Douglas Gresham:Well, The Lion the Witch and The Wardrobe was very close to the original book because the book was written in such a way that lent itself to being transcribed into the film medium. Prince Caspian we had to make some fairly major changes because the book isn't written that way. In this movie there are a lot of differences in it also to, as Hollywood says, "derive the plot". I'm ambivalent as to whether they're necessary or not, i don't really think so. But thats the way they wanted to do it, and it was either that or not make a movie, so i said "well go ahead and do it". It will be very interesting to see the audiences reactions

Oh dear. It sounds like we may be in for some "fairly" major changes after all. I understand the need to change some things for film adaptation, but if it goes on, there won't be any more movies. I don't get it.

'Derive the plot' doesn't make any sense but I understand what Gresham means. I don't think people should be upset at him for the changes (seems like he finds many of them unnecessary) but I hope something good comes of this. I have no problems with changing little things here and there but to change the main focus of the story is worrying and not necessary. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

In a word: NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Have you not learned Walden Media? (okay, that was more than one, but why oh why oh why must they insist on changing to such an extent? Elements such as Eustace's diary need adjustment, but the actual plot???)

Ha.

Throughout those quotes, there is a comical (but predictable) substituting of "we" for "they" (and vice versa) depending on the intended spin. I think this confirms what a lot of us have been thinking and saying for a long time. I'll just leave it at that.

Thanks, icarus.

"Very interesting," icarus, is probably just a bit understated.

I am not really surprised. It goes along with my feelings about Prince Caspian. *contemplates* We shall see, I suppose?

I'm going to second what icarus said on the comment section of the front page story. Reading the transcript and actually hearing DG talk about the movie give you very different interpretations. Reading the transcript immediately incites panic (case in point with the above posts ) but if you actually listen to him on the podcast, he sounds very excited about the movie.
And OF COURSE the book is always better.

Right now I'm not too concerned, I guess, since we don't really know what these changes are, but I must say that I'm glad that Mr. Gresham several times stated that the story in the book will be better & etc., and I suppose all around showed that if any of these changes turn out disastrous we can know he wasn't all for changing the focus/plotlines/etc.

I guess the main quote there regarding changes is still kind of depressing, if only for the fact that whilst he says the big changes in Prince Caspian were all necessary due to the book's structural problems, he is basically saying that the similar big changes on this film werent really as necessary in his opinion.

I think though what he means by "derive the plot" is similar to what Ben Barnes was talking about before - trying to find that "through-line" in the story to link all the individual "episodes" together. I personally therefore feel it is very necessary to "derive the plot" for that purpose, so im not particuarly worried about changes, especially if they are going to be on a par with the changes in Prince Caspian, which he kind of implies (i.e. all the scenes, themes, and elements are all present and correct, but they are just rejigged into a new structure and format for the purposes of creating a streamlined movie-friendly narrative)

But yeah, definitely listen to the podcast, the bare facts text of the transcript do take alot of the joy and excitement out of his voice when he is talking about the movie, and kind of make him sound really downbeat about the whole thing, when really that is not the case at all.

Also, I'm still waiting for someone to comment on the quote about the Woodland Glade set and his talk of the banquet! In the full podcast he talks either side of the section i picked out about the wonders of filming scenes with characters who aren't actually there except for a tennis ball on a stick, such as Reepicheep. He mentions there is a character (who i would presume to be the Chief Dufflepud) who will be present at the banquet in the final movie but not actually visible on set in a similar manner to Reepicheep (he couldn't actually remember if Reepicheep was also present during the banquet scene). Either way, very cool they are even having that scene!

Not sure what he meant by the Woodland Glade-like set. Was thinking he perhaps meant Coriakins Garden, since we know that was built on a soundstage, and also because he goes directly on to talk about the banquet after it, but i wouldnt really describe that set as being a "woodland glade" based on the spy photos we saw.

Also, a few extra Twitter pictures from Ian Kath, some of which may or may not be from Voyage of the Dawn Treader. The first one of which you should already recognise:

http://twitpic.com/koakz
http://twitpic.com/kbvpx
http://twitpic.com/esqxe
http://twitpic.com/enxvj
http://twitpic.com/clr33
http://brightkite.com/objects/e19ae9088 ... 3048c10834
http://brightkite.com/objects/6125826e8 ... 3048c0801e

Got up this morning. Had a lot of coffee. Worked on a report. Downloaded the interview to iTunes. Dealt with a runny nose. Had some oatmeal. Listened to the interview.

I think folks need to listen to the interview before making a solid decision about what was said. Very pleasant! The quotes were not at all cringe-worthy when I listened to them.

It supports my feelings about the movie adaptations. I like the movies apart from the books.

Woodland glade? My first thought was the return of Eustace to human form by Aslan. A woodland glade, a pool, and a magical place? Hmm. There are any number of things this could be. Deathwater Island it is not.

Woodland glade with a banquet sounds like Ramandu's Island to me.

Woodland glade with a banquet sounds like Ramandu's Island to me.

Ohhh.... That Banquet. That completely slipped my mind. I was thinking of the one at Coriakin's House in the Dining Hall with the invisible Dufflepuds and such, but i guess the uneaten banquet at Ramandu's table would make sense in the context of a forest glade. Though who do you think the not-on-set added-in-later character could be if it were there? Intriguing possibilities. Especially as it would throw a different light on his quote about not knowing whether or not Reepicheep was in that scene or not.

H'm. Well, this doesn't alarm me too terribly much. I will remain more optimistic than pessimistic until I know exactly what they're changing. As long as it's nothing huge, I'll be fine. But if they're changing the entire plot, then shall I be enraged.

I'll have to download the podcast soon and listen to it. I'd like to hear how Doug sounds when he is talking about the production and such.

THE BANQUET: Sounds interesting. Woodland glade? I hope that it doesn't come across as being too much like Lothlorien . When I read 'banquet' and 'woods' I immediately thought of Ramandu's Island. It would seem logical, would it not? Or perhaps this is an added scene? Or Coriakin's Island? I am anxious to find out

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, let the changes be minor!

Though who do you think the not-on-set added-in-later character could be if it were there?

"They were birds, large and white, and they came hundreds and thousands and alighted on everything; the grass, and the pavement, on the table, on your shoulders, your hands, and your head, till it looked as heavy snow had fallen. For, like snow, they not only make everything white but blurred and blunted all shapes. But Lucy, looking out from between the wings of the birds that covered her, saw one bird fly to the Old Man with something in its beak that looked like a little fruit, unless it was a little live coal, which it might have been, for it was too bright to look at. And the bird laid it in the Old Man's mouth."

?

I'd wager a guess that rather than CGI in hundreds of birds, they may go with just one... the one that gives Ramandu the fire-berry of the sun. So there's my guess.

I also thought the Banquet referred to Ramandu's Island (but then again, I had totally forgotten about the Dufflepud banquet ). I was also always under the impression the Dufflepuds served dinner inside, and Woodland glade automatically makes me think "outdoors," which is where the Ramandu's Island Banquet was.

About the CGI thing: Do you think they really meant entirely CGI characters? Probably they do, but I can't think of any other than Reep. However, since they have mythological beings, do you suppose they meant those? As in, later on they would CGI in the faun's legs, etc. I think f_k is most likely right though. (But assuming she is, do you think they would expand the role of that bird?)