Do you know what think the biggest problem is with this movie, or the ‘franchise’ in general at this moment? The production team. ‘Well duh!’, you reply, ‘of course a movie’s only ever as good as the effort put into making it’. As true as that is, I think the problem with the team runs a little deeper than just that.
In the late 90’s/early 2000’s, Peter Jackson and those who worked with him produced the best three fantasy films of all time. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ film trilogy was groundbreaking, pioneering special effects technology and pushing the boundaries of what had been expected of ‘fantasy’ cinema. They were rightly rewarded- ‘The Return of the King’ picking up the most Oscars ever received by a film, an achievement it shared with Ben Hur.
It is my personal view (although Christopher Tolkien himself might disagree with me!) that the films not only set something of a gold standard for fantasy movies, but also achieved a high point in book-to-film adaptation. Leaving aside the many things I was sorry to see missed out and the various narrative and character changes (the merits of which can be debated) the method with which Jackson and co. set about bringing such a gargantuan work to the screen deserves special attention. Detail is the key. Weta are rightly famed for their painstakingly authentic production of the various props used in the film. But in actual fact, their philosophy of attention to the minutiae, leaving not one stone unturned, characterised the whole of the production, including the writing of the script.
Peter Jackson, his wife Fran Walsh and friend Philippa Boyens, sat down together for days on end- working the book over and distilling it, chapter by chapter, into a screenplay. They didn’t cut corners, they didn’t get other people to do it for them, they worked hard on getting a unified, detailed plan for the movie into place. The results of their dedication are there to see. If only this were the case for the ‘Dawn Treader’. Currently, the films are not being adapted by a dedicated, consistent team, they are largely being produced, from script to set, by ‘hired guns’ who are not invested in the movie much further than their pay-checks.
A throwaway comment by Michael Flaherty was very revealing, for me at least. He talked about having a ‘screenwriting workshop’ in order to convey the concept of grace to the writers. If the Narnia movies were being produced in the style of Jackson/Walsh/Boyens this would not have been necessary. The writers would already have understood the concept of grace and the other key aspects of the book themselves without the need for workshops. They would have been self educated and dedicated to translating the book to the screen faithfully. Jackson had one more thing that these folks didn’t. He knew that if he messed up, his name would live in infamy. I don’t think Apted or his team take these stories as seriously as that. They seem to view them as charming children’s fables whose actual content is probably relatively un-important. They appear to have a low view of Lewis and limited understanding of how his books are put together or of what makes them tick. I remember seething when watching an interview with a writer for ‘Prince Caspian’ and hearing her say ‘I don’t think Lewis really thought about that (so this gives us license to ride roughshod over one of the most important aspects of the entire series)’. Michael Flaherty commented that Apted wasn’t likely to be getting a ‘master of divinity’ qualification any time soon. I would argue that in order to adapt these books properly he needs to get one, figuratively at least. Until the ‘hired guns’ among the filmmakers of Narnia embrace the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens approach, we will continue to receive sub-par adaptations and Narnia will continue to be associated in the minds of movie-goers with half hearted and insubstantial entertainment.
Topic starter
Posted : December 17, 2010 9:47 pm
I would agree. In general i think that is fairly typical of the main difference between Writer/Director led projects and Studio/Production team lead projects. Not just in terms of LOTR vs Narnia, but in countless other movies too. Projects which begin with a Writer and/or Director who posses a strong vision and desire for making a particular movie and then approach the studio with their ideas, invariably ends up resulting in a more artistically credible movie than projects which begin with a Studio or Production team deciding they want to make a particular movie and then hiring the relevant people to do the job for them.
However, i do think there are still plenty of people involved in the Narnia series which have a very deep passion for making these movies. If you listen to some of the interviews over the years i think you can tell that many of the people involved really do care about the projects more than just their pay cheques (Howard Berger in particular always stands out). However, i would also have to agree that the amount of times we hear disparaging comments made against CS Lewis' work during the production is incredibly disheartening, since its almost as if they see Lewis' words as being an obstacle to overcome and not a joy to bring to life.
Posted : December 17, 2010 11:36 pm
I have to say I agree. When The director of Prince Caspian said the movie was nothing more than a "walk in the woods" and the director of Dawn Treader said the story as written "had no life", it was disheartening indeed. I guess respect for the source material is not a requirement for the job.
You know I read a Dawn Treader review that quoted the first line of the book "There was once a boy named Eustace Clarence Scrubb and he almost deserved it." The article then went on to say that there was more imagination, creativity and depth in that one statement from the book than in the entire movie. I don't know that I would be that harsh, but it made a good point. They took the heart out of the movie.
One can only hope that, if SC is greenlit, they can find a director who doesn't describe the story as " a long cold walk to kill a snake."
Posted : December 18, 2010 9:55 am
I agree as well. It was sad to see the director have so little confidence in the source material. How can the audience believe the movie is good and worth watching if those who are making it don't believe in the source material itself? 
Signature by daughter of the King; Avatar by Adeona
-Thanks :]
Keeper of the Secret Magic
Posted : December 18, 2010 9:58 am
True Icarus. I wouldn't want to criticise everyone involved in the production of these films, I'm sure there are a quite a few here and there who really respect the books, but there seem to be an equal number of people who don't and pre-production seems to consist of having to make compromises to these folks rather than starting with a clear vison of each story and working from there. Lets hope something of that nature happens for the silver chair!
Heh, so do I 'fireheart'! The movie did feel rather bland to me- they'd taken many of the things that made the book great and replaced them with their own stuff.
Yeah, it's a bit of a puzzle isn't it 'Valiant'? But like Icarus says, whats needed is for a director to come to the Silver Chair on the basis of their appreciation of the book, not just because they are skilled and the studio hired them for the job. Maybe Apted will do some homework!
Topic starter
Posted : December 20, 2010 3:37 am
This is why I would love for Andrew to come back and direct. He truly appreciates the books. I keep wondering if as a producer for VDT he had any input into the script or if he basically had to be hands off because he wasn't the director, which is why the effects were so much more spectacular than the narrative.
Signature by Ithilwen/Avatar by Djaq
Member of the Will Poulter is Eustace club
Great Transformations-Eustace Scrubb
Posted : December 20, 2010 5:38 am
Great opening post, PaulTP, and I agree wholeheartedly. Especially with your point about Jackson, Boyens et al, though I would hasten to add that they often changed certain concepts of the book in the movie. But the success ratio is very high with his films.
It was disheartening to see a lot of the production team, especially the director, griping about the material. I do wonder how much Michael Petroni, the third script-writer, had to do with the changes. But Apted certainly approved.
"Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed."- CS Lewis
Posted : December 20, 2010 10:33 am
I re-watched "Fellowship of the Ring" last night. In terms of production value alone, PC and VDT aren't even close to matching the scope or scale of the LOTR trilogy, though LWW comes close. True, the source material is different, but I think a lot of the difference is with the production team. Adamson did a generally good job with LWW, not so much with PC, and Apted didn't seem to have a "passion" for VDT. Walden approached him, not the other way around. After LWW was a big success, I should think the studios had directors coming to THEM to helm the next Narnia film.
Posted : December 20, 2010 1:23 pm