Intriguing Detail Revealed about the Dawn Treader Storyline
In a recent interview with Examiner’s Carla Hay, Ben Barnes dropped a very intriguing tidbit about the overall The Voyage of the Dawn Treader storyline.
Let’s talk about the “Dawn Treader” movie. I know you can’t reveal any spoilers, but what’s in the movie that’s different from the book?
Barnes: They’ve stolen a couple of ideas from some of the later [“Chronicles of Narnia”] books. [It’s] a very difficult book to adapt, because it’s very episodic. It’s chapter by chapter. They go on the voyage, they go to one island, a bit more voyage, another island, a bit more voyage, another island. It’s very satisfying to read; every chapter by chapter, it’s very exciting. But it has no real through line. And so they have to kind of steal other elements to sew it all together. I think they’ve done it in a really clever, unobtrusive way.
Could this perhaps have something to do with the “unfathomable fate” we’ve heard about in the production’s written movie synopsis? It certainly seems like a strong possibility, but until we get more information, let the speculation begin!
Thanks to JadistarkilleR for the heads-up!
You know something? This is part of why the internet, useful tool that it most certainly is, is such a double-blade. It seems that there are fans that consider other fans 'nominal' because they haven't gotten nearly as bent out of shape over page-to-cinema changes in an ADAPTATION of a work. No amount of consolation over all who are involved with the production's love for the source material seems to matter a whit if this or that thing is somehow not a carbon-copy of what Lewis wrote in the original text.
Pardon me for asking the obvious, but HOW in the world could that EVER be so? There is a reason that pages of books are not filmed, then shown onscreen. Every adaptation of a written work (yes, EVERY single one of them) has suffered through some sort of change(s), be it Jane Austen or Spider-Man (both of which, btw, I enjoy immensley for different reasons!)
Cease the bleating, and stop wringing your hands over the cinematic changes, and even more importantly, stop verbally stringing up those of us that note the changes, continue to enjoy the films, and continue to revere the source materials from which they are culled without sacrificing an ounce of reverence either way.
I agree with you 100%! I can live through it if they are small but if they get big I dont think I can suvive it. I liked it better when things were the same as the book. Keep the story of Aslan alive!
Lookat Lord of the Rings. They kept then very much like the book andthey were great. I think they should do the same for these books.
Hey, I'm sorry if I came across as accusing and critical. I didn't mean to shoot down your opinion. I'm just getting the feeling that you're being a little closed-minded, that's all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blindly accepting what the writers are coming up with. I just feel like the need a little bit more credit for what they do. I'm a writer myself, so I've had a glimpse of what writers go through. Yes, there were a few adaptations I disagreed with, but I also understand that some things do not translate well onto the screen. I do respect your opinion; all I'm asking is that you don't blame everything on the writers. They do the best they can. I also feel that you need to understand that the writers don't always understand the books as well as we do, and therefore make a few mistakes in their translation of the script because they don't always understand the importance of some elements. They are doing their best.
The other thing I would like you to consider is the plotline. You've pointed out that VDT is a children's story with a simple, straightforward plotline–which it is. I, however, feel that that is only on the surface. As you start to dig deeper into the books, you may be surprised to find how complex and theological the plotlines can be.
I'm not one of the writers, so I can't tell you their exact intent. All I'm asking is that you be a little more open-minded and understanding. I'm very sorry if I offended you.
Sorry, daughter of the king, I do understand what you meant. I'm just saying that a lot of people are blaming everything on the writers, and think that everything in the movies should be exactly the way they are presented in the book. I, too, feel that some of the story changes were unnecessary. However, on the other hand, I do feel they did a fairly good job and am not too upset with the overall outcome, even though there were several things missing that ultimately disappointed me.
Interesting…I had just never heard of her referred to as "the Emerald witch". I can see why they would do it early on, though…probably so people could have a connection with the "white" witch. Who knows?
Aunt Letty, on your question about how they portrayed Edmund in the film, I must say that it is quite satisfying that someone found something they liked about the film! I, too, found it very satisfying. I know a lot of people were upset that they actually call upon the white witch, whereas in the book they don't go through with it, but I actually kind of liked it. I especially like how Edmund is the one who "saves the day". In LWW Edmund slices the witch's wand and stops her from turning people into stone, but is wounded and is unable to defeat her. In PC, I love how they made it so that he was the only one who had an idea of what to do; he understood the witch and her ways better than the others and knew to stop listening and start acting. The way he shoves his sword into the ice and therefore gets rid of the witch, to me, felt like it was giving him a sense of closure. In a way, he was finally able to do the witch justice and rid himself of her haunting presence.
I'd join everyone else on the discussion of Aslan, but right now I don't have time to get into the deep analytical discussion I would so love to be involved in. If I wrote any more right now, I'd probably end up writing a novel (come to think of it, you probably could write a novel on Aslan and how he's portrayed, and whether or not he should be protrayed as a God, and all that, and if I'm not careful I'll get myself started on it. I better stop). 😉
I usually try to not be very biased or overly opinionated, but if they leave out the albatross some head will roll…
I mean heads.
I think, ever since they changed the format of the comments, this has become more of a discussion board than simply a place to put your comments…
That's a bit of a relief to know that they have "worked very hard to stay true to the themes of the book". Let's just hope it's up to our expectations. We'll just have to wait and see…
Cross your fingers and pray really hard that they do!!!
everyone writes so much!!
It wasn't at all necessary for an Elvish army to cinematically march into Helm's Deep, either, was it?
Who on earth was genuinely rankled by that?
That's because we're all such Narnia nuts that we can't stop talking about it…we have to pick apart and analyze every little thing that any of the movie-makers say about the plot or storyline! (We just have nothing better to do). 😉
Why can't Ben reveal any spoilers?!?!?!!? I'm DYING to find out the details!!! Even if it'll spoil the movie, I'd be happy to receive information. C'mon, Ben!
CANNOT wait 4 the movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁
The implication that fidelity impedes adaptability is only valid in three cases: 1) where there is an excessive, ridiculous, amount of detail in describing events or items only peripherally related to the core story; 2) when the book is just too darn long to include everything in a 120-page script; and 3) when the book is just AWFUL. Whether or not you like Tolkien, I think we can all agree that no one wants to watch Bilbo and Gandalf having tea for an hour in the upcoming 'Hobbit' film. Thus, I think Tolkien's work is a clear example of the first instance. In the second case, Dickens' classic works have been made into numerous, truncated films, that are usually reasonably representative of his intentions. In the third instance, I'll give you two examples of simply awful (yet HUGELY popular) books whose film adaptations bear only a passing resemblance to the source material: 'Jaws' and 'The Godfather'. In those cases, yes, definitely, the screenwriters improved the source material. DRASTICALLY.
With that said…
There are DOZENS of great film adaptations that have been almost religiously faithful to their source material. Tom Wolfe's 'The Right Stuff' (almost scene for scene), Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird' (one or two scenes rearranged), and Daphne DuMaurier's 'Rebecca' (one change due to censorship) are three of my favourite books whose film adaptations are virtually identical to what the respective authors wrote. If you give me time, I can cite a bunch more. The point is, it IS possible to retain fidelity while creating something cinematically worthy. The two are NOT necessarily diametrically opposed. Is it possible to ALWAYS achieve a high level of fidelity and make something worth watching? Obviously not. That doesn't mean it's "bleating" to want the writers to *strive* for it, given the right material. I don't contend it's the right approach for ALL books. Conversely though, I can't see it as the WRONG approach for all books.
I understand were you are coming from and some of us, yes, should stop picking things apart so much. But, there are alot of us that feel as though a movie, if is being based off of a greatly loved book, should still maintain the main story plot and characters through-out the film. Yes, they can't making it word-for-word, but they shouldn't have to add extra main characters to the story. Also, there may be certain scenes in the book that have been left open for some creative license on the producer's part. But from all the comments I have been reading, I think a lot of Narnia Freaks, such as me, are worried that they will blow as they did with Prince Caspian. Yes, it was a great movie for those who were looking for a fantasy/action/mild thrill type movie, but they really blew it when it came to keeping the main story and characters at their places.
So, there are many things that we can't change, no matter how much we comment or "belly-ache", but this is a public chat site where everyone can express their opinions in a clean fashion. 😀
Are they making the Hobbit into a movie?
And in regards to the "not wanting to watch them have tea and talk for an hour", yes I agree with that. But, they should still have a scene with them talking together as they did with Frodo and Gandalf in the Fellowship of the Ring. 🙂
And those movies were good examples of a producer sticking to the book and keeping and character's personalities and the scenes very much the same. Those movies were very well made, imo. haha….maybe we should have Peter Jackson do the Narnia Films….lol
Judging by your picture, are you a LoTR fan?
Actually, honestly, boring and bookverse don't really fit into the same sentence together. I, personally, would rather it be bookverse than movieverse no matter how hard it is to adapt a 'episodic' plot into a movie. Not that anything with a blond Caspian, dufflepuds, Reepicheep, the Pevensie Royals and Useless C.S. could be boring, mind you…;D
Nope, wasn't necessary. Nor was Haldir's death. I think their point by all that was trying to make Helms Deep seem all the more heroic. I don't like it, but I didn't have time to build up a total loyalty to LotR as I did to Narnia, and thus don't mind it as much. 🙂
Wow. It's great to read everyone's thoughts on this. I sure agree that Aslan was somewhat dissapointing in the film, and the changed lines you pointed out, Decarus, sort of pinged on my radar, too. Especially the one, "we can never know what would have happened". That made me cringe a bit. I still feel that the intent was to portray Aslan as a god, but I also agree with those who felt He didn't come off as the God they knew in the books.
The bit with Lucy running off to fetch him bothered me but also it worked for me. I liked that they seemed to have come to the mindset of "we'll do all we can to work for this good cause, but we know where our real help comes from and where our real hope lies." On the other hand, it did feel uncomfortably passive on Aslan's part. I didn't like that feeling.
And, I have to say "amen" to the person who said that the stone table scene fell flat. When I read that scene as a child, it was late at night on a school night and I went to the busstop the next morning with red eyes from crying as I read, and a light feeling in my heart from the implied message of redemption that I only partly understood. The movie missed that entirely. Words like "dead" and "empty" come to mind in trying to describe how that scene played on film. There was no emotional engagement for me at all. So sad.
All that aside, I just want to say that I was mostly pleased and favorably impressed with how well the filmmakers managed to stay true to the spirit of the books. I actually love to watch the movies over and over, something I can't say about my copies of the LOTR movies, another story that I've read many, many times. I am very grateful that these films exist and that dvd technology permits me to enjoy them at will.
Ps. I apologize for starting a discussion, if that is not true to the intent of this thread, as someone said above. I didn't realize.
Narniafan4ever…
I'm not totally disagreeing with you, nor would I impinge upon anyone's 'right' to express discontent with this or that element of change. But there are degrees of that sort of thing to which some kind of limit must be drawn, I think; I don't see the same level of outcry given to the old BBC puppet-versions of the Chronicles, if you follow me, and they weren't verbatim, either. Likewise, in another comment that I've posted here, I don't recall anyone genuinely coming out of their skin when the Elves appeared at Helm's Deep, either, except for a few folks who already boasted a long laundry-list of grievances with that particular production in the first place.
Why we, collectively, cannot simply enjoy what is done in the spirit of the series, if not the exacting letter of it, is truly beyond me. Discussing it is fine; haranguing those who disagree is not.
The chronology of your fandom is NOT an adequate barometer by which to judge whether or not a change is disastrous or not, is it? If so, how do you honestly remain objective in your opinion?
The point is that yes, the change could be viewed as unnecessary simply because it IS a deviation (in letter, not in spirit). The degree to which we choose to become agitated says alot about our understanding of adapting a certain type of written work for the cinema, as well as our own impatience. A few folks that I know were totally put out by the elements in LOTR which we have been speaking of, but, to be perfectly honest, they already had a very long list of grievances to carry around with them regarding that particular adaptation/production.
Wyldeirishman:
Well my guess is that they there wasn't much outcry for the other one because it was pretty lame and we were all hoping that the Narnia movies would be made at a better quality.
And as far as the elves at Helm's Deep goes, I really don't understand either. Over all, like I said before, I think that some of us are just over-speculating because of how badly they messed up Prince Caspian. But, we can never truly know what the VDT movie is like until Dec 10th. Either way, I am sure that I will enjoy it, but I think that for it to be worthy of the name "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" that they should stick as close to the story-line as possible without making the movie seem to be a snoozer for those who aren't Narnia Freaks.
And I know that you aren't infringing on people rights to express their opinions. You had the courage to tell everyone that however the movie comes out, we should enjoy it and be thankful that they are puting so much time and effort into these movies. 😀 I admire you for that.
Yes narniafan4ever, they are making the Hobbit into a movie. Two actually. The first part will be released in 2011 and the second part will be released in 2012. They are currently in pre-production, writing the script and all that good stuff.
This sounds good, BUT…. They'd better not mess with the actual events or delete a lot!!! I would be so disappointed!!
Also, Ben had better improve his accent, or the movie will likely bomb like PC!!
Aunt Letty,
It seems to me like that is exactly what this comment area is for 🙂 Even if it was for only comments before, it's definitely a discussion area now. Besides, I enjoy it!!!
I'm NOT saying that all changes are unnecessary because they are deviations. If you pay attention to what I write, what I write is that the movies should be different from the books because otherwise people will fall asleep out of the boredom. In LWW, for instance, I was not put out by the changes because it made it into a much more exciting movie. (If the Pevensies had been traveling a couple of hours ahead of the White Witch and her wolves, instead of having the dramatic river scene, it would have made it more boring, even if it was fine in the book the way it was.)
Nor was I put out with the changes in The Two Towers. The Elves marching into Helms Deep made it much more heroic, much more “last-standish.” But in the end, it was not such a big detail. As far as I recall, the Elves did not drastically change the outcome of the battle. (Although PARDON me if I am wrong, because AS I said, I have read the Narnia books many more times than LotR and I am prone to missing something.) In the end, nor it nor Haldir's death contributed anything, now did they? Hence my point: it was unnecessary. I don't think people would have missed it if it had not come. And also, if I recall correctly, Sam and Frodo should never have passed through Osgiliath at all, should they have? But LotR is a 1000-page book and a change like that isn't totally rewriting the story.
'Prince Caspian' was another issue, and as I said in a different thread, the changes were unnecessary and based more on what the filmmakers wanted to do than what they had to do because the book would work no other way to be adapted into the cinema. They wanted the book to still revolve principally around the Pevensies than around the title character, Caspian. And I can understand the changes they had to go through in making it into an adaptation: they did not want half of it to be told in flashback. But using the sequence they use in the movie, they could have kept everything in it but had the Pevensies arrive later. I would have had no objection with the castle raid IF the Pevensies had not been there, because yes, it has whatever little founding in the book it has.
Also, the filmmakers seem to be attempting to make Narnia into thriller movies, meaning there has to be a lot more action then there are in the books, correct? LotR was a thriller.
I can continue on this, but my own point happens to be: yes, films have to be changed to some extent. But if some of the changes are not there, it would still have had the same effect.
I do my honest best to keep an unbiased outlook on issues such as these, so I attempt to look at it from the filmmakers' point of view and from mine as a fan's. No changes from the book will make it absolutely boring (Have you ever seen the old cartoon The Hobbit), and to totally rewrite it is to ignore the biggest audience to the Narnia franchise, the real fans who have read the books.
Well, they should make it go smoothly but I hope that they don't mess it up to badly!
And just to prove the point…I actually ENJOYED the film version of PC. Noted the differences, acknowledged that there were certain things that might have been handled differently (or better, if you like)…and thoroughly enjoyed myself anyhow. 🙂 The book still exists, in several handsome editions, and is readily available for purchase or rent; therefore, the book has NOT been 'ruined' by an adaptation (degrees of deviations/distractions aside) of the book. 🙂 Likewise, my children note the differences, and we have discussed them sans vitriol for the filmmakers; even at ten, seven, and four years old, they, too, are able to appropriate the whys and wherefores of adaptation. They (and I) really like the film versions, and truly adore Lewis' written works. 🙂
It would seem, then, that we are at odds with what 'totally re-writing' the story means, even though you had only just previously gone to great lengths to set out your case to the contrary. This is confusing, but no more confusing than referring to LotR as a 'thriller,' when it's most definitely a 'snoozer.' 🙂
*ducks from the shower of Gondorian arrows*
And, for the record, I have, of course, read and re-read the Chronicles more times than I can actually recount; seeing as how I'm not become mentally unhinged by several of the changes made to the stories during the course of their adaptation to the cinematic format, do I still count as a 'real fan?' 🙂
*sigh* I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other of anything. And exactly what do you mean when you said I had just gone previously to great lengths to set my case to the contrary? All I said to you that I recall is that I disagree with the Elves coming to Helms Deep, because it wasn’t necessary.
I’m not all bent out of sorts over it like I was with Prince Caspian because it was NOT CHANGED AS GREATLY AS PRINCE CASPIAN. I’m not bent out over it because it is like the excitement added to LWW. And if my loyalties here are hard to define, that is because I am indeed attempting to be neutral.
If you are a Lewis fan and not an Adamson fan, you will see why the rest of us are bent out of shape. I'm amazed that 'Lion' was not changed very greatly, considering all the changes supposedly necessary in 'Caspian.'
It's okay, Fire Fairy, I'm not mad at you. Personally, I'm not mad at the writers, I'm just not fond of the directors. I didn't like Mr. Adamson's take on Narnia, and now I'm waiting to see if I'll like Mr. Apted's.
……….which puts me on edge(sorry, wrong button!).
The Lady of the Green Kirtle isn't in LWW. That's the White Witch.
The fact that you attempt to posit that one cannot be a fan of one without despising the other is all the proof that I require of the fruitlessness of continuing this conversation.
I think you've misunderstood me, or I have just been inadvertently obtuse 🙂 The very same crowd that bemoans what, in the end, amounts to the displacement of a handful of stones in Middle Earth DOES, in fact, consider it a complete re-write when Sam and Frodo pass through Osgiliath. Admittedly, I find much more in common with those that protest against that particular example because of what should be the obvious ramifications given the already-established cinematic perimeters(whew!) than with the very vocal group that simply likes to complain over-long that the entire production is ruined because of such an obvious adaption-related misstep.
Your insistence upon lending credibility to not only the authorial intent (which should go without saying), but also to the filmmakers that diligently strive to maintain the same air while wrestling with notions of compressed narrative and other perils of adaptation, go along way to prove that we aren't enemies after all (though, regrettably, I cannot speak for everyone here in that regard!)
We ALL want it to be great; the difficulty, then, is sifting through exactly what that means, and I appreciate your candor and honesty in doing so.
Obviously.
I appreciate yours as well. Everyone's opinions will be different, and unfortunately it turns quite complicated. We are all entitled to our own opinions.
I think I agree. As I indirectly hinted elsewhere, I don't think that all the changes are the writers' responsibility. It IS the director's as well.
Who is producing it?
Oh, and I'm sorry for the amount of irritation which may have gotten through to you. The thing is, this all turns into such a heated debate. I'm certain that you like the books just as much as I do, we just have different ways of looking at it.
spill, spill!
they didnt bomb that bad…
It's no problem, really 🙂 Very often, it's easy to read something of a tone into cold, hard text that may not even be there; then again…seriously, I'm just not ready to throw it all away based upon speculation and hearsay. I get enough of that with fellow comic-book 'purists' that insist that the Spider-Man films are absolute feces because of this exact type of mind-numbing nit-picking. The big nits may need to be picked, I will grant that…but the little ones are of no consequence (whether they tend to add or detract from the source material). I find it increasingly easier to enjoy a film adaptation for what it is, not dump on it for what it fails to be (unless the failure is EPIC in scope, purpose, and scored poorly to boot).
Thanks 🙂
$420 million between Iron Man and Indiana Jones and being ranked the 10th highest grossing film worldwide in 2008 hardly equates bombing. Disappointing or less than expected? Probably. But bombing? I wouldn't think so.
The implication in SC is that she's of the same 'stock' as Jadis but the Lady of the Green Kirtle isn't Jadis herself.
In my opinion you do. I couldn't help but feel pinged when you mentioned comic book purists. I feel like comic adaptations are even harder than book ones because there's a visual element some fans expect to stay the same. Yet several comic book movies have been a huge hit anyway. The Dark Knight was a huge success while borrowing elements from several bits of Batman history. It still wove an enjoyable Batman story. Constantine rewrote a storyline and dramatically altered the entire setting of Hellblazer, far more than both Narnia movies combined, but I suppose it didn't get as much flack as other adaptations because not enough people are loyal to Hellblazer or even know what Hellblazer is to begin with. Yet it brought attention to the comic anyway, just as Watchmen brought interest back to the comic. Are those new fans worth any less than someone whose first exposure was the original? It just goes back to what you mentioned about feeling nominal.
Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh are producing it. Guillermo del Toro is directing it and Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro and Phillipa Boyens are writing the screenplay. So even though there is a different director, pretty much everybody that was involved in LOTR is going to play some part in the production of it. I'm am really excited about it! 😀
It has been suggested by people that the White Witch and the Lady of the Green Kirtle are the same person. I have never thought that and still don't, but i guess i could see why people would want to think that.
oh wow! That is really exciting to here! Are they using the same actors as they did for the LoTR? I sure hope they do. Of course the only one that they really need to keep was Andy Serkis, and the guy who played Bilbo (???) and the guy who played Gandalf.
Wow, now I have two movies to look forward to! 😀
I dont think that he meant money wise.
I so agree with you Fire Fairy. I think about Narnia everyday of my life i even dream Narnia. Yeah i know my friends think i'm crazy but oh well!:)
I would absolutely hate if they changed a lot. My favorite Narnia book is The Magicians Nephew, and I really really want them to make that a movie. Who's with me?
I think that it is the white witch at heart. I think she represents Satan. He has been defeated by Jesus, but he is still trying to take over the world, only he comes in different forms. Same with the white witch. She was defeated when Aslan rose from the dead, but she is still allowed to live on earth, only she appears in different forms (sometimes trying to appear good on the surface) trying to deceive as many as possible. But she is eventually defeated in the Last Battle, only I think that she is in a different form again (that weird Tash-lan character). idk. I guess everyone has different views when it comes to this, but this is how I have always viewed it. 🙂
Ian McKellen has already said that he definitely wants to come back for the role of Gandalf and I think Andy Serkis has expressed interest in reprising his role as well. Hugo Weaving is also rumored to be playing Elrond again. But it would be nearly impossible for Ian Holm to play Bilbo. He is 78 years old and the character of Bilbo in The Hobbit is supposed to be around Frodo's age in LOTR. But I think that they will get an equal talented actor to play Bilbo and that it will still be amazing. 😀