I'll be honest, I like glumpuddle's analongy and I'm not offended by it. Why?
Because (correct me if I'm wrong, gP) he wasn't so much comparing the creation of the films to slavery, but simply stating that there are somethings that should not have a money value placed on them or that should be compromised for money. Yes I agree slavery is a bit of an extreme thing to compare it to, but I don't think that was his point, his point is that he's afraid that the essential themes of the book, and the spiratual meanings of the book, the parts of the book that are invaluable, will be compromised in an effort to make more money. He's not trying to equate the books with human life which has been emprisoned, but he's just saying that the picture reminded him of a fear he's had for a while, because money would be the driving force behind both of those completely different tradgedies.
That being said, that does not mean that I think that's what's happening. One: none of us have yet to see the book, and its still very likely that those things will remain intact in the movie. I don't know if they'll be downplayed or not, but I'm not going to worry about it until after I've seen the movie and completely understand what happened to both the plot and the theme
Two: I don't think that Apted is trying to make another HP or LotR or Star Wars or Pirates. I don't think that when he mentioned HP and Star Wars that he said he was trying to make VDT into that. I just think that everyone saw the words Harry Potter and Star Wars and alarm bells started going off before they actually considered what he was saying.

"Whereas Star Wars and Harry Potter are a bit more attentive to that flowing stream of franchise narrative, Mr Lewis wasn’t so keen on it."

No where there does he say that he's trying copy HP or Star Wars, but rather he's just saying that C.S. Lewis had a different approach to it than the authors of the other books did. I don't think he was trying to bash Lewis, but I think he was simply acknowledging that they were different, and that that's going to require some adaptiveness on this part. In fact it's just as likely that he admires Lewis for just that. The challenge is for him to explain things just enough to make it work on screen, but leave everything else that doesn't need explaining, that wasn't explained in the books as a mystery. There's a fine line he's trying to walk on, and I'm positive that he's being extremely careful not to fall off. But remember that part of the beauty of film adaptations is that a director inevitably has to incorporate some of the elements that he/she imagined when reading a book, and expand on some of the ideas in the book, to make the movie work. (Ok sorry if that didn't make sense, but I can't figure out quite how to word it.) You can't make a movie that's based entirely off of someone else's ideas, but the very nature of the work requires you to introduce things that you imagined in your head that were happening as you were reading the book. Otherwise you will fail, not necesarily just fail to make a profit, but more importantly you will fail to bring the books meaning across. This is why I like how everyone says that the first thing Adamson did when he was making the film was write down everything he remembered while reading it, and then going backthrough it again. That is what allowed him to express the book as a film, to transcribe words into visuals, to bring to life the very magic that Lewis created. The nature of Lewis' work forces you to use your imagination to understand the book, that's the nature of any book. A film is simply bringing to life those imaginations, and in doing so it will captivate your imagination in a different way. It's like how the crew brought to life Tumnus' house, the battle of Beruna, Aslan's sacrifice. It's like the Disney quote that he sites in the special features, "I don't make movies for children, I make movies for the child in all of us." You can't make another person's movie, you can only make your own movie and hope that others will be able to connect with it, and if you do do that then they will. When people fail to make good movies is when they try to make it solely for someone else, and they don't use their own imagination to bring it to life (again having problems wording my idea, so don't be suprised if I edit later) Ultimately not only am I afraid that they may lose the themes of the book (although we have many sources saying that they're present), but I'm even more afraid that they are trying to make a movie for someone else. That is what worries me most of all, because then it's likely that both the spirit of the books and the spirit of the films, ultimately the spirit of Narnia, will be lost. The very fact that that has crossed my mind a few times these past few months has worried me. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the filmakers understand that.

The books are different. Even if they change the story all around for the film, the books will always be the same. ...The books are are still the same. I wouldn't dare belittle the books and say they aren't important. I would be mad if they ever changed what is written in the books. But the films don't do that.

True, the books themselves won't change. That's a fair point. But I do believe that these films will have a lasting impact on how the series is viewed (by non-readers, at least). How large of an impact? Not sure.

I don't want non-readers thinking the The Chronicles of Narnia is just another formulaic fantasy series for children. I want them to at least understand that they are special works of literature. The film doesn't have to recreate every part of the book of course. But the film should give people the right impression of what the books are.

Do the LotR films capture every aspect of what makes the book great? Certainly not. But do they give viewers the right impression of what makes the book great? I think so.

Because (correct me if I'm wrong, gP) he wasn't so much comparing the creation of the films to slavery, but simply stating that there are somethings that should not have a money value placed on them or that should be compromised for money.

Precisely.

"Whereas Star Wars and Harry Potter are a bit more attentive to that flowing stream of franchise narrative, Mr Lewis wasn’t so keen on it." No where there does he say that he's trying copy HP or Star Wars, but rather he's just saying that C.S. Lewis had a different approach to it than the authors of the other books did. I don't think he was trying to bash Lewis, but I think he was simply acknowledging that they were different, and that that's going to require some adaptiveness on this part.

He is not bashing Lewis. For all we know, he might love how the books are not that connected.
What he is saying is that the way the books were written do not conform to the conventional fantasy stories modern audiences are used to, and that he wanted to change that for the movie.

He was indeed saying that it was going to require some "adaptivness" on his part. Meaning: Adapting unique books that stand apart into something more conventional. In other words, robbing the series of something that makes it special.

There's nothing uncinematic about having a series that doesn't follow a narrative flow from film to film. It's just that the big money-makers, Harry Potter and Star Wars, don't do that. That's what Apted views as a problem.

I think the narrative connection of the 7 Narnia books is Aslan, and the lessons learned from him. It seems the filmakers have changed it so that the never dying and always returning White Witch is what connects the films. And obviously, thats a problem.

I think that's an amazing analogy, glumPuddle! Very well written and thought out, and making very good points.

I don't find it offensive at all. I don't believe glumPuddle was trying to attack anyone, say the filmmakers were actually like slave traders, or say that a bad adaption is as bad as human trafficking. If that's what you guys are seeing when you read his analogy (and I don't mean this in an insulting/offensive way at all), you might want to read the analogy again, and focus on the point he's making, instead of "whether human trafficking is as bad as a poor adaption". He's not making a point about the "Issues of Human Trafficking"! From what I can see, glumPuddle is making a point about filmmakers possibly taking a story that has inspired millions (even brought many to Jesus Christ), and turning it into a cheap, hollywood sellout, just to make a dollar. And it's a very good point, and he told it very well and very powerfully. And that picture of Lucy was absolutely perfect for the point being made.

Great job, glumPuddle! And I agree with you entirely!

~Riella

Now that is just ridiculous Josh, Aslan has much more to do with the movies than the WW. She was the main villain in the first one so she had a lot of screen time. In PC she only appeared in one short scene threatening to come back(Which also happened in the book, though not as dramatic). And in the VDT she appears to Edmund and Caspian as nightmares, which is totally realistic because nothing would ever haunt Ed more than her, and Caspian almost fell for her in PC

I think I see where you're getting at with the analogy, gP. Narnia films could be so much more if they can stop trying be everything but itself. It should be on par with the LOTR films in terms of symbolism and unique themes, yet like an insecure child, it just keeps trying to be like his big brother rather than making a name for himself.

Maybe I'm wrong but conformity is what's currently holding this series back. It wants to lick the crumbs of recent fantasy blockbusters rather than making rich adaptations totally unique and fresh from the stereotypical fantasy genre.

Sadly, it doesn't seem like it's going to happen to this franchise anytime soon as it's shackled (no pun intended) by the studio's presupposition of what sells and what doesn't. Hope that changes.

Maybe, I'm wrong but conformity is what's currently holding this series back. It wants to lick the crumbs of recent fantasy blockbusters rather than making rich adaptations totally unique and fresh from the stereotypical fantasy genre.

I agree with you there!

I also think one of the main problems is how the directors view the books. I mean, all directors will have to make some changes when they are creating an adaption. But it makes a tremendous difference of how the director approaches those changes, and the books themselves. It seems the Narnia filmmakers view the books as some kind of unfinished canvas, which they're allowed to paint on or even paint over. They see themselves as having a lot of freedom. Whereas Peter Jackson, when he made the Lord of the Rings films, viewed Tolkien's works as a finished masterpiece, and viewed adapting it as a huge responsibility. That, I believe, is why Lord of the Rings was such a success versus the Narnia films.

~Riella

Now that is just ridiculous Josh, Aslan has much more to do with the movies than the WW.

I'm not saying that the White Witch is more important then Aslan. But I am saying that the filmakers believe she's just as important (if not more) to the series as Aslan. They keep showing her on the posters and trailers trying to make the audience think she's one of the main reccurring Narnia characters. So far, it seems like the filmakers are using her as the main connecting antagonist of the series.

^^ They probably think the White Witch is some really cool villain in all the fan's eyes, and that if they show her, then more people will come see the movie.

~Riella

Maybe, I'm wrong but conformity is what's currently holding this series back. It wants to lick the crumbs of recent fantasy blockbusters rather than making rich adaptations totally unique and fresh from the stereotypical fantasy genre.

Conformity is a problem with many movies. It`s easier to follow the classic Holly wood trends of story telling then depart into a realm that is not severely drenched by pop culture. Stories begin to have a generic format that leads to predicable ends and stereotypical character arcs. It seems that way with every genre.

Glum puddle where did you find that picture of Lucy? I admit that not all the changes were wise or necessary. However it is what it is. As many have already stated money is the bottom line. The changes may not be that bad. Are all the spoiler sources a 100% reliable ? Right now I`m hoping for some good performances from the actors and actresses.Not to go off topic but the image of Lucy wearing the sold sign reminds me of when Georgie played the young Jane Eyre. She wears a liar sign around her neck. I hope she puts up an equally strong performance in Dawn Treader .

By the way, when will you part 2 of the trailer analysis be out?

Just uploaded it.

Maybe I'm wrong but conformity is what's currently holding this series back. It wants to lick the crumbs of recent fantasy blockbusters rather than making rich adaptations totally unique and fresh from the stereotypical fantasy genre.

Sadly, it doesn't seem like it's going to happen to this franchise anytime soon as it's shackled (no pun intended) by the studio's presupposition of what sells and what doesn't. Hope that changes.

Very well said! That's exactly what I've been trying to say, but you put it much more eloquently.

Glum puddle where did you find that picture of Lucy?.

Here.

The books are different. Even if they change the story all around for the film, the books will always be the same. ...The books are are still the same. I wouldn't dare belittle the books and say they aren't important. I would be mad if they ever changed what is written in the books. But the films don't do that.

True, the books themselves won't change. That's a fair point. But I do believe that these films will have a lasting impact on how the series is viewed (by non-readers, at least). How large of an impact? Not sure.

I don't want non-readers thinking the The Chronicles of Narnia is just another formulaic fantasy series for children. I want them to at least understand that they are special works of literature. The film doesn't have to recreate every part of the book of course. But the film should give people the right impression of what the books are.

Do the LotR films capture every aspect of what makes the book great? Certainly not. But do they give viewers the right impression of what makes the book great? I think so.

Personally I feel the last two movies have not lost the spirit of the books. PC had huge changes, but it didn't lose the spirit of the books.

Now, let's say that you're right. Let's say all the Narnia fans and higher ups of sites like this one and Narniafans, the ones who have screened the footage and say it's good and a lot of it is true to the books - let's just say they're all liars, or else hideously deceived.

Let's say Apted decided that the last two Narnia films were too close to the books and it was time for a change.

Let's say they make a movie that completely misses a lot of the important points of the book.

The movie is an imposter then. But still it has the title Voyage of The Dawn Treader. It is quite likely that it will still draw people to the books. I am quite confident in the source material. I think once people pick up the book and see what it's really like, they'll be amazed. I think because of the movies there have been people who otherwise wouldn't have given a rip about Narnia but now, having seen the movies, they like both the books and the films. It exposes the movie crowd to something they wouldn't really know otherwise.

Speaking about the potential of VDT alone, I've mentioned my friends who think the plot of the book sounds boring. It's been stated that you really have to read it to get the full effect. These are not the kind of people who would normally pick up a Narnia book, but they'll watch the movies. Let's say they go to the theatre and really like all those changes we hate, the swords, the witch, the beauty spell, the cool night-light-thing - I mean Lilliandil. They say, "Oh wow that wasn't half so boring as I thought it would be. Maybe I shoud read the book." That at least gets them to pick up the book. No, it won't be what they thought it was, but once you read it you really can't help but see how amazing it is.

Perhaps the movies are like trailers for the books, sometimes you get a good depiction, sometimes a really bad one, but it still draws people to the books. The Chronicles are captivating enough that to read them is to love them I think. Not everyone will, of course, ( crazy people ) but I think the people who would like the books will like them even if they weren't what they expected and the people who are disappointed with the books because they aren't like the movies wouldn't like them anyway. I think, just like with movie trailers, we who have read the books are much like the people who have been to see the movie despite the terrible trailer, and we can spread the word, if we so choose, that the book is really good and people should read it even if the movie is bad. I hope that makes sense

However, since the last two movies have been pretty faithful to the themes of the books, and since the people who have seen the footage don't seem terribly worried about it, I think this analogy is probably unfounded, way too harsh and offensive. I don't mean to be rude, just stating my views

The last two movies (which were directed by Andrew Adamson and co-financed by Disney) were fairly close to the book. Decent adaptations. But here's the thing: PC (which, in my opinion, was the better adaptation in some ways) did not do well at the box office. So is it really so hard to accept that VDT (which is being directed by Michael Apted and co-financed by Fox) would want to change course?

The film having the same title is of no comfort to me. I would much rather see them change the title than the core of the book. (I have seen adapations where the title is the only thing they get right)

Now, let's say that you're right. Let's say all the Narnia fans and higher ups of sites like this one and Narniafans, the ones who have screened the footage and say it's good and a lot of it is true to the books - let's just say they're all liars, or else hideously deceived.

No one has seen the movie. If the movie turns out to be terrible, why would that make those people liars or deceived? They think the movie looks good and I think it doesn't. Tirian is okay with Lilliandil's dialogue in the trailer and I'm not...etc.

I was telling people for weeks that I thought "Scoot Pilgrim vs. the World" was going to be a great movie. It turned out to be just okay. Does that make me a liar? Was I decieved?

Now, let's say that you're right. Let's say all the Narnia fans and higher ups of sites like this one and Narniafans, the ones who have screened the footage and say it's good and a lot of it is true to the books - let's just say they're all liars, or else hideously deceived.

I was telling people for weeks that I thought "Scoot Pilgrim vs. the World" was going to be a great movie. It turned out to be just okay. Does that make me a liar? Was I decieved?

No, you (and they) wouldn't be liars or decieved. But if all those Narnia fans who saw the movie in a fuller format liked it, then that might mean that the movie changes aren't as bad as they sound. They might be better when we see them for ourselves. (Yeah, I doubt it too, but it's possible. Or at least, I hope it's possible...)

~Riella

Perhaps liars was a bit harsh. I will admit that. I know they haven't seen the whole movie, I'm just saying they know more about it than we do and seem pleased, so it would seem it isn't all that bad. They say it feels like Narnia, and I believe they know what Narnia feels like. They would be deceived because they keep saying it has the spirit of the books. If it doesn't and they say it does then someone's probably a little confused.

I wasn't saying it has the same title to make you feel better. (sad, I know. I'm sorry. I wish I could say something to make you not so glum) I was saying that to because it will lead people to the book of the same name. That would be stupid if I thought having the same name made it faithful, give me some credit lol!

Many people would argue with you and say LWW was the closest to it's source material. They said they dropped the ball with PC didn't they? It would seem by that admission they were trying to pay closer attention to the books. Maybe the spirit is still there. We don't know yet.

PC is my favorite of the two and it pains me that everyone took it so badly and now they feel like they have to copy LWW.