Micheal Flaherty on Dawn Treader’s Box Office and the Undragoning
Just in time for today’s Blu-ray/DVD release of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, ChristianityToday has posted an interview with Micheal Flaherty, Walden Media president. Flaherty reiterates that they are making The Magician’s Nephew next because they believe it will draw the largest audience. When asked about Dawn Treader‘s box office performance, he says “international box office was so strong—three times the domestic. We always look at these things from the international standpoint, that cumulative number.” At the end, he says they take the opinions of the “Narnia police” most seriously.
A couple highlights:
On the undragoning: “What’s interesting is that when you read the book, you actually don’t see that scene; Eustace just recounts it when he gets back in the boat. We wanted to show it, but what we ended up doing was reinforcing that message when Eustace says later, “No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t do it myself. And then he came towards me. It was a good hurt.” Visually, I was pleased with it. But yes, there was a response where people wanted to see lion paw firmly placed in dragon flesh and ripping it off. That was a common disappointment.”
On Aslan’s dialogue at the world’s end: “With all the Aslan parts, particularly the dialogue, there’s always a very spirited and healthy discussion, and generally any time there’s a discussion, the tie goes to C. S. Lewis. So we always come to the agreement, ‘Listen, let’s not think that we can reinterpret this and do a better job than Lewis. If we disagree about this, if people think there are different ways to say this, let’s just make sure we preserve what Lewis said.’ That’s a mistake we made with Prince Caspian, where we changed Aslan’s dialogue with Lucy.”
Soon; all will be lost. . . . .
Is that you playing just one time, or did you record yourself a couple different times then put it all togeather?
i just wanted to know how dvd sales went on vodt having read the comments–i like non-negotiables comments except i think each successive film better than the previous i cant speak for the illiteracy of the american movie public i didnt cause it the films are worth the cash good investors should consider it a series francis schaeffer would probably approve and be proud to support it with their artistic time thank you
I LOVE Narnia, sorta read LOTR, never got in to LOTR(not my thing), so I must agree that Narnia is WAY better than LOTR. 😛
@ farsight-mssngr
I agree, start CASTING, CASTING, CASTING!!! 😀
LOL…I have 2 younger siblings(a pain but I love them), so fingers crossed for VDT on DVD! 🙂
The question regarding the end should have been why was the entire end of the movie different from the book? I waited years to see the end translated into film and what was made was not the same. It made me glum.
Recorded multiple parts and then put it all together 😉
I totally agree with Tedc I was a little bummed out about the movie
UHHHH. Narnia on Easter. I Hope that Narnia fans will watch Narnia this holy week and this easter in their dvd's or blu-ray's! Narnia will be a very great movie this holy week and easter. Can't wait for "The Magician's Nephew"! rather than LOTR cause Narnia films teaches us great education and it can bring us closer to GOD ( IF we read the books deeper and watch the movies deeper). They must satrt casting, producing, and as well as FILMING! HAven't anyone of you see C.S. Lewis' 'A year with Aslan' book? It's really great book. I think it's now out at bookstores! LONGING FOR MN! GO FURTHER UP AND FURTHER IN!
[Anhun rolls up her sleeves] Well it looks like I have 3 points to counter-argue, so I'll start with the most absurd.
1. Non-negotiable said "Digory learns to accept that certain things are outside of his control."
If anything, the book has the opposite message. Life is full of choices. There are many points in the story where Digory has the power to make choices that will ultimately have a profound effect on him and the people he knows. In Charn, he has the choice to satisfy his curiosity about the bell, or to leave it be and return to the Wood. Against Polly's advice, he chooses to ring the bell, and he gets exactly what he wants. But there are repercussions . . .
In Narnia, Digory has the choice to take the apple illicitly and give it to his mother, curing her of her cancer. He could have had exactly what he wanted, but as Aslan later explains, there would have been grave repercussions, yet again. Digory decides to have faith in Aslan, and do the right thing for the creatures of Narnia.
While, the idea of resignation in situations that are beyond your control is important, that is not remotely what the book is about. Choosing to do the right thing when "immoral short cuts" seem so much more appealing is something else altogether. In fact it is worth noting that if Digory was resigned to his mother's death, he would never have considered that he could find the Land of Youth, he would not have gone exploring in other worlds, and he would never have found his way to Narnia.
2. Shelly said "It looks pretty easy to me."
In any film, it is important to have an emotional thread. A character, a relationship, or some purpose that takes you from the beginning to the end. Now LWW, SC, and HHB are comparatively easy to adapt (on the script-writing end), because they have all three.
MN, the book, is purely character-driven. Now, that in and of itself, does not spell doom for a film adaptation. There are plenty of wonderful films that focus on a character, rather than a "quest" or a relationship. Here's the problem: getting the audiences to focus on that character. While the book is told in 3rd person limited from Digory's perspective and, thus, never loses sight of the emotional thread of Digory's inner battles, that sense of perspective is much harder to achieve in film, particularly when the character spends so much of the book on the sidelines watching what's going on.
Consider what would happen if the film-makers took a purely literal interpretation of the action and dialog of the book:
We start out the film, and are introduced to Digory and his situation. Audiences become emotionally invested in Digory, and want to see what happens to him. They follow his adventures until he gets to Charn and awakens Jadis from stasis. From the time Jadis comes on the scene, she completely dominates the action and dialog of the book, while Digory is quickly reduced to an overawed observer. In the film version this means that the film will suddenly become "Jadis story." The film will continue to focus on Jadis until everyone arrives in Narnia. Then, like that, it suddenly becomes the story of Aslan and Narnia. Aslan dominates the proceedings until he charges Digory with the task of retrieving the apple. Then, it becomes Digory's story again. This dramatic, periodic shifting in focus will leave audiences with nothing to hang onto emotionally. For much of the film, Digory will be reduced to a "green mist" if you will, a flimsy device connecting random, unrelated events.
Now, a number of people have mentioned that MN would include a lot of amazing visuals. This is true, but interesting visuals do not in and of themselves sell a movie. It has to come together and make sense.
Basically, in order to make a version of the film that makes sense and is faithful to the spirit of the book, they will have to make additions and or alterations in order to ensure that the audience stays with Digory. That in and of itself is a potential minefield, particularly if you consider how they handled Peter in PC. Seriously, you don't have to be a "rebel without a cause" in order to have psychological depth.
3. "Your complete defeatism at this point is ridiculous."
It's not defeatism, it's realism. So far, every one of the the Walden Narnia films has been told in an epic/quest style of storytelling. Every. Single. One.
Now, in the case of LWW, it kind of worked. The story is pretty straightforward, and the magic and uniqueness of the original book was able to shine through, so that the film rose far above generic fantasy. PC wasn't, in my opinion, nearly as good as LWW, but I don't think the epic treatment was to blame for that. In the case of VDT, it did not fit at all. While I don't think VDT had the potential to be a great film, it could have been much better if they weren't trying to fit it into a generic mold. If they thought VDT could be reworked into a standard quest story, what's to stop them from trying the same with MN?
how about the 12" disco mega-mix!!:)
this is the official reason why, they decided to make a narnia sereis reching out to the secular audience , hence the christian symbolism has been intentionally watered down.
I was a little disappointed to hear that they weren't making Silver Chair next. However, when they said that they were going to make Magicians Nephew, I got kind of excited. I think there are alot of fantastic images in the MN book, I just hope that they can translate it well to screen.
Anybody checked the numbers lately? VDT is trailing just behind PC now, only $4 mill left and the score is even. It's the little ship that kept sailing. I loved both movies though, great entertainment and good moral.
I don't know, Anhun…
It seems to me that declaring complete and utter defeat without even considering the possibility of how something can be accomplished is far more "absurd" than any of the points I've brought forward. But, I'll leave that to others to decide.
"If anything, the book has the opposite message. Life is full of choices."
The exercising of free will is NOT the same thing as being "in control". That's the most dangerous tenet of humanism: that the power to solve our problems is WITHIN us, and is manifested through what WE choose. Baloney. Enlightenment comes with SUBMISSION to God's will. In the garden, Digory witnesses the effect of Jadis' free choice to steal and consume the apple. He doesn't know, exactly, how she will suffer because of it, but he knows that what she has done is WRONG. He understands that serving Aslan is more important than satisfying our own immediate needs. Even more important than saving his mother's life. He acknowledges that his mother may die, but he accepts that she is better off IF that is His will. OBVIOUSLY, Digory is not "resigned" to his mother's death at the beginning of the story. No kidding. He is freed from the burden of watching his mother die when he puts her fate in GOD's hands, NOT his own. It is NOT about what WE decide, it is about having FAITH in what GOD decides FOR us. The right choices cannot be made if one isn't receptive to God's will. Remember the dwarves at the end of 'The Last Battle'? Their stubbornness prevented them from SEEING the truth. Choices are ancillary to submission.
Digory gained control when he realized that he never HAD control. Stolen, illicit power is the ILLUSION of control. Faith is the real thing.
THAT is Christianity, THAT is Lewis, and THAT is what these books are "about".
"It’s not defeatism, it’s realism."
You can call it "realism" if you want. I call it laziness and a complete lack of vision. It's astounding to me how you condemn Walden's efforts with 'Dawn Treader' when you seemingly share so much with them. You have no faith in the books, you have no faith in the medium of film.
"If they thought VDT could be reworked into a standard quest story, what’s to stop them from trying the same with MN?"
We don't KNOW who "THEY" are yet.
Who is writing the screenplay?
UNKNOWN
Who is directing the film?
UNKNOWN
Have the producers LEARNED anything from their many mistakes?
UNKNOWN
The pieces of the puzzle MATTER. The biggest failure of 'Dawn Treader', to me, wasn't even the horrific script. It was Michael Apted's complete passivity in not CARING that the script WAS awful. This is the SAME thing that happened with his Bond film. He mailed it in because he simply did not have a passion for the material.
Something along the lines of: "That's what you want? Well, fine, then. I'm just the hired hand."
The character-driven scripts that he's shot, and had a personal interest in, are INFINITELY superior to his more mercenary attempts like 'Dawn Treader' and 'The World is Not Enough'. When a director CARES about a property, he will FIGHT for it more. He will put more of himself INTO it, and try to preserve its essence. He will find better, more creative, ways to solve problems. The approach and attitude of the filmmakers MEAN EVERYTHING to the final product.
Maybe you're right. Maybe this will be a colossal cinematic failure. But, you CANNOT ASSUME that it WILL BE. You don't have ANY basis to make that claim. There are as many, if not many more, reasons to believe that the film could be wondrous and beautiful. Unconditional surrender is a nice, safe option, but it sure doesn't accomplish very much.
"A man on the moon?!" Impossible!
"The Berlin Wall coming down?!" Never!
"A black President!!" Dream on!
Making a good movie out of a beautiful book is within the grasp of humanity, I should think.
I recently saw VDT and HATED IT! I spent over half the movie saying (out loud) "That wasn't in the book!" It was fine for about 10 to 15 minutes. When the swords and changing the islands around came around is when it turned awful. I really liked Prince Caspian despite everyone saying a lot of the Christianity was taken out. The only way I think they did that was when Aslan says he grows every time Lucy grows. The other changes I could handle and actually liked. The only problem for me was Susan kissing Caspian. But VDT made PC look even better. I liked the special effects a lot but after seeing it, I said, "C.S. Lewis would hate this film!" I cannot believe Doug Gresham let Fox do this to one of the best of the series. I really wish disney kept the franchise going. At least they know how to keep most of the original story.
For me, the thing that I am most disappointed with is the way they altered Peter and Edmund's characters by making them angry that they are not kings in our world. If they understood they books, they would understand that this is not who they are. Edmund is Edmund the Just, and with reason. That does not leave him when he returns to our world.
If the writers truly understood the characters, PC would not have been nearly the disaster that it was. In VDT, I was okay with the green mist, it didn't alter the characters. But I agree with those who wish the dialogue between Edmund and Eustace after the "undragoning" was sorely missed as it was a missed opportunity in bonding those two characters.
They're all quests. Agree that the 2nd and 3rd movies were treated too "epic-ly". Personally VDT's a very intimate sort of book for me which they overblew as you say. If only they would let the stories just be themselves. 😉
i totally agree with you Lauralinda i meanif they're going to make these movies they should at least get to know the characters so that you get to know what kind of person the are in the movie and the book
Christ's girl says: April 8th, 2011 on 6:04 AM
Third Comment, again… It’s bad that their thinking of releasing it when the Hobbit 2 comes out, but I would reather see MN than H2, since I never saw the first one anyway… 🙂
Of course you have not seen the first one. Nobody has. It does not come out until 2012.
Yes, Pepper, I will see it, even though it's been a disappointing ride…… *sighs* (Prince Caspian & VODT that is)
Haha….But, Pepper, if you think about it a *good* adaption and a *faithful* adaption are different. It may be a "good" adaption, like a GOOD movie, but if it doesn't follow the storyline or make the characters right, than it really isn't "faithful". Faithful is something that follows 😉
“With all the Aslan parts, particularly the dialogue, there’s always a very spirited and healthy discussion, and generally any time there’s a discussion, the tie goes to C. S. Lewis. So we always come to the agreement, ‘Listen, let’s not think that we can reinterpret this and do a better job than Lewis. If we disagree about this, if people think there are different ways to say this, let’s just make sure we preserve what Lewis said.’ That’s a mistake we made with Prince Caspian, where we changed Aslan’s dialogue with Lucy.”
———————————————————————————————-
Yeah who can do a better job than C.S. Lewis. I can't believe they changed Aslan's dialogue in Prince Caspian. Hope to see Magician's Nephew green lit. I am sure it will be but the budget may be only $100-$125 million so Fox can maximize profits. I am not sure how much percentage Fox and Walden Media get and who has to put in what. But I doubt they will pass on this movie. Especially since internationally this movie was a hit. It just did not do well enough domestically and that may have been the lack of trying to bring churches into the mix. They will not make that mistake again.
What reasons do we have to think that the film will be that good? Now, I love visualizing. I can sort of imagine a psychologically-driven version of the film that I personally would enjoy. But it would be a very weird movie and would turn off the family audiences that are critical to the commercial success of any Narnia film. The odds are nil to none that they will go with that interpretation.
What is your visualization for this "great" movie you talk about? Your arguments seem to consist of general analogies and the "we don't know" tag line, rather than specific ideas to support the concept of MN's cinematic potential.
The lack of trying to bring churches into the mix? They bent over backwards to pander to the christian community, giving pastors advanced screenings, putting out educational materials based on the film. They also made the moral themes much more simplified and overt in the movie than they were in the book, so that it was easier to use VDT as a Sunday school lesson. Faith-based marketing was their main strategy in the US and the attempt blew up in their faces. On the other hand, VDT did pretty respectably in countries where the marketing strategy was more secular.
The Christian community were not solely responsible for LWW's baffo success, and they didn't support VDT. If there is one thing Fox/Walden have learned from VDT's failure in the US, it was that focusing on Christian audiences will get this franchise nowhere.
switching plots back and forth is taught in scriptwrting 101. Main plot, and subplot weaving in and out for interest. that's what you saw in the sacrifice of aslan and the battle being interwoven, and PC : battling interwoven with lucy meets aslan scene. and battle plus undragonig interwoven.
yes, i ,keep hoping for more "pastoral scenes", life on the ship, playing chess, laughing together, actual dialogue, bonding moments, a tour of the ship to lucy and ed, life aboard, etc.
I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. How would that apply to MN, where the "main plot" occurs mostly in Digory's head? Or are do you think they should have the concrete events of the story taking place at the same time? Basically, the problem with that analogy is that "How Jadis found her way to Narnia" and "How Aslan created Narnia" are stages in the story, rather than subplots. They are not the point or purpose of the book, but at the same time they are not secondary or beside the point. Finding the balance between those two extremes will be tricky.
Prince Caspian was a good action flick, but the smooching seen, and the attitudes, turned me off. Though I watch it off and on they defidently thought they were smarter than Lewis. But VDT? Na…when I read the articles about the changes made Director Apted was very oppologetic when he said the reason was that it didn't have a certian tention. And then he said that works great in the book but a hour long movie? No Fox and Apted deffidently know their not better than Lewis. Sorry don't buy it. 🙂
@laura, cs lewis didn't write a film script, though. they are two different things, books and scripts. but i wish they had stuck closer to the book, cause they are really taking HUGE liberties. they apparently are trying to update the chronicles for a modern audience, but i think they should realize by now they are making a mistake with that tactic.
pandering to the SECULAR audience is what is sinking this franchise- the last 2 movies wee secularized and butchered.
Anhun, I have never used the "'we don't know' tag" to further ANY argument. I have only used it to demonstrate how weak YOURS are. There's a salient difference. *You* are outright declaring this film to be a complete, abject failure before it's even entered pre-production. *I* am
saying that yours is an unsupportable viewpoint, because no one knows ANYTHING about the production yet. You can sit there and type until your fingertips turn blue, but you have NO BASIS to declare ANYTHING as a complete certainty about the film yet, apart from your obvious bitterness that it's being made. THAT, I grant you, is certain.
Additionally, you have the word "great" in quotes. Where in these comments have I used that word in connection with an hypothetical film? Unlike you, I have made no absolute declarations about it, whatsoever. What I have said, CONSISTENTLY, is that:
a) It's a beautiful book.
b) It is POSSIBLE to make a wondrous film from a beautiful book, no matter how "hard" YOU might think it is to adapt.
In short, you're accusing me of having (*gasp!*) HOPE! Yes! I do! I readily admit to that.
My HOPE (in no particular order) for this film is based on the following:
1) Tilda Swinton. A beefy role for an Oscar-winning actress that the audience loves as "Jadis". Swinton has repeatedly stated how much she would love to portray Jadis in this film. Again, never underestimate the significance of motivated creative talent. Passion makes a world of difference to artists. I would love to see her do the younger, genocidal Jadis justice.
2) Audiences love villains. You can't get much more villainous than murdering every last living thing in your civilization, merely to retain power. Cataloging the scope of Jadis' sheer evil, again, has a lot of potential to be fascinating. She really does take villainy to a completely different level. There's a lot of potential for the writers there.
3) Seeing an entirely new world that we've never explored in the films before. Charn could be fantastic on-screen. Not only its sheer desolation and barrenness as Digory and Polly find it in its final days, but the effect of Jadis speaking The Deplorable World. How will this be portrayed, cinematically, to convey the sense of total, mass destruction on a global scale? This is some of the imagery from the book that we want to see on-screen that could be incredibly moving. These are not just mindless visuals intended for eye candy. That's potential for FANTASTIC drama, and I WANT to see it, even as just a flashback.
4) Audiences also love "fish-out-of-water" stories. Jadis' time in Victorian London has a lot of entertainment potential. I could see this sequence expanded a bit for the film.
5) A more substantive role for OUR world in the film. Polly and Digory's lives are "grounded" in our world, more so than any of the children in the other stories. There's a subtle progression from our reality into that new, unknown one that gives everything so much more dramatic weight. Theirs is a repressive, ultra-conservative era that would seem, from a cinematic perspective, especially grey in the eyes of young children whose imaginations are so fertile. That Victorian world would contrast superbly against the unimaginable spectrum of colours of a universe being born.
6) King Frank and Queen Helen. I love the fact that the first King and Queen of Narnia are a humble cabbie and his wife. This so wonderfully depicts how Aslan values what's in our heart, not in our pedigree or résumé. Frank's humility and self-doubt only endear him to the reader even more, and when Aslan starts itemizing the duties of a King, Lewis breaks everything down so elegantly and succinctly, that it just seems so obvious what a true sovereign is:
"Can you rule these creatures kindly and fairly, remembering that they are not slaves, like the dumb beasts of the world you were born in, but Talking Beasts and free subjects?"
THAT is BEAUTIFUL. *I* want to see THAT in a film. I don't know if an audience would be as moved by that as I am, but I sure HOPE so. I THINK they might be.
7) Digory's fantastic personal journey. You and I don't agree on what that is. I think you're missing out on something great. Digory, Uncle Andrew, and Jadis all long for the power of control. Everyone does at some point, to varying degrees. This is very easy for an audience to understand and relate to.
8) Aslan singing that universe into existence. How they will portray this, I have no idea. That's not MY problem. I only know that, IF they find a way to do it justice, it could be mind-blowing. Again, it's not just mindless imagery. The idea of life being created on a universal scale, out of complete, total love, is something that I want to see portrayed on the big screen.
9) The creation story itself. This is a component of every major faith. It has universal appeal. Integrating it into the fabric of the story gives everyone in the audience something that they're familiar with, whether or not they see it as fact or myth. It's done in an entertaining fashion, that's both familiar and unique.
10) The "Reward" Factor.
One of the reasons why I love 'The Magician's Nephew' is because it explains so many tiny details about 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' without diminishing them. Often, authors never want to explain "why" something exists, or what its purpose is, because they don't want to demystify it, or (more often, probably) they HAVE no explanation for it. Lewis explains why there's a lamp post in the woods, and why the wardrobe is magical, and he does it in a fantastically imaginative manner that ties these two chapters in Narnian history together, organically and seamlessly. The book is a gift to fans. I feel that on every page. It pains me when I talk to people who have read 'The Magician's Nephew' as the "first" book in the series, because I think they lose out on so much by not experiencing that joy AFTER reading the other books. I think the film could serve a similar purpose, if not to the same degree. Books are more intimate, and subtle moments can pass so much more quickly on film, but I think that same kind of "Oh, neat! I understand that now!" appeal could be there for the adaptation.
11) Strawberry's transformation into Fledge. Another wonderfully insightful sequence that intelligently considers what a suddenly sentient animal might think about his treatment over the years, and how his former master might interpret things differently:
"What?" said the Cabby. "Not know me? Me what used to bring you hot mash of an evening when you was out of sorts? Me what rubbed you down proper? Me what never forgot to put your cloth on you if you was standing in the cold? I wouldn't have thought it of you, Strawberry."
"Yes, you used to tie a horrid black thing behind me and then hit me to make it run…"
That must have hurt Frank terribly to hear that. But, it's something that I had never considered before. What WOULD an animal say if it could speak? I think most of us assume (as Frank did) that our dogs or cats or whatever would just tell us how wonderful we are. But, would they, REALLY? This is a brilliant way of Lewis reminding us that animals are gifts from God ENTRUSTED to us. Be kind to them, and consider them always. Everyone can relate to a moment like that. I would LOVE to see THAT, as well.
There are eleven reasons off the top of my head. Other than that, I have no basis for hope at all!
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I submit to you a brief summary of our two approaches to this film:
Mine: *ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE WITH THE MEDIUM OF FILM, IF THE RIGHT APPROACH, COMMITTMENT, AND RESPECT FOR THE MATERIAL ARE DEMONSTRATED*
Anhun's: "Don't even bother."
I leave it your hands to decide which is the better approach. Happy Easter.
I would argue that they've "pandered" to non-Christians even more by completely stripping Aslan of his divine nature, and replacing it with clichéd humanist platitudes. The point is, don't "pander" to ANYONE. Just respect the books. The Christian message IN the books will come out if the material is respected, yet still be sufficiently subtle as to not "offend" non-Christians. Lewis already thought of this. Why do they even need to discuss it with focus groups? I hate the involvement of anyone who is not a filmmaker in the production of films.
Non, you are a fantastic writer!! I'd love to see a whole blog on your narnian commentaries! I've learned so much from you!!
actually, iv'e heard about some of the biggest hit movies that changed the ending, for the BETTER, after test audiences said they hated the ending. Like pretty in pink, pretty woman, a couple others i cant think of specifically.
Youre right, the Narnia movies just dont have the speed and building up action that LOTR had, even the books were faster paced. Once they get done with Magicians Nephew (if they do that before Silver Chair), the Silver chair and Last Battle will be bringing back the excitement that LWW brought at the begining. Not only will they "good" movies, they will probably be "faithful" movies. In my opinion, it would have just been better if they stuck a little bit closer to the book in VDT and PC, but the movies were still "good".
If they release MN in 2014, what are they gonna do, they cant let Will Poulter play Eustace again, he would be way too old. I think its not entirly logical for them to do MN first for 2 reasons, first Poulters age, and second the viewers out there who have never read the books, they would get to confused if they did it out of order, and then they come back to do Silver Chair forgetting what happened in VDT. I think they should just do the series in chronological order, then it would just be a lot better
They changed the clawing scene because they were told it would give them a PG-13 rating- away from the targeted audience.Not even C.S. Lewis put in live action.
I am very pleased that they are making my both of my fav. books from LOTR and Narnia, but releasing around the same time? This is not good for Narnia, beacause it is has almost no competition with Hobbit. Narnia will gain the attractions of families, but if VDT didnt do as good in box office as expected, then whats gonna happen with MN. I mean when VDT was released, there were no fanrtasy movies out (save Harry Potter)so there was really not much of a problem except that people just dint go tosee it, almost as if Narnia has lost its luster to viewers who have not read the book or aren't Christians. I hope they do change the date, and I hope they don't fail at keeping to the true spirit of the book. I hear some people think that Charn is gonna be the origin of the green mist, but I'm not sold on that one, it doesn't sound plausible if you ask me.
I agree, I do not like the way they portrayed Ed and Peter, but the main problem I saw, was that Lucy was obsessed with being pretty. I mean, whats up with that, she already knows what shes gonna be like when shes older as a queen, so why does she care so much, its ridiculous. They should have just stuck to the book where she wondered what her friends thought of her, instead of wanting to be pretty. The Book of Incantations had no spells to be pretty, according to the book. I think if they want to be succesful with MN, STAY TO THE BOOK!
Punctuation is your friend, darling.
You might want to re-read the book. There is a Beauty Beyond the Lot of Mortals spell that Lucy almost uses. The fact that Aslan warns her off from using it causes her to speak the eavesdropping spell because she's angry at not being allowed to make herself beautiful.
I thoroughly disliked how they portrayed Peter in the movie. His motives weren't shown to help Caspian ascend to his throne, rather to get control in some way or another. In the book, he is much more willing to aid Prince Caspian in his venture. I can't remember what exactly he said but it went along the lines of I am here to help you get to the throne not take it from you.
And the Suspian had no place in the movie. It was awkward and it wasn't even in the original story plot.I think I have to agree with Peter on most of these arguments.
se vcs fossem fãn de narnia mesmo não reclamariam tanto so ajudariam evoluir o filme e o sucesso do meu querido cs lewis
eu digo eu sou o numero um amo narnia e quero ver natelona todas adpitaçoes dos livros sou fanatico e garanto que se depender de mim eu vivia em narnia
pra mim narnia e o meelhor filme nao existe melhor e uma forma da pessoas deicharem os problemas de lado viajar em uma fantasia que nao acaba quando a luz se acende no cinema aaquele historia continua tocndo no nosso coraçao fazendo assim espersr anciosamente por outro, alem de mostrar que podemos fazer um mundo melhor.
entao muito obrigado pela galera da fox por ter resgatado o projeto assim podendo continuar imaginando as fantasias que narnia me permite.
amo narnia allow azlan.
What an encouraging bunch of comments! Really. Haven't visited in a long while. Been so depressed over the hijacking of the DT & PC. But am enjoying the Aslanic insights echoing my own critiques, fears & hopes. Could they possibly resurrect this schitzo franchise with the simple, hilarious, human, profound story of MN?! I mean– The creation of Narnia! The origins of narnia visits! A mom's miracle healing! How do you blow that? I have hope. Thanks fellow Narnians.
Hey guyz if anyone wants to check out my audition vids here's the link 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/user/beckybang1512?feature=mhee
🙂 thanks xx 😛