Happy birthday!
I love how people are still speculating that SC might be made! I really hope that they come to there senses about this because what made them think that going back in time thus recking the continuity of the series and getting rid of Will Poulter as Eustace...etc, would be a good idea?!? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd love to see MN made, but we don't have to worry about any sort of aging problems really (Unless they leave it fopr 10+ years then want Tilda Swinton back as WW), where as with this if SC ever does get made then i'm betting 99% of fans will be like 'we want WP as Eustace' by which time he'll be like 25 or something like that...
Sorry for that rant but I really do think that they should re-think there plans...or do both at the same time (frustrated cry with all my digits croosed- I really do love The Silver Chair!)

I've just realised that there is a problem with filming Silver Chair right away with Will Poulter cast as Eustace. It might enhance continuity with Will Poulter in both VDT and SC, but by the time Fox Walden do Last Battle they are going to have to recast Eustace, anyway. By that time, at the rate they are going, Will Poulter will be in his mid twenties or older and definitely be past playing teenagers.

Meanwhile Jill, who would have to be cast for Silver Chair, would also have to be recast for Last Battle if Silver Chair is done now. There would be too great a gap between Silver Chair and Last Battle if they do cast Jill as a girl in her early teens at oldest in SC then as a girl now in her mid-teens at oldest in LB.

I wanted to run this idea past to see what you think. Is there any other benefit in doing Silver chair later that we haven't examined yet?

If last battle is done last, maybe they could play it so that more time has passed that we thought. This may work becasue we only see the Pevensies (Who we wont have seen in ages) and Diggory/Polly who we wont have seen old (or since LWW) so they could make it so slightly more time has past, and they could be getting together to talk about Narnia because it has been such a long time sice any of them were called back and maybe they are too old now etc...
As it is this is a SC thread so i'd best write something about SC! I think that if they take some time to think about these problems then they can come up with a way to release the films without a problem like random age jumping happening.
Then I had a thought...Will Poulter was extremely well recieved and everyone wanted SC next (kind of everyone anyway...), but MN was the favourite. Just because it is the favourite doesn't mean that it takes priority because it leaves all of these random ends (Aging issues etc) untied, so maybe MN is the last film and they are making it because they want to release their fave film? I really hope this is not the case, but that would explain the random choice of not doing SC next despite it being the obvious choice regarding continuity etc!!!

I've just realised that there is a problem with filming Silver Chair right away with Will Poulter cast as Eustace. It might enhance continuity with Will Poulter in both VDT and SC, but by the time Fox Walden do Last Battle they are going to have to recast Eustace, anyway.

Then It would make sense to make MN next instead of SC. If Walden already knows that a new Eustace is needed, then it would be a good idea to put some distance between VDT and the next time we see Eustace.

Wagga, that's a complicated point (not a bad point, just complicated). So, it requires a complicated response.

First of all, there is the relative aging between VDT, SC, and LB. SC takes place a couple of months after VDT, so Eustace should have barely aged at all. From that perspective, the sooner they film it, the better. If they keep Will P, they'll have to alter the beginning of SC anyway, since no one's going to believe that he's only aged a few months. As for LB, it's supposed to take place 7 years after SC. If they stick to their current routine, they'll have 2 to 2.5 years between filming. If there are 2 films in between SC and LB, 6 to 7.5 years will have passed, which would be exactly right. If there's one film, the difference would be about 5 years, which could still work. If they are filmed consecutively, not enough time will have passed to account for the epilogue "What ever happened to . . .?" feel of LB.

As for the differences in ages between the characters in the movies and the characters in the books:

Scenario1: They recast Eustace for SC. This would give them more flexibility in deciding Eustace and Jill's age. In the movie VDT, Eustace was styled as a tween, so Eustace and Jill would have to be tweens at the youngest. De-aging would be weird. Casting tweens in the part would also mean that they could stick with the book time line between VDT and SC. In LB on the other hand, Eustace and Jill are supposed to be in their mid/late teens. If two movies are filmed in between SC and LB, then Eustace and Jill will be in their late teens, and can easily be styled to look slightly younger to fit with the book. If there is one movie in between, then they will be exactly the right age. But if the movies are filmed back to back, Eustace and Jill will be too young, necessitating another recast.

Scenario2: They keep Will Poulter for SC. As of right now, Will can no longer play a character younger than mid teens. Also, since Jill and Eustace are peers, Jill will have to be in her mid teens. That's a pretty big jump from the book as it is. If they wait another movie, he will be in his early 20s, still just young enough to play a mid-teen. Hollywood does that all the time. If SC is Narnia 6, then he will be in his mid-twenties, and it would be difficult to pass him off as less than his late teens. That's a massive jump from the books.

When they get to LB, Will P will likely be in his mid to late 20s. He still could play a late teen. Here in America, there is a popular teen musical show, where almost all of the "teenagers" are actually played by actors in their mid to late 20s. If they cast Jill with an actress who is the same age as the character in SC, then Jill will be in her late teens to early 20s when they film LB. She could be styled to look like she's in her mid teens, if they want to recast Eustace with someone who can play a mid teen, or she could play a late teen. That won't be a problem. Basically, there is no reason why Jill would have to be recast.

The long and the short of it is, SC can not be Narnia 6, and there is no advantage, in terms of the children's aging, for making SC as Narnia 5 instead of 4, although I don't think it would be a major disadvantage either. The most salient concern in terms of the children's aging is whether or not Will P is already too old.

If by popular American Music show you mean Glee, they are all supposedly 16 year olds, and some of the actors are 27!
I TOTALLY agree with your point that Will still able to portray at the youngest a 15 yr old
They NEED to greenlight SC as soon as possible and cast someone as Jill who is 14-16 (aka moi )
THEN there would most likely be NO NEED to re-cast and confuse audiences and fans... I have yet to see a re-cast let alone a successful re-cast

I think, if they keep Will P, a 14-year-old actress playing Jill Pole would be perfect. I've heard some people comment that the actress needs to be the same age as Will Poulter, and I don't follow that logic. She only has to be able to play a character the same age as the character he's playing. If they do need to recast Eustace for LB (like if it takes them even longer than expected), I think it makes the most sense to keep him for SC, so they have character continuity. Will P will be the familiar face in most of SC, and Jill will be the familiar face in most of LB, since there's absolutely no reason why they would need to recast her.

Although, I have to wonder if it's really worth it for them to make allowances and considerations for LB. It's going to be virtually impossible for them to market a theatrical "family film" in which everyone dies at the end. I think they should make LB as a very artistic cartoon straight to DVD, as part of the ultimate box set. It should have lots of special features like interviews with the cast and production team on their time in Narnia, with behind the scene footage. And possibly some featurettes on C.S. Lewis, like how he took in children like the Pevensies during the blitz.

Or maybe in the end they could make it a little bit unclear so that you never realy see that they are dead (It is never shown or said) but you are aware that they are to live in narnia forever now with there families except Susan etc.
Also Anhun, I agree with you about the casting of Jill. She doesn't need to be that old so long as she can match appearences with Will Poulter. It is important that they look the same age but that doesn't mean that they have to be in real life .

They could cast an older actress, who looks younger, so that through the film in Narnia she seems to mature and grow
I agree ^^^^

Also possible Puddleglum: Benedict Cumberbatch? He is an amazing, BRILLIANT actor...

look at Tom Welling on Smallville. That show has been on for 10 years and he is playing a college or just post-college aged person, and he's in his 30s, and passes for it pretty well. It's possible with Will.

Also possible Puddleglum: Benedict Cumberbatch? He is an amazing, BRILLIANT actor...

I just don't picture him as Puddleglum. Maybe if Puddleglum used nicotine patches instead of smoking a pipe? Really, though, my objection is his voice. I don't think he could pull off the comical edge. My votes still for Wil Johnson, with Rowan Atkinson as a close runner up. Both of those actors could handle Puddleglum's dignified/serious side and his Eeyore side.

Really? I think Benedict would be perfect for Puddleglum - voice, physique, acting abilities, demenour. He could easily pull it off. Are you telling me you didn't laugh at his dry humour in 'Sherlock'?

Warrior 4 Jesus, I think that Benedict Cumberbatch would make a good Puddleglum, but for me its Bill Nighy who i'd live to see play him..He is just perfect for the role in my eyes! tall, thin, sad looking (In the nicest possible way) and good with serious and comedic roles. I love him as an actor and he has always been my choice. But I'll stop now because there is another thread for this discussion, but still...

Before we return to our scheduled programming, I'd just like to say Billy Nighy is great but he strikes me as too old for the role of Puddleglum. Otherwise, you're right, he would be brilliant. Luckily, it's okay to have differing opinions, yes?