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!
Wow, I didn't realize that he was getting that old. haha. Well, I just hope they make sure the actor looks alot like the old Bilbo…only a younger version…. 🙂
There is probably a connection in The name of Aslan. In the very end of the VOD book, Aslan mentions to Edmund, Lucy and Eustus that he has another name here in our world. I wonder if Lewis put in Jesus' name indirectly.
I also agree with Fire Fly.
The reason I think the Narnia books, tapes and now movies are such great fun is because I think there is a connection between the people of Narnia and Christions and a connection between Aslan and Jesus.
They can't do anything to bad, he said they took something from one of the later books.
I have never seen it that way because then it is like two equal opposites. Aslan on one side and the White Witch on the other. Like how people think it is God on one side and the Devil on the other. I don't think it is that way because God is on the top by himself and he created everything including the devil and everything God created was good. The good was then perverted and things were used in ways they were not meant to be used and that is evil. Evil is not on one side and good on the other. Evil is a perversion of good things.
I don't want to give evil that power because if it is an opposite that is equal to God then either choice is valid and then all of morality breaks down. There is no right and wrong.
I hear what you are saying in making the White Witch the ultimate bad guy and i do agree that her evil is very like the evil that the Lady of the Green Kirtle did and that Tashlaan did, where they were trying to set themselves up as the 'real' ruler. I just think that they are separate individuals committing the same evil.
decarus,
I believe that God created Lucifer. But he became Satan because of his free will and his choices.
Yes, God is "on top". He is the Great Ruler. But Satan has always been jealous of that power and His position that He is always trying to get it. That is why he[Satan] was cast to the earth with a third of the angels that he has deceived. God is definitely more powerful than Satan. That is for sure. But Satan also has more power than some of us realize. Satan cannot create. He can only re-create and distort things. But I think that there was evil at the beginning of the world. If their wasn't, then there wouldn't have been free will and a choice. The angels along with Adam and Eve had a free will. Sadly, some Adam and Eve made the bad choice and were banished as a result. Sin means death. Since they knew what Good and Evil were, they would have that choice. And because of it, they could no longer be allowed to eat from the tree of life.
So, I see what you are saying, but I think that whatever is good, holy, admirable…(everything mentioned in Philippians 4:8) Is of God. Everything else is of Satan. So, yes they are opposites. But not equal. Just because they are opposites doesn't mean they are equal.
But as far as the White Witch and the Lady of the Green Kirtle being the same person, I am still thinking that they are the same person, just in different forms.
This is just my personal opinion. Please respond cause I would like to know what you think about this. 😀
decarus,
one more thing….Do you believe that there is no right and wrong? Or were you saying that as a result of morality breaking is that there is no right and wrong? I am just curious.
Also, when I said that God created Lucifer, God created his very beautiful, and very powerful. He was the "second in command" pretty much. (that is, highest AFTER God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit)
Again, I would like it if you would respond to my comments cause I would love to continue discussing this issue. 😀 God bless.
I like the idea of her appearing in different forms. However it's not supported by Lewis's text. SC refers to her as "maybe being one of the same crew" as the White Witch, and then it goes on to talk about how the Northern Witches always have a different plan for taking over Narnia.
I entered in "Lady of the green Kirtle" on Wikipedia, and this is what Wikipedia says about it:
"The story never makes clear who the Green Lady really is or where she comes from. Some readers believe that the White Witch (Jadis) and the Lady of The Green Kirtle are the same person; Jadis, however, is slain by Aslan several hundred years earlier in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
The source of the speculation is probably the set of character sketches included in later editions of the books: the sketch for Jadis describes her as "completely evil, even in The Silver Chair." Since it is the Lady of the Green Kirtle who appears in The Silver Chair, some conclude that this must refer to the Green Lady. The character sketches, however, are recent additions to the books; they were not written by Lewis, and, in this regard, are not supported by Lewis's text.
The BBC cast the same actress for both roles in their TV adaptations. This choice was due at least in part to the limited budget of the TV productions;[citation needed] several other actors were also cast in multiple roles to save money.
The mechanics of how Jadis could return are never made clear, since she is killed at the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, her last appearance in the books except for the prequel The Magician's Nephew. In Prince Caspian, Nikabrik and his companions suggest that the White Witch could be resurrected — "who ever heard of a witch that really died?" In Lewis's text this plan is never put to the test, though the Disney film adaptation introduces a ritual that begins to pull Jadis back to life before the spell is broken."
what was wrong with Ben's accent? it wasnt supposed to be Spanish or Italian or Mexican or South Amercan, it was supposed to be Telmarine, which the production team decided that it would be a blur of all these Hispanic-type accents but would still be understandably English. they were going for the Hispanic LILT and not a full blown, hard accent.
that was part of the reason why it was so difficult to cast Prince Caspian in the first place. so many Hispanic young actors and very few of them could be speak intelligible English. in ticks me off a bit that Ben gets the brunt of the accent criticism but if you listen to the rest of the Telmarine actors they sound just like him.
because they still want you to see the movie. even if there arent any changes from the book, seeing something for the first time up on the bigscreen gives a novelty that spoilers take away.
I should clarify that I do think one can like both the movies and the books, as you do; but PC is a bad exception. PC I do despise; even if not compared to the book it is fine. I loved LWW, and I liked Adamson's take then. But then he took too many creative liberties with the sequel for my taste. But that's my last note to clarify.
I don't know if anyone saw the article on aslanscountry.com that what Ben Barnes is referring to might have to do with the leaked script — in which they sail on to save the lost souls of Narnia from the Green Witch!
The line that made me want to throw my drink at the screen was 'maybe we need to prove ourselves to him'. That is just nonsense. I know so many people that think they are not good enough to come to church and the thing is you don't have to be good whatever good is. We are all lawbreakers. 'For it is by grace you were saved, through faith – not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not by works, so no one can boast.'
This is the biggest change of Aslan's character that he expects that the kids do something for him to help them in the film. He expects them to prove themselves to him and then come to him before he will help them. That is so not the character of God.
Agreed! 😀
thats funny LOL
OMG! If they did that I would be so mad. I think most fans were very gracious and tried not to freak out too much about the changes made in PC but the filmmakers are treading on thin ice right now. That isn't even in any of the books. It would be absolutely horrible! Please Walden Media if you Can hear me, DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!
what he is saying is that they are going to change the plot – again. its going to suck like PC
i agree with you Lucy the Valiant. Magicians Nephew would make a wicked movie 🙂
Yes, in the book Lewis referred to the Lady of the Green Kirtle as "one of the same crew", through the mouth of a character (Puddleglum, I believe) and clearly intended her to be a separate individual from Jadis. To me, she seemed a somewhat diminished version of Jadis, as well. I've always thought of her as more of a follower of Jadis, although that is just my impression. Where she comes from is anyone's guess, but that demonstrates one of the many things that I love about the Narnia stories; the vast amount of material that is only barely hinted at. I get the feeling that these could have been every bit as complex and richly structured as Tolkien's works, if Lewis' bent had been in that direction, but it wasn't. I'm sort of surprised that the filmmakers haven't dug into the loads of potential story-behind-the-story that is present in CofN, (often with not more than a sentence,or even a phrase to suggest it). I'm also glad that they haven't; it could get disastrously ugly.
I think, from what I've read of the comments here, most of us really just want to see a movie that's true to the spirit of the book, but also we all have our favorite moments that we'd like to see happen on film. Of course, on the second point, some of us will be dissapointed in the theater. It's bound to happen.
Staying true to the themes and spirit of the story, though, is the key to it's "marketability", in my opinion. Those are the things that make the books such a durable classic that many of us are now reading them to our children and grandchildren (at least, I hope I'm not the only one here old enough to say that…). I've always been puzzled by what seems to me to be a prevailing attitude on the part of some filmmakers, that in order for a classic work to be marketable, it has to be "updated" or "faster paced" or otherwise changed so that it's no longer the same story in its essence. When those kinds of changes alter the mood or the themes of the story, it strangles the very thing that made it loveable enough to have a market in the first place. Of course, sometimes it creates a whole new market for the new product that they've created. It doesn't seem to me that the CofN films so far have been in that category, though.
I can live with and even admire all sorts of changes on film to a beloved story, if those changes end up serving the spirit of the book. I know how difficult it can be to rewrite a story in a different format (such as turning a short short story into a novella, for instance) and keep it the same story. If the writers and director can "prove" to me that their change supports the original intent of the story in a new way, then I'm willing to nod and say "ok".
As one example, I was just saddened when Peter started behaving so rashly and enviously in PC. That isn't the Peter I know from the books. But then, I realized in a way it still was. Peter loves Narnia and the Narnians in the "old king" manner, in that he would give his life in their service and defense (think about what King Lune tells Shasta about the nature of kingship: Peter is the ultimate of that) He comes back to Narnia to find that the Telmarines have conquered and destroyed much of "his" land and people (creatures). It must be somewhat like a mom coming home to find that the babysitter has abused her kids. Peter feels guilt and rage and a driving need to make it right. In the book, this is only subtly hinted at. There is no real internal conflict explored, certainly there isn't any conflict with Caspian, and I was disturbed by the fact that there is in the film. But, I can see why the filmmakers felt that those elements strengthened the story of Peter as the kind of king he is in the books. It does become all the more satisfying when he hazards his own body for the sake of buying them some time (the duel).
I may not have written him that way myself if given the chance. I like him to be someone who pretty much always does the right thing. But, I see how their way still tells the story of the King Peter in the books, just with a character journey to add dimension.
My hat is off to the team that created the first two films for a difficult job well done, though I understand why not everyone here agrees with that view of things.
And I understand if you all want to kick me off this site for being too longwinded. Sheesh!
I'm not sure I like stealing, but as long as it is from the other books, I can't imagine it could be all that bad, could it? Unless they took something which would make a movie of that other book, (whichever it may be)not work, then I would be quite put out! 🙂
It always confuses me when people focus on Peter's internal conflict as being out of character when towards the end of the movie he comes around to being a great king again. Did everyone forget the last half of the movie? Too many people are quick to dismiss that he had a character growth arc in the movie, something from which he learned, and that to me makes Peter not only a good king but also a realistic person. He makes mistakes, he has flaws, but in the end of PC we learn that he can rise up from that. Some people may argue that that's unnecessary, not only because it's not in the book but also because that makes Peter not perfect. He is a Son of Adam though and by Aslan's own words that's enough to humble the greatest emperor or raise the head of the lowest peasant. That message came out strongly to me in PC and Peter is an example. Caspian sparing Miraz is one of my most favorite scenes in the movie, proving that good kings are not born, they are made. It may not have been in the book but I can see it being a related theme.
I don't think that freewill or choice is in and of itself evil. I think that God created us with freewill and choice from the very beginning. The trees always existed. Choice in and of itself is not evil. I don't think there is Good and Evil as separate opposites. I don't think evil existed on earth before the choice to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Evil is not something separate that just exists out there. Evil is pain and suffering. There is only Good and evil is a distortion of the good.
I don't think that all evil belongs to Satan. I think our evil is our own: personal evil, societal evil, and humanities evil. I think I disagree that Satan has always been jealous of God's power and position. I just don't think that is something we can know. I am not sure we know enough in general about the fall of Satan. I do think that demons and Satan can impact the world, but much in the way the Snake whispered into Eves ear, it does not take away the responsibility we ourselves have for the evil we do.
I do believe that there is right and wrong. If God is on one side with Good, and Satan is on one side with Evil, then that makes both choices equally valid which they are not. The reason they are not is because God exists on top and all that he created was good, but through choice we did evil, by distorting the good things and doing evil with them. This does not make choice in and of itself wrong because without choice we could also not choose to do good. There would be no love without choice.
I very much like the changes they made to Prince Caspian except for a few. The Peter/Caspian conflict was a little annoying and the Caspian/Susan thing a little silly. But seriously if you think about it, in real life an older teenage boy might have trouble with being jealous and a teenage girl might have a crush on a handsome prince on a horse. So I think the studio was just trying to make it a little more realistic. And seriously looking at the Peter & Miraz fight in a boxing ring style as in the book, that would have been boring. And think of all the lengthy explaination some character in would have to come up with about the wine god on the donkey, and the boy and his wild girls that are in the book. That seriously would have just been a little weird, so I'm glad they took that out. I glad for some changes to the VDT plot, it will make it fresh and new. After all word for word might not work well on screen.
aunt letty, I read your comment and I fully agree with you.
The things Peter had to deal with both physicaly and mentally are emotions and concepts hard to write into a story or put on a screen….and yet they did.
I agree! Choice and free will are good things. But it is when you choose the wrong thing is when bad things happen. Kind of like temptation. When you are tempted to do something wrong, it isn't until you follow that temptation that you are sinning.
Sorry about the confusion with what I said about evil always being around. I was wrong. As it says in Romans 5, "by one man, sin entered the world…" So, it wasn't until Eve fell into temptation and ate the fruit when sin entered the world.
Yes, we can know if Satan has been jealous of God's throne and position. Look in Isaiah 14:12-20. That talks about Lucifer and when he was cast to earth.
And I agree with you in that we are definitely responsible of our own sin. It is a result of what happened in the garden of Eden and now we all have a sin nature. Man is not basically good, but has sin in them. You don't have to teach a little child to lie….You need to teach them not to lie and to tell the truth.
Now, I don't think I quite agree with your last paragraph. Yes, I also believe that there is a right and wrong. Good and Evil. But I don't understand what you mean by making the choices between the two "equally valid". Could you help me understand?
What is your favorite moment in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the one that you most want to see happen on film?
I think, for me it would be that moment when Bern and Drinian throw Gumpas' table over and put Caspian in his place. I loved that as a kid and I still love it. Its the sort of thing that never works in real life but is so satisfying on the page.
What about everyone else?
Well, I think that I really like the part where Eustace meets Aslan while he is still a dragon and he has to shed his scales. The best part is when Aslan has to thoroughly cleanse him. *sigh* That is probably my favorite part. 😀
I absolutely agree narniafan4ever. It is such a beautiful symbolism of how on our own we will never be able to be completely clean; we must allow Jesus to cleanse us. It is truly one of Lewis' best and most powerful allegories.
I continue to find it entertaining when folks here insist that the LotR films were concretely faithful to Tolkien's written work; if I were of a desire to be a 9th degree black-belt in anal-retentive nit-picking, I could shred that notion fairly simply (albeit with a list as long as my arm!).
But why would I? Why would I not simply satisfy myself with what the filmmakers HAVE done, in an adaptive format, than go all foamy over what they FAILED to provide? Granted, I'm a much bigger Narnia fan than that of all things Middle Earth, but the point remains the same.
Fanboys, after a point, need to make it a point not to ACT like fanboys (or girls) in order to simultaneously remain civil and respectfully enjoy another's take on a given story/character. Otherwise, I'm afraid that all they have in store for them is an ongoing and acute case of ringworm!
That is shy it is my favorite…lol
That is WHY it is my favorite….I hate typos….lol
I really disliked the duel in PC. I mean it was one of the things in the book that i thought was very exciting. Here is High King Peter fighting for his country in a one on one duel against the Usurper Miraz. It wasn't good enough in the film. They hardly even used their swords. It was mostly just them swinging wildly at each other or ramming their shields at each other or swinging their feet around wildly. It didn't seem like two people who really knew how to use a sword.
I mean think of the great duels in films: Hector verses Achilles in Troy, Anakin verses Obi-wan in Star Wars, Westly verses Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. If anything, for me, the small duels in PC were both better with Edmund and the DLF and Peter and Caspian and then the big duel between Peter and Miraz which was, for me, so disappointing.
That is one of my favorite parts too, but I was thinking of those parts that might survive the transition to film.
Unlike those ot
I hope this didn't get posted twice…I MEANT to say:
Unlike those other duels in film history, I was actually convinced that Peter and Miraz were trying to kill each other. It may be due to the fact that William and Sergio did their own stunts for that fight. And the choreography was also quite fitting for broadsword/cut and thrust and a shieldplay. They used everything at their disposal from the rocks in the arena to causing injury by disarming. And of course, my favorite part, Peter punching Miraz's leg wound with the gauntleted fist. I consider those other duels to be dances; well choreographed steps but otherwise not really the way an actual fight would go. To Achilles' credit, in his case that may be because he was convinced from start to finish that he could kill Hector.
I'm in such absolute agreement with you. I could pick and pick and pick at comic book movies until the cows come home. The list of "trespasses" could be so long, but like you I just don't feel some of those things are worth criticizing as a travesty towards the source material. I guess where Narnia is concerned a connection to a fan's childhood makes it more sacred, in which case I feel like those people can't be pleased because it must be done "only the right way" and the "right way" will still vary from fan to fan because everyone interprets words on the page differently.
Wyldeirishman – about LotR, I know what you mean. As I've said, I'm not so much a LotR expert, and I like Narnia better. I don't really like it when people continually compare Narnia to LotR as the standard to hold the movies up to. (They are really different in flavor, and Narnia is NOT Middle Earth. But that's getting off-topic slightly.)
As mentioned in our other conversations, there are really a lot of changes in LotR that people have simply failed to notice. I think people are swept so away in the grandeur and epic stuff of Middle-Earth that they don't notice the changes (As I also could list a TON of nitpicking in errors)! My point: LotR movies are not as solid on the book as many may like.
This is basically an agreement with you. 🙂
All film duels look like choreographed steps too me even the one in PC. I just really felt like Peter didn't even know how to use a sword which i dislike. I almost felt like he was just swinging it around wildly. I don't think that felt real to me at all. I also think i disagree that it looked like they were trying to kill each other because they were just wildly swinging their swords and not even trying to get under each others guard or anything. It was more like they were trying to beat each other up and the cheesy moment when Peter stabbed Miraz and then he ended up not even being hurt.
I also completely disagree that Hector and Achilles or Anakin and Obi-wan didn't look like they were trying to kill each other. For me, both of those duels are much more hardcore then the one in PC and i know for a fact that the two that played Anakin and Obi-wan did their own stunts and it was them fighting in Star Wars 3. I am not positive about Troy, but i remember a behind the scenes where the two actors were talking about the fight. I would have to look at that again.
I do agree that Westly and Inigo Montoya didn't look like they were trying to kill each other, but it was still great sword play and that film in general is trying to be funny and not a hardcore fighting film. I think it is because i enjoy sword play and not just trying to beat each other to death. In a one on one duel i think there would be more sword play then just hacking at each other.
The low point of the duel, for me, was the slow motion. It took away from the fast paced action of the scene.
Which stab? Do you mean the very last one? I think Peter's disarming Miraz then turning to stab him with his own sword was a tribute to the duel in the book, where Peter draws first blood by stabbing an open area in Miraz's hauberk, his armpit if I recall correctly.
You're right that both the Star Wars and Troy duels were performed by the actors themselves which is always a plus to me, but I feel like the SW and Troy duels were not to the death. I can excuse Achilles because well, he's Achilles, he isn't supposed to show fear or weakness. I think the fight between Achilles and Hector was much more in line with the fight between Jadis and Peter. Achilles and Jadis both fought with an obvious notion they were going to win. Peter fought like Hector, much more hack and slash than the fluid predator-like motions of Jadis and Achilles. In both cases, Hector and Peter were doomed from the start which I think is both in character and definitely canon. For Peter and Miraz however, I don't think Miraz was ever supposed to come off anywhere near as predatory as Jadis, yet I found their fight to be more realistic and rough because people actually got hurt in it, or rather they managed to land their blows as opposed to dancing around each other and stalemating. It's a medieval sword fight, that's how it's done in the SCA, and I'm of the opinion hack and slash is completely Peter's style. I loved that after the respite, Peter aimed his sword straight for Miraz's face!
You are right though that the duel was lacking in primary focus on sword-to-sword involvement but I think that's the way it was supposed to be. I totally agree with you about the slow motion. I felt like the slow motion came out of nowhere in the middle of the scene. It interrupted the pacing of the fight.
Aunt Letty,
Are you saying that it wouldn't be in the film?
I really liked that part too! I also really enjoyed the Dark Island scene. It shows how close Lucy is to Aslan, and how he helps them when they call on him.
It is very difficult to explain what I mean, but I will have another go at it.
If there is Good out there that just is and Evil out there that just is then you could strive for either good or evil. Both choices would be equally valid. We couldn't suggest that striving for Good is what people should do if there was no moral truth upon which right and wrong are based. God is that moral truth. God is good and before there was anything else there was God and he was good. He created us and gave us freewill. Through are choices we did evil. It is in that moment that we caused pain and suffering which is evil. Evil is pain and suffering. Before that moment there was no evil in the world. We distorted the good by doing evil with things God created for good. If there was Evil out there that always was and was equal to the Good then both choices would be valid. The thing is evil isn't anything it is only the distortion of good. It is only a distortion. If Evil was something that was then it would be a valid choice, but it is nothing. Good is something that is and always was and that is why it is the correct choice and why evil is not. Good has always existed, but evil has not.
I do agree that at one point Satan was jealous of God, but I am not certain we can know that he was always jealous of God. I am also unsure whether that passage is talking about Satan. I really don't think we can know enough about that and maybe I don't think it is important because what is important is our choices. We are responsible for our evil, we are responsibility for our societies evil, and we are responsible for humanity's evil. Though I am not saying Satan is not real or that he does not impact our world in some way, but, as I said, he impacts the world through temptation and does not in any way take away from our full responsibility for our actions.
I assume by Green witch you mean the Green lady from "silver chair". If this is correct, why would they include her in VoDT?? Her character belongs in SC and is never mentioned in VoDT.
Stop the presses!!! 🙂
totn: Thanks! It doesn't win me any prizes, to be sure, but that is exactly the way I feel, and you appear to understand perfectly! There are (and remain) things within all of the various comic book adaptations that I would have either liked to see handled differently, or that WERE handled completely accurately and just didn't translate well onscreen. (The exception to either of these is the film version of 'Daredevil,' which should never have been allowed to get past the script editing phase :P) Mostly, however, they maintain the spirit, if not the actual letter, of their source material, and I can ill-afford the time (or stomach cramps) for the rampant cynicism that so over-plagues today's film-going audience.
Arya: again, my thanks. The prominent examples of both the LotR and HP films should continue to suffice as excellent examples of work adapted from marvelous source material (though there's no accounting for taste, as I know plenty of folks that don't care for one or the other…or either!). After a time, I sincerely believe that the degree of outcry over such things must be measured against the principle of subjectivity that colors all of our memories, thoughts, and feelings when juxtaposed to that of another equally passionate fan. The most recent Spider-Man film was, for my circle of nerds, a perfect example of this, as I have always found Venom (that's the black-clad Spider-Man villain, in case you didn't know) to be the most singularly overrated character in the web-slinger's orbit, and I was thrilled that his on-screen incarnation didn't survive the single film that he appeared in. I mean it: I was literally giddy; my friends were less than thrilled, however, and many of them took to the personal verbal thrashing that you see so often in many an on-line forum, to the point of disparaging the entire picture's worth. I can certainly respect the genuine differences of opinion when they surface (and, as we have noted, they most obviously will), but I don't think it's too much to ask that the respective connoisseurs be grown-up when discussing things that bring such child-like joy 🙂
Okay, I understand now. And I agree with you on the good and evil thing. I think we were both essentially saying the same thing, only in different words.
And I don't think that Satan has ALWAYS been jealous of God's positions and power, but he has been jealous ever since the day he schemed to become as great as God.
As far as those verses go, Satan is referred to in the Bible as the Prince of this World or son of the morning. So, it is definitely talking about Satan. Satan WAS Lucifer, as beautiful and powerful being until he became Satan through his own actions.
I'm with you Lu!!
No, sorry, what I meant was that I don't see it as something that will translate successfully to film. Possibly it will be in the film, I just don't expect to find it satisfying, based on how some similar key moments went down in the previous films. Maybe that's just me trying to lower my expectations so as not to be dissapointed.
oh, yes, I'd forgotten that part. Another bit that I think has strong potential for film is the scene where Lucy is reading her own "life" in the magician's book. That one could translate well onto film, I expect.
I think that if they don't do this scene it won't be because they can't translate it well onto film, but because it is almost too strong of an allegory. I could see that scene making Hollywood uncomfortable. Bu they did it in the BBC version and even thought it wasn't "high-tech" so to speak it was still powerful. That scene aside, I really don't want them to mess up the Death Water Island scene, or the mermaid people scene. But we'll see what they will do..
I also am excited to see the scene where she is reading the part about herself, especially the part where she is jelous; I hope that makes it into the movie.
I sure hope they don't change those scenes because it makes them uncomfortable! That is a really lame excuse, no offense to Hollywood…..
Narniafan: I agree that it is a very lame excuse but it's so Hollywood. They don't like things that suggest they can't do it on their own. They don't like the idea that they need someone greater, higher, more powerful than themselves to survive. Hence, they tend to ignore those sorts of things. Sad but true. God makes them uncomfortable.
On NarniaFans.com, some people are talking about the possibility that the Green Witch will be in VDT. She'll be trying to steal the souls of children, but Caspian will foil her plot. In revenge, she kills his wife in SC. What do all of you think about this? I don't really like it myself, but I wanted to know what some of your thoughts on it are.
Yes, I heard about that. It was hinted in one of the articles on aslanscountry.com. I don't like the idea because it sounds SOO creepy and I don't think there's anything in VDT to even HINT at such a thing.
On one hand, I think it would be interesting to see the Witch's plan more than ten years in the making. But on the other hand, I think this "Witch" stuff is getting overused by the filmmakers if it turns out to be the case.
The conclusion I make (I won't say "my point" because somebody hinted I overuse it) is that I really don't like it. VDT isn't meant to be creepy, like SC and LB are. I like added elements to a story (in some cases anyway) to make it more interesting but…not this. I don't even see how it would fit in to finding the seven lords anyway.
I love that scene, narniafan4ever. I love the symbolism it shows. However, I have a horrible inkling it will never make it into the movie. Think of PC: Aslan was in maybe 5 minutes of it total. The entire scene with him and the girls traveling around Narnia in a joyous company was cut. *sigh* Maybe, just maybe, this new director will set things right.
dont get me wrong, i too love narnia
huh. Does anyone have any idea as to the veracity of that rumor? There is so much to work with in the original story, so many directions they can go with it, without inventing like that. I hope it's not true.
I just thought of another moment in the story that will be even better on film; the part where the painting comes to life and they fall through. I love the way it reads and I'd love to see it onscreen.
yes, I like how that adds further dimension to Lucy's character. I think I like her even better, knowing that about her.
I think that would be really creepy and weird. It's not anything like the book, and, seriously, 'stealing the souls of the children'? Puh-leeze.