We don't know yet if VDT is going to truly reflect the book or not. There's been plenty of evidence that it will and plenty of evidence that it won't. Personally, I think what the issue is going to be in the final movie is that nearly all of the book is there, but there's been an added-in quest, and a final action climax which isn't in the book. This makes it different from PC, where the entire storyline is restructured. In VDT, the storyline is there, but the meaning behind it is changed. We won't know the extent of how much it is changed until we see the film. Remember Michael Apted's quote about how close the film is to the book: "in some areas very close and in some areas not at all." (Most likely paraphrased.)

What are the themes that must be brought out in VDT? We all have a different opinion. For some it is temptation, for others it is longing (for one's true home and/or destiny, etc). I think what's occurred here is that the themes of the book have been combined to flow throughout the film in a less episodic nature. I think that a lot of the themes are still there. But the themes have been combined for a different reason...which isn't in the book as far as I can see.

I'm not offended at all by gPuddle's analogy. In fact, his post made me cry because it's so true. The books and their themes and values are being butchered and sold off by these filmmakers and I'm pretty furious about it. If VDT ends up being as bad as it is looking, I will not support it or any other films they make. They don't deserve the chance to ruin any more books to make themselves some undeserved cash.

Which means basically they have stopped being fans. Of the movies at any rate, or of any movie at all being made of CON. The books won't change, whatever films are made. And some cinematic changes will be made in any visual production of the book, not only for cost reasons.

My fandom is to the books first. The movies are a distant second. I fail to see why you and others keep beating the "cinematic changes must be made" drum. We know this. However, it's almost as if people who are thrilled with the movie think we're still debating the number of islands that should be in the film. Oh, wait. There's the following quote.

So it makes sense to spend less film time "travelling" to visit less islands by combining a couple of them with similar themes or to make the best possible use of what film sets had been established. The Magician's Island set also looks fantastic.

I can only assume you have been skipping entire threads if you think this is something still being debated. We had resigned ourselves to the islands being combined back before we even knew anything about this movie. If there are still people complaining about this, they aren't doing it very loudly. We all knew that the Burnt Island would disappear, that there was a good chance that islands like Deathwater and Dragon Island would be combined. As I said, anyone who had major issues about this isn't complaining about it anymore.

Walt Disney also alters traditional stories to fit what Walt Disney thinks people want, not just beloved stories like CON. Is that the sort of adaptation of VDT what NarniaWebbers would have preferred?

Hmm, lets see. We have at least one added battle, an exaggerated fight to the death between the sea serpent and the DT, possibly a love triangle, a complete alteration of how Narnian stars work so they can have a morphing scene, the pointless return of the WW, need I go on? Gosh, that sure sounds like plot alterations made so the story conforms to what Hollywood thinks people want.

I disagree that the movie does give a false image of the book.

If people walk out of the theater thinking VDT is about saving the world from a giant evil smoke monster, then yes, it does give a false image of the book.

The logic fail in people constantly saying "Don't judge the movie until you've seen it", boggles the mind. Using this handy advice, one would be forced to go see every single movie that comes out. Obviously if one cannot decide that a movie is a poor adaptation and not a movie they are interested in seeing based upon a huge amount of movie stills, tie-in books, trailers, interviews, advance screenings, and film clips, then one cannot possibly reject any movie at all. And all of that completely ignores the fact that by deciding that you want to see the film, you are in fact also judging it. So apparently what is being said is, "You can judge this movie as long as you agree with me."

I can only assume you have been skipping entire threads if you think this is something still being debated. We had resigned ourselves to the islands being combined back before we even knew anything about this movie. If there are still people complaining about this, they aren't doing it very loudly. We all knew that the Burnt Island would disappear, that there was a good chance that islands like Deathwater and Dragon Island would be combined. As I said, anyone who had major issues about this isn't complaining about it anymore

.

Touché! I have commented here and there but of course I have been skipping entire threads. Wet blanket comments about the movie get tiresome you see. And I also have a life to live as well. If you have long been resigned to cuts in journey time it well may be only because you have been too busy nitpicking about anything else you can find.

The logic fail in people constantly saying "Don't judge the movie until you've seen it", boggles the mind. Using this handy advice, one would be forced to go see every single movie that comes out. Obviously if one cannot decide that a movie is a poor adaptation and not a movie they are interested in seeing based upon a huge amount of movie stills, tie-in books, trailers, interviews, advance screenings, and film clips, then one cannot possibly reject any movie at all. And all of that completely ignores the fact that by deciding that you want to see the film, you are in fact also judging it. So apparently what is being said is, "You can judge this movie as long as you agree with me."

Au contraire, the same applies in reverse. The only trailers, movie stills, tie-ins etc that I have seen have been through this site. The ones on the left of this screen. The ones that have been put there for me to see, possibly by NarniaWeb newshounds. I can't go to see Toy Story whatever it was, I haven't been to the movies yet, and I haven't seen any trailers on TV. As for the movie tie-ins, they aren't available here until after next week. So if I judge from the trailers available from here that this is a movie I want to see, nonetheless, then are you also not saying that 'You can judge this movie as long as I agree with you?' Clearly I won't.

Hmm, lets see. We have at least one added battle, an exaggerated fight to the death between the sea serpent and the DT, possibly a love triangle, a complete alteration of how Narnian stars work so they can have a morphing scene, the pointless return of the WW, need I go on? Gosh, that sure sounds like plot alterations made so the story conforms to what Hollywood thinks people want.

Odd! These are the very things I was expecting to see. An extra battle to free slaves? That is only what you'd expect to happen when there is no British consul around to rescue people from slavers and when the Governor is in cahoots with them. Or were the Lone Islanders so lazy they had to wait until Caspian turned up before they sorted their own problems?

The sea serpent attacking the DT! Was it vermiliion and purple like in the book? Not that anyone uses the colour vermilion any more. But what I noted of it was spectacular!

I'm glad to see that both Edmund and Caspian did look suitably delighted at Lilliandill's beauty, because of people here who thought Laura/Lilliandil wasn't up to scratch in their grousing opinion. Did you say a possible love triangle? What balderdash! Who said that anyway? Rita Skeeter got on this board somehow?

Why are you worried about a morphing star? Wasn't Ramandu in the book (p. 159) virtually suggesting this was the case? Eustace said: "In our world, a star is a huge ball of flaming gas" Ramandu answered: "Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of". As if we haven't been described as gasbags at any time in our lives...

Oh yeah, the dreaded WW. A real nightmare that one! I've just been looking at the Dark Island chapter, and guess what! I saw the Rank film symbol, just as creepy as I found it as a kid, though these days I have enough in my life to get my nightmares from elsewhere. I can see how big brave confident Edmund would think that this lady was more of a nightmare than scissors or creepy crawlies, when she nearly killed him. Twice. In LWW.

Please stop this demonising of "Hollywood" and the film industry. It is a commercial enterprise like any other, and another way for talented people to earn a living. I joined this board in January 2009 mainly to put my name to the petition going on to ensure that VDT did get filmed, despite Walt Disney dropping out. I am deeply disappointed at the current attitude towards what I consider a fine and thoughtful adaptation to the screen, by the very members who were around at that time.

I'm not offended at all by gPuddle's analogy. In fact, his post made me cry because it's so true.

I doubt you or glumpuddle would feel the analogy was at all appropriate if you or someone you knew (besides fictional characters) had actually been a victim of human trafficing. I think if you had (God forbid) you would take back everything in that analogy.

I see sweetlittlegurlie's point. I think it's a much better analogy. However, I still disagree with the point of view.

I would not want a false depiction of my mother on the silver screen. But do you know what is a worse reflection on a mother than a film could ever be? Her children.

*Nitpicking and freaking out over changes to a movie

*Lumping all the people involved together and calling them money hounds

*Wishing failure on their productions

*Being so arrogant as to think you know more about C.S. Lewis and his books than they (including Lewis's own step son) do

*Calling something unfaithful that you haven't even seen

*Talking about the filmmakers like they're some kind of unfeeling monsters when in fact they are real people with real feelings, really trying to do a great job with these films who can read every hurtful thing you post with a few easy clicks

*And things of that nature

are not exactly a good representation of how the books affected your life or made you a better person. Consider your life an adaption of the books, a representation of Aslan. It's well and good to share your opinions. That's why the forum is here. It's well and good to share your negative opinions. But there is a certain extent where it carries to hurtful levels and is a bad reflection of Narnia fans and Narnia itself.

I am not calling anyone out or accusing anyone of being this way. You may not be doing any of the things on the above list, and if you are you may not be doing it to a harmful extent. All I ask is that you think about what I said. If it isn't true of you then just dismiss it. If it is true and you don't care perhaps you should do some reevaluating.

Please, continue to to post your opnions, positive and negative alike. But please remember to ask yourself, "At whose expense am I saying this?" Remember that the filmmakers, who are doing what they think is best and will make everyone happy, can read every word you're saying.

I will be honest. If I were in charge of making these films and I came on this forum only to be met with all this negativity, (not just any negativity but the harsh kind where the people are no longer just giving constructive criticism and expressing displeasure, they're also calling names and devaluing myself and fellow filmmakers as feeling human beings) I would just give up. I would stop trying to please the Narnia fans as a whole and aim to please to average movie goer because they might actually be nice about what they get. Either that or I would stop making the films altogether.

Again, I'm not saying anyone in particular on this forum is being that way, but as the saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it."

What I find the most ridiculous of all the complaints is that they are making changes so they can get more money, well duh, why make 150 million dollar movie that everybody Narnia fans won't like. If they don't make a whole lot of money than the series won't continue and we would all be saying "Someone needs to make Narnia movies".
You can point out how LWW was a success and it was close to the book, but on Rotten Tomatoes a whole lot of people called it unimaginative and boring and whatnot.

All this is just to point out that the main concern of the filmmaker is to make money, without money they are the ones going bankrupt.

I do wish that the movie would be a bit closer to the book but I like quite a few of the changes(same with LOTR). but I would rather have 7 60-70 percent faithful adaptations then only 3.

The logic fail in people constantly saying "Don't judge the movie until you've seen it", boggles the mind. Using this handy advice, one would be forced to go see every single movie that comes out. Obviously if one cannot decide that a movie is a poor adaptation and not a movie they are interested in seeing based upon a huge amount of movie stills, tie-in books, trailers, interviews, advance screenings, and film clips, then one cannot possibly reject any movie at all. And all of that completely ignores the fact that by deciding that you want to see the film, you are in fact also judging it. So apparently what is being said is, "You can judge this movie as long as you agree with me."

There is a difference between making a judgement thinking that youmight or might not like the movie, and deciding once and for all that is will be a horrible abomination before you even know what it's about.

You don't have to like the changes being made, but at least give the movie a chance. There are many of trailers and synopsises that if I had seen or read without watching the movie, I wouldn't have thought that I'd like them- yet when I did sit down to watch them I found myself loving them (case in point- To Save a Life if I had made my final decision on the critics or the synopsis I probably wouldn't have seen it, fortunately for me the day I heard about it was the day I saw it) Secondly there were various times when I thought a change would be horrible, but it turned out not to be as bad as I thought (case in point Suspian or the WW in PC- I was expecting them to be much worse that they are.)

So I just try to remember that when I watch the trailers and read the synopsises, that's all. You find a lot of poorly written synopsises that way too

I echo the recent comments regarding the negative attitude of many toward this film. Like Wagga, I too joined this group in part to assist with the continuation of the film series and I visited regularly. For the last year, however, I have visited less and less often and my interest in joining in discussions has declined because of the constant berrage of pessimistic, cynical commentary I read when I do drop in. One of the Mods remarked that those of us who are excited about the film are "a breath of fresh air.' What a sad observation. I agree with Wagga...I am disappointed. For Aslan!

If you have long been resigned to cuts in journey time it well may be only because you have been too busy nitpicking about anything else you can find.

I've read this comment a few times now and I can't see what it even has to do with what I said. If you'll read my comment again you'll see that I was pointing out that the purists have been realistic about necessary changes like compressing travel time. We weren't happy at the time, but resigned ourselves to it and hoped simple, logical changes like that would be the most we would have to worry about. There's a lot of difference between compressing travel time and inventing an entirely new main plot.

Au contraire, the same applies in reverse. The only trailers, movie stills, tie-ins etc that I have seen have been through this site. The ones on the left of this screen. The ones that have been put there for me to see, possibly by NarniaWeb newshounds. I can't go to see Toy Story whatever it was, I haven't been to the movies yet, and I haven't seen any trailers on TV. As for the movie tie-ins, they aren't available here until after next week. So if I judge from the trailers available from here that this is a movie I want to see, nonetheless, then are you also not saying that 'You can judge this movie as long as I agree with you?' Clearly I won't.

I don't think you're understanding me at all. You viewed the information NarniaWeb provided and made the decision that you want to see the movie. I viewed the same information and decided that I did not wish to view the movie. These are both judgments of the movie. Yet you and others are insisting that only your judgment is valid and that we who don't like the changes should basically shut up until the movie comes out.

If people have been paying attention to my posts, they would have noticed that I have never condemned people who want to see the film and as far as I've seen, neither has gP or any of the other purists who post frequently. If you can set aside your feelings for the book enough to enjoy the movie, good for you. I can't. People have varying amounts of emotional investment in this series, I get that. But whether people want to admit it or not, the purists have been far nicer to the people who are in love with this film than the reverse. I've lost track of the amount of posts and news comments made solely to complain about "negativity" and to even complain about members by name. I've seen few to no people post to complain about the people who like the film and certainly no calling out of specific people. If that were the case, Libby would probably have entire threads about her since she's easily the most positive person on here.

Odd! These are the very things I was expecting to see.

So you were expecting a poor adaptation? I wasn't even that pessimistic until about six months ago.

Why are you worried about a morphing star? Wasn't Ramandu in the book (p. 159) virtually suggesting this was the case? Eustace said: "In our world, a star is a huge ball of flaming gas" Ramandu answered: "Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of".

Did Ramandu actually say he was a huge ball of flaming gas? No. Every single quote in the entire series referring to Narnian stars indicates they are humanoid even in the sky.

I am deeply disappointed at the current attitude towards what I consider a fine and thoughtful adaptation to the screen, by the very members who were around at that time.

Again with the whole deciding a film is faithful/unfaithful thing without seeing it?

There is a difference between making a judgement thinking that youmight or might not like the movie, and deciding once and for all that is will be a horrible abomination before you even know what it's about.

Six months ago would have been a very valid and reasonable argument. We had no real clue about what was going to happen in this film up until the trailers and other spoilers started to come out. We do know what it's about now. There are still a few ambiguous details, but we've been handed the plot on a silver platter multiple times.

I think its time we all cooled off a bit. Its just a movie, no need to get angry with each other.

It seems the big argument is whether or not its okay to judge a movie before you see it. With all of the info we have, I think its alright to say you think the film will be horrible or you think the film will be great. And that is all glumpuddle and Bookwyrm have been doing. They havent said the film will suck. They havent said that the series is ruined. But they have seen and heard reports that have given a good idea of what to expect from the movie and its okay for them to voice their concerns. Isnt that what the site is about?

I think it will be a pretty faithful adaptation with a few annoying additions (White Witch, love triangle). That said, I do not know for sure and I will reserve judgement until the movie comes out.

@Booky, I'm not saying its wrong for people to not see the movie if they don't want too.

Warning analogy to follow!

What is wrong (and I'm not saying you're doing this either, I just know of some people in my life who've done this in other situations) is for those people to go around saying "that movie is so stupid! Why would you ever want to see that?!" or "Don't see that movie it's so stupid." I've seen plenty of times when people have done this to either books or movies. They'll laugh at me since I'm a Narnia fan because they think "those are stupid kid's books" or "It's just another preachy Christian book"- and yet none of them have even bothered to read the Chronicles. I'm not bothered by if people chose to see/ read the books, but if they go around calling them bad or stupid with out even giving them a chance, and especially if they start teasing/ picking on other people for doing it.

And in my own personal opinion there are a ton of ambiguous details, we've practically been handed two or three different versions of the plot. There are even conflicting reports about the soundtrack. However that's my own opinion

But I understand if you don't want to see the movie, and that's okay with me. Afterall, who am I to tell you what to do It's a matter of differing opinions and philosophies.

VDT won't be the movie for some, and that's perfectly fine, but it will be for others, and that's fine too. We all, myself very much included, have to remember that and respect each others opinions.

wagga, I was hoping to hear back from you on the point I made in this post asking why you kept saying that Lucy being sold in the marketplace means VDT is a faithful adaptation. If I understood your point properly, it just doesn't make sense to me. Could you clarify? Are we defining fidelity to the original story and its themes differently?

I don't accept sweeetlilgurlie's analogy either with a comparison of VDT with a film about her mum. It all depends what her mum did in her life other than being sweeetlilgurlie's mum.

I still think it's a brilliant analogy and I think it's scored some understanding, given how everyone is rushing to refute it . Of course a film is not a person (hasn't that point already been made with Lucy and the film both being sold but not being the same value?). The point is, something that you really, deeply care about is misrepresented in the public eye. Oh, maybe you could argue that the misrepresentation is not a negative one or whatever, but the fact remains that the image of what you care about, its public perception, is distorted from the reality. It is not a true depiction of what is real.

The more I think about it, the more this analogy (and gP's) make sense.

The box office speaks for itself, as PC's issue was not popularity, but profitability.

This confuses me. Aren't popularity and profitability pretty much the same thing in this case? If PC had been popular, it would have been profitable. In order to be profitable it must be popular. The terms are almost synonymous; I don't understand why you are distinguishing between them.

I am deeply disappointed at the current attitude towards what I consider a fine and thoughtful adaptation to the screen, by the very members who were around at that time.

Wait, wait. You tell us to not make judgments about the adaptation until we see the film — but that is exactly what you have just done! How come your dictums to unsatisfied fans don't apply to you? Are the the unhappy fans the only ones who aren't allowed to make judgments based on the materials we've seen and the interviews we've read? It's a double standard, plain and simple.

I was composing this post as I read the thread. Booky says basically the same thing here:

You viewed the information NarniaWeb provided and made the decision that you want to see the movie. I viewed the same information and decided that I did not wish to view the movie. These are both judgments of the movie. Yet you and others are insisting that only your judgment is valid and that we who don't like the changes should basically shut up until the movie comes out.

Obviously final judgments can't be made until we have a final product. But we can certainly use the information available to make an informed decision about the quality of the product and determine if we want to spend money on it. Right now, given the information available, I've decided not to see the film. Right now, given the information available, you've decided to see the film. Equal respect should be given to both positions, no matter how much we disagree. And that means applying the same standard to both. If you can talk about your reasons for planning to see the film, we can talk about our reasons for not planning to see the film. I think this can be done respectfully

I would hate to see the Dawn Treader sunk like the Titanic under the icy weight of complainers' disapproval, and the ship scuttled before it even has a chance to have a maiden voyage.

Ah, if only we had that much influence. Not that I want to sink the ship, but I think you're overstating the weight of our disgust. In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure it has very little impact on the wider ocean of moviegoers.

(And if you want to make the Titanic an analogy, I could argue that it was the ship that ran into the iceberg, not the other way around. If those steering the Dawn Treader wanted to avoid such deep disapproval from the fan base, they should have steered more carefully )

*Calling something unfaithful that you haven't even seen

But we have seen lots of things that indicate very low fidelity to the original source material.

*Talking about the filmmakers like they're some kind of unfeeling monsters when in fact they are real people with real feelings, really trying to do a great job with these films who can read every hurtful thing you post with a few easy clicks

We aren't dissing the filmmakers. We are discussing their work. There's a difference, and it's in the respect rule. If I were to say I wished the filmmakers would all die for what they have done to Narnia, that would be crossing the line. Saying I don't like the choices they've made is not a disrespectful statement. Big difference there!

For the last year, however, I have visited less and less often and my interest in joining in discussions has declined because of the constant berrage of pessimistic, cynical commentary I read when I do drop in.

I would rather read intelligent and thoughtful criticism than mindless squees about how great the movie is — even if I absolutely loved the movie and the direction the filmmakers are taking. Perhaps the problem is that the unsatisfied fans are raising valid points that others don't want to hear and find it hard to answer?

There's a lot of difference between compressing travel time and inventing an entirely new main plot.

Amen! Again, back to sweeet's analogy... gross misrepresentation of something very important to us. Some people may think the new main plot is an improvement on the original; they're entitled to that opinion, of course. But even if I loved what they're doing to VDT, I still could not honestly say it is a faithful and respectful depiction of the original story. The original story is still misrepresented.

What is wrong (and I'm not saying you're doing this either, I just know of some people in my life who've done this in other situations) is for those people to go around saying "that movie is so stupid! Why would you ever want to see that?!" or "Don't see that movie it's so stupid."

Oh definitely, that would be wrong. I think any kind of don't-see-it-at-all campaign wouldn't get very far, and I think it would be wrong to start one. That isn't my intent when I talk about my reasons for not seeing the film, and I do hope those of you who are happy so far do enjoy it

The box office speaks for itself, as PC's issue was not popularity, but profitability.

This confuses me. Aren't popularity and profitability pretty much the same thing in this case? If PC had been popular, it would have been profitable. In order to be profitable it must be popular. The terms are almost synonymous; I don't understand why you are distinguishing between them.

I think it's because profitability depends on a number of things, not just poularity. PC was massively expensive, so that definitely drew back on the profit. It wasn't as popular as LWW either, so yes that probably had an effect. There are numerous other factors as well, although they are closely related they are not synonymous.

We all know what the changes from the book are right now, so I think what will help narniawebbers determine whether the movie is good or not depends on how significant the changes are. Judging from people's comments, they are critisizing or praising the movie based on what how much they think the changes will affect the movie.

For instance, the whole darkness/seven swords plot may not be a huge deal in the movie. It could have been exaggerated and more focusued upon in the trailers. It may not be the emotional focus of the movie. Then again, the movie could very well just focus on the seven swords plot and abandon all of the themes of the novel for another save the world movie.

The Edaspiandill triangle may be brief or just played for laughs. Maybe the "NO!" scene is the only scene where there is conflict. But it could be a very big deal if Lilliandil causes angry tension between Caspian and Edmund and causes Lucy to get jealous and insecure and causes fighting and drama.

The White Witch could pretty much kill the movie if she turns out to be behind Dark Island and the film's main villian. Or she could just be a brief annoyance if she's just a nightmare of Edmund.

Same goes with the undragoning of Eustace. If he's undragoned for repenting but being unable to to save himself, then the film will work. But if he's undragoned because he bravely defeated the Sea Serpant and "earns" his grace, then there is a big problem.

Same goes with the way they execute the line "But there I have another name." If they try to hint that the other name is somone other then Jesus (like maybe the Pevensies dad or something) then that could kill the movie. Or saying "But there, I have many names." But if they say the line like the book it should be alright.

None of us know the extent to which these changes plague the movie. We keep hearing conflicting reports. Rather then arguing with each other I suggest we just wait. Those looking forward to teh film, go watch it. Those that have decided not to see it based on the info, don't see it, but consider changing your mind if you hear positive reports that indicate the film is overall faithful to the novel.

Profitability and Popularity are not necessarily the same thing. Let me give you an example. In the 1960's (roughly) the movie Cleopatra was in production and it was grossly overbudget. In fact, it was SO expensive that it would have had to have been the highest grossing movie of the year just to break even. Forget about makingn a profit - they just wanted to recoup their costs. Fortunately for the production crew, Cleopatra DID end up being the highest grossing movie of the year.

Another good example is a school play. Lets say that you are in a school and each class is making a play and the play that sells the most tickets is the winner. Well you class sells 1000 tickets at $1 each so your play made $1000 but you spent $1000 on sets and costumes, so YES it was a popular play but in no way can you say that the production made any profit.

Lets remember that PC was one of the most expensive movies ever made...yes.. EVER. So profitability was a lofty goal for this movie.