I understand your point, but I don't think I could call it dark, except for the sketeton and the majority of the sea serpent scene. It comes across more silly than dark. Like they're trying to create tension that a 4 yr old would find... well tense. But that kind of excluded most of their older audience. And there were dark moments from the book that they cut out too, like the mutiny, or Caspian's rage at the end about not being able to go to Aslan's Country. And don't forget the undragoning. I think the pacing has a lot to do with my feelings too. It's hard to get drawn into a story emotionally if its so fast. As for the serpent, no it didn't have a hood in the book, but I recall that moment being rather intense in the book. Also I feel like both the storm sequence and the windless sea sequence were much more intense in the book.

Really, one could argue LWW was darker than the book too, but I think that's more a result of the fact that it's a film version- visual rather than heard or read.

And congrats on your first topic!

It could have been a dark and downright creepy movie with a better script. But this is a movie aimed at kindergarteners and so the "darkness" is really more like slightly dim.

The VDT movie was lighter than the book for a few reasons.

1. The book dealt with the depravity of the human soul. The movie dealt with the "special-ness" of the human soul.

2. The Dark Island in the book made "dreams come true", and idea that can fill almost anyone with terror. One of the reasons it's so creepy in the book is that it's so vague (i.e. people's horrified reactions to things like gongs and scissors). In the movie Dark Island became Whatever You Think Of Will Become Real Island. The Sea Serpent was scary but it didn't make the Dark Island genuinely creepy like in the book.

There might be few more...

And remember the opposite of light-hearted isn't necessarily "dark". It can also be "serious". Moments that were dealt with seriousness in the book were dealt with in a light-hearted matter like they were unimportant. The prime example being Aslan's Country.

I agree with Reepicheep775 on the first point. Having the main characters deal with their own weaknesses in the book made it much deeper and darker in some ways because the reader is forced to look at themselves and think "how would I deal with that if I were in that situation." It becomes a lot shallower when the problems are portrayed as outside of a person. So the message went from "We are people with potential towards good or bad with power to make the world either better or worse" to in the movie - "We are pretty great people in a bad world, and if we can just like ourselves enough that alone can make the world better"

PuddleCheep, I do agree about the Narrowhaven scene. It was much lighter in the book. In the book it is one of my favorite Narnian moment is how Caspian swoops in, with the help of one of the seven lords rescues his friends, ousts the governor, and ends slave trade nonviolently and with humor. In the movie, they made it much darker and a lot of plot holes and nothing funny about it. Except that one line from Eustace, "I hope that wasnt' the British Consul".

VODT is a somewhere between a good & very good film & in a general sense we do get to watch the VODT story come to life, which makes it even better But whether it has much darkness or is too light is abit of a muddle.

This is because it never makes up it's mind what it's main story line POV is as it's emotional core. Is it the Green mist? Is it the lost lords? Is it the search for the swords? The Lost Narnian citizens? Is it Lucy finding Aslan now she's older? Edmond conquering fear & lingering jealousy? Caspian coming of age as King? Eustace gaining some social skills.... Or just the adventure of the islands discovered on the way?

In PC, there is the Peter/Caspian/Miraz conflicts & arcs along with the steadying & captivating Lucy/Georgia Henley line through out the film to plug into for everything else, including tone. An indication of the lost potential of VODT for this, is when for a short time we get a fairly consistent adventure with Lucy on the Magician's Island with the dufflepods & Corikan. A really strong adventure narrative gets created. To me, Georgia Henley given the role could have been the audiences main translator in experiencing whole length & breadth of the story lines that are there in the film to be had, rather than as a kind of papering over at some points in keeping the film together for some of the structural problems of the wider approach to making the story.

Michael Apted covered all the bases well though, amazingly well really cause there are many big jumps in storylines from here to there to where, it's almost non linear in a be here now kind of way. Jumbled bits of storylines that we don't really know but are pretty seamlessly woven together like we do know. Like Aslan giving Caspian's father the swords. Was Caspian's father a good guy? Does Caspian want to honor his father or not be like him? I don't know

A good, well done story has both light and dark. Without the light, the dark would swallow everything, and without darkness, the light has nothing to shine in. Sometimes, there's more of one then the other, but you usually have both somewhere.

In LWW, they put in the right amount of light and dark. The story had its evil moments, but emotional and bright moments were there. All families could watch this film and adore it. PC, on the other hand, had more darkness than light. Changes also helped to add more shadows, and even though it mostly still was about the same the book in darkness and light, it was very dark. The age group went up as well, ranging more for teens than a family. But light can be brighter if there's more darkness, so I thought it was good.

VDT should've been well balanced like LWW was. Dark moments existed (like the dark island and the undragoning), but so did light moments (like the dufflepuds and Reep's longing). In my opinion, because of the major plot changes, the movie felt way too light, the kind of lightness for 6 year olds, and very uneasy in the balancing. These films are family or 10 and older films. The ridiculousness of the scenes that should've been darker were horrible!

And without the emotional inward basis, as Reepicheep775 pointed out, it felt very shallow and hard to to feel deep emotion for the characters and the story. Being told "It's ok to be you." was like hearing a child's story again. And the green mist totally twisted it to make you think there's bad outside of you, not bad inside of you.

So, VDT failed at being a darker, more family suited film, and instead looked like a cheesier and lighter movie.

In the movie, they made it much darker and a lot of plot holes and nothing funny about it. Except that one line from Eustace, "I hope that wasnt' the British Consul".

That was one of the bits of humor I did really like. But it is marred by the fact that Eustace knocks the guy into the water and he sinks and we never see him again. So I guess we're meant to assume that Gumpas drowns and Eustace never even mentions the fact that he killed someone.

I think what made it dark for me was that there was tension because of the green mist. I wasn't exactly frightening, it just didn't give the film that wonder and excitement that the book had. It felt like there was a dark (green) cloud hanging over Narnia.

Oh, and I thought that Ramandus's...oops! I mean Lilliandil's Island was much darker than the book portrayed. In the book, there was that uncertainty of the unknown but it gave way to wonder and beauty.

PuddleCheep, I feel the same way about the movie's portrayal of "Lilliandil's Island". It was darker than the book's - unnecessarily so!

Bookwyrm - I never realized that Gumpas doesn't come up! That's kinda unpleasant! Of course, there could have been more to the scene that was cut out in editing.

VDT was not dark, imo. It had places that had the potential to be very deep and exciting and moving and "dark", but they weren't handled well. Such as Dark Island. Or on the Dufflepud's Island when Coriakin is talking. But, neither of those moments were "dark" like PC was for me. I think it's because the rest of it was so simple, that when they finally came to a moment that could have been really deep, they just didn't know what to do with it. And even if the made them "dark" the audience wouldn't have gotten into it because it would be over their head compared to the rest of the movie.

It becomes a lot shallower when the problems are portrayed as outside of a person. So the message went from "We are people with potential towards good or bad with power to make the world either better or worse" to in the movie - "We are pretty great people in a bad world, and if we can just like ourselves enough that alone can make the world better"

Yep it really does make the movie less meaning-full. I agree, Conina.

Also, what is the NWer's official definition of a "dark" movie? I think a lot of us don't all think of the same thing when we type or read "dark". Maybe we should be clearified by what PuddleCheep means by "dark".

By dark, I mean some parts of the book where there was some tension or small fears but the movie drags those out more and makes them very dark i.e. the Sea Serpent and Ramandu's (Lilliandil's) Island.

Okay. I think that in the movie they drag them out and make them a bigger deal and more dramatic. Just sort of "on-the-edge-of-your-seat" moments. But I never had a real sense of darkness or danger. In the back of my head the whole time, I knew everything was going to be fine. (and that doesn't just come from knowing the book!) During LWW and PC, there were moments when I was truely afraid: the actor's emotions and the story lines were so authentic that I really, in the moment, didn't know how it would end! VDT didn't do that to me. Sorry, that was a little off topic there.

So, yeah, I still don't see any real "darkness" in it. But it's totally fine if we don't agree. I see your point, and there are a few deeper and more serious scenes. We probably don't see eye-to-eye on what "dark" is, and that's totally okay! This is a good topic.

Okay. I think that in the movie they drag them out and make them a bigger deal and more dramatic. Just sort of "on-the-edge-of-your-seat" moments. But I never had a real sense of darkness or danger. In the back of my head the whole time, I knew everything was going to be fine. (and that doesn't just come from knowing the book!) During LWW and PC, there were moments when I was truly afraid: the actor's emotions and the story lines were so authentic that I really, in the moment, didn't know how it would end! VDT didn't do that to me.

I strongly agree with this. They were just wading in the emotions they could have brought out with this film instead of diving to the depths emotionwise....wasn't really any suspense or impending danger developed during the whole length....pretty flat and dull.....example: Eustace's becoming a dragon. In the book it's built up suspensefully and creeps him out before he finds out he's been dragoned. Movie version: *poof* he's dragoned offscreen and all of a sudden he's emerged and very well-adjusted to his new dragon
"superpowers". The minute I saw Dragon-Eustace pulling the ship by his tail I cringed and rolled my eyes because it was so cliched and something really way too simple and aimed at the 8 and under crowd. The film was lightweight because it didn't aim higher to satisfy the older audiences that were drawn to PC and LWW. The script didn't have enough logical character development and "meat" in it. I've a love-hate sort of feeling for this film.

No, it's only sad! But in the good sense. Lucy says the same thing about something. I'm Polish, so I read the native language version of that book and I don't remember about what she was talking about. Please, quote her here! I know that was with author's "talk" with Lucy. I can say only one thing: TOUCHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! about VDT film!