It's more like a silly, shallow but intense crush you'd find in any number of daytime soap-operas on TV. Ugh! That's why the whole thing is a lot of fun and so ridiculous. C.S. Lewis is bagging the stuff soap-operas are made of before they even existed!

Precisely! And I agree that is why MN, and the characterisation of Uncle Andrew is so much fun. But W4J, mate, you have forgotten the pre-TV Blue Hills radio soapie which was daytime housewives' entertainment from 1949 in Australia, as well as Britain's Coronation Street, not to mention the Archers, the longest-running soapie ever, which started in 1950 and which continued up until 2009 according to the linked article.

Even in the book it is possible to see just how very funny Uncle Andrew is, once Jadis enters the picture. From his reflections to his mirror, to his outrageous kowtowing to Jadis, to his Narnian misadventures, Uncle Andrew is a typical mad scientist villain gone comically wrong.

I think that although C.S.Lewis enjoyed medieval imagery, he liked to poke fun at modern ideas of 'romance', and that has a lot to do with his construction of Susan's character. Meanwhile, what do you think of this Narniafans announcement? :

Wagga, the very thought of Lewis sitting down to tune in to The Archers is hilarious!

I know that he didn't watch tv, listen to the radio, or read newspapers. But he did have a big grasp of various sorts of literature. Maybe soap opera style sneaked in somewhere>

In response to glumpuddle's latest video, I think that making the Magician's Nephew itself will be the filmmakers taking a risk, as it does not fit into the traditional movie formula.

I'm sure soap opera would have sneaked in somewhere, Mod 6. C.S.Lewis may not have listened to the radio, himself, but he would have been aware of others doing so, even in his own household. Mrs Moore, perhaps. In LWW C.S.Lewis has Susan saying there were plenty of books and a radio to listen to in the Professor's house. And C.S.Lewis also did WW2 radio broadcasts such as Beyond personality - mere men for the BBC.

Getting back to Jadis and Uncle Andrew, the latter is an example of what C.S.Lewis meant in the linked radio speech when he said:

That principle runs all through life from the top to the bottom: Give up yourself and you'll find your real self. Lose your life and you'll save it. Submit to death, submit with every fiber of your Being and you'll find eternal life. Look for Christ and you'll get Him, and with Him, everything else thrown in. Look for yourself and you'll get only hatred, loneliness, despair, and ruin.

Jadis, herself, epitomises hatred, loneliness, despair and ruin, especially after she ate the apple. Also, Uncle Andrew, not being able to believe what was going on in Narnia made himself unable to hear the animals let alone Aslan. It will take a superb actor to play him as C.S.Lewis meant this character.

I'm with Trufflehunter on this. I think MN is the second riskiest film after LB. Making it into a good film is one thing. Even making it a good adaptation would be problematic. In the more pictorial medium of film, you couldn't simultaneously be faithful to the spirit and the letter of the book.

MN is the story of Diggory's journey from confusion into darkness, back to confusion, and then into light. I don't think it's a coincidence that the name Diggory means "lost." The book is told from Diggory's perspective in 3rd person limited; you feel his sensations of excitement, curiousity, fear, anger, shame and joy. This emotional journey is the unifying thread that gives all the events in the story meaning and continuity. If they don't maintain that sense of Diggory's perspective, the film will be completely unfaithful to the spirit of the book. But this will be hard to achieve in a story where the action of the book has Diggory frequently taking a back seat to strong supporting characters like Jadis and Aslan. In a film, he'll likely be completely eclipsed, like he's just there as a flimsy device to connect random events.

In response to glumpuddle's latest video, I think that making the Magician's Nephew itself will be the filmmakers taking a risk, as it does not fit into the traditional movie formula.

Not really, because they believe TMN will be the most financially viable of the books to make next. The franchise has been fairly profitable so far, and they figure that going to MN is the safest way to make more money. Also, it's a way of rebooting the franchise. Studios do this with superhero movies because they find that the origin stories are the most financially viable. But glumPuddle was really making a point about the actual product rather than the process of getting the project off the ground.

I'm with Trufflehunter on this. I think MN is the second riskiest film after LB. Making it into a good film is one thing. Even making it a good adaptation would be problematic. In the more pictorial medium of film, you couldn't simultaneously be faithful to the spirit and the letter of the book.

See, I'm not so sure that's the case. I think The Silver Chair would be the hardest to make right. And I would argue that The Last Battle is the most cinematically viable of all the ones left to make. For one thing: it takes place in a very limited area, so you don't spend a lot of time traveling. Secondly, the plot is very centered on the conflict between Tirian and the baddies, but the baddies control the good guys. It's a very dynamic contrast of wills. It has an epic battle (the battle to end all battles, for real!), it includes the end of the world and the end of the story. The only real problem is how they will treat the Calormenes. To which the solution is, I think, to play it straight.

Sibelius, while I agree that Walden believes MN is the least risky, I feel they are in error. MN may have more of a built-in fanbase than SC, but it's still not enough to make back an extremely large budget, not even close. SC and HHB are more likely to attract casual fans, so they are more likely to be profitable. Also the "origins" logic doesn't apply. First of all audiences no longer have enough of an interest in Narnia to go see a movie just because it's the beginning of Narnia, especially if it's thoroughly panned by critics. Secondly, in superhero origins stories, the protagonist is usually the hero of the franchise, whereas in MN, the protagonist is a character with a small supporting role in LWW.

It isn't true that the series is fairly profitable. Yes, LWW was a lucrative mega-hit. Unfortunately, PC was a catastrophic money loser. As of 2010, even with DVD sales and TV licensing, Walden hadn't made their money back on PC. VDT seems to be faring rather better. It's possible they may have already made back their production cost, but they're still in the hole for marketing, just not nearly as far in the hole as they were for PC.

Now I agree that LB would not be as hard to adapt into a good-quality film as MN, but it's the riskiest because it's a "family" film, with an extremely dark tone, in which everyone dies at the end. It'll be impossible to market. With MN, it'll be fairly easy to pique audiences' initial interest, the problem will be getting past the bad reviews and horrible word of mouth.

Why do people feel it will be hard to market The Last battle as a family film just because everyone is going to die at the end?

I watch the show lost with my 9 year old niece who also loves lost and the shows ending is exactly like Last Battle and it is a very popular show.

I quite take your point. Besides, it is good to know there is a finale in any series, and a very final finale LB is. There was an animated movie called Dot and the Kangaroo, based on a well-loved Australian classic. That innocent fantasy children's tale spawned a whole series of filmed adventures, such as Dot and the Bunny, Dot and the Whale and Dot goes to Hollywood. By the time they got to that point, and however much my children adored those movies, I was wishing the producers would send Dot to the knackers, quite frankly.

At least MN, as the fourth in the Narnia series is startlingly different from its predecessors, and there isn't a pre-existing BBC production to compare it with. And at least the same thing can also be said for both HHB and LB.

With MN, it'll be fairly easy to pique audiences' initial interest, the problem will be getting past the bad reviews and horrible word of mouth.

Do we automatically expect to have bad reviews and horrible word of mouth, when the movie script hasn't even been written yet? And if so, why? I do recognise that there is a body of opinion that thinks no Narnia film should be made, even among Christians. There others who dislike the books, not only on religious grounds.

But that doesn't mean to say that MN would be automatically affected, does it? LB is not only a bit dark, it is full of battles, though no romance. Then there is the treatment of Susan and a view of the afterlife that others might not agree with.

If LB is dark, at the end of all things, then it could be argued that SC is also a grey and gloomy book, which of course must precede it, and which features King Caspian's death. There is also more than a hint of psychiatric problems like amnesia and addiction in the portrayal of the enchanted Rilian in his Underworld imprisonment. Walden/Fox, faced with a competing BBC depiction of this particular book, might do well not to rush into producing SC right away, and to play for time whilst they think carefully about how to go about this movie.

And could they film LB without filming HHB at all? Like LB, HHB is a story in which we learn about the Calormenes, and the story which is concerned even more so with the accusations of racism directed at it.

Whereas I can't think offhand of how Magician's Nephew would offend anyone, apart from fanatical atheistic evolutionaries who take children's movies too seriously.

As of 2010, even with DVD sales and TV licensing, Walden hadn't made their money back on PC. VDT seems to be faring rather better.

Yes, even though it initially threatened to do much worse than PC, it has at least passed the $400,000,000 mark, and soon will be within $10 mill dollars of PC. Privately I feared it would be lucky to reach even the $380 million mark overall. Not bad for the third episode of a series that was written off by Disney after PC, and which was unsurprisingly snubbed by the all-important American Box office, in particular their reviewers, especially at first when the weather was at its worst and when the 3D tickets were at their highest.

But notwithstanding those circumstances, let us not forget that VDT, the third in the series, has done much better than even the first of other fantasy series, including not only Golden Compass, Eragon or a Series of Unfortunate Events, but also other franchises, not necessarily fantasy, that did go on to have sequels, including some of the James Bond movies, the Police Academy series, and animated others, including Cats and Dogs.

A film doesn't have to be a HP record breaker, or to reach LWW's dizzying heights before it can be considered a relative success. And a tidy $400,000,000 Worldwide box office per film is still nothing to sneeze at, especially if it pays at least the Production bill, which clearly PC didn't. We have already been told that funding for MN has been secured, so the next step is to ensure that the movie is something people will enjoy and want to see.

King Tirian, while Lost has many elements that are inspired by The Chronicles of Narnia, the TV series itself isn't a family series. It has some adult themes and scenes, violence etc, not to mention it becomes overly complex very quickly. That's not to say some kids would be okay with it, the mature kids might, but the majority would struggle. Also, The Last Battle has some scenes that are markedly darker than Lost. Kudos though for linking the Lost finale to The Last Battle ending.

Final post with this avatar (which I've had for nearly three years)!

(Explanation: This avatar is Puddleglum walking in the same place I walked: The Aslan's How exterior set in Prague)

In response to glumpuddle's latest video, I think that making the Magician's Nephew itself will be the filmmakers taking a risk, as it does not fit into the traditional movie formula.

I'm with Trufflehunter on this. I think MN is the second riskiest film after LB. (

The book does not fit the traditional movie formula. The filmmakers are going to change it to make it fit the formula, as they have done with the first three movies. Especially VDT.

The VDT book was very anti-formula. It didn't have a villain or any kind of imminent threat. It was driven by other things. Being faithful to that would have been risky because it would have been different. It would have been special. Instead, the filmmakers added a villain (the mist) and an imminent threat. They robbed VDT of what made it unique in the first place, and turned it into a conventional fantasy film. *yawn*

Taking a risk would be staying true to what makes MN different. But, based on what they have done with the first three books, I doubt the filmmakers are going to do that. That is not pessimism, it's a very logical conclusion based on the evidence of the first three films. (LWW and PC weren't anything special or groundbreaking, but at least they were pretty good films)

The Narnia books did not becomes classics by recycling old formulas. Walden, honor what makes them special! Stay true to what has made them survive over 50 years.

The VDT book was very anti-formula. It didn't have a villain or any kind of imminent threat. It was driven by other things. Being faithful to that would have been risky because it would have been different. It would have been special.

Unfortunately we're talking about Hollywood and they aren't interested, especially during a drained economy, to take many risks or make anything different or special. Their interests lie only in what will bring them a profit from their investment. I think you can partially blame the time in which these films are being made for their unfaithfulness to the books, but the movie industry's motives are nothing new. It's always been about the money and rarely do filmmakers have the chance to give us anything daring and artistic when they always have to adhere to the dollar. So that's depressing, but there's hope; just read the books!

^ I wouldn't say that, Skillet. Hollywood will take a risk if the right person comes along and convinces them it could work. This does not always pay off of course (it wouldn't be risky if it did). I think New Line Cinema was inspired to take the biggest gamble in the history of cinema because Peter Jackson made them believe in his vision for The Lord of the Rings.

"Inception" cost $160m to make, was 2h and 20m, and had a very complicated hard-to-follow plot with some very obscure ideas and scenes. It paid off tremendously, grossing over $800m. Incredible film.

Spike Joneze' adaptation of "Where the Wild Things Are" cost $100m. It was a dark, quiet, character-driven, emotional, mature vision. The Warner Bros president said: "No one wants to turn this into a bland, sanitized studio movie. This is a very special piece of material and we're just trying to get it right." I would love to hear Micheal Flaherty say that. Great movie, but it bombed.

Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" adaptation was commercial suicide. It cost $100m, was nearly 3h long, and rated R. More importantly, it was deep, dark, slow, cerebral, and philosophical. It was a huge departure from everything audiences expected from a so-called "superhero movie"; it was almost an art film. Very interesting. It had a strong opening weekend all things considered, but ended up performing poorly. The DVD (a more satisfying Director's Cut) sold pretty well though.

Disney desperately tried to talk Pixar out of making "WALL-E." It had no dialogue for the first half hour, and a rather dark, almost sardonic, tone. Fortunately, Pixar was stubborn and made it anyway. The movie cost $180m to make, and grossed $522m. One of my all-time favorite films. (The Pixar story in a nutshell: A cooperate giant always being wrong and the out-of-the-box thinkers always being right)

Three of those examples you mentioned (Where The Wild Things Are, Watchmen and Wall-E) underperformed at the box office in some form, even Wall-E. Just look at the other Pixar worldwide grosses and you'll see what I mean. And The Lord of the Rings trilogy was made during a much more stable economy.

Sure, occasional innovative ideas reach the big screen (yet when you think of all the major films released each year, not very many). But my point was that the movie industry is not in the position these days to go out on a limb very much for the sake of art. And, let's face it, the Narnia filmmakers have been playing it safe since the beginning. VDT has just continued this trend and made it more obvious.

I hope that the filmmakers and investors will have more confidence in the strength of their source material for MN but from what we've seen of them so far, it doesn't seem too likely.