Its not surprising to hear him say they have added an overarching "through line" to the story, to "sew it all together", as that is something which is probably necessary, and something we had all pretty much assumed they would do anyway.

Ben himself has said something like this before.

The "clever and unobtrusive way" part does at least sound a little reassuirng at the end there. I dont doubt the need for the addition of a linking plot line, and if they have done it in a "clever and unobtrusive way" then that is something to be very pleased about.

I agree. I'm trusting in "clever and unobtrusive" and praying for the best.

i value folks who are brave and forthcoming enough to call things as they really are, specially in that industry. and such qualities usually reveal little bits like these, where we wont always agree with, but at least was honest about the real reasons behind such decisions, instead of the usual suspects always trying to hoodwink the audience.

Agreed!

New idea, many have thought that slavery would be what tied the storyline together. That could still be true. The Calormens had slaves, and Governor Gumpas says that they sell their slaves mostly to the Calormens. Which would tie in with Horse and His Boy and Last Battle.

According to the actor [name?] who plays Gumpas, slavery is an important storyline. We just don't know how important and how it ties in with this new information.

I must be really dense or clueless because I don't see why they need something other than an oath and seven missing lords to tie the islands together.

I know exactly how you feel.

I didn't read PC before watching the movie so I loved the movie for itself. But I have read VDT recently. And I love the book so much! I want them to be faithful to it, especially themes and symbolism.

I must be really dense or clueless because I don't see why they need something other than an oath and seven missing lords to tie the islands together.

Although that plot device does facilitate their progression from one island to the next, it often has no bearing on the individual events that occur on each island. (not to mention the fact that it has always been a very loose central plot anyway, though rightly so in many respects)

The Lone Islands slavery sequence for example is a massive tangent away from that central plot strand - they don't have to free the slaves to continue on their quest. Likewise with alot of the other islands. The seven-lords plot brings them to the island, but much of what they do there is unrelated to that.

I think what they want to do, is make it so that all the events that occur on each island become absolutley critical to the central plot, i.e. that they could not possibly progress any further in their journey without doing them (i.e. freeing the slaves, revealing the dufflepuds, etc).

exactly Icarus. and in that regard it makes sense when Barnes said that there has to be something that ties them all together, perhaps not just for this VDT movie, but for everything else, going into Silver Chair and perhaps LB. so theres definitely something in those two stories that the production team took and weaved into VDT, giving it structure. but what that (or those) could be is the million dollar question

...I REALLY like icarus's suggestion with the Calormen. That would make a whole lotta sense.

... kinda liking that idea. I can run with it.

Tying a lot more of Calormen in VdT makes sense ...

And we know as far as the time lines go, Calormen was was a threat in the Golden Age and the final days of Narnia. Certainly not out of line to tie a few things together.

The calormen's are mentioned in VotDT too. They bought slaves and wanted their money back.

I think what they want to do, is make it so that all the events that occur on each island become absolutley critical to the central plot, i.e. that they could not possibly progress any further in their journey without doing them (i.e. freeing the slaves, revealing the dufflepuds, etc).

OK, I can see what you mean and it sounds great. It's just that I can see how they would tie the Calormenes with the Lone Islands/slavery storyline, but how on earth will they be able to keep that up for the rest of the movie? In other words, if the Calormene subplot will be introduced in order to relate each episode and each occurence as part of the whole plot, how will they be able to manage it?

I just can't see how the Dufflepods or Deathwater Island, for example, can be associated with the Calormenes...

Although that plot device does facilitate their progression from one island to the next, it often has no bearing on the individual events that occur on each island. ...
The Lone Islands slavery sequence for example is a massive tangent away from that central plot strand - they don't have to free the slaves to continue on their quest. Likewise with alot of the other islands. The seven-lords plot brings them to the island, but much of what they do there is unrelated to that.

I think what they want to do, is make it so that all the events that occur on each island become absolutley critical to the central plot, i.e. that they could not possibly progress any further in their journey without doing them (i.e. freeing the slaves, revealing the dufflepuds, etc).

I can sort of see where your coming from. However, isn't it normal in a quest of this sort to have adventures along the way? I can't remember for sure, but I think in stories about the Knights of the Round Table they set of on a specific purpose, but they have side adventures along the way. The Hobbit is much the same way. I don't think the Lone Island sequence is really that much of a diversion. If they didn't stop the slave trade, they would have lost four of their companions. In the book anyway, battle was not an option. Of course they *could* have left their companions and continued once they found Lord Bern but that is a horrible thing for the "heros" of a book to do. Assuming that the crew is honorable enough not to leave anyone behind, they had to do what they did at each island to move on. At each island the come to, it is their duty to look for signs of the missing lords. (I know it doesn't exactly say that in the book, but it makes sense that would justify exploring the islands). So, on Dragon Island they can't go on until they fix the ship (it is rather hard to sail without a proper mast), get more supplies (they aren't at they end of the world where they don't need to eat yet), and have Eustace undragoned. Except for Burt Island, all of the islands (after the children board) have something to do with the quest. At the Island of the Duffers they get news of the Lords and at each of the other islands they find either a Lord or Lords or signs that they had been there. They can't leave the island of the Duffers until Lucy has made them visible because the Duffers won't let them. I also think that Reep ties things together nicely and reminds them of the purposes of the trip: "So far as I know we did not set sail to look for things useful but to seek honor and adventures."
Like I said before I really don't see the need. Maybe I don't want understand because of my book purist tendencies. Of course there is a lot about what movie makers do that I don't understand and / or do not want to understand.

Good point about King Arthur and The Hobbit. Come to think of it, The Hobbit is almost entirely side adventures. I think searching for the Lords and Reep's quest to Aslan's country is enough, but I guess I'm old fashioned and don't see the reasoning behind lots of action and battle sequences........One of my favorite movies of all time is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. There aren't any battles in that........oh well. I hope the changes are tying in slavery over the Lady of the Green Kirtle. Slavery would be a link to both HHB and LB.

I am not pleased with this bit of information. The only way that I could see this working without jepardizing the making of the rest of the Movies is for them to increase the role of the Calormenes or slavery. If it is just that, than I have no real problem with it. I don't really want to see battles between the Calormenes and the Narnians. I still don't rule out the fact that Gael could be Rhince's daughter, or that Pug is doing the same type of thing described in HHB of stealling people/animals from within the Narnian borders. Expanding the whole slavery thing probably would not anger me.

I just hope that in borrowing plot parts from other books does not make it hard to make the other books. That is my chief fear about it.

I wouldnt want anyone to think i am trying to justify any of the changes that they may or may not have made to the story, since really im just theorising about the reasons that they may use to justify such changes, given the context of the Ben Barnes quote.

I just can't see how the Dufflepods or Deathwater Island, for example, can be associated with the Calormenes...

It doesn't necessarilly have to be the Calormenes, there are any number of things it could be.... but i think the key thing with the Dufflepuds is that the revealing of them will have some further consequence for the rest of the story. In the book, once they have finished with the Dufflepuds, that is it. It has no bearing on the rest of the plot (likewise the lone island scenes. Freeing the slaves has absolutely zero repercussions for the rest of the journey).

I think the clue as to how they may relate the Dufflepuds to a new central plot lies in the code-name - "The Invisible Army". Generally in movies, you would expect that characters or plot devices established during the movie will eventually have some sort of pay-off when it comes to the finale. So for the Dufflepuds, i could quite easilly imagine that just as with say, The Army of the Dead in ROTK, the previously "Invisible Army" of Dufflepuds are going to return later on in the movie to save our heroes at the critical point, just when all seemed lost. Yes its a bit of a cliche, but the first two Narnia movies have never been that far away from cliche at times, so i would consider it quite possible.

Not quite sure how Deathwater could fit in, it may not have to, but in general, i'd say the two key rules for scenes that work in movies are "motivation" and "consequence". The characters need suitable motivation to drive them to a scene, and the scene needs to have sufficent consequence to be significant to the subsequent scenes. I think for several of the VDT "Episodes" it could be all about trying to fufil those two criteria.

I agree with icarus, considering how much PC changed..

This movie will be harder for me to accept changes though, being my favorite book. But I have accepted that it's inevitable, so hopefully when it comes out I'll be able to enjoy the good things about it and not dwell on changes

okay.
when i first read Ben's comment, i was disturbed.
but now that i have calmed down, I choose not to worry because i have faith in Mr. Apted's directing abilities and I got all worked up over the changes in PC for nothing. so, I will just say that I hope they put some sort of plot weaver from the Silver Chair - something to do with Eustace!

I just hope that in borrowing plot parts from other books does not make it hard to make the other books. That is my chief fear about it.

Mine too.

We're hearing a lot of support for the Calormens playing a bigger role in VDT. We're also getting feedback that the LotGK won't be in VDT. But are there any other theories about Barnes' interview? Any other ways that they might tie in the other books?

At this point, I'm still skeptical, so I wouldn't be too surprised if we saw some sort of gnome threat in VDT.

So, I had a thought... My thought is that whatever these themes are from future books might have been added in to give VDT a ever-so-slight cliffhanger ending to get people to come back and see future movies.

Every book is final... there's no real reason to keep reading the books other than liking the previous ones.

That's why I'm wondering if they might try something like that with the movies.

Hmm. LWW and PC both had that slight cliff-hanger bit (Lucy and the Professor in LWW, "He means for you to come back" in PC), which VdT doesn't really have because it's the last appearance of the original Pevensies. Setting something up so we know Eustace comes back eventually and more marvelous adventures ensue would be ok and I might not mind it if it wasn't horribly obvious or messed up stuff or SC already.

That being said, I'd hate for Narnia to be stuck in the same shoes Golden Compass or Eregon was, where they made the first movie with a big "cliff-hanger" or "prodding" at the end, hoping to turn it into a franchise but never could, and people were left with an unsatisfying ending. I suppose that as long as SC gets made, all will be well, but I wouldn't want to be left with a less than stunning ending to VdT if they do end up pulling the plug.