I can just imagine this now. Benedict Cumberbatch (Silver Chair) going up against Martin Freeman (Hobbit) at the box office. Most likely won't happen, but that would be pretty ironic.

BC might be a good fit....but I was sort of hoping for someone not really well known to surprise me...kind of like Will Poulter did for Eustace.

Where directors are concerned, I'd like any director that really wants to make this movie and has had previous experiences with reading the books. Andrew Adamson started writing all the memories he had of the first time he read the book (LWW) as a child. He wrote his own version of the script! Andrew Adamson had a vision of what he wanted his film to be. Sadly, Michael Apted did not. That is why we got VDT being the way it was. Any director who knows what direction they'd like to go in and who really wants this movie to succeed, is welcome in my opinion.

I hope they do look for a new director the way they picked Adamson. I'm so afraid (because of Walden's association with Apted that they might want to continue working with him ). VDT did not get like it was by only one person, though I acknowledge the director does have a major part of the movie development. Part of me also hopes they replace the producer, Mark Johnson. I keep wondering where Doug Gresham was in okaying the script for VDT....

Anyway...back to topic. I had another idea for casting TLOTGK, how about Hattie Morahan? She's done good character parts but she's a brilliant actress and I think she could pull evil off very well.

I wouldnt worry about a PG-13 rating causing some parents to prevent their kid's from viewing the movie. Those ultra-strict Christian parents who boycott anything with violence are in the minority. I know many narniawebbers may know people like that, but they really are not the majority of America, or Christians for that matter.

I wouldnt worry about a PG-13 rating causing some parents to prevent their kid's from viewing the movie. Those ultra-strict Christian parents who boycott anything with violence are in the minority. I know many narniawebbers may know people like that, but they really are not the majority of America, or Christians for that matter.

The problem I have with those 'ultra-strict Christian parents who boycott anything with violence', is not that they boycott violence, to be truthful. The real problem I have with them is their ideas about other facets of life which might not seem so obvious, and which they ban considerably more aggressively than the sort of over the top violence that any responsible parent should ban anyway. But I need to visit another of our threads, believe it or not, this one, to explain exactly what I mean.

It is not just violence that is implied in PG and PG-13+. There are other things to be considered as well in rating a film. Such as the degree of dress or undress in a film, the sort of language used, so-called 'romance' and also psychological themes that could cause distress.

I am at a loss as to why the human race is so prudish about getting dressed and undressed that it takes this sort of thing to sometimes ridiculous lengths. In my view there is one key area which would have improved VDT no end. If Aslan on the strand, about to undragon Eustace, were to verbalise the word 'Undress' to Dragon Eustace, and then go onto say 'No, let me undress you', that would have made considerably more sense of the film in my opinion. But would it really have compromised the PG rating, since according to both film and book, Eustace was reclothed somehow in new clothes? Or would it have upset someone's applecart too much?

One thing I adored about C.S.Lewis' writings was the sense of politeness he always engendered, even in his Narnia books. Even Eustace at his most brattishness wasn't foul-mouthed, unlike the heroes of some recent movies, some maybe in direct competition with VDT. I do hope that even if they show bullies, that the bullying doesn't involve bad language.

Why I generally prefer books and films like LOTR, Harry Potter or Narnia, or for that matter, even Golden Compass, is that in each case the 'bad' language is either not used at all or only used where it is strictly relevant. I can't understand that there are so many films from America, in particular, which tolerate such language at any level of the film spectrum, even in PG films. But sometimes I get the impression that even the most rabid of strict Christians seem to find these sort of films ok.

And there is another facet of the Narnia films which has been conspicuously left out so far. USA, of course, is Temperance 'R Us, though I guess they serve wine with dinner at the White House. Tobacco is another problem, too.

Check me if I am wrong about the Narnia movies, so far. In Prince Caspian that whole book scene with satyrs, Bacchus, wine and song, if not women, was completely left out. It was also left out of the BBC tv version, but, hey, that was only a two-episode prelude to a combined PC/VDT version, anyway. But then, wasn't Trumpkin a smoker? Didn't he snore? Aren't the good guys in C.S.Lewis sometimes partial to a drop or two, just as in LOTR?

In VDT, even the film, everyone had a marvellous time what with magical books, enchanted treasure, plus a pool which turns everything to gold, somewhat like a Midas touch, I am sure. But when we get to Lord Bern, we are missing a great deal, as I'm sure you will remind me. Not just the plot to dethrone Gumpas.

Lord Bern, the poor bloke was put in prison, and was suitably repentant as well, not even surveying the lie of the land, as in the BBC version. He didn't come out of an inn, wiping his mouth, as he did in the book, nor did Pug offer 'refreshments' to the Dawn Treader landing party. And somehow or other, we miss out on Caspian's great speech about just about anything being more economically useful than slavery. Including the production of tobacco and beer.

Now we get to SC, if it happens at all. And there is another problem brewing, connected to smoking and alcohol consumption. It didn't even escape the BBC version that Puddleglum liked a sip or two of whatever moonshine was in his bottle. The Harfang giants were even so kind as to overindulge him with more of the same, for some light entertainment. And just what is wrong with young Rilian, who, for those who have read the books, is quite hospitable enough to treat his child rescuers to wine with their meals? Just like they also did in Cair Paravel.

I keep wondering if C.S.Lewis' references to 'Wormwood' in his writings suggest an awareness of the evils of absinthe, also known as the 'Green Fairy', an exceedingly strong alcoholic drink which does indeed contain wormwood. And yes, this spirit, popular in the late 1800's and early 20th century, has been considered a highly dangerous drink, guaranteed to destroy its drinkers. This sort of imagery would also explain much about Rilian, his forgetfulness for much of the day, and his psychological issues. Not to mention, LOTGK, with mysterious incense-like powders, music and restraining silver chairs, all ready to prompt amnesia. Or would it?

Now would you agree with me, that whatever it might do to the film, and whatever version we end up with of SC, it would be a distinctly anti smoking and anti alcohol version? Or, like its two predecessors, will the version of SC we end up with, be scoured clean of any references to tobacco, beer or wine consumption?

I hope they do look for a new director the way they picked Adamson. I'm so afraid (because of Walden's association with Apted that they might want to continue working with him ). VDT did not get like it was by only one person, though I acknowledge the director does have a major part of the movie development.

Personally I never got the impression that Apted was ever excited about this movie, or even that he was taking it seriously. Adamson had enthusiasm and vision, but as far as I can tell, Apted didn't.

I've noticed a lot of discussion about Fox having to do good marketing etc, and that's all true. There are 101 ways in which they could trick audiences into seeing the next Narnia movie. But the best trick of all? Make a GOOD movie...by following the BOOK!

That's why LWW succeeded.

I did point that out to them in the letters I recently wrote to Walden and Fox. It would seem so obvious a thing to do, a no-brainer really. If they made a change to SC it would have to enhance an element/event that's already in the book...eg. LWW had the Pevensies trying to run away from the wolves and the frozen river sequence (that was not in the book) propelled that book plot point forward. So if they can have that sort of mentality if they have to add something to SC to translate it cinematically and the tone is right (fits in with the spirit of SC) then great.

I hope they do look for a new director the way they picked Adamson. I'm so afraid (because of Walden's association with Apted that they might want to continue working with him ). VDT did not get like it was by only one person, though I acknowledge the director does have a major part of the movie development.

Personally I never got the impression that Apted was ever excited about this movie, or even that he was taking it seriously. Adamson had enthusiasm and vision, but as far as I can tell, Apted didn't.

Andrew Adamson had great enthusiasm for LWW and I remembered him saying that he didn't want to do PC and it deffinitely shows on screen for PC that he didn't want to do it. I want Apted to continue. He may probably didn't look enthustiastic to you but that's a big possibility that he's more professional about his work than AA is and they have different perpectives I just happen to like Apteds more for VDT and AA's LWW.

I think you are right, DamselJillPole. Apted had just been appointed as the director of VDT when Disney dumped the series. And that there were so many people participating in the VDT script implies there was some dissatisfaction with it, to begin with. You can't blame C.S.Lewis' stepson for anything, since at one point, Douglas Gresham was told he had to accept the final result as it was or VDT would not be screened at all.

It also doesn't follow that Apted in directing VDT would be unsuitable to direct SC. Judging from the comments he made just before VDT's release, he does indeed have a few ideas about what goes into Silver Chair.

There was also what Ben Barnes had to say about whether or not he might be in SC. It will be interesting to see what happens.

.....You can't blame C.S.Lewis' stepson for anything, since at one point, Douglas Gresham was told he had to accept the final result as it was or VDT would not be screened at all.....

I didn't know that. Wow. I thought I read somewhere that the scripts had to be approved by the estate....

I think you are right, DamselJillPole. Apted had just been appointed as the director of VDT when Disney dumped the series. And that there were so many people participating in the VDT script implies there was some dissatisfaction with it, to begin with. You can't blame C.S.Lewis' stepson for anything, since at one point, Douglas Gresham was told he had to accept the final result as it was or VDT would not be screened at all.

It also doesn't follow that Apted in directing VDT would be unsuitable to direct SC. Judging from the comments he made just before VDT's release, he does indeed have a few ideas about what goes into Silver Chair.

There was also what Ben Barnes had to say about whether or not he might be in SC. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Actually Apted was appointed as director in approximately April 2007 (quite possibly earlier) and Disney dropped Narnia in December of the same year so he didn't just get dropped into this. Personally, I just don't think Apted has the right attitude for a Narnia adaptation, his skills as a film-maker otherwise are moot.

And, no, I don't blame Douglas Gresham at all. I don't know what we'd do without him.

Andrew Adamson had great enthusiasm for LWW and I remembered him saying that he didn't want to do PC and it deffinitely shows on screen for PC that he didn't want to do it.

On the PC DVD, I remember Adamson saying in one of the interviews that he did not want to direct PC originally but that working with the four kids again convinced him to keep going. Seems like they got along pretty well with him.

I'd like Apted to continue as well. I think SC could benefit from having some sort of continuity with VDT, what with Will Poulter in it again. But it's not like I'd be torn up if they changed directors either. All I really want to see is a more satisfying film next time, and of course a much more faithful adaptation!

I think you are right, DamselJillPole. Apted had just been appointed as the director of VDT when Disney dumped the series.

Not true. Apted was named director of VDT in 2007, back when they were still expecting PC to be a mega-hit like LWW.

Actually Apted was appointed as director in approximately April 2007 (quite possibly earlier) and Disney dropped Narnia in December of the same year so he didn't just get dropped into this. Personally, I just don't think Apted has the right attitude for a Narnia adaptation, his skills as a film-maker otherwise are moot.

And, no, I don't blame Douglas Gresham at all. I don't know what we'd do without him.

I didn't know that Apted was appointed as early as April 2007. It wasn't until Dec 24th 2008, that Disney dropped the series. I do remember that as it was only a few weeks later that I joined NarniaWeb on its old board. Prior to Disney dropping the series I hadn't taken much notice of what was going on Narniawise.