Posted by: @icarus

I definitely also agree that female lions are more well known for being hunters rather than mothers, however I still think that overall it's one of the few logical explanations that exist for why a director might gender flip the role in the first place - that in a story about creation and new life, having the creator of new life be a female (of any species) does at least make "some" thematic sense.

It does, from that perspective. But even as someone who's never been a mother herself (not out of deliberate choice; it just hasn't worked out that way, and now I'm getting too old), if I were going to create a fantasy world (or modify someone else's) and give it a female creator — which makes good sense in itself — I'd choose a figure that's readily associated with mothering and motherliness, as well as with power. (I also agree we don't have to factor in Greta Gerwig personally here, but she IS a mother, so it's fair to assume she's drawing on personal experience if she chooses to portray motherhood — divine or earthly — in some way in her work.)

And apart from lionesses not having that symbolic association in Western cultures historically in the first place, there are very good reasons why they would be an absolutely terrible symbol of motherhood. These are things that wouldn't have been known in ancient times when lions started to be used symbolically, and probably weren't well known in Lewis's time either, not that he was intending to draw on realistic lion behaviour when he created the character of Aslan. But this is something that's pretty widely known today, as it gets brought up regularly in nature documentaries and non-fiction books about lions: when a male lion kills or otherwise defeats another male lion and takes over his pride, the victorious lion kills all the cubs in that pride that were sired by the previous lion. I doubt the mothers of those cubs simply stand back and watch, but they clearly can't or won't prevent it — and once that's done, those lionesses afterwards don't hesitate to mate with and have cubs by the lion who killed their previous children.

Yes, that is ugly — horrific, really — to us humans, though it obviously makes sense from the perspective of lion ethics, however those work. But it does make it impossible for me, at least, to think of a lioness as representing motherly protectiveness and unbreakable motherly love.  

I will add I don't find those nature facts trouble me at all in thinking of the (male) character of Aslan as he is in the books. Even if Lewis knew about such gory details, he clearly wasn't aiming to have Aslan think or behave like an ordinary non-talking lion in our world — and male lions, once again, already have enough symbolic value in our history that it's easy to see Aslan from that non-naturalistic perspective, as we're supposed to.

But female lions don't have anything like that symbolic value and resonance, as I keep saying. We don't have an existing set of meanings or characteristics that we instantly think of as applying to them, as we do with male lions (realistically or not). We really only have what we know about from modern nature studies. And so, if some modern author decided to create a fantasy world — even one totally unrelated to Narnia — with a lioness mother goddess figure, I for one would most likely respond at once with "Er, excuse me, mate — you do realise that is really not a very fitting symbol for what you're trying to convey here??"

So that's where we're still at. If someone has decided that Aslan, as a divine creator figure, makes more sense as a female lion than as a male one... they've apparently missed all the symbolic resonance of Aslan as a male lion and replaced it with something that, despite the outwardly simple gender swap, absolutely does not work in the same way at all, for so many reasons (and not just the religious / Christian ones either). That on top of the fact that they don't seem to know how to handle the PR disaster this has already caused (and is still causing) among fans.

Did they honestly not think about what a bad choice this is on so many levels — or what a bad thing it is to leave the public believing it's going to happen, even if it isn't? Or do they just not care?? Once again, there is no explanation that truly makes sense.

Posted by: @icarus

It could just be something as simple as they tried out a singing male Lion and couldn't make it look good on screen,.so decided to switch things up.

Well, now there's another thought, but if they can't make a singing male Lion look good on screen, I doubt they'll have any more success with a singing Lioness!  

I was very disappointed to see The Hollywood Reporter reiterate the Meryl Streep report in their article announcing Emma Mackey's casting: 

The project is in the nascent casting stages. Mackey will join Meryl Streep, who is in talks to play Aslan, the talking lion who in the books is the King of Kings.

Their wording makes it sound like they think it's a done deal, even if nothing is signed yet... I hope they're wrong.

I winced on seeing that too, @Rose. I'm hoping they're just repeating the existing rumour from a few weeks ago and that they don't have any further inside information that we haven't heard yet. I got the impression they were just reiterating it, for the sake of being able to name-drop Meryl Streep, but we don't know.

However, now that we have the first confirmed casting — and for a major and already iconic character (even people who haven't read the books will likely know who the White Witch is from the previous screen adaptations) — I'm more hopeful that we may FINALLY get a definite answer to this Aslan question. And if it turns out it was all a furphy and they've chosen a male actor, I'll jump up and down and scream for joy and dance around the room in a solo version of a proper Narnian Romp.  

And if it turns out they ARE going to cast Meryl Streep or any other female voice actor as Aslan... well, I'll really want to know why.   And while I'll still definitely watch the resulting film at least once — because I can't judge it fairly if I haven't actually seen it, after all — I honestly don't think I'll be able to accept it as a genuine adaptation of Narnia. 

I think it’s unsurprising that they mentioned the Meryl Streep casting just in general. It’s the biggest rumour to come out so far, and I think gained the most traction within the press in comparison to Daniel Craig and even Charli XCX due to the controversy.

i think though that we should take note of what we’re hearing… “in talks”. As it stands, I’m curious as to whether the reveal that Emma was being tested may have forced their hand with the announcement. And it could be worth considering why Daniel Craig and Meryl Streep haven’t been confirmed? Just a thought.

I get the impression they’re just parroting what they’ve heard and not that they have inside knowledge telling them it’s nearly a done deal or anything. If I remember correctly from elsewhere in this thread, wasn’t it that Deadline could only confirm that Meryl was being spoken to but couldn’t source that it was about Aslan? There’s also the fact that ‘in talks’ can be very vague and sometimes meaningless, and I’m gonna hold onto that to the bitter end.

I think with confirming a Jadis casting that makes good sense, it becomes even more confusing why they’d diverge so far on Aslan. Part of me wants to take it as a good sign that they do actually know what they’re doing and this whole thing is going to turn out to be a big misunderstanding. Too hopeful, I shouldn’t wonder, but as long as there’s still no word on the Aslan front…

Posted by: @rilianix

As it stands, I’m curious as to whether the reveal that Emma was being tested may have forced their hand with the announcement. And it could be worth considering why Daniel Craig and Meryl Streep haven’t been confirmed? Just a thought.

I think it's possible it might having something to do with the theatrical window. Daniel Craig, for instance, was disappointed that Glass Onion's theatrical window was just one week, and if Meryl Streep is also on board, they could be using their star power to push for a longer window and more screens.

From our article in January:

While IMAX has guaranteed a two-week theatrical run, a third week could be added based on demand. Discussions are ongoing about a possible expansion into non-IMAX theaters before the streaming debut.

Notably, Emma Mackey isn't an A-lister, so she wouldn't have the leverage that Craig and Streep would have in this situation, which might explain why her casting was announced and we've yet to get confirmation about anyone else.

Posted by: @karisa

If I remember correctly from elsewhere in this thread, wasn’t it that Deadline could only confirm that Meryl was being spoken to but couldn’t source that it was about Aslan?

Deadline confirmed that she was in talks for the role of Aslan, but they couldn't confirm whether or not Aslan had been changed to a female lion. (Here's the link to their article.)

@rose Ah, thanks for the clarification!

Heard recently Netflix say they don't care about theatrical runs. They only do it when they think they have a movie that might garner Oscar buzz. To them cinemas don't really matter and the future is streaming.

Is Narnia's theatrical window supposed to be 2 weeks? Don't see this being that long or happening at all if this rumor is true and the watch numbers have a steep drop off.

😕

It's very true that Netflix doesn't care about theatrical runs, @Bronwynn... they've said many times that theaters are not their business model, and Gerwig managing to broker an IMAX release for her Narnia film sent shock waves through the film industry because it was so unprecedented. When Ted Sarandos commented on the deal, he downplayed it.

I've seen some people suggest that Netflix is allowing or pushing the idea of a female Aslan because they don't actually want Gerwig's film to be hugely successful, lest they end up having to do more major theatrical deals in the future. Aslan being female, or even just Meryl Streep doing a modulated voice, will cause so much controversy that it will never be the huge crowd-pleaser it could have been.

It's hard not to see it as self-sabotaging.  

Posted by: @rose

I've seen some people suggest that Netflix is allowing or pushing the idea of a female Aslan because they don't actually want Gerwig's film to be hugely successful, lest they end up having to do more major theatrical deals in the future. Aslan being female, or even just Meryl Streep doing a modulated voice, will cause so much controversy that it will never be the huge crowd-pleaser it could have been.

FWIW, I'm very cynical about theories like that. Would Netflix or any entertainment studio really do something that would cost them so much money just to stick it to a demanding director? Why not just refuse to give Gerwig the IMAX release? Or cancel her project the way they canceled Matthew Aldrich's? 

Posted by: @rose

 

It's hard not to see it as self-sabotaging.   

This is just so bizarre. Seems all these streamers are only hurting themselves.

Even the gentleman behind the 1970s animated LWW is weighing in. He shared how the network they were working with didn't understand the story and drew a comparison:

https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/c-s-lewis-knew-narnias-gospel-power-but-netflix-is-rewriting-it.html

@starkat I don't quite trust everything this man said. He claims that Lewis said Aslan was an allegory for Christ. 

(But we know that Lewis said more than once that the stories are not allegories. Lewis taught English Literature, and we ought to trust that he knew what he was talking about!  One character, by the way, cannot be an allegory; they might be part of a story such as Pilgrim's Progress that is allegorical. ) 

What the man at the start of this report MEANT, was  that Aslan was a symbol or representation of Jesus. 

That's very interesting, @starkat, especially to know it was a religious organisation that had the movie rights to LWW at the time.

I also can't figure out what Netflix is doing here (not that I haven't said that several times over the past few weeks!). Again, they paid a LOT of money for the rights to the seven Narnia books. Whatever their feelings about streaming vs cinema screenings, they surely want and need to make sure this venture makes a profit, or at least breaks even.

And there's the thing — this is a new franchise for them. If it was a series / fantasy universe they'd held the rights to for some years, and had already had several successful instalments and it was a well-established earner for them, they might decide they could afford to get a bit more daring and edgy with it and make a major change in the next episode, just to see how it goes down with the fans and whether it attracts some new viewers.

But in this case, it's their very first episode of a franchise that's totally new to them — and it's one that others have adapted before, and the books themselves have been constantly in print for 70 years or more. There's already an established fanbase watching this new production's every move. If Netflix gets this first instalment so wrong that the majority of existing fans are turned off it — and it doesn't win over enough new fans to make up for that, as is likely to be the case — then that's that. Nobody's going to stick around for a sequel. And there go all those millions down the drain. I'm sure stranger things have happened, but I really cannot understand why they would do that.

So I'm still hoping against hope that the female Aslan rumour has been false all along and Netflix, for whatever reasons, just haven't said anything about it, and some time in the next few weeks we'll have the announcement that some male actor has been cast as Aslan. Or even if the top people at Netflix had originally agreed to a gender-swapped Aslan, they should have been seriously reconsidering that move ever since the story broke, given that reactions everywhere have been almost 100% negative.

I still can't quite bring myself to believe it's a hopeless situation just yet, but if they really ARE going to do this, I honestly would like to know what their reasons are.  

Edited to add: @coracle, I caught that error as well, but just let it slide, knowing very well that Lewis would not have used the term "allegory" in whatever explanations he gave about Narnia. The problem is that most people assume "allegory" and "symbolism" mean exactly the same thing, so any story with symbolic elements gets called "an allegory" even when it isn't, and even when the person who wrote it never called it that and even explained why it wasn't. It grates with me hugely too, but unfortunately I don't think we'll ever totally shift that misconception about Narnia out of popular thought. 

@coracle I posted it because of the connection to the animated LWW. I thought it was interesting from that angle. 

@Courtenay I agree. For Netflix to throw this big of a monkey wrench into the storyline doesn't make a lot of sense unless they have completely missed the point of the Chronicles as a whole.