*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!

As I said, dismiss my comment if it doesn't apply to you

I was speaking of things like comparing the filmmakers to slave traders and generalizations like "They all don't care about the books! They just want money!" I fail to see how things of that nature show any respect toward the filmmakers.

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?

As I have said beforehand, I do have a real life and commitments elsewhere. If you can't be answered by my two comments on the previous page then I need time and thought to do your post justice. And as Josh also says in one of the earlier posts, I like to think that much of the theorising on this site may not stand up to much scrutiny when the actual film is shown.

For example, I do think that the WW would be a legitimate post-traumatic sort of nightmare for Edmund to have on the Dark Island. And I fervently believe in his suggestion that the so-called 'love triangle' of Edmund, Caspian and Lilliandil, might not amount to much. Boys do tend to ogle pretty girls, after all. And I have my own theories of what a green mist is supposed to symbolise.

But of course you mention the themes so lamented about. I've long been aware that the Harry Potter books have a very strong relationship with the Narnia books, VDT in particular. JK Rowling, who once said she read Voyage of the Dawn Treader to her five year old daughter, wrote for an older age group. But in 1999 she also said,

I really like Eustace in THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER by C. S. Lewis (third in the Narnia series). He is a very unlikeable character who turns good. He is one of C. S. Lewis's funniest characters, and I like him a lot.

I can quite believe that the Harry Potter books share much the same themes as does VDT, in particular. Such as a journey of inner self discovery, of temptation, sinfulness, remorse and redemption. CON, however, has a glorious character called Aslan who plays a strongly proactive role in the series, and bears a much stronger and overt link to C.S.Lewis' Christian beliefs.

And so the difference between the two series is basically that JK Rowling's works have a generalised Everyman sort of spirituality that will be enjoyed on its own merits, unlike C.S.Lewis' just as enjoyable Narnia supposals. Unfortunately for the Narnia franchise, I strongly suspect that there are eager souls who like to hover round Holy Narnia, who insist on treating them as some kind of untouchable icon, trying to make of the books, and even more so the films, exactly the allegories they have been accused of being, and to make the films, in particular, fit their own specific and actual Christian points of view, regardless of how that might offend, not only the general public, including non-Christians, but also fellow Christians who might not see eye to eye with such dogmatism.

Of course I could be wrong, but if the hat fits..... Meanwhile, such differences show most clearly in the way Warner Bros HP films have been produced. They depart from faithfulness to original story and themes, even more so than you say VDT has done. We, the HP fans, have put up with irrelevant shrunken heads, missing or mangled crucial plot points, no house elves, half the story line ignored, too much spectacle and not enough story for over a decade. We have whinged about no Dursleys, no house elves, or the absence of favourite story lines. Of the mish mash of this or that film, blaming Steven Kloves, until Michael Goldenburg made an even worse job of OotP. Eustace's dragon looks positively traditional compared with the Hungarian Horntail, and don't let me get started about the Good ship Harmione which held the HP world transfixed after HBP was released in 2005.

And yes, there have been accusations of Warner Bros money grubbing. Especially when Goblet of Fire was delayed for more than six months or when the latest film was split into two parts. Yet I have never seen members on Leaky Lounge, let alone the Moderators, themselves, complain the way I have seen on NarniaWeb, that the films were unfaithful. They wouldn't advise the membership that these were bad films not worth patronising as seems to be happening on this thread. Nor should they.

As a Leaky Lounge moderator, myself, of course I will make it my business to attend in late November the forthcoming Deathly Hallows film, regardless of how I feel about it, or what favourite parts I know have been missed out. As an effective moderator, I should at least make myself aware of what is in the film so that I can understand what the members are referring to when they say what they think of the film, and whether or not their criticisms are warranted.

And even though I am not a moderator here, I expect to do VDT at least the same amount of justice, or even more, when I campaigned to see this film being made. And even if I was for one second disappointed that VDT has its own Nigel in the Mysterious Little Girl, I will still take it in my stride, defend it to the death on Leaky, let alone here, and so I won't complain so loudly on Internet that the general public might have good reason to think that this film is no good. Strangers can visit this site, you know.

I am not saying that the films shouldn't be criticized, any more than I would say that the HP films shouldn't be criticized. But the same applies to the books as well, in both cases. And I used Marie Antoinette's example for good reason. This is another, rather horrible, example of group think. Sweeetlilgirlie compared VDT being misrepresented in much the same terms as her mother being slandered publicly. I still think it is a bad analogy, which she would not have made if she had been related to a public figure who had been victimised and misrepresented by a witch hunt.

My own mind automatically thought of Marie Antoinette who was so maligned by the French Revolutionary forces that they tried to get her own son to testify against her, branding her as a bad mother, which of course she wasn't. Louis VII died of neglect and maltreatment at the hands of his Revolutionary carers. It is impossible to know for certain whether or not she actually made that infamous 'Let them eat cake' remark. Even if she had gathered up every bit of food in front of her for distribution to the masses, they hated 'L'Autricienne' so much that it would never have helped. They wanted her head, you see. At the Guillotine.

Getting back to the themes. I still don't see what else you want from this film other than a good story that at all or most points does actually meet the VDT story, and does reflect its themes. I still am looking forward to a lovely and enjoyable VDT movie, expecting to say 'I told you so' at the end.

Unfortunately for the Narnia franchise, I strongly suspect that there are eager souls who like to hover round Holy Narnia, who insist on treating them as some kind of untouchable icon, trying to make of the books, and even more so the films, exactly the allegories they have been accused of being, and to make the films, in particular, fit their own specific and actual Christian points of view, regardless of how that might offend, not only the general public, including non-Christians, but also fellow Christians who might not see eye to eye with such dogmatism.

Wanting a faithful adaptation is not equal to veneration. Why do you consistently use this sort of hyperbole that borderlines on insulting the people you are debating with? We do not want to see an original fantasy movie by Michael Apted. We want to see C. S. Lewis' Narnia. It's as simple as that. As for the rest of your comment there, I'm not even sure what you're talking about. If this is about people being worried that Eustace will earn his redemption, I cannot begin to fathom how you can label one of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as dogmatic. If salvation through grace alone offends a Christian, then apparently they've never bothered to crack open a Bible. And if it offends the non-Christian viewing audience, how on Earth did they get past the magic Jesus lion?

Yet I have never seen members on Leaky Lounge, let alone the Moderators, themselves, complain the way I have seen on NarniaWeb, that the films were unfaithful. They wouldn't advise the membership that these were bad films not worth patronising as seems to be happening on this thread. Nor should they.

Good for Leaky Lounge, but what does it have to do with NarniaWeb? Not one moderator on this site has told people they should not go to the film. If you think that our members are so unintelligent that they will interpret a statement of a personal decision as some sort of edict and actually follow it, then you have a lot less respect for them than we do. Again, this comes right back to the points I've made in my previous posts (which you ignored) that the consensus amongst some of the pro-movie people is that the purists should shut up and stop speaking their minds. As for the Harry Potter fandom, the rosy picture of the fandom you paint may be accurate for the website you frequent, but I've met more than a few fans of the books who despised the movies and gave up watching them. Every book fandom has members who place integrity to the book over a splashy movie experience. NarniaWeb just happens to have a lot more of them in one place than other sites.

If this is about people being worried that Eustace will earn his redemption, I cannot begin to fathom how you can label one of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as dogmatic. If salvation through grace alone offends a Christian, then apparently they've never bothered to crack open a Bible. And if it offends the non-Christian viewing audience, how on Earth did they get past the magic Jesus lion?

No, I haven't been offended myself by central Christian doctrine, but the arguments about how Eustace's undragonning is allegedly depicted in the film as being somehow earned have left me somewhat bemused. I kept wondering if they were saying how dare Eustace try to be a better being, how dare he try to shed his own skin. How dare he even look like he might try to be worthy of undragonning! I know what you are saying about faith and good works. Are the arguments suggesting that people shouldn't even attempt to improve their behaviour, obey the law, try to get along with other people in the meantime even before they are ready to accept God's grace and forgiveness?

The point of his undragonning was that Eustace, however he tried to shed his dragonish persona, or improve his behaviour on his own account, he couldn't remove his dragonish skin of his own well-meaning efforts. He'd simply develop another dragonish skin, meet another pitfall. Like Lucy, who prayed for deliverance from the Dark Island, Eustace could only be properly undragonned by Aslan's intervention. And so far from the trailers, especially that snippet of Eustace talking to Edmund and Lucy in the rowing boat, this is exactly what I see happening in the film.

Every book fandom has members who place integrity to the book over a splashy movie experience. NarniaWeb just happens to have a lot more of them in one place than other sites.

Precisely. And that is the precise reason why others on this premier Narnia film site might worry about the effects of purist negativity.

Sweeetlilgirlie compared VDT being misrepresented in much the same terms as her mother being slandered publicly. I still think it is a bad analogy, which she would not have made if she had been related to a public figure who had been victimised and misrepresented by a witch hunt.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold on there. I'm getting confused with you throwing my analogy around.

First off, I wasn't talking about my mom specifically. I was talking about ANYONE'S MOM, or really anything or anyone that is important to someone!

Second off, the point of what I said was to make clear that VDT is precious and important to many people in a way similar (though not as strong in most cases, I think) to the way people treasure their mothers/other important people in their lives. Therefore, those people are upset when someone MISREPRESENTS (Note that I did NOT say slandered) their mother.

I did post that my analogy was severe, and perhaps a closer one would be to completely change (in the film) the belief set of the mother/important person to someone. Such a thing would misrepresent the person, and make the people who knew the person in real life indignant or upset.

I'm not sure where you're going with the witch hunt thing, because you've mentioned it at least twice now, but I was NOT talking about people being mistaken about the genuine quality of someone's personality (i.e., Marie Antoinette's son about her, as you said) to the point where they would want to kill them.

I was talking about how, when a random film director makes a movie about something important to you and happens to mess up their character, you are hurt. We aren't talking about the real character except in the context that it was misrepresented!

No, I haven't been offended myself by central Christian doctrine, but the arguments about how Eustace's undragonning is allegedly depicted in the film as being somehow earned have left me somewhat bemused. I kept wondering if they were saying how dare Eustace try to be a better being, how dare he try to shed his own skin. How dare he even look like he might try to be worthy of undragonning! I know what you are saying about faith and good works. Are the arguments suggesting that people shouldn't even attempt to improve their behaviour, obey the law, try to get along with other people in the meantime even before they are ready to accept God's grace and forgiveness?

The Chronicles were written by a christian and they have many christian parallels, themes and truths. The undragoning is a allegory of the christian version of salvation where a person must come to the place where they admit they cannot do it on there own and must have their sinful natures changed by God. That is what Lewis mean't by it and if you don't like it, read Harry Potter. But they are more or less christian books and why should that be changed.

I don't think waggawerewolf27 is making that statement because she has a problem with the redemption/salvation theme. If she didn't like it why would she be on the forum?

I think she has a problem with people accusing Eustace of earning grace in the film. She's saying that a repentant heart should want to do better. It's natural once you've been a jerk and see your error to try to do better. So it isn't like he's trying to earn grace, it's simply that he's had a change of heart and changes in lifestyle and character are what comes after a change of heart.

I think what Wagga is saying is that she doesn't see why some people have a problem with him trying to do better because in the end he still can't undragon himself. As is evident in the VBS clip Aslan hasto do it.

I think there would be reason to worry if there wasn't a change in Eustace. If we don't see a big change or anything, if he doesn't even try to become a better person and he's still a jerk when he's undragoned, then what was the point of being dragoned in the first place.

In the book we can see what Eustace is thinking and get a better picture of what he's feeling. In a book it's ok to say that he felt sorry, but in a movie since those are more visual it's better to show that he's repentant by his actions. That doesn't mean he's earning his undragoning. No one, no matter how good, can earn grace. No matter how good he is, he can't undragon himself.

So I think the bottom line of Wagga's statement is, if Aslan still undragons him because he cannot do it on his own what's the problem with that?

Thank you very much, Aslanisonthemove. That is precisely what I have been thinking and trying to say. Could I please ask a big favour? I would love to be linked to the VBS clip you mentioned, because to be honest, I am not sure what a VBS clip is.

The Chronicles were written by a christian and they have many christian parallels, themes and truths. The undragoning is a allegory of the christian version of salvation where a person must come to the place where they admit they cannot do it on there own and must have their sinful natures changed by God. That is what Lewis mean't by it and if you don't like it, read Harry Potter. But they are more or less christian books and why should that be changed.

Thank you for restating exactly what I believe in the bit I bolded, better than I could do myself. Unlike VDT the movie, I don't want to change that the Narnia books are more or less Christian books, having been written by a Christian author and containing Christian themes and truths.

In the VDT film I think that Eustace does indeed come to the place where he admits he cannot change himself on his own, judging by the trailers. I don't believe the VDT production misrepresents in any way Eustace's dragoning or undragonning. As Aslanisonthemove pointed out, his attempts to behave better weren't about earning grace, but more to do with his unsuccessful attempts to shed his dragonish clothes.

I must have misunderstood your statement, I was in a hurry. Were you just saying what other had said?

As I have said beforehand, I do have a real life and commitments elsewhere.

As do I . If you don't have time to answer that question, that's fine. But it seems you have plenty of time to post on other aspects of the conversation, so I was hoping to hear from you on that particular question. I don't think it was really addressed in the posts you reference, but that's fine. I'm happy to let my point stand

And as Josh also says in one of the earlier posts, I like to think that much of the theorising on this site may not stand up to much scrutiny when the actual film is shown.

Again, that's fine. But it doesn't answer my question about your repeated statements that Lucy being sold as a slave automatically means VDT is going to be a more faithful adaptation than reports seem to indicate. That assertion is what doesn't make sense to me.

Another issue you haven't addressed at all is the double standard you were advocating earlier, that people who are optimistic about the direction of the film can post all they want but people who aren't should just be quiet. You say we should not make any judgments until we've seen the film — but you have made judgments to the effect that it's going to be a "fine and thoughtful adaptation." Why are you allowed to make judgments based on the materials we've seen and others are not? Do you see the problem with this kind of dogmatic attitude?

I think what Josh was trying to say is that it is rather ironic that the very picture that GP chose to use as an object lesson that the movies were forsaking the book was an picture of something from the book.

I think you mean wagga. Perhaps. But it doesn't logically follow that because there is a scene from the book in the movie that the rest of the movie is going to be faithful. Indeed, there's evidence that although the scene may be similar in the event (Lucy being sold), they've changed the whole point of the scene by turning it into a fight rather than a clever and diplomatic takeover by the rightful king. So I don't understand the repeated assertion that Lucy being sold means VDT will be faithful; it doesn't hold up logically.

I think most people would agree that the one image of Lucy doesn't mean that the entire movie will be equally faithful. Logically, if that image were all we knew about VDT, one could say that that little part appears to be fathful but the rest of that particular scene or movie may or may not be.

I believe that the people referencing it are just pointing out that it is ironic to use something that would remind people of the book as a focal point for the unfaithfulness being asserted towards the filmmakers.

Josh's point is also the one I have been making about Lucy's picture. It is ironic that there is much else besides Lucy's picture which looks like it could have been lifted straight from the book. wisewoman, I don't consider that I am adopting a double standard about people being pessimistic about the movie because I also have an issue with their viewpoint about the movie misrepresenting a dominant Christian theme in the book about redemption and salvation.

I think there would be reason to worry if there wasn't a change in Eustace. If we don't see a big change or anything, if he doesn't even try to become a better person and he's still a jerk when he's undragoned, then what was the point of being dragoned in the first place.

In the book we can see what Eustace is thinking and get a better picture of what he's feeling. In a book it's ok to say that he felt sorry, but in a movie since those are more visual it's better to show that he's repentant by his actions. That doesn't mean he's earning his undragoning. No one, no matter how good, can earn grace. No matter how good he is, he can't undragon himself.

So I think the bottom line of Wagga's statement is, if Aslan still undragons him because he cannot do it on his own what's the problem with that?

Aslanisonthemove in the above quote, said it so much better than I could, especially if I don't have the time to think it out properly, unlike other bits of the conversation I found easier to address. There doesn't seem to be much room in the pessimistic view that the movie might be also portraying faithfully and accurately Eustace's repentance, his change of heart and and his longing for acceptance. You see, the need for repentance or remorse is also a major Christian theme of VDT, as well as in more secular works.

Poor Eustace gets dragonned, repents, trys to amend his ways and stop being such a nuisance to his VDT shipmates. Repeately he makes the effort to change his dragonish skin. But try as he might, he still remains a dragon. However helpful he tries to be, he still remains a nuisance dragon. This is in the book, and I saw this in the trailers etc as well. And then no matter how good a dragon he tries to be, he is told he is an evil dragon. At this point it seems that Eustace does get to the place where he realises that he needs help. He can't undragon himself and that only Aslan can do it for him. That is in VDT the book, and from the trailers it seems to be in the film as well. How then is Eustace's undragonning being misrepresented in the film?

Furthermore, since book and film Eustace 'reads all the wrong books', he is no better off than non-Christians who wouldn't have the least idea what is meant by the Christian doctrines concerning faith and works, let alone his redemption by Aslan being due to his 'earning grace', a pessimistic quibble about the film that I find particularly inaccurate.

Thanks for clarifying, Glim

wisewoman, I don't consider that I am adopting a double standard about people being pessimistic about the movie because I also have an issue with their viewpoint about the movie misrepresenting a dominant Christian theme in the book about redemption and salvation.

No, the double standard part comes in when you tell people not to make judgments about the film before they see it, but you do the exact same thing and somehow that's okay. This is what Booky and I address here and here. Maybe we are not being clear enough? I can't think of any other reason these and other points we make continue to be glossed over in your responses. I try to be as clear as I can, but please do let me know if I can clarify anything to make it easier for you to respond.

Basically, if you want to tell the negative purists not to make judgments about the film before they see it, you have to stop making judgments about the film before you see it.

I hope you're right and that Narnia really hasn't been "sold" as much as reports seem to indicate. I don't know enough about the Eustace earning grace issue to really comment on it... but I hope they get it. I really do.