I'm actually with both of you on this. The VDT movie was schizoid. On the one hand, the dialog, theme integration, and plot/character development was very simplified, making it more appropriate for very young kids, on the other hand, the sea serpent would likely give your typical kindergartener nightmares.

I'm actually with both of you on this. The VDT movie was schizoid.

From an age point of view, I agree as well and those were good examples, Anhun.

I've only seen the first Harry Potter movie which clearly was for a younger audience. How did the rest of the Harry Potter movies line up with their ratings? (Anyone who has seen them all.)

@Glim Glum:

All three of the first Harry Potter movies are considered PG, though the second one, Chamber of Secrets, has a scary basilisk, really horrible spiders and the screen shots of Hermione lying petrified on her bed in the hospital looks every bit as clunky as anything you see in the Narnia productions to date. The third one (Prisoner of Azkaban) is a bit better, but the remaining HP films are all classified M in Australia. I understand our M is the equivalent of America's PG 13.

Prince Caspian is also rated as M in Australia, though VDT retained the PG rating. Had paw been firmly pressed to dragon skin in Eustace's undragoning, I'm sure the Australian rating would have been M.

I'm beginning to wonder if adapting children's fiction, especially adventure stories, as opposed to teen fiction like the later books of Harry Potter, can really be a problem for film makers. Last weekend I finally got to see Eagle, which was released in Australia, Thursday, a week ago. This film, which seems to have given the Australian censorship board heartburn, was finally rated as M. Based on a children's story I could still enjoy as a teenager and adult, I was alarmed to see an adaptation which turns it into a Roman men's movement film, rather than the historical adventure book I enjoyed.

This isn't really the place to recount the many departures from Rosemary Sutcliffe's book, the Eagle of the Ninth, I agree. But my beefs with the film must seem very familiar to those who have had beefs with PC and VDT. The first battle scene was okay and true to the story. However, the hero's female friend, Cottia of the Iceni, was totally missing, making the film much darker. And I didn't like the way the film dealt with Marcus' (the hero's) mission to rescue the Eagle. Instead of Marcus' premeditated disguise as a travelling oculist, the filmmakers had him involuntarily change roles with Esca, his Brigante ex-slave. Again there was unnecessary bloodshed in the film, a totally unsatisfactory extra battle and funeral, and much maundering on about fathers and sons and politicians that spoiled what might have been a good movie.

There were a few teenage boys in the audience who might have enjoyed the movie. The rest were older men and women like myself, who enjoyed the book when younger. Unlike the queues of families waiting to get into the Harry Potter films, including children of primary school age, or last Christmas' VDT, there were no young children in the audience, and I was glad of that. There are dangers in darkening up a movie as well as dangers in dumbing it down which is what people are complaining about in VDT. This is one instance when a more faithful adaptation would have been more appealing.

The real question is, do we really market films for school aged children? Or for adults with fond memories of beloved stories?

Thank you for the HP ratings info, wagga.

The real question is, do we really market films for school aged children? Or for adults with fond memories of beloved stories?

Good question. I wonder how the C.S. Lewis Estate and the studio are looking at this aspect of the movie series. Could be one more reason for the long delay.

It will be interesting to see what is done with the next version of whichever story is chosen to be made into a movie.

From all that has been said so far, that would be Magician's Nephew. It is the only other Narnia film which could reasonably follow VDT apart from Silver Chair, anyway.

Good question. I wonder how the C.S. Lewis Estate and the studio are looking at this aspect of the movie series. Could be one more reason for the long delay.

I expect it is. If you appeal to adults as well as children, they may want to take along the school aged children to share with them their joy in a favourite tale. If you appeal to teenagers only, who may or may not have read the books, you risk leaving out the other two groups, which seems to have been what happened with PC. Whilst VDT, directed at primary school children, seems to have been too childish for the taste of fans on Narniaweb, at any rate, and this is the very group that may not get to see the movie at all if the movie is seen as only for children. It is odd indeed that the bulk of viewers I saw at any of the 5 VDT screenings I attended were adults, many in my own baby boomer age group.

However, if I was working out the legalities and other things necessary for the pre-production of the next Narnia film there is one thing I would do to buy time and get the right impact for a final announcement. I would wait until the HP craze died down a bit whilst insisting that I was still in talks. I think that the right time will be around October.

There is a website to be launched in September or October but by that time the last HP movie will be closer to completing its run, and the pre-Christmas blockbusters will not have been released yet. The first publicity for next year's Hobbit episode will not yet have started. And by that time most people would have started to wonder if any announcement had been made at all.

Whereas if there is to be no future Narnia movie, why not say so now? Get it over and done with and not have people living in false hope against hope. Just the way I'd go about things, myself.

There will be no change. For although Harry Potter is over, The Hobbit movies will come out. And I think out of all of the franchises Narnia is compared to, the Lord of the Rings is the most mentioned.

I wouldn't say that VDT was designed for primary school-aged children so much as those beginning school (4-6 year olds).

One of my biggest beefs is that child-friendly does not mean childish. I think the best stories are child-friendly and not childish.

To help bring the discussion around: Do you think Harry Potter is for kids? Do you think Narnia is for kids? How will the end of the former affect the latter?

Conversely, is HP too mature? Is Narnia too mature? How will the end of the former affect the latter?

What is your opinion?

Great discussion so far!

Narnia is definitely child-friendly, but not childish. HP on the other hand, is geared toward children the same age as Harry. As Harry matures, so do the books.

I haven't read HP1, but I thought HP2 was childish. It reminded me of those dreadful short chapter books they made us read in elementary school. HP3 and 4 were child-friendly but not childish. HP5 and 6 were not child-friendly at all in my opinion. Didn't read Deathly Hallows.

I voted that interest in Narnia will go up, and I think it is possible. There is a gap now and a new Narnia movie could fill it. On the other hand, that may be wishful thinking on my part.

As for HP maturity, I agree with Anhun in that the books (and movies) become increasingly dark as Harry gets older.

I think the Narnia books mirror that to a limited extent. LB seems darker than SC and SC seems darker than LWW but its not quite as linear of a progression.

I read the Narnia books as a kid. I didn't start on HP until I was 19 years old. Narnia is good for kids and adults. Kids can enjoy it and adults can read or re-read them and get new insights. HP seems especially good for teens and older. If I have kids myself, I would probably start them earlier on Narnia (7 or 8) than I would on HP (12 or 13 for the first book.)

The Narnia movies seem to be struggling to find a marketing niche. I hope if another one gets made that it can be appealing and appropriate for kids and also interesting to adults. I worry that with HP done, that there's increasing danger of trying to become the next HP. Assuming another film gets made I hope the screen writers, directors, and producers focus on the source material and ignore HP (not that I didn't love HP in its own proper story).

I actually would consider the reading age for HP to be around 8 years old though i might wait a little bit for the fourth film and on. I actually find the HP books to be pretty childish. I think for Narnia i would be willing to read them to a child of any age, but they are still very enjoyable for adults as well. So i would consider them more childlike at times, but not childish. There is a lot of deep things going on in Narnia that do not exist in HP. Probably the deepest thing that HP goes into is the sort of racist treatment of muggleborns and the general Nazi references in some of the later books.

Narnia is more theological or philosophical themed then HP.

Movie Aristotle, I agree that child-friendly and childish don't mean the same thing but the VDT movie was childish, the book was not.

Narnia was written for children but Lewis wrote them so that anyone (provided they feed their inner-child) can enjoy them at different levels.
The first two Harry Potter books are for children (they have more of a Roald Dahl feel than anything else). Books 3 to 7 are more appropriate for teenagers.

Neither HP or Narnia are too mature. They were written with their audiences in mind and are appropriate for children or teenagers of those ages. HP and Narnia share some similarities but also many differences. For one, it is easier to have theological and philosophical discussions about Narnia than HP. But HP also contains some theological discussions. There's some philosophy too but most discussions would be about the nature of society and how we treat each other.

I believe that there will be no change. And, really, I don't think that there should be either. Harry Potter and Narnia are two different entities and shouldn't be compared to one another based on their successes (or failures, I suppose you could say as well). They're not linked, so what happens to one is not going to directly affect the other.

And you might be saying "Lion's Emblem, they're two fantasy book series written by British authors and the stories have translated to film, of course you would compare them." And I would say, yes, that's true. However, there's a very big difference between them as well. They are not the same stories, they do not take place in the same setting, and the characters have different needs and desires for the audience to relate to. Simply, they are two different films. Their success can't be reflected by one another anymore than you could pair the success of a Spiderman film with a Batman one.

Also, Lion's Emblem, the Harry Potter books and the Narnia books belong to two different eras with quite different expectations in society. I do see a relationship between the two series, particularly as JK Rowling has admitted to her admiration of C.S.Lewis. But I also agree that the two series are quite different.

The Narnia series, or at least 5 of them, took place in a wartime and an immediate post-war setting - Walden did get that completely right. Last night on watching a series on life in WW2 Britain, I was actually quite startled on how much VDT, in particular, got it right. The daggy clothes, making do with turnips or onions, and being grateful to get either. The use of ration cards and the sorts of things they ate and drank, especially ersatz coffee or reconstituted eggs.

In my case I had direct confirmation from someone who lived through all of this as a child. He said the program - also VDT- helped him make sense of what he remembered of those days, when nicking fresh peas or beans from a farmer's field was just as tasty as hoeing into the potato chips. You mightn't like it very much, but it also put into perspective for me a post-war era when we could get caned or detention for not eating everything we were served, regardless of whether we liked it or not, or even if our hunger would have been satisfied with a smaller helping.

Part of the popularity of Harry Potter has been its currency. The first HP film was released in Nov 2001, and some of the Harry Potter book themes resonated in that year and subsequently. The audiences of post WW2 might not have been anywhere near as receptive to some of the philosophical ideas in Harry Potter than is the case now.

As W4J points out, "the first two Harry Potter books are for children", and also that "both series were written with their audiences in mind and are appropriate for children or teenagers of those ages. HP and Narnia share some similarities but also many differences". Quite so. I would put the reading age for HP books at 10 +.

Is it possible that the producers of the Narnia series so far have had a bit of a problem with what their audience really is?

I wouldn't say that VDT was designed for primary school-aged children so much as those beginning school (4-6 year olds).

Sorry, much as I agree with your latest post in particular, I don't think that VDT the film was produced with 4-6 year olds in mind. Primary school children, yes, and for good reason. Children of the 4-6 years old range get their enjoyment out of the Easy books, unless they have a fantastic ability to read. Children of 4-6 years old tend not to understand words like philosophy, psychology or theology let alone understand the joke in the beauty spell. Older children might pick up on it. I'm not saying children of 4-6 years old wouldn't have enjoyed VDT - after all, most children that age really love to be read to.

I do agree with W4J that both Narnia and HP were "written with their audiences in mind and are appropriate for children or teenagers of those ages. HP and Narnia share some similarities but also many differences". After having read this newspaper article about dubbing Harry Potter films into Arabic, I think I know the reason why you think the language was 'dumbed down'. It was mainly to make translation easier.

I think the Narnia books mirror that to a limited extent. LB seems darker than SC and SC seems darker than LWW but its not quite as linear of a progression.

Darkness and maturity are two different things. I would describe both LB and HP2 as dark children's books. Darkness has to do with dark or frightening imagery, and frightening or sad themes. Children can respond to all of those things within an age-appropriate context.

Maturity, on the other hand, has to do with psychological development. This can involve the complexity of the plot, or it can involve the motivations of the characters. For example, I read Gone With the Wind when I was 10, and I didn't understand a lot of the dynamics between the characters. Likewise, if you have a conversation about Order of the Phoenix with a pre-adolescent child who's read it, it becomes clear that they fundamentally misunderstand much of what the characters were doing and why.

The Narnia series has metaphorical elements that might go over a young child's head, but most pre-adolescent children have no trouble understanding the story or the protagonists. They can appreciate it as a story. There really is no progression of darkness or maturity in the Narnia series. All of the books are written at the same maturity level, whereas the darkness varies from book to book.

I would rank the books in the following order from brightest to darkest, in tone:

1. VDT
2. HHB
3.LWW
4. PC
5.MN
6.SC
7. LB

Btw: I work with 4-6-year-olds (with brain disorders, but still, little children are little children) and I have to say, Warrior is exactly right about VDT's target audience. VDT (the movie) isn't for audiences who understand psychology and theology, any more than HP is for people who speak pseudo-Latin.