I agree with your arguments, but I was always under the assumption that the movies couldn't ever be PG-13 in the first place. Doesn't Walden Media have some sort of policy that since they produce movies for families, they will never make a PG-13 film?

Well, Disney made an exception for Pirates of the Caribbean, and look how that franchise did.

If the remaining books are made, then I hope the producers do not try to dumb it down. I think that most of them can be PG, but if they think that they can adapt the books better as PG-13, then by all means, do it.

Boxofficemojo.com says that about 55% of LWW was under 25 years old. However, VDT's audience was 52% over 25 years old. So by all means, the franchise's audience is getting older. It doesn't skew quite as old as Harry Potter or LOTR, but it's not like most of the audience is little kids.

I think that some of them could be made PG. SC and HHB could be made PG. MN will be PG. However, if LB gets made, please make an exception Walden. That story couldn't be done right with PG. How would they portray Tash, the cataclysmic battles, and the train wreck?

There are some things that could get SC and HHB PG-13. In SC, the madness of Rillian, the underworld, and the snake could get it there. However, I don't think that any of these would do it. In HHB, the battles, Aslan's punishment of Aravis, and Rabadash's um, attraction towards Susan could all get it there.

I'm not sure if Walden will make any of these three films PG-13. However, I hope that they don't just push it aside, and that they at least consider it (and they probably won't ).

I have a theory- that the only reason the undragonning scene would be an instant PG-13 is because so many people complained about PC. I mean afterall, Aslan was killed in the first film and they kept it PG, Both movies had huge battle sequences and they were kept PG. What I don't understand is if the undragoning was instant PG-13 material, then why were the skeleton and the sea serpant not instant PG-13, I mean the sea serpant nearly eats Edmund! Or perhaps it was just that one scene that would have been one to many.

However I believe that part about Walden's Contract is correct. I beleive that might also be part of the reason why they got the job...unfortunately it may do more harm than good. One thing about the chronicles is that they are inherently different from each other. Some like MN are fairly light, others like PC, SC, and LB are pretty dark.

I think to Walden should consider revamping it's contract. A film can be made PG-13 and have the same purpose that most family films do. To Save a Life was proof of that. Just because a film is PG-13 doesn't mean its bad... Perhaps they should add an "elastic clause" that with proper investigation, they could allow some movies to be PG-13.

I wonder...if there was a movie that had all of the stories rolled into one, what would it be rated?

First of all, I believe PC was the PG equivalent in all countries around the world, except Australia - yes, where it was rated M.
Secondly, most kids aren't stupid. They can handle more than kiddy-fare, they can understand many things. They don't need things dumbed down. The books were written with children in mind but the movies should translate the intelligence, message and integrity of the books.

LWW was fine with a PG-rating (although the battle was a bit strange without a hint of blood).

PC had an M-rating in Australia but I thought it fit into the PG-rating well. Maybe it was testing the limits but it wasn't anything outrageous.

VDT was a very mild PG-rating. The Dark Island and Sea Serpent weren't the least bit creepy and the undragoning was ruined. Again, I don't think anything above a PG-rating would be necessary to adapt this book properly, they'd just need to make it a heavier-PG.

SC would be pushing PG because of the sombre tone surrounding much of the book and because of the psychological torture Rilian experiences. With careful scripting SC could retain a PG-rating and do justice to the book.

I don't know about HHB. Much of it could be done with a PG but slavery is a big theme of the book and Aslan helping Aravis 'identify' with her slave girl's plight could up the rating if they showed the wounds, even if they only had the sound-effects. It could be done with a heavy PG-rating.

MN is for the most part a PG affair. There's some language and violence in Charn but there's no real issue here.

LB is the big problem here. There is no way to do the book justice without it being PG-13 (or the equivalent). Remove the graphic violence and the intensely dark, creepy and sombre themes remain. It could not be made to a PG-rating.

The directors should aim to make Narnia movies that are suitable for children 10 and up. Younger children have the books. Back when I was a kid, if something was too intense for me then, I wanted until I was older to watch it. A little patience never hurt anyone.
Please, let's not have the children's books should be made into children's films arguement. They should be suitable for children yes, but not all children. Otherwise you risk dumbing them down (even though it's not necessary) and removing the sting of God's Truth from the stories.
Even the books aren't suitable for all kids. The youngest of the young shouldn't be able to see the movies, because even the books would be too intense for them. And LB is only appropriate for older children and more mature children, so that should definitely receive a PG-13 rating. Aslan is both tame and dangerous, as is God. We need to see both sides of Aslan reflected in the movies. Kids can handle it!

I think the films should try to just make the most faithful adaptations and whatever the rating is, goes. If just a few slight edits could be made to edit it down to a PG rating, then thats fine. But if they butcher a crucial scene like Eustace's undragoning to get a PG rating, then they should just make it PG-13.

Still, I really don't think Eustace's undragoning (if shot and editied right) would have been PG-13. I believe the head guy of Walden just said that so that when the book purists complained about how they ruined that scene, they could have a good excuse.

PC could have been PG-13 and it probably would have done better if it was, but as a PG film it works.

And aside from the undragoning controversy, VotDT is a pretty PG movie.

Silver Chair for the most part is PG material, but the murder of Lilliandil, Rillain's psychological torture, and the demise of the Lady of the Green Kirtle are all PG-13 stuff. They could still probably keep it PG if they don't show much blood. But the one scene where they MUST show blood is when Aslan poors his blood into the river and it brings Rillian to life. Removing that would weaken the spiritual impact of the novel.

Magican's Nephew is PG. HaHB really depends on how they handle certain topics. Aravis being forced to marry a old man is downright creepy, and anyone over 10 knows what she would have to go through if that marriage took place. Her suicide attempt is also a dark element for a PG movie. As is Shasta's abuse. And the part where Aslan claws Aravis's back and rips part of her skin. Even if they don't show the blood, its one of those things that push the rating. Yet they can't remove it otherwise they would be watering down Aslan's character.

And Last Battle must be PG-13 of course. There is no arguing of that.

They are children's books, and good books for children are also enjoyed by adults. (Lewis said so - and it is certainly true for me)

They should be made into movies that children can watch and enjoy - but we are not talking about kiddy stuff for 4 year olds. This is not "Care Bears in Narnia".

They are children's books, but children's books are not the same thing as children's movies. Scenes in children's books, such as big battle scenes where people are wounded or die, do not necessarily seem graphic in books. However, when filmmakers translate those scenes to movie form and try at all to be realistic about how battles are, they may merit higher than a PG rating, as the MPAA system goes right now.

I don't think that accurate scenes like this are necessarily inappropriate for children, but that's my personal opinion and children's movie are usually pretty tame and "kiddy". They don't usually have big battles or blood or gore. Hence the Aslan "scratch" in VDT rather than Eustace's dedragoning as of the book. It's cleaner because otherwise it would have been PG-13. Was that fine? Sure, but it wasn't as powerful as it was in the book. So I'm for a higher rating so long as it stays true to book content.

I'm all for a PG-13 rating if it means the book content is remained faithful to. Maybe try focusing the next movies on young adults instead of really young kids.

whichever one works best for the movie's success is fine with me

They are children's books, and good books for children are also enjoyed by adults. (Lewis said so - and it is certainly true for me)

They should be made into movies that children can watch and enjoy - but we are not talking about kiddy stuff for 4 year olds. This is not "Care Bears in Narnia".

Yes you are right. And I did see a few children the first time I went to the movies, some as young as four. The trouble is that many of the themes of VDT would go over their heads. For instance, wonderful bed-time reading though VDT is, I doubt that children who had barely started school yet would be so good at reading that they would understand the Philological joke that is the Invisibility Spell. At least none of the children cried all the way through, or seemed uncomfortable and unhappy, which happened in a G rated film I saw, Madagascar, I think it was. But that film (Madagascar) as well as the children crying, made me uncomfortable and unhappy also.

But then I rather doubt that even a G rating would help such children appreciate all the slick adult jokes that are laughingly considered children's material in animated films like Madagascar. The trouble is that even the school-aged children for whom the VDT film is ultimately intended, don't seem to be around much, possibly due to schoolwork or the bad weather. And their escorting adults tend to give oldies like myself dirty looks merely for being where I am. I agree that adults, like myself, like VDT, having attended at least one viewing where there were no children present at all.

COPPA restrictions mean that the bulk of the membership of fansites like this one, are teenagers or people in their early twenties whose tastes in films naturally tend to be more PG 13+, a bit older than the school children who will be watching it on DVD in schools, churches and on shopfront TV sets ad nauseam. And it is this younger clientele which are the principal reason for Coracle's 'Care bear factor'.

I'd also agree that C.S.Lewis wrote VDT and the other Narnia books with children in mind, which is why, for instance, he had Eustace, who couldn't tell stories well, recount his undragoning to Edmund, rather than describe directly what happened to the reader. That gives the filmmakers heaps of wiggle room to make their own interpretations of Eustace's undragoning, for example, like the dream/flashback sequence in the BBC version of VDT.

It is also fascinating that critics of the Walden undragoning not being blood-stained enough, don't also complain about Eustace not being told in so many words to 'undress' or that Aslan caused Eustace to 'undress', or that Eustace was somehow provided with new clothes afterwards. Done some other way, this, too, could become a PG 13+ issue. Nor is there any complaints about Eustace swimming up to the Dawn Treader fully clad, when we know that is a OH & S issue.

PC had an M-rating in Australia but I thought it fit into the PG-rating well. Maybe it was testing the limits but it wasn't anything outrageous.

Well, perhaps not. But some people would have thought HBP, equally rated M, was outrageously frightening with violence and supernatural themes as stated on the cover. I saw both films side by side in Coles, the PC one being labelled M for extended battle scenes and violence. And you have to admit that however USA movies are rated by the MPAA system, the Australian Government Department in charge of such matters likes to make its own decisions.

VDT was a very mild PG-rating. The Dark Island and Sea Serpent weren't the least bit creepy and the undragoning was ruined. Again, I don't think anything above a PG-rating would be necessary to adapt this book properly, they'd just need to make it a heavier-PG.

I'm not sure I agree. I thought the Walden sea serpent was just as scary as Nagini in Bathilda Bagshot's house, maybe even more so. There were more people on board the Dawn treader, you see. But then when Mr Bean gets a PG rating despite adult themes, and when children freely attend Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows despite an M rating, I do begin to worry about an excessive 'Care Bear' factor impacting on the Narnia films, so far.

The only thing I would have against a PG-13 rating is that it might alienate some of the children that love the books, since they are after all children's books the movies should be a movie children can enjoy too.

And also there is the question of whether or not certain scenes warrant a PG-13 rating, with careful editing and a timely scream from Aravis you could easily leave little to the imagination.

But if it is impossible to be true to the book and leave it PG(I don't think it is) I wouldn't mind them making it that way.

Yes, quite so. And I have to agree 100% with sweeetlilgurlie's comments below.

They are children's books, but children's books are not the same thing as children's movies. Scenes in children's books, such as big battle scenes where people are wounded or die, do not necessarily seem graphic in books. However, when filmmakers translate those scenes to movie form and try at all to be realistic about how battles are, they may merit higher than a PG rating, as the MPAA system goes right now.

I notice even in PC that when one Telmarine was beheaded it was a curiously bloodless affair. But that is the point of the restrictions. Too much gore would ensure that children would be prevented from seeing the movie at all. And if VDT had been made strictly to the book, and was shown actually being sea sick, then parents won't thank Fox or Walden for that bit of realism, since queasiness can be catching.

Of course a strategic scream or something done off stage can do wonders. But that, too can weaken the impact of what is read in the books. If Aravis can't be shown with blood oozing from her wounded back, or if she can't be shown undressed to that extent anyway, how are we to get the full impact of HHB's message that she is being done by as she caused to be done to her maid?

But the question is, would you really like your younger siblings or your children to see movies so realistic that the mauled dragon Eustace drips blood as he flies through the air or blood oozing up from the water as he is dunked into water? Let alone the difficulties of seeing Eustace unclad, or emerging undressed from a bath, even though it might be a better depiction of what happens in the book? Even so, though it was brief, the dragon in the film did look somewhat mauled before changing back to Eustace.

We know from the book that Aslan was 'undressing' and 'dressing' Eustace despite having claws, but wouldn't Aslan, famously a good character, look like he was actually attacking Eustace if he were to do Aslan the way Warrior4Jesus would have preferred the undragoning to be done? The same way that in the 1967 LWW we saw the snippet of, the man playing Aslan looked like he was attacking Lucy for 'going against the Emperor's laws'?

I agree that if parents are doing their jobs properly, they would accompany at least their younger children to the movies anyway, not letting them run amok unsupervised or treating cinemas as good child-minding centres. And I think that parents should always be prepared to discuss books and movies, not to mention movie/book comparisons with their children. But that is only me.

Thank you, Kate, for the link to an explanation of the American MPAA system which you can find here. The Australian Classification Board's way of classifying films is different, as we have no PG13+ and the M rating in Australia suggests a mature attitude is needed to see such movies.

I think that looking at these classifications are useful and are worth looking at, so we can see why things are done in making films the way they are. But does reading those classifications and understanding what they are trying to do, change the way you would want your Narnia films to be shown?

No blood or gore! I cannot tolerate any at all.
Example: going back to LWW when Edmund was stabbed by the White Witch, that was bloodless, the way it was directed and shot (in slow-mo) implied there was to have been blood, think I recall Adamson discussing that. And that made it within the PG rating. I think if the director/production team is creative enough they can find ways to imply the realism as you say without it being blatantly realized onscreen.
Subtle visual effects could be used to great advantage to show the un-skinning of Dragon-Eustace akin to the glittery Beauty and the Beast transformation onscreen. There probably were other types of visual effects that could have been used. One particular I remember was the rapid blur effect after the WW had been done away with and it was just the Pevensies by themselves tending to Edmund (which Adamson also said on the commentary was a method where you could think it was all in your head, or words to that effect)….left up to the imagination of the audience.
I also agree with you about the parenting. If a parent really is concerned, they’ll actually go prescreen a film by themselves or consult with other trusted friends/parents before taking their child to something that they question whether the child can handle.

Yes the books were written with children in mind, but what about the people who have read the books since they were first published, our parents and grandparents? They have to be kept in mind too. They're going to want to see a movie they are really going to enjoy. LWW was great at that because it wasn't too kiddy but it wasn't for just older folk either.

Also the kids who are growing up with the narnia films are going to get older. Like harry potter, the films need to grow with their audience. I can see the rest of the narnia films to be PG or a heavy PG, but LB i think should be PG-13. The audience is older and it's the last narnia movie so they don't have to worry about future movies. Plus it might gain a bigger audience with the higher rating with people thinking "oh i didn't know narnia was like that".nExcept i guess that thinking could go vice versa as well to cautious parents =