Well whether Eustace was special, or just ordinary, the point is that Reep was saying these lines to Eustace. They were meant to cheer him up. I can understand analyzing what Aslan says because he really is the final authority. If he had said them then maybe I would be more critical of them. However the lines are more of a pep talk, and should be taken as such.

Agreed.

I seriously never thought this line would be analysed to this extent (!)
but I guess since coming back to Narnia Web I've realized how
normal this is.

I personally didn't take that line too seriously. As I mentioned before it really is the script trying to condense the following passage from the book----

"....if he had Eustace at his [Reepicheep's] own house in Narnia....he could show him more than a hundred examples of emperors, kings, dukes, knights, poets, lovers, astronomers, philosophers, and magicians, who had fallen from prosperity into the most distressing circumstances, and of whom many had recovered and lived happily ever afterwards. It did not, perhaps, seem so very comforting at the time, but it was kindly meant and Eustace never forgot it."

So if one was writing a script and had to make that idea fit within time constraints, then that line seemed to be the best they could come up with. Obviously there are things implied in the books but not actually written in them about what else Reep may have told Eustace during those nights when they were keeping company....eg. past Narnian history, tales...etc.

Well, if nothing else, the line is evidence of sloppy and careless scriptwriting. The fact that it can mean a dozen different things means that they spent no time wording it 'just right,' but dashed it off. Now to me there is a difference between good writing, from which you can glean something new each time, and writing which is merely confusing and meaningless. The writers probably did mean the line to be a consolatory one--- I don't think that's the whole reason, but if so it was poorly done.

I've been reading Weggawerewolf's posts on defining Humanism, and I see the point she makes about it not being exactly what was in the film. But what IS in the film is a very generic form of it. Perhaps a marriage of it and a "feel good" Christianity. Also, I've misquoted the line from the film. If I remember rightly, it goes "extraordinary things only happen to extraordinay people." Which is a false statement in many many many ways. Most especially it is THE OPPOSITE of what a fairy tale is supposed to be.

As soon as you poke beyond the idea that the line is merely consolatory, things fall apart (the center cannot hold!), like many other things in this film. Why does this upset me, relatively speaking? Because I care about Narnia and I care what Narnia means and is about. And so far with Apted I feel like we (Narnia-fans and Christians) are being made fun of---we're being mocked. Sucker punched.

No, at the end of the day I'm not going to bawl about it in real life (not much anyhow). I have too many real important things to deal with (school and work). Mr. Gresham was right to chide fans for caring about the Susaspian romance more than global issues. But I DO care---enough to take apart empty dialogue lines to expose the emptiness of the scriptwriters and filmmaker's vision.

Sorry Clive Staples Sibelius, but I'm not a 'he'. I am a long-married 'she'. Old enough to be your granny.

I might have interpreted it your way had Reepicheep said, "You and I are beasts. We can go in there unhindered by nightmares." But the line was "I am a mouse, you are a dragon" so someone not as familiar with the book, would take that line as a juxtoposition not between beast and human but between mouse and dragon.

Fair point, and yes the remark might be seen as speciesist, draws unwarranted distinctions between mice and dragons and doesn't promote the solidarity one would expect between Reepicheep and Dragon Eustace. But it is a remark that is entirely typical of film Reepicheep. He says 'I am a mouse' quite a few times in PC, why not in VDT as well? And it is Reepicheep's courageous mousehood that defines him in both films and books.

I think in the film that Reepicheep was just jollying Eustace along with that line. Reepicheep in the book was glad he was a mouse, not a man. In the film, even for someone not familiar with the book, it doesn't really sound so outrageous for Reepicheep to say what he did, reminding both Eustace, and the audience, that if Reepicheep can manage to be brave in the face of danger, despite his diminutive size, surely a big fearsome Dragon like Eustace has become should be able to face the same dangers as well.

1. Aslan hasn't undragonned him yet. So this is a moot point.

Another fair point. It is also a moot point at that stage how Eustace will meet the challenge of being a dragon. He was so devastated he was crying at that point.

Another quibble I have with the phrase "extraordinary things happen to extraordinary people" is that enchantments and dragons are not extraordinary to Reepicheep. He is a Narnian native! He says to dragonned Eustace: "I fought a dragon before; Much fiercer than you." Also, Caspian and Edmund act as if it is expected ( ordinary, usual, unremarkable) that dragon treasure hoards are enchanted -"Treasure? Trouble" they say. So therefore to Reepicheep enchantments when messing with dragon gold is the expected result. So the only thing extraordinary about Eustace's behavior was that it was uncommonly stupid (in the world of Narnia) to not know better than to go messing about with dragon treasure. As the common thing was to not do it out of fear of the consequences (much like how everyone but Eustace in the book didn't steal water when rations were low).

Well, yes, I do agree that extraordinary things do happen to extraordinarily stupid people. They become newsworthy, get Darwin awards and films are made of their stories to entertain us. But don't forget that Eustace was a humanist, who had read all the wrong books, and who had been thrust into totally unknown spiritual territory. Eustace is talking chalk to the Narnian cheese up until he found himself a dragon, after which he couldn't talk at all. But I expect, like Trufflehunter, that Reepicheep wouldn't have been so extraordinarily unkind to say so to Eustace. Especially in front of young children.

And thank you for the definition of extraordinary.

3. What does self-help have to do with defending the line "extraordinary things happen to extraordinary people"?

Lots. Reepicheep mentioned a whole bundle of people from rich to poor who had been in extraordinary predicaments but survived and lived happily ever after. Reepicheep doesn't say in the books how they survived, or who helped them.

I realise what you are saying about there was nothing extraordinary about Eustace, and yes, he is ordinary to begin with. Comic book heroes like Superman, Batman, Spiderman etc, do tend to have something extraordinary about them, don't they? They never need help from others whilst facing their fantastically evil opponents who cause so much trouble to others. To be extraordinary like them, Eustace would be able to dragon and undragon himself unaided to come to the rescue.

Wouldn't it be extraordinary if some of these extraordinary heroes admitted they were damaged people who needed help themselves? Admitted they ran off on families and girlfriends? That they needed divine intervention to be undragonned, like Eustace? Maybe in times of crisis, staying at home to keep the place going as normal, finding food for the family, being as helpful as possible, even minor things like laying the last 'steak knife' on the dinner table can be quite as useful as heroically enlisting too soon?

By the way, Eustace, after all that joking around the 'steak knives to be put on Aslan's dinner table'. That wasn't just your ordinary setting the table. It represents a backflip of gigantic proportions, the sort of extraordinary backflip not often seen.

waggawerewolf27, I'm sorry my post was harsh. (I am recovering from surgery- I'm off-work & volunteer activities -against my will- bedridden until next Tuesday-my family tells me I get cranky when I start getting better- apparently this is spilling over to my Narnia Web personality )

I think you have been a fantastic sparring partner. You push me towards ever a clearer and more concise vision than I ever would have had. And I'm really coming around to possibly liking the part about Eustace putting the last sword on the table. It at least visually makes it clear that the undragonning has been inside and out. So maybe, maybe a reasonable adaptation.

I've been reading Weggawerewolf's posts on defining Humanism, and I see the point...about it not being exactly what was in the film. But what IS in the film is a very generic form of it. Perhaps a marriage of it and a "feel good" Christianity.

Yes, yes exactly. Beautiful post. I absolutely agree about why digging deeper into these lines matters. Mind if I quote you later in another thread?

I'm sorry you've been ill, and have had to stay in bed. I wouldn't like it much either. I'm afraid I'd take Umbridge (pun intended) at that state of affairs also. But then you will heal and be up and about in due course, with all my good wishes for you.

I hope I have been giving you a good entertaining argument which I've enjoyed also, and no, I don't mind your quoting me. It makes me think harder about what I should be saying.

I still think it is nitpicking to analyse every single statement in VDT, including the ones mentioned on this thread, but it also seems to keep people engaged with what I think is a classic C.S.Lewis story, that is worth studying, even to understand the times we are in. From my point of view when reading today's news it is high time that we had a movie in which the principal character is ready to repent, to start afresh, to do what is right and to realise that clearing up and rebuilding is just as important and heroic as fighting, especially in battles against prejudices and nightmares.

From a teaching point of view, how much of a story that children, or even older people read do they really understand? As you say, the more the Narnia books are read the more insights we get out of them. And when watching the associated movie, how much do we absorb in our first sitting? How much do we want to absorb? So much depends on perception, attention, hearing and the ability to remember, not just the perceived defects in the movie.

It seems like most of this script was written to just "sound good" even if it didn't make sense.

As soon as Reep said that, I thought "huh?"

"Oh, that mansion!"
"We did it! I knew we could."
"When you grow up, you should be just like you."
"Our darkest dreams...our worst nightmares..."
"It seeks to corrupt all goodness...to steal the light from this world!"
"I'm a boy again!"
...you get the point.

Hahahaha. That about sums it up.

I'm amazed that so many lines from the VDT movie were remembered so accurately, to be honest. I could remember quite a few, since I went back to check against allegations, until the film wasn't shown any more. It says something about remarks like 'Extraordinary things happen to extraordinary people' that they aren't so easily forgotten. Perhaps glumPuddle you are right: they were chosen 'to sound good'.

For instance, the VDT remark, "When you grow up, you should be just like you", was Lucy's answer to Gael, who had said what girls of that age might reasonably say to a woman or older girl they happen to like and admire. That is, "When I grow up, I want to be just like you". I don't know what else Lucy is supposed to say in response to such straightforward flattery without looking bigheaded. She can't very well say that she hasn't always been the role model that Gael likes to think she is. Especially when she needs to show that that she repented of her beauty temptation, and had taken on board Aslan's reprimand in that instance.

About remembering things from movies accurately, I was also treated to an outing to see Tangled for my birthday. But I have difficulty remembering exactly what was said in that film. I only remember the 3D lanterns which were really rather good, a lot of stylised overacting, some infuriating baddie carolling 'Mother knows best', and a cornily romantic ending. I didn't see the point of viewing this movie a second, let alone a fifth time. I don't think I could enter into the sorts of discussions about the contents of that movie like we have been doing with this one.