That might depend on your definition of "dark'. The Chronicles has a lot of dark moments. Even how the White Witch's creatures are described-

and other creatures whom I won't describe because if I did the grown-ups would probably not let you read this book—

I'm sure CS Lewis was aware that parents would get too worried if they were reading the books to their kids. That's a dark moment there, where the White Witch kills Aslan. We don't see it happening, but we still know it's there.

Walden's Prince Caspian was darker than The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe. The tagline gave us that hint, "You may find Narnia a more savage place than you remember."

Voyage of the Dawn Treader has the Dark Island, and that's perhaps the darkest moment in the book. And how would you pull that off on Netflix?

The Silver Chair has dark moments.. a backstory where Ramandu's Daughter is killed by a serpent (later revealed to be the Lady of the Green Kirtle). We feel the same shock and grief as Rilian does.

The Last Battle is a really dark and twisted book. And how much darker can you get than it already is? Show Cair Paravel being ransacked by the Calormenes? Then there's the moment with Tash in the Stable, which I think it can be very difficult to visualize. So how will Netflix pull this off? I'm sure The Last Battle will perhaps take the most risk.

As I have said before, I think it depends on one's definition of "dark."

I wouldn't be surprised if The Last Battle was the darkest of the movies. I would be concerned if they made it darker than it already is: as I've mentioned in another thread, the Calormenes pursuing Tirian, Eustace and Jill as they go and rescue Jewel from the stable, showing the railway accident, actually showing Cair Paravel being exterminated by the Calormene navy, Ginger going into the stable and actually show him seeing Tash, etc.

Posted by: @wanderer

For example, I personally think that the actions behind Lady of the Green Kirtle in Silver Chair are darker than the battle that marks her death. Although her death is described as a “nasty mess,”

Rillian said that he was glad the queen turned into a snake before they killed her because it would have been more disturbing to kill a human(-like) being. Even if there was a "nasty mess" it wouldn't be any more disturbing than road-kill.

Posted by: @reepicheep775

So I think that the harsher realities of life should be included, but obscured as appropriate. A good example is when Peter beheaded the Telmarine lord in PC and we saw one shot of him swinging his sword followed by a shot of a helmet on the ground

That seems to be a more reasonable amount of violence for a show considered to be appropriate for teens and pre-teens.

I don't know if this is merely my observation, but what's considered acceptable for a specific age-group seems to change over the course of a decade or so. I could list The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, and The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as two examples. In the first listed movie the rating is R (for the extended edition), and for the latter it is TV-14. I haven't seen ROP, but my friends who have said that they thought the amount of violence toward humans or human-like beings was a bit excessive, though they didn't say this for TBotFA. Anecdotally speaking, one could argue that Rings of Power and The Battle of the Five Armies could have deserved a similar rating. If this translates to PG-PG-13, a modern PG movie would like be similar to a PG-13 movie of 15 years ago, which would likely leave out a significant portion of the target audience. That may not be the wisest course of action for someone wanting to adapt the Narnia movies.

For me, the obvious answer is: No darker than the books themselves get, and definitely no darker than a PG rating. (I know ratings differ in different countries, so just to be clear, I'm talking about PG in Australian terms, which is what I'm most familiar with. The next rating up is M for "mature audiences", meaning recommended for (but not legally restricted to) viewers aged 15 or over.)

I don't know exactly which age group the original books are "officially" recommended for, but I first read most of them at the age of 7 and absolutely loved them, so I would guess ages 7-12 is about the intended range.

That said, there are some pretty dark elements in the books, but they're usually mitigated by Lewis not being too specific about them — like, as has been previously pointed out here, naming but deliberately not describing most of the White Witch's monstrous followers. Or, during the Last Battle, describing it as being like the kind of nightmare you have when you have a high fever. How to translate all that to the screen is another matter! But there are definitely ways of conveying the right atmosphere without making it too graphic, if the film-makers are good enough. The actual battle in The Last Battle, for example, takes place at night under nothing but fire-light, so everything is already dim and shadowy and confused, and that would make it easier to show people and creatures lunging, swinging weapons, firing arrows and so on, and the dead or wounded falling down, without any close-ups or clear depictions of actual weapon impacts and injuries. 

I'm just visualising one of the most horrible scenes in LB — where the Dwarfs shoot the newly-freed Talking Horses as they come to join the battle — in a way that it could possibly be done cinematically so that we get the awful impact of it without anything too graphic being shown:

Fairly close shot of the Horses charging up the hill, cutting to a close-up of Tirian and his friends looking delighted and about to cheer aloud, then perhaps back to the Horses for a few moments.

Close-ups of the Dwarfs nocking their arrows and shooting.

Close-ups of Horses throwing their heads back and neighing in pain as we hear the sound of arrows hitting, then Horses falling — not showing anything much below the heads and shoulders, so that we don't see any actual arrow impacts or wounds, but we can tell exactly what's happening.

Cut back to Tirian, Jill, Eustace and Jewel with their expressions of joy changing to utter disbelief and horror — Eustace yelling "Little swine!" and Tirian trying to hold him and Jewel back from charging into the fray (there's several lines of dialogue between them there in the book, but it would hold the action up too much just at this crucial point).

Close-ups of Dwarfs hooting with laughter and delivering some of the lines they do in the book ("Thought we were on your side, did you?" etc.), cutting, while we hear this, to a long shot of the Horses lying motionless on the ground in the distance — enough for us to see they've all been killed, not close enough for us to see any of their actual injuries. Maybe a few arrows sticking up visibly from the bodies, but in the dim firelight of this whole scene, no obvious blood. I can imagine perhaps a quick close-up of one or two of the Horses' heads dropping to the ground as they breathe their last, but nothing more than that. So long as it's enough for us to realise what has happened and feel the same gut-wrenching hope-turned-to-despair that our main characters do.

Those are just my thoughts on the fly — perhaps others here can think of how some of the other "dark moments" in the stories could be done on screen in a way that wouldn't be too much for younger viewers?

Posted by: @courtenay

I don't know exactly which age group the original books are "officially" recommended for, but I first read most of them at the age of 7 and absolutely loved them, so I would guess ages 7-12 is about the intended range.

That's about the age I read them as well. The early-2000s movies would probably be considered appropriate for that age group by most people's standards.

Posted by: @courtenay

Those are just my thoughts on the fly — perhaps others here can think of how some of the other "dark moments" in the stories could be done on screen in a way that wouldn't be too much for younger viewers?

That was a pretty good description of how the more violent content would look. I wouldn't have so much against semi-graphic violence on animals and creatures that don't have resemblance to humans since that probably wouldn't be disturbing to most people. Humans, fauns, etc. that would be another matter. Of course, close ups on the more violent content doesn't really add anything to the movie, and glancing over it could still convey the message; possibly even better than being ultra-graphic.

Posted by: @azog-the-defiler

I wouldn't have so much against semi-graphic violence on animals and creatures that don't have resemblance to humans since that probably wouldn't be disturbing to most people.

I don't know — there are probably enough people who would find it disturbing that many producers wouldn't want to try it. Horses in particular are very popular animals in many cultures, and there are a lot of vegetarians and vegans out there these days, too. (That said, there'll be something or other in just about any film that someone out there gets offended by, for whatever reasons, so...)

Of course, close ups on the more violent content doesn't really add anything to the movie, and glancing over it could still convey the message; possibly even better than being ultra-graphic.

"Implied, not stated" is definitely a powerful thing in story-telling, and I think most good film-makers know that. I was just thinking of one of the most famous tear-jerkers in the history of kids' movies: the death of Bambi's mother. It's all the more wrenching because we don't actually see it happen, and we never see her body — indeed, we don't ever see "Man" at any point in the film, but just hear the gunshots and feel the animals' terror in the presence of this mysterious arch-enemy. All of which is far more emotionally powerful than it would be if we actually saw the humans and the guns and the bloodshed. Just hinting at it, and relying on the audience to realise what's happened, is often the most effective and memorable way. Hopefully the upcoming Narnia film-makers (Gerwig and whoever else may follow) will understand that too.

By the way, I like your new signature... I didn't know Orcs spoke Old English, much less prayed in it!  

Posted by: @courtenay

Horses in particular are very popular animals in many cultures, and there are a lot of vegetarians and vegans out there these days, too. (That said, there'll be something or other in just about any film that someone out there gets offended by, for whatever reasons, so...)

True enough. It reminds me of The Miller, his son, and the donkey. That's one of Aesop's fables I believe.

Posted by: @courtenay

"Implied, not stated" is definitely a powerful thing in story-telling, and I think most good film-makers know that.

True. Some of the most hokey movies I've seen are the ones that highlight the more frightening or gruesome things to be cool without it contributing a point to the plot.

Posted by: @courtenay

I was just thinking of one of the most famous tear-jerkers in the history of kids' movies: the death of Bambi's mother. It's all the more wrenching because we don't actually see it happen, and we never see her body — indeed, we don't ever see "Man" at any point in the film, but just hear the gunshots and feel the animals' terror in the presence of this mysterious arch-enemy.

It's rather funny how man is the enemy in Bambi, but when that movie came out hunting was just a normal part of life for many people. Some of my family members who grew up around that time were raised on wild game and grew up with family members hunting. In the part of the country I live now, hunting is still very popular, but so are old Disney children's cartoons.

Posted by: @courtenay

By the way, I like your new signature... I didn't know Orcs spoke Old English, much less prayed in it!  

Thank you! In spite of common assumptions about orcs, we happen to be very religious and proud of our cultural heritage.

@courtenay

Those are interesting visual ideas. I was kind of visualizing if they actually show the Calormene Navy exterminating Cair Paravel. In the book, we don't see it happen: Farsight informs Tirian that Cair Paravel has been taken and that Roonwit has been killed by a Calormene arrow.

On that thought: hear noise in the background at Cair Paravel: shooting arrows and clashes of sword, and a lot of panic: there could even be fog coming from the sea, and the Calormenes emerge. Then they raise their banner. Farsight flies away from the chaos at Cair Paravel after the Calormenes raise their banner, and sees Roonwit, who has an arrow at his side: we don't see it, but see that he is in a lot of pain and close to death. Roonwit says his last words: "A noble death is a treasure that no one is too poor to buy."

I also picture in my head that at the Battle of Stable Hill, while the Calormenes are doing their stuff with their spears, we see Tirian and Rishda dueling in slow motion, until they get near the Stable Door: Tirian drops his sword underneath Rishda's scimitar. Then Tirian grabs Rishda by the belt, jumps back in the stable, "Hey, come inside! You shall meet Tash yourself!"

Those are just random ideas, though.

Interesting thoughts from everyone so far. However, when I say I’d love the new films/TV series to be more “dark & gritty” I’m not thinking of showing violence or bloodshed necessarily but rather showing them as realism.  I didn’t like the cloyingly saccharine sweet Walden Media versions, actually I did enjoy them but didn’t like the style - they made the world of Narnia so twee, I wanted to see them in almost docudrama style, as if it was our world that Narnians and talking beasts had inhabited long before we did.  But I’m also not sure I agree that they should be “suitable” for young children, maybe because I don’t want to watch a “kids movie”, I know I’m probably being selfish here, but I really want to see the stories as if they were written for adults & set in a more realistic world.  

Posted by: @fivefootnowt

 I didn’t like the cloyingly saccharine sweet Walden Media versions, actually I did enjoy them but didn’t like the style - they made the world of Narnia so twee, I wanted to see them in almost docudrama style, as if it was our world that Narnians and talking beasts had inhabited long before we did.

I'm not sure how to say this like I don't want to start an argument but are you saying you want adaptations to not be like the books? Because there are large sections of the books that could be described as twee, depending on your definition anyway. 

Lucy thought she had never been in a nicer place. It was a little, dry, clean cave of reddish stone with a carpet on the floor and two little chairs (“one for me and one for a friend,” said Mr Tumnus) and a table and a dresser and a mantelpiece over the fire and above that a picture of an old Faun with a grey beard. In one corner there was a door which Lucy thought must lead to Mr Tumnus’s bedroom, and on one wall was a shelf full of books. Lucy looked at these while he was setting out the tea things. They had titles like The Life and Letters of Silenus or Nymphs and Their Ways or Men, Monks and Gamekeepers; a Study in Popular Legend or Is Man a Myth?
“Now, Daughter of Eve!” said the Faun.
And really it was a wonderful tea. There was a nice brown egg, lightly boiled, for each of them, and then sardines on toast, and then buttered toast, and then toast with honey, and then a sugar-topped cake. And when Lucy was tired of eating the Faun began to talk. He had wonderful tales to tell of life in the forest. He told about the midnight dances and how the Nymphs who lived in the wells and the Dryads who lived in the trees came out to dance with the Fauns; about long hunting parties after the milk-white stag who could give you wishes if you caught him; about feasting and treasure-seeking with the wild Red Dwarfs in deep mines and caverns far beneath the forest floor; and then about summer when the woods were green and old Silenus on his fat donkey would come to visit them, and sometimes Bacchus himself, and then the streams would run with wine instead of
water and the whole forest would give itself up to jollification for weeks on end...

Lucy thought the Beavers had a very snug little home though it was not at all like Mr Tumnus’s cave. There were no books or pictures, and instead of beds there were bunks, like on board ship, built into the wall. And there were hams and strings of onions hanging from the roof, and against the walls were gum boots and oilskins and hatchets and pairs of shears and spades and trowels and things for carrying mortar in and fishing-rods and fishing-nets and sacks. And the cloth on the table, though very clean, was very rough. Just as the frying-pan was nicely hissing Peter and Mr Beaver came in with the fish which Mr Beaver had already opened with his knife and
cleaned out in the open air. You can think how good the new-caught fish smelled while they were frying and how the hungry children longed for them to be done and how very much hungrier still they had become before Mr Beaver said, “Now we’re nearly ready.” Susan drained the potatoes and then put them all back in the empty pot to dry on the side of the range while Lucy was helping Mrs Beaver to dish up the trout, so that in a very few minutes everyone was drawing up their stools (it was all three-legged stools in the Beavers’ house except
for Mrs Beaver’s own special rocking-chair beside the fire) and preparing to enjoy themselves. There was a jug of creamy milk for the children (Mr Beaver stuck to beer) and a great big lump of deep yellow butter in the middle of the table from which everyone took as much as he wanted to go with his potatoes, and all the children thought — and I agree with them — that there’s nothing to beat good freshwater fish if you eat it when it has been alive half an hour ago and has come out of the pan half a minute ago. And when they had finished the fish Mrs Beaver brought unexpectedly out of the oven a great and gloriously sticky marmalade roll, steaming hot, and at the same time moved the kettle on to the fire, so that when they had finished the marmalade roll the tea was made and ready to be poured out. And when each person had got his (or her) cup of tea, each person shoved back his (or her) stool so as to be able to lean against the wall and gave a long sigh of contentment...

"We will go first to the Three Bulgy Bears," said Trumpkin. They came in a glade to an old hollow oak tree covered with moss, and Trufflehunter tapped with his paw three times on the trunk and there was no answer. Then he tapped again and a woolly sort of voice from inside said, "Go away. It's not time to get up yet." But when he tapped the third time there was a noise like a small earthquake from inside and a sort of door opened and out came three brown bears, very bulgy indeed and blinking their little eyes. And when everything
had been explained to them (which took a long time because they were so sleepy) they said, just as Trufflehunter had said, that a son of Adam ought to be King of Narnia and all kissed Caspian — very wet,
snuffly kisses they were — and offered him some honey. Caspian did not really want honey, without bread, at that time in the morning, but he thought it polite to accept. It took him a long time afterwards to get
unsticky...

When Lucy saw Clodsley Shovel and his moles scuffling up the turf in various places (which Bacchus had pointed out to them) and realized that the trees were going to eat earth it gave her rather a shudder. But when she saw the earths that were actually brought to them, she felt quite different. They began with a rich brown loam that looked almost exactly like chocolate; so like chocolate, in fact, that Edmund tried a piece of it, but he did not find it at all nice. When the rich loam had taken the edge off their hunger, the trees turned to an earth of the kind you see in Somerset, which is almost pink. They said it was lighter and sweeter. At the cheese stage they had a chalky soil, and then went on to delicate confections of the finest gravels powdered with choice silver sand. They drank very little wine, and it made the Hollies very talkative: for the most part they quenched their thirst with deep draughts of mingled dew and rain, flavoured with forest flowers and the airy taste of the thinnest clouds.

Again, I'm not trying to start a fight (and I would never call anyone selfish for wanting the kind of movie they enjoy watching to be made. I call that natural.) Just making observations. 

Posted by: @fivefootnowt

 

 I didn’t like the cloyingly saccharine sweet Walden Media versions, actually I did enjoy them but didn’t like the style - they made the world of Narnia so twee,

Posted by: @col-klink

...but are you saying you want adaptations to not be like the books? Because there are large sections of the books that could be described as twee, depending on your definition anyway. 

In many ways I would say that the Walden movies weren't twee enough. Given that the Narnia stories are fairly playful books for children, the overall sensibility of the movies seemed to be to amp up the LOTR like elements (battles, action, chases) and downplay the whimsical elements (the parties, the romps and such).

However I would still agree with you that I would like to see a more realistic look in the new films. This has nothing to do with tone, but more so with cinematography. The Walden movies, despite having some amazing production design were shot with a very heightened colour palette, very little natural light, and overall had a somewhat larger than life vibe to then (even somewhat cartoonist look by the third film) which for me diminished the sense of Narnia as a real world 

A movie can still be playful, whimsical and joyful yet still have a realistic cinematography.

Posted by: @icarus

However I would still agree with you that I would like to see a more realistic look in the new films. This has nothing to do with tone, but more so with cinematography. The Walden movies, despite having some amazing production design were shot with a very heightened colour palette, very little natural light, and overall had a somewhat larger than life vibe to then (even somewhat cartoonist look by the third film) which for me diminished the sense of Narnia as a real world 

 

Aha, this nails what I meant, I’m watching Walden Media’s LWW again and it is indeed the colour grade and poor CGI, coupled with lack of natural light that annoys me! 🤣. Obviously ILM couldn’t copy LOTR but to me they did a better job on the Tolkien movies.  Let’s hope the CGI is 100% better on Gerwig’s iterations.  And I think you can still have joyfulness & fun when making it look a more realistic world. However I am not sure the use of the word whimsical is something I’d want to associate with Narnia.

Posted by: @icarus

However I would still agree with you that I would like to see a more realistic look in the new films. This has nothing to do with tone, but more so with cinematography. The Walden movies, despite having some amazing production design were shot with a very heightened colour palette, very little natural light, and overall had a somewhat larger than life vibe to then (even somewhat cartoonist look by the third film) which for me diminished the sense of Narnia as a real world 

 

 I don't know that the light had much to do with the feeling of being oriented toward a younger audience. I haven't been to New Zealand (or the other countries where Narnia was filmed), but I can imagine that it's probably brighter in those countries than it would be in Canada, Britain, or the northern Half of the US.

Some of the dialogue in the third movie seemed more child-oriented though. The dialogue between Lillandil and Caspian reminds me of a Rankin and Bass Christmas claymation from the 60s. It doesn't ruin the movie for me, but something about it feels a little cliche.

Very little natural light?
All the LWW on location scenes in NZ had good light, but of course there was patchy weather in the mountainous areas, and the commentaries and backgrounders talk about constantly changing between outdoor shots and indoor ones due to clouding over and rain, and back again!
The decision to film PC mostly in Europe was apparently because the weather was more reliable; however this wasn't the case! Producers needed better meteorologists on the team.  I can't comment on central/eastern European light.
VDT outdoor scenes were produced in Queensland, a northern part of Australia, with excellent light. 

I can't see how weather/light would have affected the suitability for children, and any of the dark dramatic scenes were studio-shot anyway. (I'll just sneak in a comment here that White Island in NZ was not used for any location filming, merely some background shots from a boat; it is notoriously volcanic, and in late 2019 a volcanic eruption was disastrous for two boatloads of tourists).

Posted by: @coracle

Very little natural light?

I guess what I mean by that is that whilst lots of the Walden scenes were filmed outdoors, all of them, as far as I can tell, used alot of high intensity lighting rigs to light the scene. It's typical on most movies which shoot outdoors, but tends to give films a somewhat flat "Hollywood" look with much brighter colours.

Compare that to a movie like The Revenant, or The New World (or any Terrence Mallick movie for that matter) which eschew artificial lighting on outside shooting - it tends to add a alot of extra shadow, depth and subtlety to the image which gives the image that more "gritty" real world aesthetic which often helps to add to the sense of perceived authenticity.