Should The Dialogue In Narnia Films Or Series Match The Books?

Should The Dialogue In Films Or Series Match The Books?

  • Yes, absolutely!

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Yes, but not a 100%

    Votes: 6 85.7%

  • No Way!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • What Is The Point?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I have no idea!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    7
jasmine tarkheena

jasmine tarkheena

Active member
Some may wonder if the dialogue in Narnia films or series should match what the books say. Maybe or maybe not.

I think that even if the dialogue matches, a movie could still turn out badly. You probably can't do word for word adaption. You could possibly have the same line, though the wording may have to be different.

Here's the thing: there are some words that CS Lewis wrote in the books that some readers may be offended by today. The world has changed so much. For instance, in The Last Battle, the dwarfs referred to the Calormenes as "darkies". The Focus on the Family Radio Theatre adaption actually had them say "Calormenes", and removed "Darkies", most likely because some would find it as a racist comment. It's most likely that a new film or series adaption will remove the dwarfs calling the Calormenes "Darkies." Maybe if CS Lewis have written the series today, he would have chosen a different word than "darkies". It's hard to say, though.

I think there are advantages and disadvantages of the dialogue in films or series to match the books. Do you think the dialogue should match the books? Why or why not?
 
Last edited:
Something slang like "Callies" would probably fit the same spirit of contempt without using a word offensive to westerners.
 
EveningStar said:
Something slang like "Callies" would probably fit the same spirit of contempt without using a word offensive to westerners.
Click to expand...
I actually haven't thought about that one.

And what about the catch phrases, "By Jove" and "Great Scott"? I wonder if a movie or series adaption are going to have to change those.
 
It need not match completely the exact wording of the books, save some important areas. The dialogue does, however, need to match the spirit of the series. If they do keep with the time period for the Friends of Narnia, they would have to keep with slang of those specific periods. As for the Narnians. they can get more creative while still keeping with the spirit of the series as I said above.
 
"Oh be quiet Eustace and don't be a fool."

"We got to be happy. As if we hadn’t a care in the world. You two youngsters haven’t always got very high spirits, I’ve noticed. You must watch me, and do as I do. I’ll be happy."
 
Last edited:
I take no issues whatsoever with the Narnia jargon, "darkies" included. It was what I was.

When I think of slightly augmented dialogue i think of trimming dialogue for time constraints or, perhaps, adding dialogue where Lewis may have described a conversation, but didn't write it out word for word. An excellent example of this would be the way Withers or Curry speaks in THS, Lewis does a lot of describing their speech patterns without always putting down what they actually said.
 
I think both BBC and Walden removed Father Christmas saying the line, "Battles are ugly when women fight!" It wouldn't surprise me if a new adaptation did that.
 
jasmine tarkheena said:
I think both BBC and Walden removed Father Christmas saying the line, "Battles are ugly when women fight!" It wouldn't surprise me if a new adaptation did that.
Click to expand...
Father Christmas said "Battles are ugly affairs" to Lucy in the Walden adaptation. He didn't add the "when women fight" part and it did not apply to Susan because she quipped about it.

I said yes, absolutely, mainly because some of the seemingly minor changes in the Walden/Disney adaptations made massive differences in characters.
 
As for women fighting: years ago, on this forum, a yay-girl-power feminist argued that women are fit for battlefield combat because they can lift heavy weights WITH THEIR FEET. "Okay, Corporal, lie on your back and throw that antitank missile with your feet!"

In the real world, female police officers are often compelled to draw their guns because they CANNOT OVERPOWER a big male criminal physically. While there are SOME women strong enough to prevail in close-quarters duke-it-out combat (think Gina Carano), there are not nearly AS MANY such women as one faction of society wants us to think.

Mister Lewis, a real-world combat veteran, spoke from the real world when he had Father Christmas warn that battles were ugly WHEN WOMEN FOUGHT. Changing this important and accurate statement for the movie was pandering to pacifists in the audience who would like to hear an implied anti-war sentiment instead of the accurate cautionary speech.
 
Copperfox said:
As for women fighting: years ago, on this forum, a yay-girl-power feminist argued that women are fit for battlefield combat because they can lift heavy weights WITH THEIR FEET. "Okay, Corporal, lie on your back and throw that antitank missile with your feet!"

In the real world, female police officers are often compelled to draw their guns because they CANNOT OVERPOWER a big male criminal physically. While there are SOME women strong enough to prevail in close-quarters duke-it-out combat (think Gina Carano), there are not nearly AS MANY such women as one faction of society wants us to think.

Mister Lewis, a real-world combat veteran, spoke from the real world when he had Father Christmas warn that battles were ugly WHEN WOMEN FOUGHT. Changing this important and accurate statement for the movie was pandering to pacifists in the audience who would like to hear an implied anti-war sentiment instead of the accurate cautionary speech.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Maybe the dialogue could be changed to battles are ugly affairs when the very young fight. At the time, Lucy was only 9 and way too young for battles. There seemed to be a change in tone in H&HB when Lucy fought in the battle so even within the series, there is a contradiction.
 
I'd really enjoy seeing the dialogue in future adaptations match as closely as possible to the books. I hold these stories in such high esteem. I don't wish to see them become typical blockbusters geared toward the next, next generation. I'd rather all sorts of planning and funding be put into them ahead of time. That is I'd hope their success wouldn't be entirely dependent upon the reception of modern audiences. Insomuch, the vocabulary and phrasing used throughout could be an opportunity for curiosity rather than bewilderment. The inspiration of audiences to discover the meaning and context of the way in which words were used in mid-century England and in Narnia could be just one of the many distinguishing hallmarks of the next filmed series.
 
_Some_ alteration to dialogue may be harmless. What is _not_ harmless is making _fundamental_ changes to the very nature of a major character.

In the book of Prince Caspian, Peter makes _one_ error in judgment early on, while acting with good intentions. This, by itself, was _fully_ sufficient to prevent Peter from being "an impossibly perfect Gary Stu." But Andrew Adamson, forgetting that Prince Caspian was not supposed to be a Shrek movie, went miles beyond this, _intentionally_ changing Peter into a bungler who couldn't do anything right.

Adamson wouldn't even let Peter be the one who first thought of duelling Miraz.
 
I was satisfied with the first two Narnia films that Walden Media did. In some aspect, Andrew Adamson was the right director (though he did some stuff I didn't quite agree with). Michael Adpted, not so much for VDT.

It wouldn't surprise me if the new Narnia films or series decides to have the dwarfs call out to the Calormenes, "Hey, got enough Calormenes?" instead of "Darkies" due to being a racial outburst. The Focus on the Family Radio Adaptation (which is the closest to accurate to the books we got) did that, which is understandable. If CS Lewis had written the books today, he may have chosen a different word than darkies (though I don't think we can know for sure).
 
That comparison of Adamson's Peter to Shrek is on point. It's sad but true.

I don't see the line in and of itself as racist. Some people have lighter skin, some have darker skin. If a viewer were to take issue with it, isn't that a reflection of their own outlook? I agree that lines like this have a fair probability of being altered. That line probably isn't integral to the plot anyway. Perhaps a sneer from one of the characteristically sarcastic dwarves would demonstrate the sad reality of the lingering spread of racism and subterfuge in Calormene-subjugated Narnia.

Naturally, the language Lewis used comes from across the pond (relative to me at least) from decades prior. For me that's part of what characterizes the context of the story. My only concern is that our society has become overly sensitive to the use of language in certain mediums, even as people tear each other apart on social media or on daytime talk shows.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if it is possible that a DVD or a blu ray copy of the new Narnia films would give an option that shows chapter refrences on the screen (for instance, MN has Chapter 1: The Wrong Door come up on bottom of the screen). Perhaps, for those who haven't read the book or even if they had, they want to be sure it matches up the books. Given that movies or series don't always match up with the books (which I don't think we should really expect they should 100%), it could be helpful in some way.
 
In the BBC version of "Silver Chair", instead of saying that they must be gay, Puddleglum said they must be merry and bright. It didn't change the meaning of the scene but altered how the definition had changed and taken on a far different connotation that would have possibly altered the scene had they not changed the word.
 
Back
Top