Maybe they'll pick up a couple of non-book witches to be cannon fodder before the final boss fight with the WW and the LotGK in snake form?

But it enabled us to find a stronger reason for the journey, since there is no real reason for the journey as it stands.”

Okay, what? They did have reason for going. They were going not only for adventure but also to right the wrong done by Miraz.

Bookwyrm, I could totally imagine them adding witches. (screams and runs away from that image.)

Actually, I think Josh might have a point with his theory. I know Michael Apted didn't say he was going to do that, but I think he could easily put it in the movie. And even though I would definitely not want it to be in the film, it would explain Coriakin's punishment, it would explain who the LOTGK is, it would tie everything together, and (judging from the other things that have happened with this film so far) it sounds just like the sort of thing Apted would do...

~Riella

There have been many weird reports since I first joined NarniaWeb (Nicole Kidman spottings, leaked scripts, etc.) but I have to say, this may very well take the cake.

So many things wrong with this article. Setting aside the typos (which are awful) and all speculation regarding the LotGK/WW, these things jumped out at me:

1) "Not cinematic"? Isn't that what they told us about PC too? There I could understand where they were coming from, but as far as I am concerned VDT makes for quite a cinematic story. Episodic, yes, but there have been other episodic movies in the history of film.

2) Also, on the purely logical side of things, you cannot draw from a nonexistent story. It's impossible. What a silly assertion.

3) And, of course, the whole "There is no real reason for the journey as it stands" matter. Maybe to find the seven lords? To redress the wrong done to them by his uncle? Ultimately, to reach Aslan's country? There is a reason, and it is true and noble and upright. Fail.

4) He's talking as though the lack of "story" during the years between VDT and SC is some kind of plot hole. No, Michael, it's simply called jumping forward in time. They do that in books. And movies. Hello?

5) In effect, what Apted is saying in the article is that Lewis didn't do a very good job of writing Dawn Treader, and that he forgot to write another novel. Wow, that's some real respect for your source material there, Michael. Again, fail.

This quote doesn't make sense. The grammar and typos are horrible. I'm also wondering if "witches" was supposed to be "witch's." I don't have time for a through grammatical analysis of the quote right now but that could be the case.

Pattertwigs Pal, I'm with you and Josh on this one. Practically my first thought upon reading that part of the quote was, "Doesn't whoever wrote this know how to spell witch's?"

The way I see it, Mr. Apted was trying to say that Caspian's and Rilian's pre-SC backstory (and, perhaps, implied backstory) provided him with ideas he might not otherwise have had for thread to sew the different islands together, so to speak. It didn't sound to me as though he was implying that he had special access to C.S. Lewis's last, super-secret Eighth Chronicle, or that Lewis should have written one, or that he should have written The Voyage of the Dawn Treader in such and such a way, rather than the way he wrote it. And let's remember that this quote is appearing completely out of context. I'm not encouraging everybody to disregard the fact that, on the surface, Mr. Apted seems a bit less concerned with sticking to what Lewis wrote, or the themes behind what Lewis wrote in any case, and the whole part about there being no other reason for the voyage seems a little out of left field to me. However, I'm interested to see how different that quote will look in the context of the article. For all we know, maybe the writer asked Mr. Apted to tell him the craziest thing anybody ever said in the writers' room when they were coming up with the script, or asked him what he'd say to make all the book lovers throw a huge collective fit, and that's what he got.

*steps off of devil's advocate podium*

Ultimately, I'm in the "very curious and slightly weirded out, but still definitely going to see the movie" group. I love watching movies based on classic books, then comparing them to the books and discussing the changes, the reasoning behind them, what did and didn't work, the difference in (or sameness of) themes between the two, etc. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is no different for me. Some movie adaptations work much better and resound much more with me than others, and I remain hopeful that this will be one of the former. If not, I still doubt I'll consider my time or money wasted. I'll probably just spend the rest of the day reading the book and learning to like it even better than I already do. And if worse comes to worst, I can always ask my brother, who is a screenwriter and a very creative literary person (unlike his wannabe sister ), to write his own version. I might even beg him to pitch in on the SC project, if you guys ever decide to do it.

it would explain Coriakin's punishment, it would explain who the LOTGK is, it would tie everything together,

But is Coriakin being punished in the movie? Is he even a star? I don't think he is. I think he has been demoted to just an ordinary magician, which would mean he's not being punished.

I'm interested to see how different that quote will look in the context of the article.

As am I. I especially want to see it without the typos. However, even in context I don't think it will sound much better.

The way I see it, Mr. Apted was trying to say that Caspian's and Rilian's pre-SC backstory (and, perhaps, implied backstory) provided him with ideas he might not otherwise have had for thread to sew the different islands together, so to speak.

But what does he mean by this? The period between VDT and SC in Narnia covers

So what does he plan to draw from on this? Or is he making things up between SC and VDT? So he is drawing on things that would come after VDT is finished? While VDT is still taking place? What does this mean?
He said he will use the "novel Lewis never wrote." He can't draw on something that doesn't exist. So he is taking things he made up, that will happen in the future and is adding them to the present?

I am soo confused. I'm not even mad about this, I am just confused as to what this means? Anyone have any ideas?

Here's my grain of hope. Maybe the person who messed up on the spelling and grammar also messed up on the content, and Apted didn't really say what it looks like he said?

Or maybe Apted got the book confused with something else--like an early script draft. Pretty sure I've never read anything about the Blue Star of Ramandu in my copy of VDT...but then, I've got the American edition.

The Blue Star of Ramandu would probably be a bad discription of Lilliandu.

What about the seven lords? Have you completely forgotten about them?

[Scene: The Dark Island]

Lord Rhoop: HeeeeeLLLP Aaaagh, save me from this misery and darkness!

Caspian: Who's there

Lord Rhoop: It's me, Lord Rhoop or Narnia! Help me!

[Lucy, Edmund, Caspian all gasp simultaneously]

Edmund: Ask him if he still has his sword.

Caspian: Hey, Lord Rhoop, by chance do you still carry your sword?

Rhoop: Nay, lord, I lost it---

Edmund: Aw drat. No use coming here after all. Let's get out of here....

Rhoop: Wait---!!!! What about me?!

And don't compare Narnia to Star Wars or Harry Potter. Narnia came first, and it's completely different from either. Narnia is a history. Hence the word "Chronicles" in the title. It's not about one character or two characters or even a set of characters. It's about the land itself. There doesn't always need to be a villain.
.

SO TRUE!!!! A lot of people like to skip over the fact that Narnia came first.

The Blue Star of Ramandu would probably be a bad discription of Lilliandu.

--but it's referring to the movie character, not Ramandu's daughter from the book. Who isn't blue. Or necessarily a star. Or named.

He seems to be getting mixed up between the book and, well, all the other ideas floating around.

I'll just say I'm very confused and I hope the entire thing is a misquote. And here I was starting to feel better about the movie...

It seems that there was a leaked script which has thoroughly put the cat among the panic stricken pigeons. It should never have been leaked in the first place, however it was used or modified and whoever did it deserved to be sacked. I've been on the Dawn Treader which was on exhibition at Warner Bros Movieworld last January, and when I asked a simple question about whether or not Eustace gets to be a dragon, the tour guides said they were sworn to secrecy.

In fact in a photo I took of the Dawn Treader, with bits of its sides bitten out, the tour guide said someone really was sacked for not repairing the damage for the exhibition.

I really must insist that it would be impossible for Apted or anyone else to screen VDT to match either the book exactly or the BBC productions because of copyright regulations which force him to put into this particular interpretation a small percentage of original content of his own. Something like 5 or 10%, I think it might be This is the law on Intellectual content! Apted and all his film cast and crew, including the script writer, has to obey it. And for the information of those who haven't thought of this possibility whilst they criticize a movie they haven't seen yet, that particular USA law is not all that different from other Western countries, in Australia, or UK, at any rate.

2) Also, on the purely logical side of things, you cannot draw from a nonexistent story. It's impossible. What a silly assertion.

Of course you are right. I suspect that the angst which is happening on this particular message board plus the attitude of whoever purported to be interviewing him, must have been particularly irritating to him and he found himself being a teensy bit sarcastic in response. That is, if it was really him being interviewed. You have all noted the spelling and grammar, which isn't good enough for the sort of prestigious magazine which would report the truth, and whose opinion he would seek.

At least this article puts the lie to all the angst that the White Witch is the same as LOTGK, or hasn't that been noticed? And yes, Coriakin was being punished in VDT the book. When Caspian and co wanted to know why, Ramandu told them politely enough - and correctly - that basically it was none of their business. But whilst you can say that in a story it isn't possible to say that sort of thing in a film.

Actually, I think Josh might have a point with his theory. I know Michael Apted didn't say he was going to do that, but I think he could easily put it in the movie. And even though I would definitely not want it to be in the film, it would explain Coriakin's punishment, it would explain who the LOTGK is, it would tie everything together, and (judging from the other things that have happened with this film so far) it sounds just like the sort of thing Apted would do...

And explaining everything visually is what any film is about. It is why the journey between islands has been shortened. It is why finding seven lords, alive or dead isn't enough, especially when some of them are dead. They have to be visually accounted for some other way. Eustace's undragoning has to be done visually, especially as the BBC already used the dream sequence. Lord Bern free to run around the Lone Islands works in a children's book but in a film it makes more sense if he had been imprisoned for speaking out about Gumpas' slave trade.

I could go on about the movie. As for SC, I'd be very surprised if Tilda Swinton would be cast as LOTGK. Michael Apted, if this interview really is correct, is virtually dismissing the idea.

Practically my first thought upon reading that part of the quote was, "Doesn't whoever wrote this know how to spell witch's?"

That would be worse if that's what he meant.

The only good news that comes out of this quote is that it multiple witches implies that the WW and the LotGK will not be the same character.

But if he actually meant "witch's" (singular), that horrible possibility is still open. God help us all.

And don't compare Narnia to Star Wars or Harry Potter. Narnia came first, and it's completely different from either. Narnia is a history. Hence the word "Chronicles" in the title. It's not about one character or two characters or even a set of characters. It's about the land itself. There doesn't always need to be a villain.

Stop trying to turn VDT into something it's not.

Very well said! Why take something unique and turn it into something we've seen a million times?

(Hint: The answer begins with $)

I really must insist that it would be impossible for Apted or anyone else to screen VDT to match either the book exactly or the BBC productions because of copyright regulations which force him to put into this particular interpretation a small percentage of original content of his own. Something like 5 or 10%, I think it might be This is the law on Intellectual content! Apted and all his film cast and crew, including the script writer, has to obey it. And for the information of those who haven't thought of this possibility whilst they criticize a movie they haven't seen yet, that particular USA law is not all that different from other Western countries, in Australia, or UK, at any rate.

Out of interest, in all my years of following movie news i have never heard of such a thing ever being brought up in the context of adapting or remaking another soruce material. Could you find a reference or source for your information.?