I actually recall some passages in The Silver Chair, The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle, some of the characters talk in Old English ("thous" and "thy" and "thee", ect). Sometimes I wonder if the movies would have them talk in modern English?

Interestingly there was a whole controversy here in the UK this week about the publishers of Roald Dahl over here updating the text within the books to remove some of the outmoded sensibilities in the stories and to update some of the cultural references for modern readers (not sure if this story gained much attention overseas?).

Given the outcry from the British public its clear they probably went too far with their efforts, and they actually ended up sanding off too many of the sharp edges and punchiness that actually made Roald Dahl such an enjoyable read as a child, but that's probably a debate for another time. (for what its worth I suspect the publisher will probably backtrack on their decision in due time).

Anyway, in terms of the Narnia stories and modernising the dialogue for the movies, I think the main consideration has to be one of accessibility. Yes the old fashioned dialogue is part of the charm of books, but CS Lewis wasn't writing a period piece - he was writing a storybook for children of the time, to be enjoyed by children of the time. Its the same reason why I would argue that the WW2 setting isn't necessarily all that important to the story as a whole. LWW isn't an allegory for WW2, it was just a thing that happened shortly prior to Lewis writing the books which served as a convenient plot mechanic to have four children separated from their parents, without having to resort to the Orphan Cliché, which is pretty much the premise for every children's story ever written.

Therefore to me it serves no purpose to have the children talk in old fashioned dialogue if all it does is alienate younger viewers from enjoying the story, given that its younger viewers who are the intended audience for the stories in the first place.

This is one area where i felt the Walden Media versions were pretty spot on - retain the period setting for its charm and uniqueness, but modernise the dialogue so that children can actually enjoy it.

Posted by: @col-klink

Reasons to Update the Expressions

• Some critics have opined that the books' dialogue does not actually portray how kids talked in the 40s and 50s. C. S. Lewis was an old man when he wrote them and his use of "schoolboy English" owes a lot to the children's books of E. Nesbit, which are from the Edwardian era. So, updating dialogue might not actually make the Narnia stories less historically accurate. There's an argument to be made that it would make them more so. 

This is where I'm at regarding this debate.  I'd be interested to see what they could do with the script if they didn't exactly keep it verbatim (and, as you mentioned, Edwardian) but didn't make the Pevensies come off like sassy 21st century teenagers either.  If instead they met in the middle, and tried to write the dialogue to be historically accurate to 1940s Britain, that would likely hit the sweet spot for me personally (although I'd be interested in hearing differing opinions on the matter as well).

Interestingly there was a whole controversy here in the UK this week about the publishers of Roald Dahl over here updating the text within the books to remove some of the outmoded sensibilities in the stories and to update some of the cultural references for modern readers (not sure if this story gained much attention overseas?).

In my writer's forum it has! (US) Pros and cons both. I haven't read enough Dahl to have an opinion either way.

I thought the WWII references in the Walden movies were superfluous and didn't bring much to the story. In the Narnia books, the war is mentioned only once, at the beginning of LWW, and alluded to a few times later when Lewis describes the richness of Narnian food. For example, there's a scene in VotDT where Lucy imagines casting the spell that will make her beautiful, and Lewis describes it in a truly epic way, as in all the nations of Narnia go to war over her, then the nations of earth. But in the movie Lucy becomes a beautiful deb at some WWII era party with flashbulbs going off in her face, which though adding to the historical accuracy of the stories (such as they are) is really less than epic.

@glenwit as a child of the mid century, I think using 50s/60s language (minus 60s hippie language like 'Hey man', cool  etc!!) is the best option. It's clear enough, most of us knew basic grammar, and our parents had thrown off the slang and dated speech of their parents. (NZ and England)

On the other hand, more of the boarding school stories we read were still being written, and some of the priggish and superior expressions were familiar to us from them!  Enid Blyton was still churning out The Famous Five stories, which I understand reflected somewhat dated language. 

I did find the old fashioned schoolboy and schoolgirl slang rather fun. Lewis writes some in VDT and SC.

But the whole point of communication (including story telling and film making) is for the hearers to understand it. More neutral language is essential.   Just get the pronouns and prepositions right, and have a good dialect coach for clear pronunciation. 

Posted by: @icarus

Yes the old fashioned dialogue is part of the charm of books, but CS Lewis wasn't writing a period piece - he was writing a storybook for children of the time, to be enjoyed by children of the time. Its the same reason why I would argue that the WW2 setting isn't necessarily all that important to the story as a whole.

What era in modern history gives you more feelings of desperation or tension than during WWII? I think the setting is incredibly important to the overall story. Without it, you don't have the strong contrast of children getting evacuated to escape possible death and the seemingly peaceful other world that they eventually find themselves in. It's only later they learn Narnia has problems much like their own. But without the high stakes of WWII, Lewis would've had to come up with some other contrivance to get the Pevensies to the professor's house, but it would've likely been much less impactful.

Regarding the dialogue, it's a good thing when children hear words and phrases different from their own. I know it transported me more into that world when I watched the BBC versions, and I learned a little about British culture.

I think the next Narnia adaptations should get their inspiration from the Lord of the Rings trilogy scriptwriters. Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson chose to condense the length of the book's dialogue, occasionally shift lines to different characters and scenes, and yet kept much of the flavor and elevated language Tolkien chose to write in, preserving key passages and letting the power of the writing shine on screen. The Walden films seemed to lack confidence in Lewis' dialogue as written, and I felt the poor scripts they used is a major reason the series is only serviceable and missed the opportunity to be something truly great.

@icarus 

I wouldn’t want the Earth time to be changed in any adaptation of the Narnia books. To me that era does have some importance and keeping it the same would be showing respect for Lewis. The old fashioned dialogue is certainly a part of that, and it is essential to keep realism in the language of the stories. It’s like people trying to modernize Dickens, whose stories were meant for his time period. People should leave the dialogue alone and keep the time and location the same as they are in the books. I have had enough of people trying to update stories for the modern reader. Lewis had a reason for having the time in our world during World War II and Narnia in its own time. The stories would not work as well if they were set in different times than Lewis had chosen, and the threat to England by the forces of the Nazis was the right time to go into the world of Narnia. 

Posted by: @skilletdude

What era in modern history gives you more feelings of desperation or tension than during WWII? I think the setting is incredibly important to the overall story. Without it, you don't have the strong contrast of children getting evacuated to escape possible death and the seemingly peaceful other world that they eventually find themselves in. It's only later they learn Narnia has problems much like their own. But without the high stakes of WWII, Lewis would've had to come up with some other contrivance to get the Pevensies to the professor's house, but it would've likely been much less impactful.

This is a fair point if you're looking at some of the adaptations of LWW, like the Walden film and at least one stage version that I saw a few years ago, which make a big deal of the wartime setting. But if you read the actual story that C.S. Lewis wrote... he virtually doesn't bring WW2 into it at all, even though he was writing this book only 10 years after the real-life events. He refers to "the war" only once in the entire series, in the second sentence of the opening chapter of LWW, as the reason why the children are away from their parents' home... and that's it. There are no other references to WW2 anywhere else in the entire text, not even implicitly. No mention of fears that the Pevensies' home might be bombed or that family members might die; no references to the threat of invasion by Hitler; no comparisons at all between Western Europe under Nazi occupation and Narnia under the White Witch's rule. If you removed or altered that one sentence in the first chapter, there would be no way a reader could pick up what era this story is set in and what was going on in real world history at the time.

Drawing parallels between the story of LWW and the events of WW2 is interesting, of course, and makes for a very good dramatic device (the play I mentioned made a much bigger deal of the wartime setting than any other adaptation I know of, and it was quite effective). But going by the actual original text, it's not what Lewis himself was trying to do with the story.

(That reminds me, there's at least one adaptation, the late 1970s animation of LWW, that doesn't bring the war into it at all — the children are merely "staying at the Professor's house" without any reasons given — and it otherwise follows the book very closely. The wartime setting, or lack of it, simply has no bearing on the original plot itself.)

I think the next Narnia adaptations should get their inspiration from the Lord of the Rings trilogy scriptwriters. Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson chose to condense the length of the book's dialogue, occasionally shift lines to different characters and scenes, and yet kept much of the flavor and elevated language Tolkien chose to write in, preserving key passages and letting the power of the writing shine on screen. The Walden films seemed to lack confidence in Lewis' dialogue as written, and I felt the poor scripts they used is a major reason the series is only serviceable and missed the opportunity to be something truly great.

Oh, I totally second this!   I've always thought the LOTR film trilogy did a fab job (got a bit British there myself ) of adapting the original dialogue from the books — as you say, they shortened it a fair bit but still really kept the "feel" of how Tolkien made his various characters speak, and that did a lot to help convey the atmosphere of Middle-earth. And even where the script-writers added new dialogue, it was nearly all consistent with the characters as Tolkien wrote them. Whereas one thing that really made the Walden film of LWW fall down for me was that they used hardly any dialogue from the book, which made the whole film just feel too different from the original story that I know and love.

My take on the British schoolboy-isms like "By Jove!" etc. is that they're fun, but we can probably lose most of them without changing the feel of the story too much — they might be amusing on the page, but they can sound really stilted and awkward in spoken dialogue on screen. But the Walden version, as I was saying, changed so much of the dialogue that (to me at least) it just didn't convey  the atmosphere of the original story at all, and in some crucial places  messed it up entirely. I've never forgotten what was the biggest clanger for me, sitting in the cinema in 2005 and shifting uneasily in my seat by this stage but still willing to keep giving this film a go... where Aslan, instead of the heartbreakingly poignant "Oh children, children, why are you following me?", says with all the exasperation of an annoyed parent disturbed by a disobedient child: "Shouldn't you be in bed??" That was the moment Walden lost me forever.  

Basically, whatever the next screen adaptations do with the dialogue, I don't mind them trimming a few old-fashioned clichés here and there, but I just hope they can PLEASE otherwise stick close to the books!!  

Posted by: @courtenay

(That reminds me, there's at least one adaptation, the late 1970s animation of LWW, that doesn't bring the war into it at all — the children are merely "staying at the Professor's house" without any reasons given — and it otherwise follows the book very closely. The wartime setting, or lack of it, simply has no bearing on the original plot itself.)

I actually do vaguely remember that. I wonder if it would have turned out better that if they could have least referred to the war that was going on in their home. I suppose we'll never know.

Posted by: @courtenay

But the Walden version, as I was saying, changed so much of the dialogue that (to me at least) it just didn't convey  the atmosphere of the original story at all, and in some crucial places  messed it up entirely. I've never forgotten what was the biggest clanger for me, sitting in the cinema in 2005 and shifting uneasily in my seat by this stage but still willing to keep giving this film a go... where Aslan, instead of the heartbreakingly poignant "Oh children, children, why are you following me?", says with all the exasperation of an annoyed parent disturbed by a disobedient child: "Shouldn't you be in bed??" That was the moment Walden lost me forever. 

Remember how I've said that as much as you want to follow the book, you still have to use your own words in a screen or stage adaption? Now maybe you could have Aslan say, "Why are you following me, children?" It would still follow the book, though the wording would be different.

I don't know if you would want to replace the old English words with the modern English. Maybe something for modern audiences to understand. But wouldn't be unique if they've used the Old English dialogue (notably in The Silver Chair, The Horse And His Boy, and The Last Battle)?

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

Remember how I've said that as much as you want to follow the book, you still have to use your own words in a screen or stage adaption? Now maybe you could have Aslan say, "Why are you following me, children?" It would still follow the book, though the wording would be different.

Oh yes, I certainly wasn't meaning "follow the exact dialogue in the books word for word", which can sound clunky in a screen adaptation even if the author was good at writing dialogue (which Lewis generally was). Even the BBC TV series and the Focus on the Family radio plays, which were very faithful to the books, didn't always lift the dialogue word for word. I just meant, I hope the next version won't rewrite it to the point where it changes the whole feeling of key scenes — which that example I gave from Walden did. Instead of Aslan coming across as surprised and a bit troubled, yet touched to find the two girls following him, the film makes him just sound wearily annoyed and downright patronising, right at one of the most deeply moving points in the plot.

I don't know if you would want to replace the old English words with the modern English. Maybe something for modern audiences to understand. But wouldn't be unique if they've used the Old English dialogue (notably in The Silver Chair, The Horse And His Boy, and The Last Battle)?

Just to clarify, the kind of language Lewis is using there would be called early modern English, or maybe just "archaic" — sort of Shakespearean or late medieval. The term Old English refers to the language spoken by the Anglo-Saxons before the Norman invasion in 1066, which is so different even from medieval English that it's virtually a different language, even though it's the ancestor of what we speak today. Compare "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Shakespeare-era English) with "Fæder ure thu the eart on heofonum, si thin nama gehalgod" (Old English)!!   (I had to fudge that slightly because the original wording uses a letter for "th" that we don't have in the modern alphabet.)

With the archaic-sounding dialogue, I think maybe an adaptation could tone it down a little — I think Lewis sometimes overdoes it a bit for effect, like when the four adult Pevensies are speaking near the end of LWW, just before they return to our world. But it's meant to convey that they are now noble Kings and Queens, almost fairytale-like characters themselves, and I think the dialogue should reflect that even if it uses slightly less over-formal wording. In HHB, it definitely is effective to make the Tisroc and Rabadash speak to each other in that lofty yet very affected and pretentious way. And of course Lewis has adult Susan and Edmund using formal, noble-sounding language in the same story, but I recall a few times he has them slip into more colloquial language. I don't have the books with me at the moment, or I'd quote directly!! Anyway, those different levels of formality in the language do contribute to the atmosphere of the stories and I hope any new adaptations will be sympathetic to that too, even if they don't use the exact same wording (which again, may not work well on screen anyway).

@courtenay 

And Calormenes have been known to quote poetry, which is something you don't hear often these days.

Posted by: @courtenay

Basically, whatever the next screen adaptations do with the dialogue, I don't mind them trimming a few old-fashioned clichés here and there, but I just hope they can PLEASE otherwise stick close to the books!!  

Don't we all wish for a Narnia screen adaption to stick close to the book?

A bit of a side note though: our pastor talked about prayer in his sermon, and he pointed out God gives three answers: yes or no or wait. I know your prayers that the screen adaption of Narnia would stick close to the books will be answered. It's just I don't know wish it will be.

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

A bit of a side note though: our pastor talked about prayer in his sermon, and he pointed out God gives three answers: yes or no or wait. I know your prayers that the screen adaption of Narnia would stick close to the books will be answered. It's just I don't know wish it will be.

 I'm not literally praying for a faithful adaptation (I only used the "praying" smiley jokingly), but thanks for the thoughts! A different version of your pastor's saying that I've heard is that God's three answers to prayer are "Yes", "Not yet", or "I have something better in mind"! But that's getting off topic here.  

@courtenay 

I've heard that, too actually. In speaking of which, to get back on track, imagine the expressions of prayers in Narnia.

At the moment in The Silver Chair, where Eustace and Jill are calling out to Aslan behind the gym. When Jill first encounter Aslan, where He explains that He called her and Eustace out of their own world.

“The task for which I called you and him here out of your own world.”

This puzzled Jill very much. “It’s mistaking me for someone else,” she thought. She didn’t dare to tell the Lion this, though she felt things would get into a dreadful muddle unless she did.

“Speak your thought, Human Child,” said the Lion.

“I was wondering—I mean—could there be some mistake? Because nobody called me and Scrubb, you know. It was we who asked to come here. Scrubb said we were to call to—to Somebody—it was a name I wouldn’t know—and perhaps the Somebody would let us in. And we did, and then we found the door open.”

“You would not have called to me unless I had been calling to you,” said the Lion.

“Then you are Somebody, Sir?” said Jill.

“I am."

Our pastor actually said that God already knows what you're going to say when you pray. In The Silver Chair, it was almost was Aslan already knew that Eustace and Jill were going to to be calling to Him yet He was already calling to them.

Even in The Last Battle, where Tirian is remembering about whenever things were stirred up or at their worse, how things turned out alright in the end. Then where he calls out to Aslan for help.

And he called out “Aslan! Aslan! Aslan! Come and help us now.”

But the darkness and the cold and the quietness went on just the same.

“Let me be killed,” cried the King. “I ask nothing for myself. But come and save all Narnia.”

And still there was no change in the night or the wood, but there began to be a kind of change inside Tirian. Without knowing why, he began to feel a faint hope. And he felt somehow stronger. “Oh Aslan, Aslan,” he whispered. “If you will not come yourself, at least send me the helpers from beyond the world. Or let me call them. Let my voice carry beyond the world.”

Talk about the power of prayer expressions in the screen adaptions.

@jasmine_tarkheena I'm not a moderator or anything, but I feel like you're getting really off topic. Maybe you're just used to online chats that are less, shall we say, structured than those on the Narniaweb forum.