I don't think PC problem was that it was dark but that it wasn't magical enough. That is how it is in the book as well (well I think the book is slightly more magical.) I don't think SC will be a problem. I don't think it is too dark and it is "magical" enough for audiences.

LB is fairly heavy, but it too is magical. LB holds other problems for the film makers, but with regards to the "magic" element, I think LB will be easier for the film makers than PC.

To be honest I didn't find PC (book or movie) that dark...

I don't think LB has to be so dark to require a PG-13, if PC could get away without one I don't see why LB would need one and there will be less battles anyway.

Plus, a PG-13 rating has to more with content than lighting. Like if it has too much violence...

They could easily make it dark enough by atmospheric techniques. And that wouldn't affect the rating at all.

~Riella

Ok I decided to make a new thread because the discussion was impedeing on that of the most recent magazine article.

So we all know that a lot of general movie goers complained that PC was too dark and that it took away from LWW's magic. So now they're trying to draw the audience back in with VDT's "fantastical and magical" appeal. The problem is that what the general audience doesn't seem to get is that PC was a dark book. This problem is exemplified by the the fact that SC and LB are both also pretty dark... end of the world, Tash made flesh, man-pies, the fact that both of them have major night, and in SC 's case under ground, sequences.

So here come's the what ifs...

What if the film crew is too scared by the audience and make huge plot deviations just to make the movies less dark?

What if they don't and people refuse to see the movies and the series gets dropped?

I hope they're willing to take the risk...the darker mood is essential to both plots and their themes.

I wouldn't say PC was "darker," exactly. If you mean "darker" to mean that the Narnian creatures and magic have dissapeared, I agree. But this is true in LWW as well. I think that onscreen the story translated into a darker film, but not entirely of its own accord. The book is actually pretty cheery in many parts. Trumpkin isn't a gloomboom in the book, and Aslan (in company of Bacchus & parade) make a "holiday" throughout the land. I think there was plenty of room for the darker, serious-er elements...but perhaps the film hinged on them a bit TOO much. There was no relief (and I don't mean relief humor).

I'm very glad they took out the part with Bacchus, I always hated it. It was just so out of place and just plain dumb(No offense Lewis) It was as if Lewis had a dream out of the blue and decided to incorporate it into the story.
I think the Water God, the surrender of the Telmarines and the triumphal entry of Caspian was enough for the movie.

The Bacchus scene is great, though! And I don't really mean Bacchus, but what Aslan does in that chapter is enchanting. Yes, it's unusual and "weird," but Aslan did say they were going to "make a holiday." The scene where Aslan cures the Caspian's nurse brings tears to my eyes, and the liberation of the horses, dogs, and the schoolteacher are touching and help to illustrate that a new era in Narnia has come. It's also the day when people who are not being good or festive "get their due." They are turned into jollity, because jollity is the Rule on Aslan's holiday. The man who is switching a boy is turned into a tree, and the naughty boys pestering their teacher are turned into pigs. In Narnia, that probably does not mean that their spirits were confiscated and condemned. They were just turned into "jolly" things to be in accord with the holiday.

It's not a random scene at all, but very purposeful to the story's theme. It's just hard to recognize it at first. It's a grand "madcap" scene.

I agree, Clive Staples Sibelius. That Bacchus revelry is so much like the impromptu celebrations in UK when World War 2 finished, both 8 May 1945 (VE day) and later on in August when we had VJ day. It gives some of the sense of what people might be feeling at the end of war and oppression. Unfortunately those Bacchus scenes would be hard to conceptualise let alone reproduce cinematically, especially if it must conform to something suitably sanitised to be PG. The Bacchus wasn't even attempted in the BBC television movie, which meant that its Prince Caspian version ended up more as a prelude to its Voyage of the Dawn Treader, not even a full movie in its own right.

However, the Walden version at least managed to put some of the themes back into its storyline. At least it had Susan and Lucy, in particular, going off to find Aslan, even if they didn't party with him. The River God and the destruction of the Bridge of Beruna was included, even if other incidents were left out.

Ironically, it was leaving out the Bacchus scenes that is probably why PC is considered to be darker than what it was. Meanwhile I see SC as rather grey than dark. Yes there is a pessimistic gloom about it, but it will be a good break between it and LB anyway, during which if more films are made there is MN and HHB to be done. Nobody could call these stories dark, could they?

No narnia books seem dark to me at all but little kids and parents of them might find them too dark for them. I just hope they keep to the book, they might lose some people but gain others.

^^ They all seem light to me too. Except for The Last Battle. I got to admit that was pretty dark to me. Not like gothic dark. But dark for a Narnia book...

~Riella

one thing that should be factored in is that the ratings on movies have changed their meaning. what I mean is that PG used to be for really violent things and wasn't used lightly. but currently, PG is used for things that almost need a PG-13 rating. PG-13 doesn't seem to mean what it used to either. there's lots of movies coming out now that kids shouldn't see (depending on the kid of course, I'm just being general ) that are rated PG but have content that might have been rated PG-13 once upon a time, but now PG is used for most "family" movies.
by the time LB comes out, I have a feeling that it's gonna be even more so, so you never know.....

The removal of Bacchus's scenes are what made the movie Prince Caspian darker, as in more intense. While I understand the cinematic choice of excluding the scenes, they are important in the book because of how they show that Aslan returned and immediately went about actually having fun with the Narnians. This showed in what I believe is a better way than PC's movie's attempt that the magic was restored in Narnia upon Aslan's return.

I don't think there will be much of a problem with SC not being dark enough, although I guess seeing VDT would give us a better idea on just how dark (or not dark) the filmmakers want to make these movies now. They clearly want to return to the magic of LWW, and LWW has one of the darkest parts of all the Chronicles--Aslan's death. (I believe the other two parts are possibly the scene with the LotGK at the end of SC, and of course the ending of Narnia in LB.) LWW still had great success, even with some darkness in it. What I'm trying to say is that I think since they handled LWW they way they did and it turned out well, I think SC should be fine. I don't think SC is much darker than LWW.

I don't even think it was imperative to include Bacchus, really. But to have kept that sequence just to show the festivities Aslan made. That's what's really important about it. Bacchus was there in the book to signal that change of mood. Aslan gives him his role, afterall.

I find it interesting that you all say the PG rating is allowing more content.

The PG rated films in the 80s such as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Empire Strikes Back, Gremlins, and dozens of others were all rated PG. Now the PG rating has much lighter content.

Actually, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was the movie that instituted the PG-13 rating. It wasn't hard enough to get an R (I think it was!), but not family-enough for PG.

PG ratings were lenient, too, though. At least, back in the day when G-rated films were still dominating serious cinema. Becket, with Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton is rated PG. Yet the film has an implied sex scene, flashes of nudity, and serious undercurrent themes not appropriate for the modern PG audience.

PG used to mean R. But then, even G-rated films, such as The Greatest Show On Earth, contain snatches sexual innuendo.

Actually Josh the Temple of Doom is what got the PG-13 rating made, so that isn't a good example. And besides there is nothing really graphic shown in Empire Strikes Back.