I went with that it was too dark and it had adaptation issues... However that was a really hard choice for me. It's not so much the darkness, but I voted that way because it was too violent. Also given the overall picture the adaptation really wasn't that bad, but a few things could have been improved (better handling of Peter's character arch and just drop Suspian altogether) Overall however I really enjoyed the movie.

They do have a problem with the audience aim however. The only way the series will survive is if they pick an audience and stick with it. LWW set the precedent as being a family film, but BOTH PC and VDT failed to follow that precedent. As a result it is losing the interest of the audience (NOTE: I am not saying this is the only issue, as adaptation is also a major problem since they're losing their core fans, but I'm focusing on one of many problems here.) It's not darkness that's the problem though... it' violence. Overall PC and SC aren't the most violent of books athough SC does contian one of the more grusome scenes with the serpent, but with careful camera work- issues can be avioded. No one coplained that the LWW scene was too dark. And not many complained about the skeleton or the serpent in VDT either. But adding a whole battle (and with the ending that it had) maybe a bit too much.

The problem is though that since they tried so hard to aviod that mistake with VDT- they only created the same problem. VDT was really way to light in my opinion. Narnia should not be aimed at 5 year olds. Sure their kid's books, but books get away with more than films. I wouldn't show anyone under 7 or 8 a film adaptation... if that film was ideal -> that includes Walden's LWW and BBC's SC. But it's that audience that they should be aiming at... families with kids 7 and up, and not just the kids either. LWW had a large appeal for pre teens and adults... it was the definition of a family film-> that's the audience they need to aim for not teens, not five year olds, but families- Families that enjoyed the first movie.

I voted book to film adaptation ( & not too dark ) being the puzzle piece.

Firstly it's a great really top film.

It just muffed a few minutes in at the film's height ( under ground surprise attack & army battle ).

If the film hadn't successfully reached so high till this point, it wouldn't have created the dissonance that colors the film for 'some' people. Once it's back in it's grove, any perceived darkness is quickly balanced out & you have an steller film. The more out of the box a film is with craft though, the lesser the margin of error becomes for a wider audiences' trust in the new experience.

Look at the onslaught of criticism the Star Wars prequel trilogy had, or the roasting another recent top fantasy film -The Last Airbender - had, although in the TLA's case, it was flawlessly done but something from the Director's previous stuff can't of worked out i'm guessing.

Oh, slightly off topic

I did not find PC to be too dark. There are going to be intense moments, sure, but they weren't glorified or over used nor did the characters embrace such moments. To hide the "violence" or "darker" side of Narnia, I think, would be an insult. It's in the real world, there's no point in pretending to hide it.

If we are going to compare PC to LWW, then yes PC was dark-er. But, there are still intense and dark moments in LWW as well and overall it worked on a level to multiple viewing audiences (fans were pleased, so were families). The key is finding the balance between intense/scary and "family-friendly".

I have to agree with wolfloversk that VDT went in the opposite direction of being too light. I think that if I was a five year old going to see this film, I would have felt insulted (especially when you compare the feel of the first two films with this one). As a kid, you always knew when you were being talked down to and I certainly feel like VDT did that. If you can't believe that, then I have to compare it to my first experience with Narnia. I first saw the animated LWW at about age three or four. Never once did they bring the story down to my age level, it was the story of LWW and that was that. There were intense/scary moments, but they needed to be there. These moments were not hidden, nor glorified. They were apart of the story and so needed to be there. Anything else would have been wrong. I'm not really sure what the thought process was in addressing VDT to a younger audience. I mean, let's look at why the books are successful. There's really no age for them and they have been enjoyed for generations. But, yet, it was insisted that VDT be made for a younger audience. Sorry, I just can't buy that

So, my vote is that no, PC was not too dark, but rather it was an adaptation issue that lead to a smaller success.

Actually I agree with Lion's Emblem, above, that PC merely had adaptation issues which led to a smaller success. Mainly in adapting a film which was nice to read about but which was never intended for film, or the difficulties of telling the story in a visual format.

The film was far and away better than the pathetic BBC TV version of only two episodes that was its only predecessor, apart from the two audio dramas put out by BBC radio collection and FotF. The trouble that Walden had with making PC, the film, is that the first four chapters of PC, the book, are exposition, which would be boring to watch. We don't pay good money to watch people have a roast apple breakfast picnic, however informative the conversation. Moreover, in the book, once they become separated from the boys, Lucy and Susan got dragged into some sort of conga line procession in which two Greek/Roman gods regale them with wine in a drunken but joyous partying romp throughout Narnia.

Today that sort of romp is not considered politically correct or child suitable. BBC wouldn't attempt it, and as a result, whem that romp was taken out, their Lucy and Susan were left with nothing to do except look decorative. Walden put back some of the missing bits of PC, plus some aspects of the romp - minus Bacchus and Silenus - and people then thought the movie was too dark.

It also seems that Walden's version of PC had too much violence in it. There was the night raid, the siege of Aslan's How, the duel and the final battle, to be sure. Including battling Birnam Wood trees, I might add. I think that people thought those aspects of PC were dwelt on far too much. They also didn't like Peter's performance in PC, even though without that particular interpretation of Peter, we would miss much of the more valuable exposition, which had been excised from the book.

There were also some genuine grown up issues dealt with, including the birth of Caspian's cousin at the beginning of the film, Miraz's own ambitious character, and his underhanded usurpation of the throne, plus the Pevensies coming to terms with going back to the normality of their schools after a lengthy period of self-sufficient adulthood. Caspian, at whatever age he is portrayed in PC, also has to come with terms with what is meant by being a king, not just the demands of surviving on the run.

I have to agree with wolfloversk that VDT went in the opposite direction of being too light. I think that if I was a five year old going to see this film, I would have felt insulted (especially when you compare the feel of the first two films with this one). As a kid, you always knew when you were being talked down to and I certainly feel like VDT did that.

I've heard that said about all the Narnia books, an accusation levelled at C.S.Lewis, himself. But no, I didn't see that VDT the film 'talked down' to anyone. There were some grown-up issues dealt with in that movie as well, despite its ligher tones. Such as temptation, what it does to people, and why people should not automatically try things simply because they are there. And the ending of VDT I thought was very well done.

But I agree that the film was unnecessarily sanitised, particularly in the Narrowhaven sequences, to fit into a PG friendly format. There was no reference to Lord Bern's, or anyone else's drinking habits and we didn't hear Caspian's speech about what was worthwhile and what wasn't. Furthermore, the lack of sufficient dialogue in Eustace's undragoning or in Lucy's praying to Aslan suggests to me that the story's obvious Christian references were also being sanitised into PG political correctness. I didn't necessarily want a 'lion paw firmly placed in dragon flesh', to quote either Michael Flaherty or Doug Gresham. But I did want Aslan telling Eustace he must undress himself, and then Aslan asking Eustace to let him do it himself. Or Lucy saying aloud, even if to herself, that the albatross meant the ship to follow it. And yes, Aslan should have got the credit for the ultimate success of the mission.

What is frustrating about VDT the movie is that the very people who should have been seeing this movie, and to whom it was directed, seemed to be absent in droves. They were the 11 - 14 year old viewers who either were not being taken to the movies, because their parents were too busy at Christmas, or because parents didn't approve of Narnia films, or because nothing could be arranged for them through the school, especially when it was impossible to pre-book tickets before VDT's release. Maybe these missing children believed it wasn't 'cool' to watch Narnia films, or to accompany adults anywhere. The people who I did see attend were generally adults, either by themselves, with other adults or with children younger than high-school age.

I still cannot forget the primary school-aged children in the Gulliver's Travels queue all singing out 'Narnia, Narnia' as exiting patrons left one post Christmas VDT session. Were Gulliver's travels or Yogi Bear really so much better films to take children to than VDT? I think not.

Magician's Nephew is perceived as being a lighter film while Silver Chair is considered a darker source material. But does it really matter how dark or 'light' a film is? Other darker fantasy franchises like Twilight and Harry Potter have dark themes and it doesn't seem to bother moviegoers... yet Prince Caspian is perceived as being 'too dark' and is being used as the poster child for how NOT to make the next Narnia movie. I'm starting to think that the darkness of future Narnia films (and Prince Caspian especially) isn't the actual issue, but is only given as an excuse as to why PC underperformed when fans analyze its box office performance.

Again I agree. But there are dark places in MN. There is what Uncle Andrew does to Polly, forcing Digory to go after her. There is Charn's less than salubrious history, the ending of that world, Digory's behaviour to Polly, even though he later regretted it, the attitudes of Jadis and Uncle Andrew, and the repercussions of bringing Jadis into the newly-created Narnia. Above all, apart from Digory's confronting his mother's dying, there is Aslan's sombre warning at the end of the book that before Digory and Polly would become old that in our world there would be tyrants who cared no more for justice and mercy than did Jadis. A very true comment looking at the past month's current events.

I voted that PC wasn't too dark. Sure it was dark-er than LWW as Lion's Emblem said, but PC was supposed to be about restoring the old days to Narnia. Therefore the darkness was completely nescesary.

As for the violence and intensity: just a few more people were killed in PC than in LWW. Although VDT was aimed at a younger audience, it still had violence in scenes such as the lone islands swashbucking and the dark sea serpent battle. It wasn't like they were totally avoiding it.

It really depends on if you're looking at the Narnian series as a whole or individual books. If you're looking at it as a whole, The Last Battle is an incredibly dark book. Definitely on par with what we saw in Prince Caspian the movie. But for me, sort of the point of the series is that none of the books are that dark (imho) UNTIL The Last Battle and therefore should be left a bit more on the light and joyful side.

That's not to say that each book doesn't have dark moments, but they're balanced out with very happy and joyful moments as well... something the movies are failing to include.

There was only one place where I had issues with the "darkness" of Prince Caspian the movie... and that was where they showed a good portion of the Narnian Army trapped behind the gate of Miraz's castle and being shot down one at a time. I thought that was going a bit too far.

There was only one place where I had issues with the "darkness" of Prince Caspian the movie... and that was where they showed a good portion of the Narnian Army trapped behind the gate of Miraz's castle and being shot down one at a time. I thought that was going a bit too far.

Really? That is one of my favorite moments in PC. For me, it really added a sense of realism and powerful drama to the film that I wish we could see more of in the series as a whole. I don't mean we need constant intensity and tragic moments but that scene created urgency and consequence for the characters and for the unfolding story and more than anything it drew an emotional response from me, something that VDT almost completely failed to do.

I voted No, PC wasn't too dark, I liked the film just fine because, um, that's how I feel
it's no darker than LOTR and it's not, IMO, so dark that it's unwatchable. it's like I say to my mom, "PC is dark because it's men against men, humans against humans."
PC was going to be dark no matter what the filmmakers tried to do to make it 'family friendly'.
I think that the reason people complained is because they marketed it as a kids PG film when it was more on the level of LOTR. but I don't see anything wrong with it being on the level of LOTR because Narnia isn't always cute and friendly. take The Last Battle - that's dark. very dark. when I was little, my dad read it out loud and it scared me in parts.
the way I see it, Narnia may be 'for kids', but maybe we're looking at it wrong.
in C.S. Lewis' day, kids lived in the fear of air raids and war. they didn't have the sheltering of kids today - they saw things that now-a-days would be considered bad for little kids. and Lewis himself took in kids who had been sent away from war.
so it doesn't surprise me that he would write books that have violence in them for kids. it was on their level in a small way.
the world isn't a cute, cuddly place, and kids are seeing much worse things than the Telmarine army attacking Aslan's How.

just my two cents

Really? That is one of my favorite moments in PC.

It was a powerful scene, it was a moving scene, and probably one of the best directed scenes in the movie.

It was also one of the scenes that a number of parents walked out of the theater with their children in tow. Is that a reaction that's supposed to happen in a movie based on that particular book? I say no, but I guess that's the point of the debate in this thread isn't it?

I'm with Fantasia Kitty on this one. As a movie and even as a standalone adaptation I didn't have a problem with the darkness and actually liked it.

However if The Last Battle is ever turned into a movie, much of the power will be lessened because of Prince Caspian. I did indeed see a parent with their child leave the theatre after the Night Raid and I remember thinking it was a bad sign. If parents have this reaction to The Last Battle so be it. That's what the story is like. It isn't worth alienating families with Prince Caspian though.

The tone of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was perfect, give or take for each individual book, for the first six movies. The shock should have been reserved for the final film.

It looks like the parents were alienated by Prince Caspian the film. Strange that, when Harry Potter is every bit as gruesome and if the very same parents had no problem with taking children to see LOTR & HP. Not to mention Twilight, the current fad, which has its share of violence, I have heard.

That's not to say that each book doesn't have dark moments, but they're balanced out with very happy and joyful moments as well... something the movies are failing to include.

In Prince Caspian the book that would be Aslan's holiday procession around Narnia which was left out of the film of course. It isn't politically correct to show people, especially children, drinking wine whilst being joyous. We also can't have the nurse recovering after drinking the well water Aslan turned to wine. I also think they would have had trouble with some of the special effects. Like a man beating a boy being turned into a tree. The boys turned into little pigs and the schoolgirl being stripped of her dowdy school uniform so that she could dance around the place.

That attitude has spilled into VDT as well. It seems that temperance in its modern anti-alcohol sense has been observed closely but the movies have not been temperate enough in their use of violence. I hope they don't get so squeamish about SC. Puddleglum getting drunk at Harfang was one of the more comical parts of SC, whilst his snoring, and the type of tobacco he used helped define the character.

I don't really see what the problem was with PC. I was it aged 12 and I thought nothing of the 'dark' elements. I'd seen worse. I thought it was a great film (My fave untill VDT...yes really ) and a fair adaptation of the book. No it didn't follow it but it was done in a way that made PC feel like a propper adventure.
I don't think that Narnia should be a film series free of the 'darkness' that the books had, because everyone is always complaining that the films arn't like the books. The books teach you about life, bad stuff and all.

In Prince Caspian the book that would be Aslan's holiday procession around Narnia which was left out of the film of course. It isn't politically correct to show people, especially children, drinking wine whilst being joyous.

We take away very different things from that scene Wagga. You see it as everybody partying and drinking alcohol, I see it as the Old Narnians freeing the Telmarines from their Oppressing King Miraz and his government. The latter of which could easily have been included in a PG film... without a drop of alcohol.

In Prince Caspian the book that would be Aslan's holiday procession around Narnia which was left out of the film of course. It isn't politically correct to show people, especially children, drinking wine whilst being joyous.

We take away very different things from that scene Wagga. You see it as everybody partying and drinking alcohol, I see it as the Old Narnians freeing the Telmarines from their Oppressing King Miraz and his government. The latter of which could easily have been included in a PG film... without a drop of alcohol.

Quite so. The joyous Old Narnians freeing Narnia from Miraz's restrictions could have been done without people automatically thinking alcohol was involved. Especially as here in Oz, there are quite a few lines of grape juices, de-alcoholised wines, champagnes, mocktails, etc, as well as what we call soft drinks. As well as non-alcoholic apple cider, pineapple juice and other fruit juices, the most delicious drink available can be a nice glass of iced water on a hot day. I agree that one can have a good time merrymaking without alcohol, and I also agree the fruit 'wines' and cordials often made in UK in days gone by weren't necessarily alcoholic.

What I am querying is why that particular long scene from the book, at least one chapter long, was omitted altogether from BBC PC and only bits of it, like the destruction of the bridge of Beruna and the tree relief force were kept in the Walden film. If the mentions of grapes and wine, in particular, in the book were too much for PG sensitivities, the scene could still have been done all the same, using other fruit and without mentioning wine specifically. It would certainly have balanced the darker scenes of PC.

It doesn't require a Coca-Cola or Pepsi advert on the mugs to belabour the point if non-PG alcohol consumption is the reason why film VDT also appeared to omit any references to book liquid consumption, alcoholic or not, such as Lord Bern coming out of an inn, the dubious hospitality of Pug's slavers or in Caspian's diatribe to Gumpas about slavery and economic progress. Otherwise, I wouldn't have the green foggiest idea why a couple of Narrowhaven bunfights were substituted instead.

And I still hope that Puddleglum's antics at Harfang are kept in, in any future SC movie, especially when BBC managed to include those scenes in their version. And especially as SC has some quite powerful and useful reminders of the virtue of moderation, and of taking care about what food and drink one should partake of, especially at Harfang and in the underworld.