his armor.
MN- I think this is so much more on character and emotion. The rampaging of London is probably as close as action you could get. Then there is tension between Digory and Polly at the Hall of Images in Charn. It could be a dramatic moment there! There even could be tension when Jadis tempts Digory to eat the apple, and he says no.
LB- Probably the most action story you could get. There could be tension between Tirian and the dwarfs (except for Poggin, of course) after they are set free. There could be tension between Rishda and Emeth when Emeth volunteers to go into the stable and Rishda tries to talk to him out of it. Then the dwarfs start some tension, "Hey, why don't you let Narnians in and keep your people out!" Then Rishda says, "Alright! I am guiltless of the rash boy's blood!" Then the Battle of Stable Hill is sure going to be a challenge. Though I picture in my head that Tirian and Rishda are dueling toward the stable door in slow motion until they get there.
So I would say it could be a good thing to get dramatic at times. There can even be tension without any action.
"And this is the marvel of marvels, that he called me beloved."
(Emeth, The Last Battle)
Posted : August 20, 2024 3:54 pm