I still think that just having Aslan approach Aravis and her panic so much and get a headache and joint pain and a fever may be enough to have her stay behind at the hermit's house. If the slashes are too controversial, a fever and headache may be enough. They could have her become too dizzy to continue.

Or temporary blindness...not that the characters would be a direct parallel, though.

Joint pain is a little ugh but I like the idea of her being temporarily blinded but how would that parallel what she did to her servant girl? Hmmm...

They showed swords hacking and slashing in PC but simply omitted the bloody aftermath. They could show this scene from the front, Aslan would swing his paw then the camera could show it from Shasta's point and we would hear a heartrending scream from Aravis to put the point across very well.

Do we have to see blood?

And as long as it is mentioned earlier that the slave-girl was whipped, with Aslan's explanation it could come off very well I think with the audience.

Seeing the blood is much more effective than not seeing it.

Not always...to me fake blood is just...well...fake. Hearing her scream, but not seeing it and maybe watch Shasta look back in horror will add more adrenaline to the scene anyway, cause we won't know what happened till they reach the hermit.

Well if we see Aslan swing his paw and then hear a scream it would be rather obvious what happened.

While adapting a scene like this the filmmakers really need to pause and consider why they are making this movie at all. Is it because they want to make money? Is it because they love the book and want to see it on the screen? Is it a combination? Or do they just want to tell a good story?

This scene featuring a lion (remember that the audience at this point in time does not know it is Aslan) clawing Aravis and Shasta going back to save her without even a stick in his hand is one of the key moments in the story. It is a defining character moment for Shasta, Bree, and Aravis. If they take it out or change it too much it will not have the same effect. So, pause and consider, why is this movie being made? Will the story have a different effect if this moment is changed? I do not think this scene should be changed simply to keep the rating down. If the story needs to be PG-13 in order to be effective than it should be PG-13. But I don't think a lion scraping his claw against Aravis' back is enough to push it into PG-13. LWW had Aslan dying in a somber, creepy, sacrificial scene. PC had the Narnians dying in the Night Raid.

Did any of that make any sense whatsoever? I'll come back and post some more thoughts later.

daughter of the King, that is a powerful point. There is so much that hinges on Aslan physically injuring Aravis. It is a very powerful moment. Until then, we never see His anger on any of his own people - just the witch, really. Until then, we've heard people describe him as 'not safe' but this is the first time that we see it.

From a plot perspective, if you remove the slashing, it diminishes Shasta's courage. It also makes it hard to understand why Aravis can't go along. Aslan giving her a headache, etc is not the same as her maid being whipped. Also, you've introduced a 'magical' punishment too early and made it obvious that the lion is Aslan long before the viewers are supposed to realize that.

The idea of a temporary blinding is kinda interesting.

Great point about the dangers of a "Magical" punishment, moonspinner! Another problem with that would be that the punishment could not be seen as clearly from Aslan himself.
Essentially, the punishment might become a pretty ambiguous point. As we've concluded before! So yes, it does need to be done right!

daughter of the King, that is a powerful point. There is so much that hinges on Aslan physically injuring Aravis. It is a very powerful moment. Until then, we never see His anger on any of his own people - just the witch, really. Until then, we've heard people describe him as 'not safe' but this is the first time that we see it.

From a plot perspective, if you remove the slashing, it diminishes Shasta's courage. It also makes it hard to understand why Aravis can't go along. Aslan giving her a headache, etc is not the same as her maid being whipped. Also, you've introduced a 'magical' punishment too early and made it obvious that the lion is Aslan long before the viewers are supposed to realize that.

The reason why the travellers were being chased by lions, was that Aslan wanted Shasta and Aravis to travel together. The reason why Aslan chased the party in the last stretch before the Hermit's place was to make the four of them hurry up. Otherwise Shasta wouldn't get to King Lune in time. As it was, in the book he had barely enough time to warn King Lune before he bypassed Rabadash's army en route to Anvard.

I think all that is needed is to see Aravis screaming in terror, Aslan about to spring, and Shasta looking back, deciding to jump then running at the roaring lion with nothing but a stick in his hand he'd picked up. By that time Aslan has turned to face Shasta. All we need see is Aravis' torn and and slightly bloodstained shirt at the back, and her wanting to lie down on her stomach.

Shasta looking back, deciding to jump then running at the roaring lion with nothing but a stick in his hand he'd picked up.

[Shasta] had no weapon, not even a stick or a stone. According to TV Tropes, that was a crowning moment of awesome. I agree.

Yes I was wondering the same thing (which is why I created the other thread ) It seems that thus far, they have watered down tough Aslan. They got the "good" part, but they forgot the "not safe " part. I have no idea as how the would adapt this b/c as Adeona mentioned,watering it down that would defeat the whole purpose. I didn't actually mind Aslan scratching his paw in the sand, but I didn't like that they showed so little of it, that Eustace didn't seem to have experienced any pain, and that they pulled a "Beauty and the Beast."
I just dont want them to get rid of the fact that it should be painful.

I liked the "dedragoning" of Eustace but I do wish it would have gotten more screen time, and I 100% agreed that the whole thing was a bit Beauty and the Beast."

I think that they will "tone down" this scene for the HBB adaption and I think I am okay with that. Well I think that the books do a good job of explaining both sides of aslan.....I think that the film makers have show VERY little of aslan's more fierce side. I think that to do this in the 5th or 6th movie would seem as if Aslan was acting out of character and I doubt that Walden or FOx would do a very good job of explaining why he acted that way. I think that for the sake of continuity and for the sake of not doing a crappy job at it, that they should tone it down.

Needing to 'tone' Aslan down is one of the reasons why it might be a good idea if Adamson's movies just end with VDT and the whole franchise is rebooted 5 years from now by someone who really 'gets' Narnia and is not adverse to a little risk taking.

If this scene isn't done right, it will take away so much from the movie. I agree that it doesn't have to have the scratching blatantly shown (paw, cut to Shasta, scream) but it can't be toned down to have Aslan not do it. That would be completely ruin Shasta's character arc, and mess up the story for later on. It also takes a lot away from the character of Aslan, and what he stands for.

I agree that this scene needs to be done right or it loses all its meaning. But I disagree that the movies have deliberately left out "fierce" Aslan. In the books, Aslan is talked about as being "not a tame lion" but nowhere else in the Chronicles (with the exception of killing the witch) does he ever physically harm anyone. Especially not to the point where the person cannot get out of bed for a full day. This action taken against Aravis is out of character for Aslan. I think its meant to be that way.

What the movie makers need to understand is why Aslan does this. And the reason needs to be touched upon several times throughout the movie so it is fresh in the viewers mind when Aslan tears Aravis' back. This is more than just punishing Aravis because her actions caused the slave to be beaten. Its so much more than that. Aravis was raised in a culture that kept slaves as a way of life. Her family owned slaves from the time she was a baby. It wasn't just that the slave was beaten because of her actions. It was her attitude towards it. It was her callous indifference to the slave's fate. That she knew it would happen and didn't care. In this culture, slaves were less than human--something that Aravis took very much for granted. I'll bet she had knowledge of, if not witnessed directly more than one beating of a slave in her household. If her stepmother would whip a slave to the point of not being able to move for a day, just for sleeping late, I imagine there were many beatings in that house. It wasn't just that the slave was whipped--it was that Aravis didn't think this was a big deal. How on earth was she suppose to become the Queen of Archenland--a place where slavery does not exist and servants are not treated like they are less than human--with this attitude?
The audience needs to know this about Aravis before they can understand why Aslan does what he does. No other punishment will do--it has to be stripe for stripe, throb for throb. And it isn't because she deserves it. Its because she has to overcome a mindset that has been engrained in her from birth.
Lewis abhored human bondage. A fact that, sadly, the latest movie failed to portray. I think there should even be extra dialog devoted to the Calormen attitude in general and Aravis's attitude in particular toward slaves to get this point across. Otherwise Aslan's actions are confusing. Especially in light of the fact that throughout the rest of the books he is a gentle and loving character.

My daughter asked me why Aslan did that the first time I read her the books. I took her back to the beginning of the book and showed her the part where Aravis clearly does not care what happens to the slave. But I'm not sure she got it. It is hard to explain to a seven year old the indifference to human suffering that can develop in a society where human bondage is the norm. And I think that movie audiences will miss it if they are not reminded through the movie.

This is a defining moment for Shasta also, but I agree that they don't need to show the actual tearing. His paw coming toward her, her face, her scream, cut to Shasta--it could be done very effectively. After all, this is how they handled the killing of Aslan. They showed his face instead of the stabbing.