Is the movie faithful to the book?

Narnian Pirate

Narnian Pirate

New member
I thought the BBC version was more faithful to the book than the movie. There were some parts in the movie that didn't really add up. Like the part where the wolves were chasing the 3 Pevesies and the Beavers, and everybody got wet, and Lucy goes missing. And also, the actors/actresses were kind of old for children like Lucy, Edmund, Susan and Peter.
 
I've never seen the BBC version. WaterHogBoy scared me by telling me Lucy in BBC had big buck teeth. At any rate: I don't think LWW movie was as faithful to the book as it could have been, but I didn't think the changes made much material difference to the story. The scene with the wolves just lent excitement. The actors were maybe a shade older than I imagined, but I don't think that hurt, either; I thought each one was a really good choice for the part.
 
The only thing that really upset me is the subtle (and not so subtle) tinkering with Aslan at the moment of his resurrection.

In that sense the animated LWW has it all over the Walden Media film. The music was so triumphal, so touching. Aslan spoke his whole piece. He played about with the two sisters. Everywhere he stepped the flowers bloomed. It's one of the few moments in animation that makes me really feel like crying, and I can count those on the fingers of one hand.
 
okay I think Walden media LWW really stuck to the book, I admit PC was really different, but the BBC version were the books, word for word, but I like when there are some changes, with a few effects ;)
 
The BBC version is more canon, but the Walden version is a better movie. I've still never forgiven BBC for trying to pass ponies off as reindeer.
 
MRW said:
The BBC version is more canon, but the Walden version is a better movie. I've still never forgiven BBC for trying to pass ponies off as reindeer.
Click to expand...
LOL! I've got to see this BBC version.

I loved LWW movie, but I did feel the film did not make as much of Aslan as it should have. The four Pevensies are made the center of attention -- Beaver tells them "Aslan's raising your army" as if Aslan is there to assist them in defeating the witch, and so forth. Aslan really is the reason you love Narnia, and that wasn't made as clear as it should have been in LWW film.
 
I'm sure Amazon has the BBC DVDs somewhere. If you want an official place to go, though, PBS MIGHT be able to provide you with the series.
 
i twas faithful enough. but you have to remember that the story took place in war times in the 1940's! i don't think as many people would be into the movie if they stayed to faithful to the book today.
 
edmund's princess said:
i twas faithful enough. but you have to remember that the story took place in war times in the 1940's! i don't think as many people would be into the movie if they stayed to faithful to the book today.
Click to expand...
Welcome, Princess. I didn't see you post before. In what way do you think the Pevensies being from WW II-era England would make less people interested in a faithful adaptation of the film? The film doesn't take place in Englad much at all, it's mainly in Narnia ...
 
that's not what i meant. I actually especially mean in narnia. it's hard for me to explain. People aren't used to people like that, i guess.
whatever. I have my own opinions. I shouldn't have to explain them. sorry.
 
I don't think Inkspot was trying to say that you're wrong, just trying to understand what you meant. I'm curious too.
 
Perhaps the idea that everyone under a certain age was uprooted and sent off into the countryside during the Blitz would not be as much a part of young people's culture as it once was.

Think, for instance, of telling a young American child, "It's easy to get there. It's not like I expect you to be Christopher Columbus!" That would be clearly and immediately understood as a humorous hyperbole. On the other hand, make the same remark about Marco Polo and see the blank look you'll get. Admittedly Marco Polo travelled as far as Columbus did, only in the opposite direction and overland. But his travels were a best seller for centuries. Problem is, American kids don't have to learn about Marco Polo, they have to learn about Columbus.

For me as a child, "the atom" and "radioactivity" were modern stuff. Travel to the moon was the epitome of high tech. Now I'm facing a whole forum of people who mostly weren't even born yet when the last man walked on the moon in Apollo 17. You don't raise eyebrows to know it's a TRANSISTOR radio. You don't feel your heart race when they say "In Living Colour" or "In Stereo Where Available".

That's a shame. But then again I missed out on the thrill of western expansion or the race to the South Pole. So I guess we all get our kicks in our brief span on this earth.

When LWW was written, everyone knew about war relocation. Parents and older siblings were there. Yet I think it would do people good to LEARN about that, to experience the loneliness and fear children had leaving Mom and Dad in the city where bombs fell at night.

John
 
edmund's princess said:
that's not what i meant. I actually especially mean in narnia. it's hard for me to explain. People aren't used to people like that, i guess.
whatever. I have my own opinions. I shouldn't have to explain them. sorry.
Click to expand...
Right, MRW was exactly right, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just curious what you meant.

ES, I see what you are saying, but in that aspect of the film, they did remain faithful to the book, in fact they even gave more detail about the blitz and being sent the countryside, more than Lewis gave us in the book, and I thought it worked just rgeat. I had tears in my eyes when they were waving goodbye to their mum. That had no problem connecting with me -- but granted, I am one of the older folks on the forum.
 
edmund's princess said:
i twas faithful enough. but you have to remember that the story took place in war times in the 1940's! i don't think as many people would be into the movie if they stayed to faithful to the book today.
Click to expand...

I think I know what Edsprincess means. This was one thing I missed in the film. The children acted like modern kids to bring the story up to date and ruined the 1940's child evacuee atmosphere. They had very 2000 style bickering and stuff. Also the stuff like women not fighting in war was missed out for PC reasons - all that kinda stuff...

Also iMove
 
"whatever. I have my own opinions. I shouldn't have to explain them. sorry. "

princess, no, you dont have to explain your opinions, but when you participate in a discussion forum, it is great to be able to hear other people's opinions and the reasons behind them.

I understand that you may have a hard time trying to explain yourself, but I would ask you to try.

MrBob
 
edmund's princess said:
You're asking me to try? Okay, well, I sort of tried that. Can we please get back on subject?
Click to expand...
Goodness, EP, you seem a bit overwrought. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings; I certainly didn't mean to. If you look at my original question, it was:
In what way do you think the Pevensies being from WW II-era England would make less people interested in a faithful adaptation of the film?
Click to expand...
Your answer was: people aren't used to people like that. But I didn't really understand what that meant until Jonny explained, but any road, I don't think sibling relationships have changed that much -- me mum and her bro and sis came up during WW II, and from what I witnessed of their relationship, it was pretty much the same way kids today relate to their siblings; at least, I don't think the Pevensies in LWW film related to each other in a much different way than they did in the book, did they?

And truly, we are on subject to ask these questions and follow this trail, the thread being centered on whether the movie was faithful to the book, so don't worry. :)
 
Back
Top