I guess I just didn't really understand what moral lessons they were trying to include. They had the mist, which was temptation and evil (or something)?. And of course Aslan's Cheesy, "Just be yourself" line...not sure exactly what moral implication that was?

It's true--movies shouldn't shove moral lessons down your throat, They're supposed to show and explore different aspects of decisions and situations and then leave the viewer to think about it. But you're right, this movie never did that. All the temptation was done in such a sloppy way that none of it really made sense (to me at least.) Or else it was shoved in our face like Edmund screaming about being the second fiddle, and the White Witch's reappearance tempting Edmund to be her king...again.

I'm not sure that there was anything to take away from this movie. Aslan's "you must learn my other name," speech was good but because Aslan was never very consistent in the film it was completely lacking and out of place compared to the challenge that the book gives.

I didn't like the way the Green Mist was handled either. It was downright confusing how the green mist kept disappearing sometimes seemingly instantaneously, like when Edmund is tempted by the White Witch. One moment Edmund is surrounded by Green Mist in the form of the White Witch, the next moment everyone is looking at him strangely. Is the White Witch mist only visible to him? In every other instance it appears to be visible to everybody. I also felt like it wasn't real temptations the characters were having to deal with, it was crazy temptations caused by the gross exaggeration of small character flaws by some omnipotent evil force.

I found a very interesting review by "PrinceRilian" on YouTube that was quite critical of the moral lessons of the movie. He said that the ideas were very humanistic, something he doesn't think that C. S. Lewis could have written.

He starts talking about the humanism at 11:50.

They did well teaching the moral lesson of "not giving into temptation." That is, if their audience were preschoolers. They didn't have to be so obvious with the green mist to get the message across.
I wasn't sure what to think of how they did Lucy's jealousy... it WAS kind of pushing it down your throat.
The thing with "When you should grow up, you should be just like YOU" was handled pretty well. But it was quick and quite cliche and you didn't think about it much afterwards.

The problem with trotting out these sort of wishy-washy, feel-good cliched lines like "Just be yourself." is that there's no logic to them. If Lucy is told to just be herself and this is a good thing, why is everyone else unhappy with Eustace just being himself? By expecting someone to behave by a complex system of behaviors, whether you call it ethics, morality, manners, whatever, you are expecting that someone to act against their natural inclinations. So which is it? Be yourself or play by the rules?

Bookwyrm, that's has always been my thoughts on the "be your self" line as well. It doesn't really make sense. What does that mean?

I think what they could have done was to say that you should be who you are intended to be by Aslan. In that case Eustace would be called to be something greater than what he is at the beginning of the movie.

I think that is an important theme in the book as well. Its also deeper and more complex than a cheesy "be your self."

I wonder, too, if the heavy-handed emphasis might not tend to push people further away from the movie. People who come to the movie expecting to have morals pushed down their throat certainly won't be disappointed here. If they had been a bit (well, actually, a lot ) more subtle, they could have included a broader range of themes without alienating people. Lewis wanted the Chronicles to be a bunch of good adventure stories, too, but the movie didn't quite capture that, in my opinion.

What heavy-handed emphasis? The green mist was a reaction to someone doing something wrong, wasn't it? Even the snow job Lucy saw in the Magician's book provoked the green reaction. I don't see anything trite or humanistic or wishy washy about the values expressed in the film. Nor do I see anything heavy-handed about the film expressing any values at all. Shrek Forever took a whole film to find out the same truth that Lucy found out in a single nightmare. Are you saying that Shrek Forever was trite? Or heavy-handed?

Many of the children who I noticed went to see VDT were not necessarily pre-schoolers. But they weren't teenagers, either. Such children are too young to go on this board, and they are too young to say what they consider as either wishy washy or heavy-handed and why, without parental prompting. The film was for them, not just for us 'adults' who know everything .

When Aslan was talking about "being yourself" he was tlaking abotu the outward appearance. Lucy wanted to be as pretty as Susan and get the attention Susan gets. That's what Aslan was saying. He was not saying be a total brat. I love Eustace and I actually felt sorry for him in both book and movie, but he was a brat and a liar. He was greedy. So, there was a problem with him. If he was trying to bne like Edmund or Caspian, the same message would apply. Aslan was just syaing not to compare yourselves to others and that your own life is just as valuable as the lives of others..

I actually read a review in the newspaper that said VODT was less moralistic than LWW and PC.
I thought it was way more moralistic! I agree with what was said above, that VODT should have been more of an adventure, exploring new worlds, instead of the constant fighting-temptations-in-the-mist.

Also, I don't know if you guys noticed, they made Eustace regret his behavior and turned him into a nice little boy who loved Narnia etc. But doesn't it say in the book that he did not change entirely? He still had his bad moments (which is much more realistic, of course). I thought this was kind of sudden; when he is human again, his character is the complete opposite of what it was before. Couldn't they have shown a little of the old Eustance in the end, when they go back to England, like Lewis did in the book? Too much happy ending for me

They did well teaching the moral lesson of "not giving into temptation." That is, if their audience were preschoolers. They didn't have to be so obvious with the green mist to get the message across.

This is true.

The problem with trotting out these sort of wishy-washy, feel-good cliched lines like "Just be yourself." is that there's no logic to them.

Exactly. "Just be yourself," is an overused, cheesy, feel-good line. SINCE WHEN did Aslan become Dr. Phil?!

All things considered, being jealous of your sister is not really a huge character flaw, and yet, the movie exaggerates it so much that Aslan had to appear and reprimand her. And yet, Caspian and Edmund aren't reprimanded by Aslan for pulling swords out on each other? What kind of message is this? Aslan basically exists to make sure you feel good about yourself? He's more concerned that you're happy with how you look than about whether the kings of Narnia kill each other out of greed and power lust?

Many of the children who I noticed went to see VDT were not necessarily pre-schoolers. But they weren't teenagers, either. Such children are too young to go on this board, and they are too young to say what they consider as either wishy washy or heavy-handed and why, without parental prompting. The film was for them, not just for us 'adults' who know everything

Of course this movie wasn't just intended for us adults. However, unlike the movie, the books give a powerful message quite subtly, and provide a great context for moral lessons within an exciting adventure story. In a way, the books grow with the reader. I was eight years old when I first picked up a Narnia book, and I didn't really understand the underlying messages at the time, but I loved the story. Every time I re-read the books I pick up on something new. The movie decided to slam all the moral lessons in your face like a pie-throwing contest. It was tacky and almost insulting.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that children who are not yet teenagers won't pick up on subtle moral messages without parental prompting. You'd be surprised at how smart seven, eight, nine and ten year olds can be! They would probably be able to pick up on things we would miss! But the movie gave nobody credit except for preschoolers and allowed no opportunity to watch it again and pick up on deeper and hidden meanings, unlike the book.

And anyway, children aren't supposed to necessarily pick up on all the moral messages of the story. It's OK if they just like the adventure and the story without connecting it to any morals. Then maybe in a few years they'll go back and think about it again, or think "that was a great story, I want to watch that movie again." And pick up on something new. Unfortunately though, the movie makes this impossible.

Exactly. "Just be yourself," is an overused, cheesy, feel-good line. SINCE WHEN did Aslan become Dr. Phil?!

Lucy said this to Gael, that she would grow up to be herself. Aslan only told Lucy not to wish herself away. That she was the one who found Narnia. I don't know what the problem is with Aslan saying this. Even if he did also say 'Just be yourself' in reinforcement, I don't find it an over-used, cheesy or feel-good line at all. Particularly if it hasn't had to be used at me for a long long while.

Unless of course you would have preferred that Lucy should have seen in her dream, the Land laid waste, her brothers killed, her sister hating her and Aslan telling Lucy, 'Out of here, young scarlet woman!' (or whatever PG term you might prefer) . I agree it is just as bad to be jealous of others as it is to be greedy, to be angry, proud or lazy, of course.

But was Lucy's sins of thought and word directly harming anyone but herself? It wasn't as if she had taken her sister's ration card and tried to use it to enlist in the army, was it? Or as if she had helped herself to family or ship resources in a vain endeavour to improve her looks? Oh yes, taking a leaf out of the Magician's book is also wrong. By rights she should have been fined. Heavily. She should have given the page of the book back to Aslan for book repair.

If Lucy is told to just be herself and this is a good thing, why is everyone else unhappy with Eustace just being himself? By expecting someone to behave by a complex system of behaviors, whether you call it ethics, morality, manners, whatever, you are expecting that someone to act against their natural inclinations. So which is it? Be yourself or play by the rules?

There is nothing complex about the system of rules that Eustace is expected to abide by. I agree that Eustace hadn't seen that yet. I also agree that Eustace's idea of 'just be yourself' was a very ignorant and selfish self, even if it was a funny self. And there is a relatively simple code of ethics, clause 8 of which is 'Do not steal'. That also includes identity theft. Perhaps it is more a case of Be yourself and play by the rules.

Eustace did help himself to things. Like his mother's chocolates at the beginning of the movie. Maybe the film should have shown the crew starving, so that the theft of the orange would have seen so much worse than it was. But then, Eustace taking anything, even his mother's chocolates, was wrong during a time of rationing. In those days family life was just like being on board a ship where the crew have to share quarters, only have their own share of the victuals etc, so that all could survive. And so Eustace was turned into a dragon for taking what was not his to take, i.e. the dragon's treasure.

I understand that Edmund and Caspian, quarrelling on Deathwater Island also were due for an appearance by Aslan. By getting Lucy to stop the fight, Hermione Granger style, the film makers were able to save on one of Aslan's CGI appearances, especially as even in the book, Aslan only appeared in the distance, growling at the lot of them. Lucy in the film at this point had already been growled at, was suitably repentant, and was only stating facts. Unlike the book Lucy, she wasn't required in the film to complain about boys being 'swaggering, bullying idiots'.

I agree that 'just be yourself' can be taken a little too literally, if 'yourself' is an antisocial, selfish sort of 'yourself'. The rules are necessary so that all these 'yourselves' can get along with each other fairly, and so 'just be yourself', can mean only taking rightfully that which is one's due. By the way, was that other 'trite, cheesy, feel-good and Dr Phil - like' saying mentioned, even indirectly? That is to say, 'Count your blessings'?

And by the way, exactly who is this Dr Phil bloke? I've never heard of him.