Opinions and Grading on the Narnian Creatures of all three films thus far.

J

Jake

New member
What is everyone's opinions on the design and portrayal of the many beings, creatures, and monsters of Narnia? How would you rate and grade them? Do you prefer the ones protrayed in the books? The ones in the films? Both book and film versions? Or neither?

What are your opinions on these certain creatures?

Fauns

Centaurs

Dwarfs

Minotaurs

Satyrs

Dryads/Trees

Naiads/River Gods

Hags

Werewolves

Unicorns

Dragons

Giants

Merpeople

(other creatures that are not mentioned, or have only appeared in the books or the films can be discussed as well.)
 
Jake said:
What is everyone's opinions on the design and portrayal of the many beings, creatures, and monsters of Narnia? How would you rate and grade them? Do you prefer the ones protrayed in the books? The ones in the films? Both book and film versions? Or neither?
Click to expand...

Fauns-10. The ones I give a 8-10 to I won't discuss.
Centaurs-9
Dwarfs-8.5.
Minotaurs-9
Satyrs-8
Dryads/Trees-3. My main beef with the dryads/trees is that they're too "leafy" and "blossomy". They aren't like Lewis described them in the books, which is a big deal to me.
Naiads/River God-6. The river god was fine if that's all they could do. But Lewis again described these creatures as more human, not like water shapes.
Hags-8. Even though we only really see a couple.
Werewolves-6. I felt like they should have had the werewolf in PC transform from a man into a werewolf instead of already having him as a werewolf. Dramatic effect was lost.
Unicorns-eh, 8.
Dragons-8.
Giants-7. We need to see more giants.
Merpeople-It depends on who we're referring to here; the merpeople in LWW or the merpeople in VDT? If LWW, 9. If VDT, 3.


Those are my grades/thoughts.
 
I liked seeing the creatures in the movies just to see them, even though I can imagine them in the books. I must say I prefer the portrayal of creatures in the movies because there was more detail put into them than what was described in the books. I liked how they gave the different races their own cultural traits like armor design, weaponry, and so forth.

Fauns - 9. I wish they would have given them the long tails like in LWW, though, instead of the short ones in the movies. Probably didn't want to bother with animating it :/

Centaurs - 10. My favorite creatures! I love how they portrayed them in the movies with armor and swords and their role in Narnian culture. Very cool.

Dwarfs - 9. Not much to say here. Not the first movies to have dwarves, they all look just about the same except for in Eragon, where they looked like short people instead of dwarves. It's neat how they differentiate black and red dwarves in the Narnia movies, though.

Minotaurs - 10. Excellent job on minotaurs too. I like how they transition from the evil side to the good side.

Satyrs - 10. What other movies can you think of portray satyrs as a warrior people? I really liked how they were portrayed in PC, an improvement from the weird face makeup they had in LWW.

Dryads/Trees - 8. These were done pretty good, I'm glad the trees didn't actually talk, but were portrayed as spirits with swirling leaves, although in PC the trees moved and stuff, which was also done well.

Naiads/River Gods - 7. Didn't play much of a role in the movies save in PC and in VDT, and those scenes were short, now that I know that those thing in the water were naiads.

Hags - 10. Nasty and slimy and crippled. Nicely portrayed.

Werewolves - 8. Nicely done, but again, not much of a role except in PC before he was killed, though you did see them at the Stone Table and the battle field in LWW.

Unicorns - 5. Unicorns? Were there more than one? The one in LWW didn't even speak. Disappointing, I love unicorns.

Dragons - 10. Great job on Eustace dragon. Wish they would have showed the other dragon, though.

Giants - 7. These were very well-done, but didn't play any major roles like they did in the books.

Merpeople - 6. A brief flash of them at the end of LWW, I thought were done in good taste, but they played no role save to jump out of the water,giggle, and further the scene transition. They weren't even in VDT :mad:
 
Last edited:
Fauns, Centaurs, Minotaurs--very good.

The werewolf and the hag were fine. I had no problem with them.

LWW merpeople were better than the VotDT water naiads. I wished tehy had the sea people. That would have been great! Now the River god was great.

Dwarves were fine. Nothing to write home about.

The Dragon looked wonderful as was the sea monster.

The Dufflers were not exactly as I was expecting, but were good.

Giants, unicorns, and a few more were not in it that much so I can't comment much on them.

The bat-like creatures in LWW were great as were the gryffons.

The beavers were very fun as was the fox and Maugrim and the wolves.

MrBob
 
Now it is my turn to rate and grade the narnians.

Fauns: The design of the fauns was pretty good in the films. I like how they have their own armor and weapons, and I like that faun children are seen near the end of the second film showing that they are prolific. My only beef is that they lack long tails like their book counterparts.
Final Grade A-

Centaurs: The design of the centaurs was excellent! They actually went with fusing a standard sized human body on a standard sized horse instead of either enlarging the human body or shrinking the horse body to accommodate each other. I like that they have their own armor and weapons, and I really like that centaur women are portrayed along with the males as characters and active combatants, and that centaur children are shown in the second film, depicting them as a very populous and prolific race.
Final Grade A+

Dwarfs: The portrayal of the dwarfs was very well done. I like how they look like blended fairytale dwarfs and Tolkien dwarves. I also like that they depict dwarf women along with the men, showing that they are prolific. My only problem is that the dwarfs don’t have pointed ears, because I feel that it would help make them more distinct from humans with dwarfism.
Final Grade A

Minotaurs: The design of the minotaurs was well done. Despite that traditionally, a minotaur is a simply a man’s body with a bull’s head, I like that they gave them more bovine features like the legs and tails. I was a little apprehensive of them joining the good guys in the second and third films, but I got used to it. I was a little disappointed that no minotaur women of children were depicted with the adult males in the second film to indicate being prolific.
Final Grade B+

Satyrs: The design of the satyrs was ok. I’m glad that they wanted to make the satyrs and fauns more distinct from each other, due to lack of substantial description from the books. However I do feel that they made them too goat-like and basically more like goat relatives/versions of the minotaurs. Also no satyr women or children are depicted as I hoped.
Final Grade B-

Dryads/Trees: To be honest I wasn’t very happy with the design or portrayal of the dryads in the films. I felt that the design of them being non-physical spirits who materialize by using their trees’ leaves or flower petals was very impractical. Plus I was disappointed that they weren’t shown as active combatants in Aslan’s army. I feel at least they could have had the dryads do what they did in the second film in the battle of the first film against the White Witch’s army. I also didn’t care for how the dryads in tree form were done. In the books, Lewis describes dryads who use their trees as bodies as looking like giant, human looking trees, instead the film just uses moving trees. However I did like the design of the dryads portrayed by human actors that appeared as a cameo at the coronation scene and the special features better than the CGI ones. My problem with the CGI dryads is that in MN, Lewis states that the sons and daughters of King Frank and Queen Helen take wood nymphs and water nymphs as wives and wood gods and river gods as husbands respectively. That means that they had sexual relations with them and that the nymphs bore children. The design of the CGI dryads look very unstable, they look like they couldn’t even hold an item let alone bear children. I can see it now, a son of King Frank married to dryad on their wedding night, they get ready to consummate the marriage, the minute he penetrates her, the dryad shatters into just a lifeless pile of leaves or petals all over his pillows and under the covers.
Final Grade C-

Naiads/River Gods: I was VERY disappointed with the portrayal of the naiads and river god. I mean in the LWW book, it mentions naiads as being a part of Aslan’s army, and although they were intended for the film, they were completely omitted, so I was unhappy that they couldn’t be in the battle stopping the White Witch. In the second film, I was somewhat glad that they showed the river god, but I felt that they made him way too huge, and I felt that they could have also added other river gods and nymphs to help him destroy the bridge and even attack the Telmarines. When the third film came out, and I find out that those liquid girls in the water waving to Lucy were naiads, there were two things that were said in my mind. First was “ABOUT FREAKING TIME!!” and the second was “WHAT??! THEY’RE REPLACING THE SEA PEOPLE????!!!!”. What also bothered me greatly about the naiads in the third film was that they basically made them liquid, nymph versions of the mermaids! This is a HUGE contradiction to both classical mythology and what Lewis stated. Naiads in Greek Mythology and in Narnia(the books) dwell in fresh water areas like rivers, wells, and streams, not oceans! Nymphs that live in the oceans or salt water are Nereids and Oceanids! Again another problem I have with the naiads and river god was the matter of their bodies being purely elemental and not solid. As I mentioned before with the dryads, in MN King Frank and Queen Helen’s children marry these tree and river spirits and produce children with them. I can easily picture scene basically the same as I described above with the dryad except in the case of the naiad, she basically ends just a giant, soaking wet patch, leaving his bed to utterly drenched! As for the river gods, I don’t think they look like they’re capable of mating with human women anyway, on account of them being even bigger than the giants! Now if they are portrayed in any other future films, if they were depicted as a smaller, more human size, it would look more possible, and it suggest that river gods are capable of changing their sizes from human size, to gargantuan. The only that pleased me about the naiads was that they were finally portrayed in the series, and that their bodies were elemental like the dryads as I anticipated.
Final Grade D

Hags: The design and portrayal of the hags in the films was not too bad. They are ugly and humanoid, so that stuck true with traditional definition. My only problems with them were that they weren’t shown in the battle as I hoped, and that the film makers made them look bird-like in the face, suggesting that they are more humanoid relatives of harpies. Perhaps the film makers wanted them to be a separate, non-human species.
Final Grade C+

Werewolves: The design and portrayal of the werewolves was not bad. I’m glad that they are shown in the sacrifice at the Stone Table and at the Battle of Beruna. My only problem is that they are not shown as having a human or humanoid form, and that they are basically more humanoid or anthromorphic versions of wolves.
Final Grade B-

Unicorns: I did not like how they depicted the unicorn in the first film. I feel that they could have tried to make the unicorn look like how unicorns do in medieval art with long, lion-esque tails, cloven hooves, and beards, but they didn’t and they just went the easy way and just took a white horse and stuck a horn on it. They didn’t even try to make it true to how unicorns are in the books and instead of giving it an indigo colored horn, they just stuck on a golden/platinum colored horn instead. Plus only one was depicted throughout the whole first film and it only served to be Peter’s mount, and that no other unicorns were shown in the camp, or in the battle, or even in the White Witch’s courtyard.
Final Grade F

Dragons: I liked the design of Eustace’s dragon form. It looks very much like a traditional medieval looking dragon. Although I wished it was greener, I did like the art were Dragon-Eustace pulled the Dawn Treader with his tail.
Final Grade B+

Giants: The Giants were great. I like that they are basically large humans in traditional folklore rather than monstrous looking beings. Although I wished they have Giant Rumblebuffin more screen time then just a few seconds.
Final Grade A

Merpeople: I liked that mermaids were shown at the end of the first film like they were in the book. I also liked the design. Although in Pauline Baynes depicts merpeople with blonde hair and green fish tails, I was not bothered by the silvery blue tails and the dark hair. The design was very well done, and I liked that they blended the fish half with the human half. Although I wished they showed the mermaids singing, I was not at all bothered with them simply splashing and leaping out of water and laughing for joy.
Final Grade A+
 
I can't say that any creatures were done BADLY, though I would have made the Hags more humanlike (and I do agree that Dryads should be able to be solid). There was a peculiar detail in the extended edition of the first movie. When Jadis' Harpies took to the air to try to stop the Gryphons from bombing the evil army, one Harpy entangled a Gryphon with her wings, and it looked as if they were KISSING each other!
 
Copperfox said:
I can't say that any creatures were done BADLY, though I would have made the Hags more humanlike (and I do agree that Dryads should be able to be solid). There was a peculiar detail in the extended edition of the first movie. When Jadis' Harpies took to the air to try to stop the Gryphons from bombing the evil army, one Harpy entangled a Gryphon with her wings, and it looked as if they were KISSING each other!
Click to expand...

Okay, now I'll never be able to watch the EE the same way again! :p

Well, nobody has mentioned how Aslan was done. I think he gets a 10 in all 3 films. ;)

And about the Fauns, maybe it's mythology, but goats don't have long tails; they have short ones. In that case, the movies were closer to portraying truer goat halves than Lewis was. Long tails on goat-creatures just doesn't make a bit of sense.
 
Well in this case, I wanted opinons on the mythological creatures and beings in Narnia, not the talking animals. As for the fauns having long tails in the books, I think Lewis intended for fauns to have long tails and for satyrs to have regular tails. However in the illustrations by Pauline Baynes, the fauns and satyrs are totally indistinguishable from each other, the only who looks different is Mr. Tumnus and it is because of his tail.
 
Most of the above analyses I concur with, and some of the honest assessments made me laugh out loud.

I'll add:

The White Witch-I liked the way she was conceived. Though a bit different from how I pictured her from the book. Blonde hair twisted like a serpents body. Icy cold expressions. Different, but good. I liked how she wore the same dress and crown throughout and how they changed based on her mood/disposition. A-

Father Christmas-Great! A+

Patterwig, I assume-Far more timid in the movie than in the book. Digitally lacking. C

The fox-Uh, is that really how foxes walk and talk? C

Dryads-I know they're different from the book, but I thought they were original. A-

Trees-Still seemed half-asleep when Aslan woke them...and loooooooong roots, eh? B-

I could keep going. But I'd give Narnia, the motion pictures, a generous B- for its overall effectual and conceptual development of its creatures.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top