It's really foggy outside right now. I used to like fog. Then I saw VDT.

I like how you put that.

I would make it a little more like a detective story. At each island, they find clues about the fate of the lords.

I like that idea. Mysteries are quite popular so it could work. There are already elements of that in the book, so it would make sense. Maybe that's the problem, it would make sense.

*throws a rotten tomato at Libby and misses*

I would have left it as is. I love that whole part! it's so epic!
*ducks to avoid rotten tomatoes*

Give me Liberty or give me death. Your posts are like a breath of fresh air. They always leave me with a smile. I think C. S. Lewis had youngsters (anybody less than 40 is a youngster to me ) like you in mind when he wrote these parables.

Sure there are blemishes in this movie, but God loves to hide his jewels in the mundane, the common, the lowly, the simple, the broken, etc.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but I don't think that statement works for this situation. I don't think God would hide his messages in mediocre, stereotypical films.

You've written up some great analogies to elements of the movie, but these are analogies that a common, non-Christian viewer would never, ever think of when watching the film. The tone of the script is very simplistic; all the movie's messages and meanings are spoken in words so straightforward that a ten year old could understand them. Just be yourself...good works alone can get you into Aslan's Country...etc.

Yes I must admit that Liberty Hoffman is one of my favorite posters on here.

I would have left it as is. I love that whole part! it's so epic!
*ducks to avoid rotten tomatoes*

Your inclusion of "ducking to avoid rotten tomatoes" seems to imply that us fans who didn't like the Green Mist would somehow criticize you if you didn't "duck". You haven't given us anything to criticize you about, though, except that you hold a minority opinion and you know it. However, none of us on NarniaWeb are going to criticize you for simply having a minority opinion (at least I would hope not). The only responses I could possibly see to your post are, "Please tell us why you think that way, Liberty".

You seem to find it amusing to run into deep, detailed discussions that are critical of aspects of the book and say something to the effect of, "I loved the changes! They were so awesome! *ducks to avoid critical comments*" and then promptly run off. Although you are answering the question of "what you would you have done" here by just saying you wouldn't have done anything, by posting a virtual safeguard to criticism, it makes it seem like you were expecting that your post would stir up a storm in the first place.

You know that you hold the minority opinion; why don't you tell us why you think that way and give us a different perspective? Although I don't necessarily agree with smartypie's point of view, I appreciate that he is giving me an in-depth perspective from somebody who genuinely enjoyed the film. Your added input may cause some of us less-than-satisfied people to have a newfound appreciation for the film. Your post did not do much except indicate that you want to remain in the minority.

I know you are approaching the rank of NarniaWeb Master faster than any other NarniaWebber in history, but I'd love to see some in-depth commentary from you too. You're such a nice, cheerful person on here - we would never "throw anything" at you if you put your thoughts out there. Consider getting out of the ducking position...there's no need to be in it.

CorazonBandido55 and smartypie: wow. you made my day. I was feeling lousy today and when I read your comments, that totally made my day! thank you!

MinotaurforAslan: thanks!
okay, I just came back from seeing VotDT for the 4th time this afternoon and I will try my best to explain why I love it so much!

I love VotDT so much because:

-the special effects were awesome
-the acting was amazing
-the costumes were amazing
-the sets and locations were perfect
-the plot (changes included) was awesome

I just saw it again today and I have to say, it gets better every time. I love the whole thing because it was just (IMO) so awesome! I really don't know how to describe my feelings for it! it's my favorite movie of all time because it's got so many life lessons and it's so beautiful, and every time I see it, I see something new. that, to me, is the mark of a good movie. if it makes you want to see it over and over and it gives you a good feeling and it's well done.....I just love this movie!
characters:
Caspian was even better than he was in PC. he had more authority, and he acting like a king and I liked him more as a character.
Edmund just gets better every movie. he did an awesome job being the older brother to Lucy this time around with Peter out of the picture. he and Lucy interacted so well.
Lucy also gets better every movie. I have always loved her, but she was so so so likable this time! she and Edmund interacted so well together and with Caspian.
Eustace was just awesome. I don;t think there's anyone who has seen the movie who has not said good things about his acting. he just was Eustace!
Reepicheep was even more likable this time around! he was just awesome! and I love how he becomes a mentor to Eustace throughout the story, not just as their fireside chat, the way they do in the book.
Drinian was cool! he was perfect for a seafaring sailor and captain. and he's a good bodyguard for Caspian.
all the other characters were also awesome. the acting in this movie was just so well done!
the Green Mist/Seven Swords plot:
what can I say? every time I see the movie, I love this plot more and more. it just fits so well, the way I see it. I don't think the Mist is cheesy. and the Seven Swords was an awesome addition to tie the islands together. it's just too epic for words!
I just love the whole movie!

if you want to know how I was able to enjoy the movie so well, try this:
if you get a chance to see VotDT at least one more time, try these simple steps to see if you can see it the way I do:

forget the book
I know that sounds harsh, but it helps. what I mean by 'forget the book' is this - don't compare the book and the movie while you are watching it. just sit back, forget what you wanted the movie adaption to be, and enjoy the movie for what it is. you will hopefully find it as enjoyable as I did.

pretend you are new to Narnia
okay, time to put yourself in the shoes of a person who has only seen the movies and never read the books. it's very hard, and your not going to be able to go all the way, but try as hard as you can to pretend you've never read the book while you are watching the movie. it's awesome!

plan on liking the movie
plan on liking the movie, changes and all, before viewing it. I know that you will not necessarily like everything, but it makes the whole movie more enjoyable if you plan on liking it all beforehand. when my sister saw it for the first time, she didn't like it much at all. but when she saw it today, she loved the movie as a whole and was able to clearly define the bits here and there that she still didn't like. but she was able to enjoy it so much more.

try it. it works!

I would have left it as is. I love that whole part! it's so epic!
*ducks to avoid rotten tomatoes*

Give me Liberty or give me death. Your posts are like a breath of fresh air. They always leave me with a smile. I think C. S. Lewis had youngsters (anybody less than 40 is a youngster to me ) like you in mind when he wrote these parables.

May I join you, Liberty and smartypie in the minority? I'd be happy to do so. I have often appreciated your lovely upbeat and positive posts.

The tone of the script is very simplistic; all the movie's messages and meanings are spoken in words so straightforward that a ten year old could understand them. Just be yourself...good works alone can get you into Aslan's Country...etc.

I've seen the movie five times and no, Aslan never said 'Just be yourself'. He told Lucy that she does not value who she is, that she was the first to find Narnia. Which isn't the same thing at all as 'just be yourself'. Jesus says: "Let your light so shine before men that they can see your good works and glorify your Father in Heaven". And we are told to 'know thyself', understand who you are, your strengths and weaknesses before Almighty God. And to understand what you stand for.

And there was nothing said about 'good works alone can get you into Aslan's country'. Far from it. It wasn't implied by Eustace's undragonning, nor by his explicit reference to 'not being able to undragon himself without Aslan's help', nor by the hurt miserable Eustace on the strand, nor by his racing the green mist to Aslan's (communion?) table.

Of course the language was pitched into terms 'a 10 year-old can understand'. This is precisely the minimum reading age of the original books and why they are illustrated. Furthermore, the dialogue language has to be kept reasonably simple for translation purposes. I don't think you can call the movie dialogue cheesy unless you start calling the books themselves cheesy or dated, when it is clear they are not.

Myself, I never saw anything cheesy about the film. There wasn't any cheese mentioned, not even in a mousetrap to catch Reepicheep. Nor should there be, given the marvellous interaction between Reepicheep and Eustace. I can well understand why Aslan welcomed Reepicheep into his country. This was a mouse that believed in Aslan, and yes, he was a noble heart.

The 7 swords is quite a logical addition to VDT since even in the book Caspian and friends found Restimar's sword at Deathwater Island - why not 6 more? It wasn't as if Argoz, Mavramorn and Revilian wouldn't have had their swords with them at Aslan's Table, so these ones were already at hand. I don't feel the seven swords interfered with the original plotline all that much.

The green mist's effect was to make the Dark Island more sinister and overpowering. It didn't bother me at all. The Dark Island was in the book, and yes, it sounded horrible even there. I thought the film did a good job of showing the nightmarishness of Dark Island.

I liked the movie, and I would like to see it does even better than it has so far. And as Liberty says in the post above, to watch a movie you have to be determined to like it, which I was. As she says, forget the book. Just enjoy the movie adaptation. It is too bad about those who were determined to dislike it. They spoiled for themselves a lovely endearing story, and maybe the possibility of further Narnia stories.

The scenic effects were marvellous, the sea serpent looked frightening, having Rhince's family abducted gave extra impetus to the movie, and I particularly liked the costuming, the computer effects and the poignant ending, which on most of the 5 occasions caused me to shed a tear or two.

They spoiled for themselves a lovely endearing story, and maybe the possibility of further Narnia stories.

Yes, because there are so many purists out there that the success of the entire movie depends on their approval. We had quite enough of that immature scapegoating after PC, thank you very much, and I think all of us can agree that it needs to go on a very long vacation and forget the way back.

As for people "being determined to dislike the film", many of the people expressing their dislike of the film were excited and expected to be pleased by the film. Quit trying to paint the deep flaws in this film as something imagined by a bunch of angry fanboys. It's rather insulting to constantly toss out the "Well, you just didn't understand it." argument as if anyone who dislikes the film is too unenlightened to appreciate it.

It isn't 'immature scapegoating of purists'. Rather, it is the purists exercising what used to be called 'bad form'. I'm not saying that purists are the big bogeymen, nor angry 'fanboys'. And the term 'fanboys' gives a lot away as a term. Some of us aren't 'boys' you know, even if we are fans. Shouldn't you be referring to 'fanpersons'? However, when even fans show they hate the movie, whatever the reason, what is the wider community to expect?

Yes the film has deep flaws, like the majority of movies do, especially when someone watches it from a perspective where the film is compared with either the book or the perspective of someone else one knows. I already said I saw it 5 times. The first one was with my family and, even though my family thought the film was really great, and I love them to pieces, that first occasion was the least enjoyable.

Why? Because of all the debate on here. I could see only too clearly the seven swords and the green mist that people were complaining about. I could remember all too clearly the debates over Eustace's undragonning being too 'earned' for their liking. Moreover, I did remember the pained look on our Reverend's face after our own church group went to see Prince Caspian, and the obvious disinterest in organising a similar group for VDT when advanced bookings for a theatre group were not feasible. And when you say there were so many fans on NarniaWeb, who were disappointed with the movie, why wouldn't I think that those members just might be similarly influenced in their points of view as I was, and maybe even the Church group?

But then I took the advice of a daughter probably your age or older, who told me just to enjoy the movie, and forget about the book, just like Liberty said. And no, I didn't mean to insult anyone.

I don't enjoy the same things my daughters do, though I am aware of their differing tastes and they of mine. A couple of them enjoyed the movie Guardians of the legend: the owls of Ga'hoole so much that my eldest gave me the book on which it was based as a Christmas present. As a librarian, I do expect that family members would have had a good reason to give me any sort of book for Christmas, like having read the book first, themselves, or thinking it could be of significant interest to me.

This movie, which I didn't see, an animated film which departs significantly from the book, according to what I've read about it, is regarded as a dud by BOM's Brandon Grey in this article. If my daughters were already fans of the book, and had complained about variations from the book too much in the film, I wouldn't have bothered trying to get the DVD, and would have real reasons to wonder why they tried to interest me in the book, like giving it to me for a Christmas present. They could have just regaled me over dinner with the story.

And I have already noted elsewhere that the critics would be around with knives sharpened should VDT get less than spectacular results. On the old NarniaWeb forum Devin Brown submitted a paper for discussion, which included a lot of criticisms of C.S.Lewis. Remember Golden Compass, the Anti-Narnia film, not to mention Eragon? Brandon Grey said this about VDT in this week's bulletin:

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - While this suffered from the residual botching of predecessor Prince Caspian, it was cast as the comeback movie for the Narnia franchise: new distributor (20th Century Fox instead of Disney), a supposedly better-loved book, the 3D illusion and a return to the early December release that served The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe so well. But the marketers were too smitten with the first movie, rehashing the lion and the witch, and they relied heavily on the visual effects over story. No compelling reason was given for casual fans or the uninitiated to care. This looked like just another fantasy, and it showed in the attendance, which was about the same as Eragon and less than a quarter of the first Narnia. One plus is that Voyage will end up having a comparable post-opening hold as the first Narnia, reaching over $100 million.

Frankly, Brandon Grey's review is what I find insulting. It is all too predictable.

Scapegoating is by, its definition, singling out a minority and irrationally blaming it for something that is someone else's fault. If people posting comments implying that the purists caused the demise of the franchise isn't scapegoating, then what is it? It certainly isn't accurate or even based in reality. The internet only influences the tiny minority who visit film sites. NarniaWeb isn't Fox News, CNN, BBC, or the New York Times. It does not reach every house. It does not even reach every Narnia fan. To imply that a few dozen people on the internet sunk the Dawn Treader is patently absurd. It requires one to act as the proverbial ostrich and ignore the fact that the critics disliked the film and the audience ratings on multiple films sites were poor. Continually repeating accusations of hate-mongering and Dawn Treader-scuttling looks a lot less like a legitimate debate and a lot more like disrespect. But since you say you don't mean to insult anyone, I can only assume you haven't considered how it these statements sound to the people you're disagreeing with.

I'm a bit confused by your comment that the term fanboy "gives a lot away". The term has a certain connotation on the internet, which is why I used it. Fanperson doesn't mean anything.

Can you cite example of purists engaging in "bad form"? What is your definition of "bad form"? Because it currently sounds as your definition is disliking a film. I look around the forum and see a group of people who love the CoN and who wanted to see a film that was as quality as the book is. Now that they've seen the film, they are disappointed with what they got. Now they could behave like the idiots on sites like Ain't It Cool and Coming Soon, etc. and post like illiterate internet twits spewing a jumble of expletives and death threats aimed at everyone involved in the film. And we would promptly remove those, of course. But instead of doing that, they've posted reasonable, thoughtful, lengthy posts explaining exactly what they disliked about the film and why. How is this "bad form"? Now if there was some secret conspiracy on NarniaWeb skulking around in black hats stealing the VDT film reels from theaters, I think we could all agree that was bad form.

I blame Minotaur for getting us off topic.

I was recently witness to a debate on Facebook between two friends as to whether or not the most recent Harry Potter movie followed the book closely enough and if it didn't, did it at least capture the spirit of the book. I felt like I was on Narniaweb. Die hard fans analyze movies--down to the last comma. Its just what fans do. The general movie going public doesn't really care about those fans. Nobody in my life cares what I think of the new Narnia movie, whether they've seen it or not. So I come here.

Now about that green mist........ First, I really have to stop and wonder about where they got the idea for this green mist. My first thought was of course "Yeah, somebody's been watching too much Lost". But months ago, I was reading The Last Battle to my daughter and I realized that the black smoke monster on Lost has striking similarities with the way Lewis describes Tash. I read elsewhere that at least one of the producers of Lost was very much influenced by the Narnia series. I think its funny that this Narnia movie borrowed the smoke monster idea from Lost and Lost got the idea from the Narnia books. Well I don't know that for a fact, but I thought it was a funny set of circumstances.

All along we were hearing from the production that Voyage just wasn't cinematic. Too episodic. We need something to tie everything together. I don't think the swords/mist "tied it all together" at all. They still went on a series of unrelated adventures only now they ticked off the seven swords from their to do list instead of ticking off the seven lords like they do in the book.

What would I have done? Well, I think all that was neccesary would be to get the audience a little more invested in the Lords. Like what they tried to to with the Gael/Rhince plot--encourage emotional involvement. It would have been as easy as having Caspian be more emotionally involved with at least one of the Lords. They were his father's friends. Maybe he was close to one or more of them as a child. And they were taken from him. Maybe one of the Lords could be a long lost something of a crew member. May be they could spend a few more minutes mourning and respecting the loss of the two Lords they found dead and a few more minutes celebrating the ones they rescued. Caspian's character growth builds throughout all of their adventures. Exploring that would be a thread running through. Eustace's story arc is added to with every island they visit. Reepicheep's longing for Aslan's country and his desire to go ever eastward as fast as possible propels the story. All of those things are themes that make their appearance in every adventure, every challenge and could have been explored in the movie.

These are the things that tie the movie together. The things that make the audience invested in the characters and want to see how they handle the next adventure.

Do you know, I think you are right. It would have been good to see a friendship there somewhere. The problem with Caspian being involved emotionally with one of the lords is that none of them were mentioned in PC, unlike the book PC. Hence VDT producers couldn't introduce a new relationship with any of these lords that wasn't in the previous film. I presume that Caspian's 'father issues' were meant to cover looking for his father's friends as well?

I'm a bit confused by your comment that the term fanboy "gives a lot away". The term has a certain connotation on the internet, which is why I used it. Fanperson doesn't mean anything.

Yes indeed 'fanboy' does. It suggests hero worship from a boy's point of view. Except that hero worship need not be from the point of view of a boy. It could be from a girl's point of view as well. It could be from a man's point of view, as I hesitate to call any male on this forum a boy. And it could be from a woman's point of view, even an old woman's point of view. It might even be from a werewolf's point of view. Hence why I said it really should be fanperson. Sorry to be so "PC". And I wouldn't blame Prince Caspian the film for that either.

What is your definition of "bad form"?

You can find a useful definition here. What I understand this term means is 'mouthing off' when one might use a bit of discretion. Like criticizing one's boss on Twitter, then wondering why one got the sack. Swearing when one shouldn't, and criticism when it isn't constructive, helpful, and won't achieve anything worthwhile.

Or it might apply to speech and behaviour that would be considered inappropriate, unsporting and unsuitable. Certainly not Cricket, old chum. Well certainly not in Donald Bradman's day. In WW2 times it was something like 'loose lips sink ships'. Except in this case I hope the ship isn't the Dawn Treader.

And yes, I did consider some of the criticism of VDT, especially inaccurate theological criticism of what was essentially a children's film, as somewhat out of place. Especially when those criticizing it had not at that point in time had the opportunity of seeing the movie first. And I have reason to think that maybe some of those who did, just might have been all too ready to jump to conclusions, because of previous criticisms, not listened carefully enough to what was actually happening. I repeat, Aslan never said 'just be yourself' in the film.

In case I am being unfair, I am also a bit wary of the effects of 'Groupthink', where a majority group's very cohesiveness influences decisions made. Sorry about that, old chap. And yes I am off topic. Sorry about that, too.

Especially when those criticizing it had not at that point in time had the opportunity of seeing the movie first.

Just a little note - I think Bookwyrm is pretty much the only purist who has actually boycotted the movie. I have seen the movie, and I can vouch that his opinions would not be any different had he actually seen the film. His problems with the movie are the same as many other purists who have seen the movie multiple times.

@wagga: I agree--a storyline like the one I suggested would have worked best if it had been set up in Prince Caspian. Continuity between the movies has always been a weak point in this franchise, in my opinion. Maybe because they are never sure if they are going to continue the series so they just focus on the movie at hand. They did better in VDT as far as setting up Silver Chair. They had the "Narnia may yet have need of you" line and the Jill Pole name drop. And Caspian did kind of include Eustace in his "you are family to me" speech at the end. But that line was awkward to me because Caspian and Eustace don't really have any dialog or moments together to support such a relationship. Eustace's line in Silver Chair about Caspian being "the best friend a chap could have" and his staunch loyalty at the Parliament of the Owls is going to be awkward as well--leaving audiences scratches their heads trying to remember when Caspian even talked to Eustace, much less became "the best friend a chap could have."

No, I don't think there should be any awkwardness about Eustace being loyal to Caspian, though I agree that Eustace spent much of VDT (film) as a dragon. That is one thing I did really like about the movie, though. Caspian being played by Ben Barnes in both PC and VDT did make him a more continuous and better developed character, who I thought sounded somewhat less bossy than in the BBC VDT film.

Although he was there throughout the book, Eustace, once he is undragonned, doesn't really contribute much more than a few remarks here and there to VDT, apart from an attempt to fight the sea serpent. However, some of Caspian's and Eustace's known book interaction still is retained in the film. At Narrowhaven Caspian still gives Eustace a knife to defend himself. Caspian (film) did offer to accompany Edmund to go and look for Eustace when he went missing. And Caspian was still with Edmund looking for Eustace when Eustace the dragon grabbed Edmund to let him know what had happened.

Caspian did include Eustace in the goings on even when Eustace had behaved badly, and he also stayed ashore with Eustace, Edmund and Lucy whilst they considered what to do with him in the film. All the dilemmas Eustace and the party faced were discussed in the movie, in Caspian's presence, such as whether or not Eustace could keep up with the Dawn Treader, or where they could put him, or what they could do with him.

As a dragon, book Eustace did quite well with finding and delivering a new mast for the ship. I suppose that film Eustace's towing the ship out of the doldrums would make a good equivalent to that book mast delivery service. And the chat in the longboat at the end, at which Caspian was also present, did suggest they were all friends at that time. Film Lucy did say they couldn't have finished the quest without Eustace's help, just as Eustace in the longboat did say he couldn't have been undragoned on his own, without Aslan's help. At the very least Caspian was ready to accept Eustace as Edmund's kinsman, Edmund, whom Caspian said was like a brother to him.

I think you are right though about the setting up between the movies. It wasn't done all that well between PC and VDT, which seemed to do all the work, referring back to the end of PC when Lucy and Edmund arrive on the DT, plus a few links to a possible SC. I'm still wondering if the green mist also sets up for SC in some vague way for Silver Chair. LOTGK, after all, does wear a green kirtle. And she does kill Lilliandil.