Christianity Today wasn’t at the event out in Los Angeles, but they’ve written up a pretty detailed account of the Dawn Treader information that we gained. It is a very positive article and very even-handed with regard to the previous two films in the series. It’s not condemning of them, though I disagree with one particular statement made about the theology of Prince Caspian, which I felt was debatable.
Now, the article gives away some major spoilers about the film, and if you haven’t read the book, you might be spoiled by much. Personally, I am not happy that they have included one spoiler that is from the movie, but not the book. I suppose that is the side effect of having so many people at the event, but I would have preferred that plot points that are in the film, but not the book, remained hidden until the film was released. That was privileged information, and now it’s out in front of the whole world, especially as it gives away the majority of the plot of the film.
Personally, I think it’s a terrific addition, that adds a connective tissue and sense of urgency to the quest, making it less of an arbitrary deal for the Narnians, but I also feel that it should have been saved for the screen. If you decide to read the article and spoil it for yourself, don’t say I didn’t warn you. The article is very out of context and incorrect with the plot point. Just so you know, as it was understood by the person being quoted is not correct about a certain plot point of the film… it was a simple case of misunderstanding. [Update: the article has since been corrected, as the production has confirmed what I said to be true. The article mentioned a witch appearing in the film, which was in the original script for the film, but does not appear at all in the final draft of the screenplay, nor the film.] There was a lot of material crammed into only a couple of days so that would be easy to do. So don’t be alarmed by the article. I commented on the article itself, to point that out.
Please consider staying spoiler free for it. You’re in for a real treat. Here are some highlights of the article to show you why.
“We made some mistakes with Prince Caspian, and I don’t want to make them again,” said Mark Johnson, a producer on all of the Narnia films. He said Caspian lacked some of the “wonder and magic of Narnia,” was “a little bit too rough” for families, and too much of a “boys’ action movie.” He said it’s “very important” that filmmakers regain that magic for Dawn Treader, now in the editing stages—and he’s convinced they’ve found it: “I want to climb on the rooftops and say we have a wonderful Narnia movie.”
The Narnia Summit that we all went to included some very high profile people:
“You could call it the world’s largest accountability group, so we were definitely nervous,” said Micheal Flaherty, president of Walden Media. “We had folks with an encyclopedic knowledge of C. S. Lewis and the Narnia books. But we went through every line of dialogue and every scene with them to make sure it was a really faithful adaptation.”
And yes, there was a very big thumbs up from everyone that I spoke to, about the state of the film. The positive reaction was palpable.
“What we saw on film, and some of the behind-the-scenes stuff, was pretty exciting,” said Steve Bell, executive vice president of the Willow Creek Association, who attended with wife Valerie. “It looks very compelling, a nice treatment. There seems to be a high level of respect for the material. My sense was that they really want to go to the authenticity of C. S. Lewis, maybe more so than ever. They’re very aware that they have to turn the corner from Prince Caspian. They know that the ball got dropped, and they’re trying to recapture that momentum.”
“They’re clearly making an effort to say that they respect and understand the spiritual focus of the book in a way that perhaps [Prince Caspian] did not,” added author Philip Yancey, who attended with wife Janet. “They don’t seem to be cutting any corners; they’re throwing the whole ball of wax at this, and that’s a good thing. If they can capture the universal love for these books, it’ll be great.”
The article goes on to talk about the relationships between Lucy and Aslan in the film, as well as another thing that they most definitely got right: Eustace and Aslan.
Flaherty told CT, “This book is the most theological of them all. There are more complex themes, particularly grace, that aren’t easy to get right [in a movie]. We must’ve spent an entire day talking about grace, and the importance of showing that it can’t be earned; it has to be given. This is something that Eustace can’t do on his own; he has to ask Aslan to do it for him. I think it’s a really powerful illustration of grace.”
If you’d like to read the whole article, you can read it here: Will Dawn Treader Float?
The voyage should be about righting the wrongs of Miraz. It is out of a sense of responsibility that Caspian starts searching for the seven lords that Miraz banished. They must keep that underlying motivation.
But it is of course awesome about the ending and the undragoning!
Right, and that is indeed part of it. And yes, lots of great things about the film, though I wish it came out closer to the film’s release.
Just curious– which statements about PC’s theology did you not like and why?
The part that compares the book: ‘Aslan, you’re bigger!’ Aslan responds, ‘I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger.’
To the film: ‘Aslan, you’ve grown!’ Aslan replies, ‘Every year you grow, so shall I.’
The author calls it a terrible compromise of Lewis and bad theology. However, I fail to see the difference in meaning between book and film versions. They say exactly the same thing. I think it’s about the perspective with with you hear the line. But even so, I cannot see the difference, apart from the words that were used.
There is a big difference.
In the book, Aslan’s size has not changed. Lucy’s PERCEPTION of Aslan’s size has changed. “Every year you grow, you will FIND me bigger.” As she grows, Aslan seems bigger to her.
In the movie, Lucy aging is actually causing Aslan to grow. Which is a really bizarre idea. “Every year you grow, so SHALL I.”
I took that to mean exactly the same thing.
I agree with Glumpuddle, it’s not about the concept that ‘as Lucy grows, so does Aslan’, it’s about the thought that ‘as Lucy grows she will SEE Aslan as larger. It’s making a statement about perspective. Not physically, of course, but to say that when you’re young you do not fully appreciate some things, and as you grow you realize just how important they are. Aslan’s perceived growth likely represents that concept. If this is the case, the film’s rendition does the job horribly.
I wouldn’t say that it does it “horribly” as many people took it to mean the same thing. And regardless of that, if it needs an explanation for anyone, it takes a mere 10 seconds, depending on how deep you want to go.
Here is an example (that is not perfectly analogous, but illustrates the point)
Suppose, throughout your life, you visited your grandparents house every few years. Every time you went there, it would seem smaller to you, because you grew. In other words “Every year you grow, you will find the house smaller.”
It’s not that the house is actually changing in size. It’s that your perception of the house is changing. It wouldn’t make sense to say that every year you grow, the house physically gets smaller.
The movie makes no sense. What is so special about Lucy that she can actually cause Aslan to change in size? Where did she get this power and why does she have it? It’s just bizarre.
I have to agree with glumPuddle and Jonathon on this, Paul. Aslan represents God the Son in the world of Narnia. God does not grow; our perception of Him does. That is a HUGE difference which is not conveyed in the film. The filmmakers simply misinterpreted what Lewis was saying through Aslan.
There’s something else, though. Aslan does represent God the Son, but Aslan is also physically growing throughout the series. Yes, it’s true that God does not grow, but it is also true that Jesus was born an infant, and He grew.
Honestly, I don’t think any of the viewpoints on this issue are incorrect, because I think think that we’re all looking at the same thing through different lenses. Because when I hear “every year that you grow, so shall I,” I hear it from the angle that he’s talking about Lucy’s perspective of him. I just don’t think that I can see it any other way. I know that many do, and I know that many don’t. I think this is one of those issues that’s like a game of checkers that’s come to a stalemate.
I think that’s a respectable position, and well thought-out. 🙂 I don’t really agree, but then I don’t really see it as a major argument (I do see it as a stalemate, though, as you said).
Thank you, Daniel! 🙂 I much appreciate it. It’s something that, I suppose, we’ll all have to take a couple of steps back from, and get excited for Dawn Treader. (Which was the main idea of the article in the first place.)
Yeah, definitely. Nothing wrong with a little debate, but too much can take away from the focus and excitement. That’s something I definitely don’t want. I’m trusting all the impressions that say this will be a truly great Narnia movie. 🙂
🙂
But Aslan *wasn’t* born as an infant in the books, so it’s not a perfect analogy to Jesus. He clearly says in PC that he does not get any bigger. That’s not a stalemate. That’s a fact.
First off, Aslan does not represent Jesus. He IS Jesus. That’s the whole point of “there I have another name.” He is Jesus taking the form of a lion in another world.
Second, that fact that Jesus physically grew is irrelevant. The bigger you get, the bigger God seems. The more you grow in your faith, the more you realize the awesomeness of God. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Jesus physically grew. That’s missing the point.
But even if the movie was talking about Jesus physically growing, it still wouldn’t make sense. Did Jesus get taller because the disciples got taller? No one caused Jesus to age and mature. (This idea gets more bizarre the more we discuss it)
to add to your argument, Aslan was already “crucified” in the first movie/book. So, of course he does not age or increase. He is physically immortal as Jesus after the Resurrection is.
For what it’s worth, I (relatively non-purist) cringed a little when he said the line differently. I hadn’t heard any arguments for or against it, but it just didn’t feel quite right to me. It didn’t ruin the movie or anything, but it bugged me a little.
Honestly, I sense a difference. As others have said, Lucy’s perception of Aslan changed (though shown physically), rather than Aslan himself.
But again, while I would rather they have kept the line from the book, the change didn’t drive me to the edge of insanity or anything, haha.
Well said, Daniel. I feel exactly the same way.
C’mon, give Paul a break. Whether it makes a big difference or not is merely an opinion. Paul’s right: whether that change in dialogue changed the meaning or not is debatable. I, myself, am of the opinion that it does not. I don’t think the screenwriters went in there saying: “Let’s change it so that Lucy’s getting older makes Aslan get bigger.” More likely they said: “Well, this line’s a little fuzzy. Let’s clear it up a little.” I think that both lines have the same essence. Anyway, it’s no big deal. The whole growing thing becomes inconsistent in VDT because at one point he is described as being as big as an elephant, while at others he’s back to the same old size. And, anyway, it’s absurd to think that Aslan has any set size. He doesn’t even have a set size in the movie LWW (he’s MUCH bigger at the coronation). Even more reason for it to be absurd is that he can be an albatross, lamb, cat, whatever he wants. Even more convincing that the whole growing thing becomes null an void is that Lucy doesn’t notice he’s bigger in HHB (when she is A LOT older). So, I don’t see what the big deal is.
I see where they’re coming from about Aslan in PC: God doesn’t get bigger, but as we grow, we see God is a lot bigger then we realized when we were smaller. It really isn’t so important, but it does have a major difference.
See, that’s what I mean, though. It’s about the perspective with which you view the lines. Remember, it’s not sacred scripture we’re quoting, it’s a children’s book. And for all intents and purposes, Aslan does grow in the books, as the Children’s faith does. So what Aslan was saying wasn’t false. The theology of it is not really a problem either, because, as you pointed out, “as we grow, we see God is a lot bigger than we realized.” That’s exactly the same thing that Aslan was saying, in both instances.
“As we grow we SEE God is a lot bigger than we realized.” That’s what the book shows, but not the movie.
In the movie, it’s not that Lucy didn’t realize before how big Aslan was. Is that he actually WAS smaller, and now he actually HAS grown. In the book, her perception changed. In the movie, Aslan himself changed.
“Aslan does grow in the books, as the Children’s faith does.” Not true. Their perception changes. He himself does not change. Aslan is completely unchanging throughout the series. God does not change. Our perception changes.
But it was an important enough difference to change it in the first place? I agree that this was a theologically jarring moment in PC. Delaying Aslan’s return to create an element of Faith was an in-spirit change (though it changed the tone of the book). Lines like this, and changing the one about Aslan’s breath making Lucy a Lioness, really were theologically tone-deaf. If the makers don’t get the differences here, perhaps they should just leave the original lines alone.
I remember far too many dialogue changes for the sake of dialogue change in Lord of the Rings. I seriously do not get this phenomenon. Is it an ego thing for directors, or is it a legal thing?
That came off a bit too harsh, perhaps. I just want to add (without spoilers) that the bit about the ending falls under the Too Good to be True category, and that everything else is negotiable. Being hopelessly cynical, my thoughts immediately turn to the old bait-and-switch: show the Christian audience one thing and have it “mysteriously disappear” before release. Oh, look, buy the deluxe edition, and it’s one of the deleted scenes – no really, click on Aslan’s head in the audio menu, just left of Tagalog Subtitles. But that’s just me being cynical. Give me that line (on screen, no treasure hunt through dvd menus), and I’ll forgive all other changes.
Very good news.
Of course, I still don’t understand this compulsion to make dialogue changes that “don’t matter”.
I can understand some cynicism, but they don’t really have anything to gain from a bait-and-switch, so I’m not worried about it.
Then again, you’re point is the tendency of directors and writers to make bizarre dialogue switches for apparently no reason (which I don’t understand either).
From what I’ve read and seen, I don’t think we have anything to worry about. They seem determined to get it right this time. Michael Apted is a brilliant director who, while not a Christian (as far as I’m aware), shows immense respect for Christianity. Just watch Amazing Grace sometime!
And if they mess it up again… well… they know they’ve lost it for the fans, which is not only depressing, it’s bad business. I think they realize that, too.
I agree about Apted, Daniel. I love “Amazing Grace”. (I was a little disheartened today to learn that he bragged about taking the religion out, though. Still, Apted seems more respectful than most directors.)
What I was thinking that they might have to gain, would be that they learned their lesson with PC, which (as near as I can see) they didn’t promote through churches, religious groups, etc. the way they did LLW. This would be a particularly treacherous thing to do. Still, it has been noted. I think about 60% of “Tropic Thunder’s” trailer was actually in the movie, and we’re not even to the trailer stage.
I would hope that the powers that be have more class than to pull something like that, but nothing in Hollywood surprises me. Anyway, it was just a wild burst of cynicism in a day of very good news.
That would be treacherous, but I assume they realize that sort of treachery would be hugely damaging in the long run (and maybe in the short run).
One of the most encouraging things to me in this post was where the producers talked about how they went over the entire script and every scene with some intense, knowledgeable Narnia fans to make sure it was great. That… that shows me a desire to do it right this time. That’s what makes me believe they’re not just deceiving us. 🙂
It’s one thing to read something. It’s another to speak it. If you are writing something to be read, you write it much differently than if you are writing it to be spoken. So you adapt it. Hopefully preserving the same meaning.
There is a case to be made that the writers do not leave the lines alone because they do not fully understand what is being conveyed. I think they changed the wording because the phrasing sounds better, and they assumed it meant the some thing. Updating words and phrases is not necessarily a bad thing if it helps the modern viewer understand.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the way Lewis wrote it could be interpreted as meaning Aslan would literally get bigger every year. I am sure there are children who think it means that. But Lewis phrased it in such a way that a child’s perception of what the phrase means can grow as they grow.
That’s very interesting, Mark. Thanks for the input… and at least there’s a semi-reasonable explanation for changing dialogue.
No, Lewis could not possibly have meant that. Here is what it says…
“Aslan,” said Lucy, “you’re bigger.”
“That is because you are older, little one,” answered he.
“Not because you are?”
“I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger.”
Aslan makes it VERY clear that he has not changed. Lucy’s perception has.
I must agree with Glumpuddle, Mark Sommers, and Daniel Miller on this one. This is not a huge deal if you’re looking at the movie as a whole. It’s just one of those things where they should have left it how it was. You can’t improve on that little piece of Lewis’ theology. Any other wording just isn’t quite right. And while the perspective can have something to do with the way you interpret this line, the point is, God doesn’t change. As we grow, we see more and more of Him, but He doesn’t grow with us. If He could grow, then He wouldn’t be God. The rewording in the movie took away from Aslan’s power by insinuating that his growth was dependent on Lucy.
I think I’ll not read the article… though I really, really, really want to. Gah.
Once again, it’s extremely encouraging to see more good impressions. I’m very excited about this movie.
Thank you, Paul, for finding and posting these.
You’re welcome, Daniel! Yeah… don’t bother reading the article if you don’t want any spoilers at all. Keep yourself clear headed for the movie. It’s going to be a wonder-filled experience.
Very encouraging news… I love spoilers of this kind.
I read the article, and I honestly couldn’t figure out what was so dreadful about the changing of the “Aslan, you’ve grown!” line. It comes down to the same thing at least in my mind.
Glad to hear about the undragoning, but the whole thing about having an agnostic director kinda cracked me up. I think sometimes people have a hard time remembering that while Narnia does have theology, it is first and foremost a STORY, not a theology lesson. I mean, Lewis even said that it WASN’T an allegory. Personally, I thought Amazing Grace was an incredibly powerful movie, and I don’t know what movie the person watched who said it was gutted of religion.
Thanks for your perspective Paul. Muchly appreciated. I don’t find variations to the plot so uncomfortable as to be considered a purist. Not sure yet if I can make myself spoiler-free.
No, no, NOOOOOO. I hope I just read something from the article that is wrong. 🙁 It has to do with what Keller said about the “quest.” Is this true? Can you confirm that this is the plot for the movie? If so, I am terribly disapointed.
I am encouraged about the two scenes that are mentioned, they sound excellent! But I wonder why they ever talked about this when it was supposed to be kept under wraps?
Two words: Don’t Panic.
First: The quest is excellent, and a brilliant way to make a movie out of a book that is too episodic for a feature film. (Without it, there’s no motivation to keep watching, and the audience never knows when the movie is over. It’s a storytelling technique that shows progress is being made. It’s easy to know, with a book, that you’ve got a number of pages to read. But in a movie, it has to happen in a number of acts, and the audience has to know that progress is being made.)
Second: You shouldn’t be disappointed by anything at this point. You’ve not seen any footage, so you don’t really know if what you read works as part of the film, or how much it features as part of the story of the film. Trust me when I say, it’s not worth fretting over.
Third: Be excited. Be positive. Read what the filmmakers are saying about it. Read what we, the audience in the know are saying about it. It’s been all positive from those of us that have seen the footage, and know the story of the film.
I don’t know why they spoke about it. Perhaps they didn’t think it would be such a big deal. Not to mention that there was some false information there.
You say people won’t have a reason to keep watching without this seven swords plot. So, what reason do they have to keep reading in the book?
In the book, there are two main reasons I keep reading: 1) I want to know what happened to the seven lords. The fact that they left and never returned is rather eerie. It’s a great mystery. That ties into the second reason… 2) I get caught up in the excitement of sailing into the unknown. This is a fantasy world, so ANYTHING at all could be out there. It’s exciting a little scary at the same time.
Lewis gets you to keep reading by getting you caught up in the excitement and adventure of the voyage. It takes a very gifted story-telling to do that. It seems like the filmmakers are taking the lazy way out.
VDT is not as episodic as people say. The thing that ties it all together is the search for the seven lords.
Wow, now I’m sure it’s going to be a good movie. I can’t wait to see it! Let’s hope they recapture whatever they did to make LWW so magical!
I think the change in Aslan/Lucy’s line in PC is nothing.. it basically says the same thing. And I dont think they changed it to lower Aslans status all, but rather to refine the vocabulary. Kind of like at the end where Aslan says “we can never know what would have happened”.. instead of “no you can never know what would have happenen.. no one is ever told that”… had this line also been translated verbatum to the movie, Aslan would have come off as condescending to Lucy, or at least I always interpreted that way and sure the average moviegoer would have also. To have Aslan say “we can never know” but referring to himself was brilliant on the filmwriters part, because he is conveying the same message as in the book, but it sounds softer and more compassionate.
I never thought of the “Aslan’s size” line that way. I understand why it is somewhat inaccurate, mainly because Aslan/God is already perfect and therefore cannot change, but it is only so if you think about it that deeply. While some people may think that it is some subliminal message insinuating that God is not perfect, I really don’t think such dialogue changes are made to purposely hurt the theology.
Paul: “Aslan is also physically growing throughout the series.” Huh? Where do you get that? Aslan is not born in Narnia as Jesus was born on earth, so I don’t understand your point. Aslan is introduced to us as an adult lion from the very beginning (in both chronological and publishing order!). I see nowhere where it indicates he physically grows.
I suppose I misunderstood the books somewhere as I read through them, and I just accepted it as fact and moved on. It may have been that line from Caspian that did it, even though he starts out saying that he hasn’t… I figured that the perspective of the children is how Aslan would appear to them physically. At least somewhere in my mind, I’d like to believe that’s how it was intended to be taken, and that each time he appears, to each person he might appear a different physical size. Kind of a unique take, which makes sense to me, and is also part of the reason why I think each of our own personal Narnia films would be different.
A few responses and corrections from CT:
1) CT was NOT at the event, as Paul writes in his lead paragraph. The story was written based on interviews with people who were at the event — people from Walden Media, and people who were invited.
2) Paul says he disagrees with “some of the statements made about the theology of Prince Caspian, which are debatable statements.” To clarify, Paul’s disagreement, then, is with Lewis experts and scholars, not with CT. CT’s opinions did not enter the story; the only opinions cited are those of scholars, who have devoted their lives to studying the theology of Lewis and his literature.
3) He states that the article “gives away some major spoilers about the film.” Absolutely not true for anyone who has read the book. And we included a crystal clear “spoiler warning” before one section for those who *haven’t* read the book.
4) The ONLY thing that could possibly qualify as a “spoiler” (again, for those who already know the book) was a quote from Kathy Keller about the alleged introduction of a NEW witch into the story. As it turns out, Mrs. Keller was incorrect about that — apparently that plot point was discussed in an earlier version of the script, and later scrapped. Mrs. Keller apparently misunderstood that, and once we had that confirmed from Walden, we immediately added the correction to the story.
But here’s the vital thing: IF they had indeed introduced a “new witch” to the story, REAL Narnia fans wouldn’t be upset about it being a spoiler. They should be upset, period. You don’t go introducing non-existent witches to Narnia. We have real witches aplenty; it’s anathema to invent one. It’s not our job — or NarniaFans.com, in my opinion — to “protect” the secrets of the movie. But it is part of our job to try to hold them accountable to get it right. And since they screwed up Caspian so badly, there are literally millions of Christians who see VDT as a “make-or-break” deal for Walden. If they screw this up, they’ve blown it. If they nail it, much faith will be restored between Walden and the Narnia lover. Walden is acutely aware of this — which is probably why they ultimately decided to scrap the invented witch in the first place. All to say, the issue here isn’t about a mild spoiler — it’s about them getting it right.
5) I will respectfully disagree, as many have in this thread, with Paul about the significance of the exchange between Aslan and Lucy in PC. It is not merely a matter of “interpretation” or what “lenses” you’re reading it through. The dialogue in the movie and in the book are two completely different things. The movie clearly implies that Lucy thinks Aslan has grown larger, and, critically, Aslan does not contradict her, but instead *affirms* her observation by saying that every year she has grown, so has he. This is absolutely wrong, no matter how Paul spins it. They do not say “exactly the same thing,” as Paul says. Paul says that Aslan “does grow in the books.” No he doesn’t. That’s why he contradicts Lucy at that point in the book. Lucy says, “Aslan, you’re bigger.” Aslan replies, “I am not.” I do not see how Paul can conclude that he literally grows in the books when Aslan clearly says he does not. Additionally, almost dismisses the whole argument by saying it’s just “a children’s book,” not “sacred scripture.” True, but it’s a children’s book with accurate theology manifest throughout, and it is up to the filmmakers to make sure they don’t screw up that theology. Finally, WHY would Adamson want to rewrite that dialogue anyway? I perfectly understand how the page-to-screen process requires some cuts and changes; but he save ZERO TIME by altering that dialogue. The original dialogue was pitch perfect; why change it at all?
Micheal Flaherty said that the assembled folks at that Narnia event two weeks ago made up the “world’s largest accountability group.” So let’s hold them accountable. I want to see a great film as much as anyone — I’ve been a huge fan of the books for 30 years, and have probably read them 20 times. But we can’t just be fanboys; we have to wear our critical hats too, and BE what Flaherty expects us to be: The type of people who will hold them accountable — as journalists, as consumers, as movie fans, and most of all, as people who love these books.
Mark Moring
senior associate editor
christianity today
1) Philip Yancey being a columnist and editor-at-large for Christianity Today doesn’t mean that Christianity Today was there?
2) I noted no citation for the statement with which I disagreed.
3) Agreed, which is why I also said that there are some major spoilers. My readers also include a great many that haven’t read the books.
4) Thanks for correcting the story.
5) Thanks for your comments on this. I wrote about why I believed that, here. I am wrong, I suppose, about that particular statement. I honestly believed that Aslan grew in size throughout the stories. That’s how he appeared as I read them. I misread them all of my life, then.
1) Philip Yancey is no longer a columnist for CT (though he is still an EAL), and no, he wasn’t representing us. Grace Hill Media said they invited “no press, period.” Philip was there as a well-known author and speaker.
2) Right. But the way it was written in your first paragraph, it could easily be misinterpreted that you disagreed with CT: “It (meaning the article) is not condemning of them, though I disagree with some of the statements made . . .” See how that can be misunderstood?
3) Yes, they’re “major spoilers” if you haven’t read the book. But again, there was a clear spoiler warning in my story BEFORE any of those things were mentioned. Your blog post almost takes the tone of, “Don’t even click this link unless you want the movie ruined for you!” People could’ve read almost half of our story without reading any spoilers. You might have noted that we put the spoilers in the second half of the story and included a warning.
4) You’re welcome.
5) I think we all learn something new every time we read these books. I know I do, some 30 years and 20 readings later. Perhaps this was one of the new things for you this year! 😉
best,
mark
Thanks, Mark.. I’ll make some corrections and additions to the article. However, I must say this with regard to the line. In a discussion a friend, we also found another way that the line in the book could be taken, which could mean that Lewis meant it to be vague.
“Aslan,” said Lucy, “you’re bigger.”
“That is because you are older, little one,” answered he.
“Not because you are [older]?”
“I am not [older]. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger.”
Anyway, thanks for your feedback. And you’re right, I probably haven’t read the books enough times to get over my idea that Aslan grows in each successive novel, or many other abstract ways.
You seem to be assuming that just because something happens in the book, it will happen exactly the same way in the movie. This is clearly not true. We do not know how close the movie will be to the book. And some people like to hang onto that surprise.
I write for NarniaWeb. “There I have another name” is generally considered a spoiler. Pretty much any plot detail that doesn’t appear in the trailer or other high-exposure piece of marketing is considered a spoiler. “Picture spoilers” can be more difficult to define.
I disagree very much about your definition of “spoiler.” I have read the book, but have not seen the movie. I don’t know what is going to happen in the movie. No idea how close to the book it will be. There were plenty of times in the first two movies where I was surprised at how faithful they were.
For anyone who wants to hang on to the surprise, knowing that “there I have another name” will be in the film is a spoiler.
Thank you Mark for #4 and #5. I love it when someone else says exactly what I want to say so I don’t have to.
Agreed! 🙂
This was supposed to be a reply to Daniel’s post:
“Yeah, definitely. Nothing wrong with a little debate, but too much can take away from the focus and excitement. That’s something I definitely don’t want. I’m trusting all the impressions that say this will be a truly great Narnia movie.”
Paul: I wasn’t panicking at the “quest,” but at the “witch!” When I read that there was to be a witch in it, that was what freaked me. I am so glad to hear that there isn’t a witch! And if that had been true, I would most certainly have been disapointed even if I hadn’t even seen any footage yet. Bring a witch into it (for me anyway) would be a horrible addition to the story. As long as I know she isn’t in it, I am fine. 🙂 And very excited about the movie, have no fear. (And I was very encouraged by those who saw the footage; especially from the Focus on the Family people. If they like it, then surely it’s going to be good!
Okay. Phew! Glad that it was the part about the Witch. I’ve known that isn’t true since… oh, a long time ago. A very long time ago. 😉 That’s probably why I thought you were talking about the other item.
Hi Paul, have just been reading through the comments and wanted to add to the dicussion. You can get a room full of people and give them the same passage of scripture to read, then ask them to tell you what they received from it. You will always get different answers, God speaks to us through His word to suit our circumstances. I understand all the above comments and I think we all agree the God never changes. The main thing to focus on here is that the movie is another way to convey God’s love for humanity, let’s not lose sight of that.
I think it would be wise to add to glumPuddle’s argument that ASLAN was already “crucified” (to save “sinners”) in the Lion,etc.; MEANING that his age had already ceased to increase…IF he was a parallel to Jesus, that is.
Didn’t respond to this one 8 years ago, but will respond now..
Death doesn’t mean age stops. Time is an invention to keep track of the passage of change and growth, etc. Aslan exists as part of, and outside of, time. Therefore, he would be able to grow older in age.
I can’t wait for December! This has made me even more excited than ever.
Whoa, all this debate about one line! And to think, I never understood the line in the book until I watched the movie and heard the line that doesn’t mean the same as the line in the book but that I always took to mean the same thing! I can see what everyone’s viewpoints are, except glumPuddle’s. Aslan DOES represent God, he isn’t REALLY God. God cannot be fictionalized. That’s what Lewis meant when he wrote the books.
>”We made some mistakes with Prince Caspian, and I don’t want to make them again,” said Mark Johnson, a producer on all of the Narnia films.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting that everyone in the article had no problem throwing Prince Caspian under the bus. I’m glad the people who made DT realize what a failure PC was. This can only help.
>”We made some mistakes with Prince Caspian, and I don’t want to make them again,” said Mark Johnson, a producer on all of the Narnia films.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting to read that everyone interviewed, including some producers, pretty much threw Prince Caspian under the bus. I glad Walden Media recognizes their mistakes. Perhaps a good sign for DT.
Great comments on all sides.
I wanted to point out that Lewis never intended to write the Chronicles of Narnia as an allegory – he stated so himself. The Christian references were only due to the fact that it was a natural infusion of who Lewis was and what he believed into the story. That said, there are obvious representations, such as Aslan as Jesus, the crucifixion but he didn’t write it in a specific, allegorical way. It was supposed to be a good story with good things in it – and these good things were elements of our faith. Every good story has different themes, subplots and representations and Lewis did include these.
I have always thought that Lewis was entirely referencing the fact that it was Lucy’s perception of Aslan that got bigger. It never struck me that when the wording changed it meant concretely that the movie was stating that Aslan was growing. Aslan says this line in a very affectionately amused sort of way to Lucy, which I read immediately. Most of communication is non-verbal. His voice inflections make it known that he is recognizing what Lucy is seeing – he is not telling her what he is doing. Also, it seems to me that Lewis might find this aspect of Lucy amusing and I can almost hear him chuckling over it. It is also saying that her belief in Aslan is getting bigger, that He is bigger to them. If one wants to interpret this theologically, one could merely say that as we grow in our faith, our understanding, faith and perception of God’s ability’s get bigger, but to dig deeper than that wouldn’t be in line with Lewis’ statement that he wasn’t writing an allegory.