I think it's worthwhile to note that, in the book, Digory is 12 and Polly is 11.

Source: Narnia Timeline, written by C.S. Lewis:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... meline.png

It's not in the book, only in the time line. Lewis never mentions any of the children's ages in the books, probably so that young readers could more easily imagine that the characters are the same age that they are. The time line was published after his death, and some Lewis scholars question whether he actually wrote any of the posthumous works attributed to him.

There are a few points where the time line actually conflicts with some of the things written in the books. This does not automatically mean that he didn't write it. He may have jotted it down for personal amusement; Lewis was never all that big on consistency, anyway. But we should take the time line with a grain of salt.

I think actors who are 10 or could pass for 11/10 would be great as well. However its wouldn't bother me if they found fantastic actors who looked a little younger or older. The quality of the acting is the most important thing for me.

It's not in the book, only in the time line. Lewis never mentions any of the children's ages in the books, probably so that young readers could more easily imagine that the characters are the same age that they are. The time line was published after his death, and some Lewis scholars question whether he actually wrote any of the posthumous works attributed to him.

I never knew that. That's interesting.

However, in this particular case at least, I think the timeline is a fair bet because we know at some point Lewis chose an age for Digory and Polly- even if it was just for his personal amusement.

I am leaning slightly more towards older actors, somewhere between 11/12 and will poulters age in VDT (15)....but I could handle younger actors if they were exceptionally good (like skandar in LWW).

LWW (kids, and teenagers)
PC (teenagers
VDT (teenagers)

I just think that every movie has had older kids/teenagers in them so I think that it would just be more consistent to have kids somewhat older in them.

Plus the audience might find them more relatable and believable.

I think the filmmakers should stick to 10/11 or 11/12. The style of clothes Polly and Digory wear don't look all that great on older children, even if they are more reliable actors. Polly wears a dress with a distinctly sailor-like look about it, whilst Digory is still in short pants with stockings, or, at best, knickerbockers with gaiters, like WW1 ANZACs. Even when I started high school, in 1960, it was a big thing for a boy, once he was 13 or 14 to start wearing trousers instead of schoolboy short pants.

Besides there is a weight issue. There is an advantage in that a normal horse might be able to carry two 11 year olds comfortably, but would be stressed by two adult size riders.

I suppose Fledge/Strawberry's wings will be CGI. How would they do that sequence, do you think?

I think it will be CGI , and maybe a real horse for some parts.

They could use a real horse for most parts, with some additional CGI for his wings. Obviously though, when he's flying, the whole horse would have to be done in CGI.

If they film The Magician's Nephew before the Silver Chair I wish will all my heart for the franchise to fail and for Walden to go bankrupt. The stupidity of the decsion to film MN first is beyond unacceptable.

Now I'm severely disappointed, too. The only reason why I haven't completely lost hope in the franchise, is that their choice for Narnia 4 isn't set in stone. However, I don't want the film series to fail. In fact, I wouldn't be nearly as upset if I thought MN had a snowball's chance in a furnace of making enough money to justify continuation of the series. Unless they renew interest in the series by creating excellent film adaptations of SC and HHB (a comparatively easy process as adaptations go - at least on the pre-production end), MN will fail, and the series will come to an end.

Now, I don't have any illusions that SC will sell itself. They need really charismatic actors for Jill and Puddleglum, they need to put a lot of thought and creativity into the visuals, they need a good script, and they need marketing that emphasizes SC's value as a stand-alone adventure, . . .but it can be done.

I must admit I am very excited that they are doing MN first. If for no other reason then that MN has never been done on screen before while SC has a BBC miniseries. But I agree logically it doesn't make all that much sense.

I think it isn't so important that MN will be filmed before SC. The main task is making all 7 films and maybe this change (MN instead of SC) will help this task more than consistent filming (i.e. LWW - PC - VDT - SC).

MN is a great story and I hope they'll make a great movie.

If they film The Magician's Nephew before the Silver Chair I wish will all my heart for the franchise to fail and for Walden to go bankrupt. The stupidity of the decsion to film MN first is beyond unacceptable.

Now I'm severely disappointed, too. The only reason why I haven't completely lost hope in the franchise, is that their choice for Narnia 4 isn't set in stone.

What's wrong with you Josh and Anhun? Don't you like MN? It's NARNIA for crying out loud! At least their thinking about making another movie. If you don't like the idea don't ruin it for the rest of us who like MN better than SC. If Walden decides not to make any more Narnia movies, at least we got MN out of the deal.

^ Agreed. I like The Silver Chair better than The Magician's Nephew, but they are indeed both Narnia. I'd be more than excited/nervous for both.

SC would make more money, though. It is a straight foward, object oriented adventure story and so it would be easier for kids to understand. It's also a much more dramatic story, and, like Anhun says, works well as a stand alone adventure. At the same time, I am interested in seeing a film adaptation of MN. They need new screenwriters and I think Adamson should come back as a director.