SC doesn't need to be PG-13. PC had some pretty intense violence for a PG movie and I don't think the violence in SC would even need to reach the level reached in PC. Ramandu's Daughter dies from a snake bite, not particularly intense, and while it's true that the Lady of the Green Kirtle has her head "hacked off", she is in serpent form while it's happening. That makes a huge difference. And, honestly, I wouldn't be at all upset if the Lady of the Green Kirtle gets killed in a less severe way (e.g. stabbed in the heart).

A PG movie can have a mature tone and there's no reason why a PG rating would automatically give a movie a "kiddy" feel. Where the Wild Things Are is a good example of this.

And personally, I don't consider a PG-13 version of a children's book a good adaptation. Children and adults should be able to enjoy a movie adaptation of Narnia just as both children and adults can enjoy the books.

SC doesn't need to be PG-13. PC had some pretty intense violence for a PG movie and I don't think the violence in SC would even need to reach the level reached in PC.

Definitely, but SC is much more somber and depressing than PC.

Children and adults should be able to enjoy a movie adaptation of Narnia just as both children and adults can enjoy the books.

Children will still be able to enjoy it. Just look at the top grossing movies of all time: Harry Potter, LOTR, Avatar, Transformers, SkyFall, and POTC! Kids still went to see those movies despite the rating. Kids can handle the PG-13 rating!

I just don't want to see SC dumbed down to please 4 year olds who aren't going to understand it anyways.

Children and adults should be able to enjoy a movie adaptation of Narnia just as both children and adults can enjoy the books.

Children will still be able to enjoy it. Just look at the top grossing movies of all time: Harry Potter, LOTR, Avatar, Transformers, SkyFall, and POTC! Kids still went to see those movies despite the rating. Kids can handle the PG-13 rating!

This is true and I might be going too by-the-book (I, myself, watched plenty of movies before the MPAA deemed me ready). However, I still stand by a PG rating. They may be the exception to the rule, but some parents will keep their children from seeing a PG-13 until they are 13. Mostly though, I just don't think a PG-13 rating is necessary. If I was to give the books a rating it would definitely be PG, they're fairy tales not LOTR-esque fanatasies. Book stores seem to agree, because the Narnia books are always in the 8+ section, not the 13+ (i.e. Young Adult) section. These movies don't need PG-13 violence, they need maturity. The MPAA rating system is not based on maturity it's based on what content (violence, sexuality, language, drug use etc.) various age groups can handle. That's why even some G rated movies (like Pixar movies) can be mature, let alone PG movies.

I just don't want to see SC dumbed down to please 4 year olds who aren't going to understand it anyways.

Well, a PG movie is aimed at an audience 8 and up, not 4 and up. I think the 8+ range is a good fit for Narnia. Though I think we'll both agree that a G rated Narnia movie probably wouldn't be a good idea.

I would like to know what you think happens in the book that would give it a PG-13 rating? I can't think of a single instance.

Having said that, anymore I think ratings have gone by the wayside and aren't worth a hill of beans. I would rather them make a movie that honors the book, and if that gets it a PG-13 rating, so be it.

Honestly I don't see how they could make SC PG-13 without going out of their way too do so, LB is the only book I can see gating that rating.

Ideally, the filmmakers should make the best movie and adaptation they can and not bother themselves about the ratings, but I know the rating will at least be taken into account. I actually don't know for sure what I think. The MPAA is just inconsistent enough that I don't know what to expect from them. The decapitation of the serpent scene is actually described fairly graphically in the book.
"With repeated blows they hacked of its head. The horrible thing went coiling and moving like a bit of wire long after it had died; and the floor, as you may imagine, was a nasty mess."
This moment in the book could be shown in many different levels of intensity, and I have no clue where the MPAA would draw the line between PG and PG-13. I wouldn't want the director to hold back simply to achieve a PG rating. However, neither do I believe they should push it to achieve a PG-13.

One thing I REALLY hope they don't do is lighten the tone. Things of an intense or graphic nature can be insinuated off-screen with artfulness. However, I will object if they lighten the tone as it will weaken the story (example: Making Rilian's ravings less intense, making Harfang less sinister and shocking, making the earthmen less somber and depressing.) I would much rather not see the decapitation at all than see it with lightening bolts and green sparkles jumping everywhere. This same principle applies to the whole film, I'm just using this scene as an example. Think of how dark The Half-blood Prince was, and that was rated PG, so I think the proper tone could be achieved. But perhaps the director would want to throw in intensifying details, like perhaps showing the scene when the giants catch and kill the stag they eat. The meaning of what they've done is shown by the narrator in the book, but in the movie that would be difficult unless you have Puddleglum exclaiming, "Oh no. I feel as though I've eaten a baby!" It would be far more artistic to show rather than tell, and one way of doing that would be to show the killing. That would impress upon the audience just how sick these giants are without having one character explaining it to another in order for us the audience to overhear.

All that to say, I really do believe that an artful, thoughtful film that does the book justice, could be made with either rating.

Its hard to say what rating The Silver Chair should get since the ratings system has become so inconsistent over the years.

The "PG" rating has almost become the new "G". I mean, movies like Frozen and Tangled get "PG" ratings when they are completely harmless and nowhere near as intense or controversial as some of the 90s G rated Disney movies (Including The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas, and Mulan). Like if the movie has the slightest risk of startling a preschooler it gets a PG rating. Remember when PG movies used to mean that the films had some content issues that may need parental guidance? Kids movies like The Iron Giant, The Prince of Egypt, The Incredibles, or Shrek deserved their PG ratings because they were either darker or they had more objectionable content.

Meanwhile the PG-13 rating is wildly inconsistent. You get movies that are borderline PG (like Thor) and movies that feel like an R (filled with brutal violence, sex, drugs, and language) but somehow were able to avoid it by either cutting a few F words or a few frames of nudity. And then there are a few R rated films that feel like G rated movies that get the rating merely because they have a few F words.

If The Silver Chair can be as dark as Prince Caspian I would say it should get a PG rating, but who knows what it would get with the way the rating system works now. It really is a mess and needs to be restructured.

I just don't want to see SC dumbed down to please 4 year olds who aren't going to understand it anyways.

Well, I was reading and understanding and enjoying the Narnia books when I was 6. So don't underestimate the ability of younger children to appreciate them. I honestly think that if you make any of the Narnia books into films and remain true to the books, you shouldn't get anywhere near a 12A certificate (UK equivalent of the US PG-13). LWW and PC both had PG certificates in Britain; VDT had a U (equivalent of G in America). In Britain at least, bad language seems to be a far more significant factor in a film getting a higher certificate than violence, certainly fantasy violence - The Fellowship Of The Ring had some pretty gruesome battle violence in it and only received a PG, though as orcs' blood is black rather than red, it may not have been so obvious. I would not like to see Jill swearing like a trooper just because self-conscious teenagers don't want to be seen going to see a movie rated as suitable for children.

I agree that ratings are very inconsistent and don't really seem to have a method to them. I can't think of anything in TSC that would justify a PG-13 rating. I don't think the rating matters as much as the target audience does. It seems like the target audience age group decreased with every Walden movie (and I don't think that the target audiences were even pleased). Because David Magee is working on TSC, I'll mention Life of Pi--the movie is rated PG, but it was intense when the story required it, and it was not shallow.

I would not like to see Jill swearing like a trooper just because self-conscious teenagers don't want to be seen going to see a movie rated as suitable for children.

Yeah.

It would be nice if Narnia fans were part of the primary target audiences being considered in the making and marketing of the film. If the filmmakers cling to the childlike yet mature nature of the book, that would make the worth of the film soar in quality that no rating could bestow on it.

Well, I was reading and understanding and enjoying the Narnia books when I was 6. So don't underestimate the ability of younger children to appreciate them.

I agree, I was read the books when I was 5 and loved them. Maybe a should rephrase what I said: I don't want to see SC dumbed down so only kids can enjoy it (VDT).

I think SC and LB are the darkest books in the series, so if there was going to be a pg-13 movie, it would be those two.

I just want the best Silver Chair possible. So if that means a PG-13 rating, I'm ok with it!

I wonder If the higher rating would have a negative or positive impact on the Box-Office?

I wonder If the higher rating would have a negative or positive impact on the Box-Office?

Well, on one hand the higher rating may scare some families with young kids away. And on the other hand it may attract older audiences. But I'm not sure if the older audiences would be able to make up what they would lose with the young families.

I think they shouldn't be afraid to use a PG-13 rating. VDT could have been improved immensely if they had kept the de-skinning of Eustace in the movie, the dark Island with the nightmares. I think some of the Narnia films should be PG and others PG-13 depending on the story (like Star Wars).
How are they going to show Aravis get clawed by Aslan without it being PG-13? if they didn't it would look cheesy and fake. How would they portray the emotional intensity of The Last Battle which showing a bit more? I.e. The Centaur relaying a message to the Eagle as he's dying with a arrow in his body, the horses being shot down, Tash, and the fat bear saying "I . . . don't understand" and then dying on the spot.
What about Aslan's paw being punctured to raise King Caspian from the water in SC? And yes the Lady of the Greenkirtle is another one.
They can keep it a mild PG-13 . . . like Avengers for example. But I don't think it should be ignored.
If its a choice between keeping a lower rating (PG) or staying closer to the book I'd pick staying with the book and going for a PG-13 rating every time. Families will probably understand if its done tastefully and faithfully to the book.

[quote= I would not like to see Jill swearing like a trooper just because self-conscious teenagers don't want to be seen going to see a movie rated as suitable for children.

No one wants the movies to have language fans would NOT be pleased. I wouldn't be please either. I personally want it to be more faithful to the book and if that takes a higher rating in the USA . . . so be it.