Aiming film adaptations of children's books at children [older children, not 4 year olds] doesn't seem unwise to me.
What has been a problem is that the level of the children's story appreciation has been reduced. Lewis talked about how children need to read the scary fairytales and legends, not to be protected from them.

I would still want to see the films aimed at children 5-12 and younger teens, so that families can enjoy them.

Aiming film adaptations of children's books at children [older children, not 4 year olds] doesn't seem unwise to me.
What has been a problem is that the level of the children's story appreciation has been reduced. Lewis talked about how children need to read the scary fairytales and legends, not to be protected from them.

I would still want to see the films aimed at children 5-12 and younger teens, so that families can enjoy them.

I agree with you, what I really meant (and you'd think I'd have managed to get it across in that wall of text, but I failed >_<) is that I don't want them to aim it at THEIR perception of what a child can enjoy, e.g. Spongebob. Like I said, I read LWW when I was about eight years old, and I don't think it was at all inappropriate for me. I don't think I got every single little detail that I notice now, but I still understood and enjoyed the whole story. I also liked reading Rudyard Kipling (Just So Stories and The Jungle Book), Lewis Carroll, and Roald Dahl. But people nowadays think children wouldn't appreciate those books. Or are too scary, in the case of stuff like The Jungle Book. I mean, why do they come out with those "abridged" or modernised versions of classic children's stories...they were meant FOR children, yet they need to edit out all the parts that aren't totally vanilla and safe. I know times change, and we shouldn't just keep doing something because it was done in the past, but I don't think there's anything wrong with kids reading classics, I don't think it would do any harm.

I just want a film adaptation that stays on the level of the books. Still for children, but not today's IDEA of what children are capable of understanding.

I think it's a double problem. The filmmakers think that it should be a movie aimed specifically at children (when really it should be aimed at everyone), and the filmmakers don't understand what a movie aimed at children should actually look like. Because honestly, there are a lot of old movies that were specifically aimed toward children that I can still enjoy as an adult. Not so with most of the movies-aimed-toward-children of today.

When did "make this movie for kids" equal "add in lots of cheesy jokes, bathroom humor, overacting, and poor plotting"? One would suspect they've forgotten what it's like to be a child.

~Riella

Agreed...look at Nightmare Before Christmas. People of all ages love it. I still love it after all these years. But I can't really imagine people looking back on the most recent CGI "Smurfs" movie and being like "AH YES...A CINEMATIC CLASSIC." Lol.

Excellent post, PhelanVelvel. I can't believe I haven't read it until now. I think I will read it again in a moment.

To me, it really feels that these movies, and a lot of movie adaptations of books today, in fact, are not about "How can I carefully craft an idea through cinematography?" It's like "How can I appeal to as many people at the same time?"

Well said. I think they tried to make children's films that would also appeal to adults. I think they should make adult films that will also appeal to children. CS Lewis said that if he liked a story as a child but didn't get anything out of it as an adult, the story was not worth reading in the first place. I love these books, and it has nothing to do with making me feel like a kid again. They appeal to me on a very adult level. The fact that children get into them too fascinates me.

Taking your post a step further, I now believe that a PG13 rating might be required for some films. One of the filmmakers' main concerns with the undragoning scene was to keep it PG. This was not the only reason the scene was such a disaster, but it's still a good example of how marketing held the production back.

Phelan: I have to say that I disagree with you. There are several scenes in the move franchise, the second film especially, that are geared to hold an older audience's attention. probably not excessively, but still, they're in there. I can respect your opinion, but having the battle scenes and the suspenseful scenes in the movies tie everything together. On a side note the first and second films are my favorite over the third. Voyage of the Dawn Treader was kind of good but it doesn't have as much action as the other two.

Phelan: I have to say that I disagree with you. There are several scenes in the move franchise, the second film especially, that are geared to hold an older audience's attention.

LWW and PC: Essentially children's films that occasionally thrown in more mature themes. And they do a pretty good job at that. They're two decent films. But families, especially the 6-12 age group, was definitely the crowd they were most concerned about... and I think this held them back in some key areas, such as pacing.

VDT: Garbage. Somebody, it will be in a $5 bin at Wal-Mart next to Spongebob Square Pants.

Chronicles Of Narnia are children's book. Problem with Voyage Of The Dawn Treader was not the tone, wich was alright, but some dialogue was uninspired and of course special effects were not as good as the first 2, but still better than most movies. Overall i think Walden Media did a good job on adapting the first 3 books.

Chronicles Of Narnia are children's book.

C.S. Lewis said that if he enjoyed a story as a child, but didn't get anything out of it as an adult, it was not worth reading in the first place. Lewis had a different idea of what a "children's story" was than most people do today.

The Narnia books speak to me on a very adult level, and I think they are underrated because it never occurs to most people to look at them deeper.

Overall i think Walden Media did a good job on adapting the first 3 books.

PC and LWW are okay. VDT was essentially an anti-Lewis movie.

Chronicles Of Narnia are children's book.

C.S. Lewis said that if he enjoyed a story as a child, but didn't get anything out of it as an adult, it was not worth reading in the first place. Lewis had a different idea of what a "children's story" was than most people do today.

The Narnia books speak to me on a very adult level, and I think they are underrated because it never occurs to most people to look at them deeper.

Overall i think Walden Media did a good job on adapting the first 3 books.

PC and LWW are okay. VDT was essentially an anti-Lewis movie.

You know, I never understood why people dont look deeper into Narnia. The deep themes become rather obvious to adult and teenage readers. They are subtle, but you do not have to dig to deep. Anyway, I suppose modern audiences simply are not accostumed to the lack of excesive violence or romance.

And why do you consider VDT and anti-Lewis film exactly? Its not a faithful adaptation but the themes of the movie do not contradict the series themes or Lewis beliefs... in general.

And why do you consider VDT and anti-Lewis film exactly? Its not a faithful adaptation but the themes of the movie do not contradict the series themes or Lewis beliefs... in general.

But they do, though. The book VDT had very strong themes of sin and not being able to rid oneself of one's own sin. This was shown in the undragoning chapter, when Eustace can't pull off the skin. He must have Aslan do it for him. Therefore, to be rid of sin and be worthy of Aslan's Country (Heaven), we must turn to Aslan (or God) to help purify us.

The movie VDT was all about earning your way into Aslan's Country. Which was basically (though perhaps unknowingly) preaching salvation through works. The opposite of Lewis's theme.

~Riella

The book VDT had very strong themes of sin and not being able to rid oneself of one's own sin. This was shown in the undragoning chapter, when Eustace can't pull off the skin. He must have Aslan do it for him. Therefore, to be rid of sin and be worthy of Aslan's Country (Heaven), we must turn to Aslan (or God) to help purify us.

The movie VDT was all about earning your way into Aslan's Country. Which was basically (though perhaps unknowingly) preaching salvation through works. The opposite of Lewis's theme.

~Riella

I don't really agree with this. IMO, the only parts of the book of VDT that were about not being able to rid oneself of one's own sin were Eustace's undragoning and the episode with the Dark Island where dreams (nightmares) come true. I thought the film's depiction of the undragoning was a sensible and imaginative idea, given that they couldn't show Aslan digging his claws into Dragon-Eustace and tearing off the flesh, unless they wanted to turn the film into Nightmare On Elm Street Part XXXIV. As for the Dark Island, it works in the book but if they'd filmed it as written it would have looked rather anti-climactic (again, IMO). I don't think there was a deliberate conspiracy to make any message in the film the opposite of what Lewis intended.

We're getting a wee bit off topic.

I think we can pretty much all agree that we want the films aimed more at families vs aimed specifically at ANY age group.

So what constitutes a good family film?

Dialogue? For me it would probably be something written that would be on the level of the older Nancy Drew and Hardy Boy books. Those were written in such a way that I could read them at age 9 and read them right now and not feel like I was reading a kids book.

Age of characters - Doesn't really matter what age the characters are, but I wish they would make more of an effort to stick to the ages in the book. I can understand say bumping up Caspian to say 15 or 16 and the same with Peter, but no older. It would make the movies a bit more accessible to kids, but with the right dialogue (like say LWW) Peter doesn't seem too old.

Make sure there isn't an over emphasis on special effects. VDT got a bit gimmicky due to the green mist and the glowing Rhindon. Bring it back to the level of LWW where the focus is on the cg animals and making sure they fit into the scene correctly.

Any other ideas?

I see what you're saying. Don't make them immature, unintelligent movies, just because it may appeal to kids more. Though my concern then would be, they would try to make it "dark, gritty and realistic" to appeal to teens and adults, which is the popular thing right now. That annoys me so much.

Hollywood's main goal is to make money, and they don't want to spend millions on someone taking a risk to make something artsy or intelligent, UNLESS it's a big name director that they know will be a big selling point for their film. A lot of people don't want to go watch something intelligent, they rather be entertained by loud explosions and crummy CGI. If that didn't make money, Hollywood would be making something else.

Also, Hollywood is lead by people that probably have a world view different from Lewis' writings. So at the end of the day, the movie's story is going to tell the same lame modern Hollywood messages that they always tell, whether it's aimed toward children or not. That of course will most likely cause them to simplify and water down the story and the dialogue. So, it's not always the target audience that's the issue, it's Hollywood in general.

I think it would help greatly if they had script writers that were familiar and understood the source material. At least then the movie would have a chance. So many comic book, video game and book movie adaptions turn out poorly because the script writer(s) and the director often aren't familiar with the source materials at all. If they did, then they would really know how to set the tone and who to target as an audience.