I highly dount this whole business of (possibly) "selling the book" was done maliciously by the filmmakers to destroy Narnia or anything. I don't think it the film makers are bad people or anything of the sort. I think that if they have turned the movie into a cliched fantasy film, it was done out of fear. Its much more comfortable to do what has been done before: You know what works and what doesn't. The problem is that nothing new or orignial will be created if everyone followed this rule.

The film might not be bad, but without taking risks, it probably won't be outstanding either. And I highly doubt the film makers, producers, writers, actors, etc, are working so hard to make a mediocre film. They all want to make an outstanding film.
They have a great source material to start them off. Lewis created something different and it was brilliant. My question is: will the film makers do the same thing? Will they take the risk or give into the fear of failing?

I don't have anyone particular in mind when I think of the "selling" of Narnia. This is emphatically not a personal attack on Mr. Gresham or any one individual connected with the estate or the filmmaking process; I don't believe any names have been mentioned until your post, coracle.

What has been done to VDT was apparently a group decision and I don't think the blame can be attached to any one person. In any case, the topic is about what has been done to the story of VDT, not about who did it. I'm sure we have no way of knowing how things really went down. Apted's comments give some clues as to his own attitude toward the source material, but we don't know all the details.

It's hard to maintain a good attitude about something I have such strong feelings about, but I'm trying!

I highly dount this whole business of (possibly) "selling the book" was done maliciously by the filmmakers to destroy Narnia or anything. I don't think it the film makers are bad people or anything of the sort. I think that if they have turned the movie into a cliched fantasy film, it was done out of fear.

Very much agreed! Unfortunately, I think all the major decisions have already been made and they aren't going to change it to be more faithful to Lewis's Narnia now. I would love to be wrong.

How about giving VDT a fair go?

If it actually was VDT, I would. But this is the book C. S. Lewis didn't write, remember. It is not Narnia anymore — not the Narnia I know.

Actually from my understanding of the quote- C.S. Lewis did write the book that he didn't write.

We still don't know just how close and how far the movie will be to the book, and there's no way for any of us to know until we see the movie. There are too many conflicts between spoilers, for us to pinpoint exactly what is going on. Secondly, there were actually a couple of more positive reports that came out recently, including another pic from the Aslan's Country report where I believe glumPuddle got this from. I think that until one actually sees the movie, it would be unfair to say that it won't be good, or that it won't be close, or that it will be unlikable because those judgements would not be based on the movie, but only about 5 minutes of shots that might not make it in and what everyone else says the movie is like. How would it be fair to judge something that you haven't seen for yourself?

The picture of Lucy at the beginning of this thread suggests that the adaptation has been a good deal more faithful to the book than gP and others are admitting.

I thought it interesting and ironic that glumPuddle chose a picture that shows a high degree of faithfulness to the story while using it to show how ultimately unfaithful may be the final movie adaptation.

I'm mixed about things. Some changes I mind and others are irritating. I've been disappointed by so many things in this world turning out not to be what I wished or hoped for that I have an immunity to being too disheartened.

How about giving VDT a fair go?

But I do have to see the movie to find out the faithful/unfaithful ratio. Let's hope that at least it is better than 50% on the faithful side of the equation. I am curious also as to how the changes work and whether the book's spiritual side and characters (especially Eustace) come through on the big screen.

Please don't lump every single person working on this film into a "making a movie only for profit" box. The decision to make this movie the way it is, is done higher up by those who approve the script and write the checks.

Good point, starkat. I'm sure most or all of the cast and crew did their best and had no say in what the script was to be as far as he "big picture" goes.

I should make it clear that I'm basing all my opinions on what I am seeing in trailers and reading in interviews, etc. But it's all just marketing. It might be the case that the movie will turn out much different. We can only hope! I can't express how happy I would be to be proven wrong.

The picture of Lucy at the beginning of this thread suggests that the adaptation has been a good deal more faithful to the book than gP and others are admitting.

We know they're getting a lot of the small details right, but I feel like they are missing the larger themes. The whole point of the book.

(But I would add that it appears that Lucy will be rescued from her slavery through a battle of some sort. Which could not be anymore different from the book. The entire point of the scene in the book is Caspian and Bern's cleverness in abolishing the slave trade without having to raise a sword once.)

It seems like the Narnia films got their start by someone saying "LotR is a hit! Fantasy movies are a safe bet! Lets make...Narnia next!"

It may seem like it, but it isn't true. In The Official Illustrated Movie Companion to The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe Perry Moore makes it pretty clear that he and the Walden company were interested in and actively pursuing the Narnian Chronicles before Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings were released..

...And then LWW just so happened to get the green light weeks after the first LotR movie was released?

Was LWW really greenlit as early as 2001 or early 2002? If so there was a good four years before it finally was released here on Boxing Day 2005. That year was the year of the July 7th London bombings, and the publication of HP's penultimate volume, Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince, at about the same time.

Now what happened in 2001? Oh yes, Fellowship of the Ring was the Boxing Day box office hit for 2001, My daughter took me to see the first HP film as an end of studying treat, and we also had a Federal Election, the results of which were heavily influenced by issues such as Tampa, refugees and yes, 9/11.

Peter Jackson's production had long enjoyed considerable publicity here, due to the nearness of New Zealand, the world's best supporting country, and the participation of many Australians in the cast and crew. Harry Potter was just a gamble at the time. Who could have foreseen then, when not all of the HP books had been written, that although none of the succeeding HP movies were quite as successful as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone , that almost a decade later, Warner Brothers would still be finally wrapping up a movie phenomenon? HP, by the way, is an example of fans trying to interpose their views not just on how the movies were produced, but on the author, herself, who did a clever dance, indeed, to continue to write the novels to her original plan.

I can quite see how something as momentous as 9/11 would have persuaded film makers like Walt Disney to be interested in greenlighting LWW, because of its Christian spiritual values. And I can see how LOTR probably attracted more people than ordinarily up to 2003, because of those events at the time. But I doubt that it was only because of LOTR's success that LWW was greenlit.

If it had not been the 2005 Boxing Day box office draw that year, I doubt I would have seen LWW. I know the estate of C.S.Lewis is involved in the Walden movies. But whatever the arrangements now, LWW was a film production that had been done in animated form earlier by United Artists in the 1980's. The subsequent BBC television productions of the first four books of the series did revive interest in them in the early 1990's, and we also attended an excellent puppet stage production. So I am wondering how you would explain how these productions were made without C.S.Lewis estate involvement?

By 2005, I really would have preferred to see almost any of the other books made into film rather than LWW. Besides I greatly feared the movie would have been just another Walt Disney cutesy animation. Only to be pleasantly surprised. And I enjoyed PC in 2008, in contrast to the howls of disapproval I met on NarniaWeb.

I should make it clear that I'm basing all my opinions on what I am seeing in trailers and reading in interviews, etc. But it's all just marketing. It might be the case that the movie will turn out much different. We can only hope!

Yes you are right. It is just marketing. The usual spiel is to show on trailers the most cinematic shots which are probably the ones you would most likely object to. Sometimes I've noticed that film makers cheat and include into trailers shots that are meant to appeal to Australians, such as a tsunami overwhelming Sydney Harbour Bridge, even though the movie, itself, has absolutely no reference whatever to Australia, and little outside of North America.

As for the battle you fear, it all depends on what you call a battle. If you read the book again, there is reference to what Gumpas would do if he saw through the swifty pulled on him by Lord Bern and Caspian. And Pug's party didn't just ask politely for Caspian and friends to come along quietly, did he? So I won't be alarmed by a mere scuffle with aggrieved slave buyers when Lucy is rescued. This is part of customer service you know.

I agree that it's sad that the movies are being made mainly for profit. At the same time, there's a good chance that many of those who are deciding what the movie will be like don't actually understand the heart & soul of the books. And when a person doesn't understand the spiritual themes, he's left with a just good fantasy/adventure story. Not seeing where the importance really lies could make it easier to miss the themes and scenes that seem vital to us in favor of making the movie more appealing to the general audience.
Of course, I'm the sort of person who gets annoyed with many book adaptations when they differ from the book. So I'd be annoyed either way. I do hate to see good books go all Hollywood-ish.

On a different note (and I hope I'm not contradicting myself too badly here ), about the fighting at Narrowhaven: I noticed a faun in one of the slave-market pictures recently posted. That made me wonder if just possibly it could be the same somersaulting faun in that fight scene. And maybe there's a slim chance that it could be those who were captured fighting their way out of the market? That would be a little better than the whole ship's crew fighting Gumpas's soldiers. Even though it's still different from the book.

But the storybook says that Drinian leads the crew to a attack the slave traders after Caspian get captured. And then the rest of the townspeople join in.

while I sympathize with glumPuddle on his feeling towards the movie and see why he would think that.. I STRONGLY disagree as we havent seen the movie yet. And from what I have seen, I am very excited for the movie. Why does the glass have to be half empty? As much as it looks like this film could have a bit more truer to the books, the film could also have been looking much worse. If anyone should be accused of being a cash cow, its Disney.

Besides, to some extent.. it IS about the money. Unfortunately, satisfying purists to every end wont make the Chronicles mainstream enough to bring in enough revenue to make more films. It takes money to finance a $150 million movie. And you need profits from the previous movies to do this (unless some of you have this money sitting around in a bank acccount). LWW was profitable enough to finance TWO Narnia movies. I'd rather see a 50% faithful adaptation than no adaptation at all (although in actuality we KNOW that the movie will be at least 50% faithful if not more). Besides, no matter how much they "butcher" the movies, the books will never be altered.

I thoughts exactly CorazonBandido55, If you need a 90% faithful adaptation to be happy watch the BBC versions.
I am not saying I like the changes but the filmmakers cannot afford to pander us fans.

Three days ago, I would have said that at the very least VDT would have been about 60% faithful, but in light of recent reports- that has already been pushed up to 70% minimum

It wouldn't suprise me if that turns out to be higher.

(But I would add that it appears that Lucy will be rescued from her slavery through a battle of some sort. Which could not be anymore different from the book. The entire point of the scene in the book is Caspian and Bern's cleverness in abolishing the slave trade without having to raise a sword once.)

well, yes it is different from the book, but there are some parts even in LWW that are different from the book (for example, The Frozen River).
I think Michael Apted is drawing on real life slavery abolishment for this. in his movie "Amazing Grace", he put to screen the life of William Wilberforce who was the key person in the fight to end slavery in England. it wasn't easy and it didn't end overnight. it took 20 years for the slave trade to be abolished in England.
so in VotDT, I think they are taking a more realistic approach to how they would abolish the slave market in Narrowhaven. in real life, a slave market wouldn't just be done with peacefully by a few words from a king who comes in one day and makes it all right. IMO, it was the only part of all of C.S. Lewis' books that didn't make sense to me, because of that fact. once they abolished the slave trade in The Lone Islands, they were sure to have an uproar on their hands by at least some people. so I think they are going to have it in the movie so that they have to fight to get the abolishment to happen. and it would make sense.
if Pug and his men were real pirates, they would probably fight to the death before they let a king come in and take away their money and their slaves. so, in my opinion, the addition of a battle to fight for the freedom of the slaves and mostly for the freedom of Lucy and Eustace makes sense.

but of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.

(But I would add that it appears that Lucy will be rescued from her slavery through a battle of some sort. Which could not be anymore different from the book. The entire point of the scene in the book is Caspian and Bern's cleverness in abolishing the slave trade without having to raise a sword once.)

well, yes it is different from the book, but there are some parts even in LWW that are different from the book (for example, The Frozen River).

Yes but the difference is that the frozen river scene did not detract from a major or an important theme. If they do fight, then it will take away from an important theme in the book- the best way to win is to do so without fighting. I wouldn't mind it so much as long as Caspian doesn't start it, and if they still attempt behind the scenes to stop the fighting, but I'm not seeing it yet.

However I really want to see how that scene is going to play out- they can still make it work

I couldn't agree more with your analogy glumPuddle. It has become far too common in Hollywood to sacrifice story and meaning in films for the sake of effects and moneymaking. I don't doubt that money is something that is needed in today's day and age, but it is not the most important thing.

As what has been stated and seen for VDT so far, it seems that the whole point and ideals of C.S. Lewis's writings have been dismissed. Wasn't there an article or something that basically stated (well, I do paraphrase a bit) that "C.S. Lewis left blanks for us to fill, so were filling them for him" (with the difference in time from VDT to SC). To me, that's a disrespect to the author on some levels. I'm for taking material and making it your own (like the story of Wicked or Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz) as long as it draws from and reveres the original story material (and, as the case is for Oz and Narnia, from the entire storyline and world, not just one book. And I don't mean that we should bring back the WW just because she appears in an earlier story). So far, it seems like the story changes in VDT fail to do just that. In my line of work, I always feel like it is something that I put in my heart and soul in. The same should be for eyeryone working on VDT, if their heart is not in it (that the story and characters should be something respected and very dear to their hearts) then they should not be working on this film.

It also really irks me that because there are multiple successful films in the Star Wars, Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings series, following their example is the key to the sequels of Narnia's success. When will it be realized that Narnia is its own entity. I get the premise and thought process of the idea, but isn't somebody clever enough to think for themselves? I was never really drawn to nor did I find a connection to any of the above books or films. I don't want to see these films reapeated in Narnia. Narnia is the fantasy world I connected to because the stories are so wonderfully different and I relate with the characters right off the bat.

I'm not going to lie, there are parts from the VDT trailers and imagery that have been presented so far that do look promising. I do look forward to the final film, but there has been nothing yet that makes me say "this film is going to be something special", as was an immediate feeling for LWW.

I couldn't agree more with your analogy glumPuddle. It has become far too common in Hollywood to sacrifice story and meaning in films for the sake of effects and moneymaking. I don't doubt that money is something that is needed in today's day and age, but it is not the most important thing.

It is rather a pity that you feel this way, especially as the photo of Lucy being sold shows a high degree of fidelity to the story of Voyage of the Dawn Treader. So was the ship, a beautifully detailed construction which I saw in real time last January. And I am sure that disappointing fans like yourself is the last thing on the mind of Michael Apted and the people who worked hard to produce this film. Why spend money making a film at all, if it bears no relation whatsoever to the story it relates, and so by antagonising its fan base, won't be commercially viable? Consider this quote:

CS: Do you hope to change the look of the movie from the first two in anyway or keep it consistent?
Apted: The point of this is that it's a completely different story. It's not like Harry Potter or even Bond. My story couldn't be more different from Andrew's. His is sort of a political film with a darkness and great battles, all that sort of drama. Mine is a magical journey. I think my film is more cinematic than the one before. They're really completely different stories so you're not just coming in someone else's shoes, you're just carrying it on.

I really think that glumPuddle and yourself have misconstrued anything Apted said about Harry Potter to mean more than what he actually said. Apted was also emphasizing that VDT is completely different from PC and LWW. And unfortunately, whatever you say, money definitely is the most important thing in commercial filmmaking, even in so-called art-house productions which appeal to either people's snobbery or, more likely, to specialist tastes, to make what money they do.

The VDT film has had a much lower budget than its two predecessors, and I'm sure that at least some changes in the story have been dictated by this. For example, it has been pointed out in at least one of the many Coming.Soon interviews some of the difficulties that the film crew faced in production. Examples are those of the length of time apparently filming at sea, the length of time spent shooting, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the apparent omission of even one minor character, Ramandu, for example, has not also had consequences for the filming of VDT.

In particular, I can see well enough that there is a rhyme and reason for any explanatory padding to the plot of VDT, and why those 'changes' might work for a cinematic production, in contrast to the book, however beloved. It would be well to consider this before passing judgement on a film without actually seeing it first.