During the VDT film commentary, Michael Apted stated, "one of the problems you have with the film is that there isn't really a villain in the story, and all good adventure stories have to have a villain. And so, for this is the green mist, that is our villain." VDT is the only Narnia story that doesn't have a specific villain in it, and is one of two books that doesn't really have a big battle or fight scene, along with MN. Apted obviously changed a lot in the film in order to work in a villain and action scenes because the book lacks the orthodox villains and action. If Apted directed any other film besides VDT or MN, do you think he still would have changed a lot, since they already have antagonists and action scenes? Do you think the film would have turned out better if he had directed a different one?
It's a combination of many factors. Apted's comments showed that he's interested in more conventional storytelling, the cliche adventure format. Dawn Treader did not provide all of this for him. So the director is partly to blame for the weaknesses of the film but there were obviously more people influencing things. Walden were desperate to make better profits for the survival of their biggest franchise and Fox, serving as the new distributor, also wanted to make sure the product was financially reliable.
When you have three different sources (director, producer, distributor) in a sort of "panic mode" to turn a profit, we get a film like VDT. Had they gotten a director who was willing to do justice to the more unconventional plot elements and if the Narnia franchise was in a more stable place during the time, everybody might have loosened up and allowed the original novel to stand on its own in the film. It's disappointing when you realize how much was tampered with, all of which made such a beautiful story on paper into a forgetful day at the movies.
But getting back to the original topic, I do feel that if Apted did SC or another book with a more traditional framework, there wouldn't be nearly as many plot changes. As a whole, everyone involved with VDT was nervous and it shows on the screen. If they want the franchise to survive, they have to handle their source material with more confidence.
Mary Jane: You know, you're taller than you look.
Peter: I hunch.
Mary Jane: Don't.
I think if he did a different book, it would have been a lot better than VDT was. Especially since he might have more confidence in it. But I don't think it would have been so much better that you could call it good. Because really, after seeing what he made of that movie, and hearing comments he's made about Narnia... I just don't think he really gets what the books are about. I don't think he sees or understands the heart of the stories.
~Riella
I actually think Apted could do The Horse and His Boy pretty well. To me, there isn't as much as a "fantasy feel" to it, other than talking horses and a few other talking animals. It has a battle, and human villains(as opposed to witches and green mists) and since Apted seems more familiar with documentaries and dramas with people, I think he could do a pretty good job with HHB.
I actually think Apted could do The Horse and His Boy pretty well. To me, there isn't as much as a "fantasy feel" to it, other than talking horses and a few other talking animals. It has a battle, and human villains(as opposed to witches and green mists) and since Apted seems more familiar with documentaries and dramas with people, I think he could do a pretty good job with HHB.
Very true, I hadn't thought of that human qualities in HHB. I think if he did HHB, it would be a lot better than VDT. In regards to the themes, Apted would probably stick more to the book and so would be able to get the themes because it would be closer to the books. Although he may not understand the themes and messages of Narnia, it would be easier for him to "fake it", for lack of a better word.
Very true, I hadn't thought of that human qualities in HHB... Although he may not understand the themes and messages of Narnia, it would be easier for him to "fake it", for lack of a better word.
The thing is, a director shouldn't have to "fake it". What we really want is someone who knows the heart of the books, believes in the project, and approaches it with enthusiasm.
It sounds almost like we're trying to find some place to squeeze him in, so he'll have something to do and feel wanted. But what is the point of that, really? It wouldn't be pleasant for him or the people watching the movies. I think everything would be much better off if Apted stuck to the type of movies he understands and enjoys, and Narnia got a new director who knows and loves it the way a filmmaker should.
~Riella
I agree with Ithilwen, If he directed any others the changes would not be a bad since the rest of the books does have the villians. And at the same time I also agree that he has no idea of what these stories are about, sure he had the famous lines from the book in the movie but I didn't feel as if they were done in the right way, they were just there without the meaning. Still I did like some of the points in the movie but I wouldn't want Apted back just for the reason it seems he doesn't appreciate these stories.
Long Live King Caspian & Queen Liliandil Forever!
Jill+Tirian! Let there be Jilrian!