I voted "I Don't Care". Whether I liked it or not would depend on the quality, and that could go either way. I like seeing re-interpretations of stories though, and think people have a right to experiment. It might be interesting. But it would probably turn out bad, if it goes in the direction most movies these days are going.

I'm pretty much up for anything right now. I'm satisfied with the books, and open to the possibility of a good movie if/when it ever comes. I'm willing to try it, even if it is a little different. But after VDT, my hopes aren't very high in movies in general anymore.

~Riella

I voted "No, how dare you even mention the idea," because the era on Earth is essential to the story, such as Eustace's school (I don't like the fact he called his dad "Father" in the movie), and Digory's mother's incurableness, the reason the Pensevies were in Digory's house to begin with....

And besides without that you'd lose a certain nostalgic charm that always comes with movies taking place in the past. Which is part of Narnia's charm, though less so than the discovery and adventures within an alternate universe.

It maybe posasible to do it well and un-cheesy, but you just can't avoid losing that charm.

That's just as weird has having the Harry Potter movies set in America (which was suggested when the movie outlines were being created)!

I just don't think it would be a good idea. I'm against the idea of a reboot, and I think modernizing it would not be a good direction to take.

I voted other. Maybe, just maybe if they kept the story the same without making it too mindless like many other novels made to modern films, I would be okay with it. I remember saying that many of the modern hit book series, like Harry Potter and Twilight take place in modern times. Maybe readers these days just don't like stories that take place in the past times? I still don't know what the appeal of modernized books made to films is, but maybe if they do it right, it will at least be a good enough film to watch.

I voted the stronger no. It would ruin it for me and make things worse for the movies (IMHO). They need to make a really good movie but continue with the time period already established. I really hope they are able to do that.

I honestly do not think it would work.

In theory, the WW2 England scenario is a big part of the plot and setting.

In practice, the new inventions available nowadays may alter the plotline too much. Back in 1940, there were no cell phones, personal computers, or many other newfangled gadgets. How would a cell phone being snuck into Narnia be justified- especially given the digital camera and video?

Great thread, Dinode.

I voted that I don't care. I'm not sure about the commercial effect, but, on artistic level, modernization would not add or detract from the story.

If you're concerned that a modernization would leave an opening for them to mess up the story, well, frankly, they can do that just as easily in a WWII-era Narnia franchise. If they are committed to maintaining the essential stories and themes, modernization wouldn't interfere with that.

The only significant change would be that they would have to update the kids' slang dialogue. Kids don't talk like that nowadays.

The question is also if they end up modernizing both our world and Narnia... there's so much that I love about Narnia's medieval feel (+1 sewing machine )

But yeah I wouldn't like it.

I'm a very strong no on the idea. There have been some stories that have been modernized in the past and they have worked, but there's just something so special, so sacred about 1940s Narnia that it seems wrong to change the time setting. Based on previous idea about modernizing Narnia, I have a very strong sense that those in charge would get it wrong. I'd rather have no films at all than films that translated the story wrong.

I believe that wolfloversk, Narnian Wolf, and Aravis Narnia have summed it up pretty well. I don't think there's much else I can expand upon here.

I doubt I would even give it enough of a chance to see if it was any good. And honestly, any film production team that decides to completely alter the time period of the Earth material probably won't stop there. See Walden's horrific adaptation of The Dark Is Rising for an example.

The cartoon Narnia was modernized to the 70s. The kids were wearing 70s clothes, no mention was made of World War 2. It was still a largely faithful adaptation. In fact, I would say it was more faithful than the Walden version, although it was lower-quality overall.

because the era on Earth is essential to the story, such as Eustace's school (I don't like the fact he called his dad "Father" in the movie), and Digory's mother's incurableness, the reason the Pensevies were in Digory's house to begin with....

Eustace's school was unusual in that time period, and it still is, although those schools do exist to the present day. Honestly, the entire Experiment House plot thread would work just as well in modern times, the only modification required would be the students' slang, as I said before.

The reason the Pevensies were in Digory's house would have to be changed, it's true. But there are plenty of other reasons why the children could be staying with a quirky old professor, reasons that wouldn't interfere with the central story. He could be a great uncle that they almost never see, for example.

As for Mabel's incurable cancer, I have a friend who was diagnosed with breast cancer earlier this year. Her little girl is currently going through exactly what Digory was going through in MN. We have hope and we have prayers, and it's true that the prognosis isn't as bad as it would have been a century ago, but cancer takes lives even today.

ever since reading the forward from the official movie companion for LWW where Perry Moore talks about how he stopped a modern adaption of LWW from being made and thus Walden's LWW was made, I've been nervous that someone might try to do that again. but I'm not biased either way

I think they should stick to the books (get back to them rather) as much as they can, I'm shure this has been brought up before but LWW stuck so close to the book and if you check the poles it's the favorite. It would so difficult to make it beliveble any ways, Gaddafi didn't bomb London.