The Temptation of Lucy and Transformation of Eustace

Well, you really can't compare the two series because of the difference in material available. Remember, Tolkien fleshed out pretty much everything and everyone in Middle-Earth; Lewis left a lot to the imagination, and didn't write anything else concerning Narnia. Considering that, Peter Jackson had the ability to choose material from other sources, such as the appendices (which he used pretty extensively for people such as Aragorn and Arwen), but the Narnia producers don't have that luxury.

They could have stuck closer to the book's material, but in all honesty, adapting a book isn't so straightforward. You're trying to please both the book fans and those who won't ever touch the books. It's a fine line and sometimes you have to cross it to please the majority. In the case of those who wrote the screenplays for the Love Comes Softly movie series, based on a series of books by Janette Oke, the movies were not anywhere near the books. If you've seen them, and read them, you'll know what I mean! About the only things actually adapted from the books into the films were the names of the characters (for the most part), and the title of the books. In light of that, PC was very close to the book versus something like that.

I don't know why the writers decide things that they do. They're trying (presumably) to do two things: Please the book fans, the ones who mostly decide the future of the series, and they are also trying to please the majority of people who have never read or never will read the books. It's a very fine line. Say that you have the choice to write a blockbuster or an adaptation that's word for word and probably wouldn't make more than $50 million at the box office. If you could write a blockbuster that added elements, fleshed out, but kept the main story intact, would you choose that or an exact adaptation?

Who, in the end, would be paying for the film's success? Peter Jackson and his team had nearly no room for leaving anything to the imagination because they had so much "extra" material to glean from. That's why the movies are so much more faithful to the books. If you look at LWW, it's almost not any further than Dawn Treader. I could go into a list of comparison, but as I'm getting off topic and this post is already long enough ( :p ), I won't.

EDIT: and even if you made a faithful adaptation, I guarantee you that people won't be entirely happy because every person imagines something different of a character, place, building, etc...
 
Another difference between LOTR and CON is that LOTR is a trilogy, and for everything to remain cohesive they couldn't change too much from one movie to the next. CON is a series, but each book has it's own plot. That makes it easier for Hollywood to change things... they only have the one movie to worry about. They can change a lot of things in one movie, then stick completely to the book on the next and it's not going to effect the series as a whole.
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
Well, you really can't compare the two series because of the difference in material available. Remember, Tolkien fleshed out pretty much everything and everyone in Middle-Earth; Lewis left a lot to the imagination, and didn't write anything else concerning Narnia. Considering that, Peter Jackson had the ability to choose material from other sources, such as the appendices (which he used pretty extensively for people such as Aragorn and Arwen), but the Narnia producers don't have that luxury.
Click to expand...
I'm not comparing the series, only the basic differences in adaptation. You're right, Tolkien wrote much more to work with than Lewis, but my point is that they stuck with Tolkien's story for the most part (barring the Warg battle in TTT and similar events in that film). Lewis didn't leave a Green Mist that eats people and wants to swallow up the entire Narnian world to the imagination.

They could have stuck closer to the book's material, but in all honesty, adapting a book isn't so straightforward. You're trying to please both the book fans and those who won't ever touch the books. It's a fine line and sometimes you have to cross it to please the majority. In the case of those who wrote the screenplays for the Love Comes Softly movie series, based on a series of books by Janette Oke, the movies were not anywhere near the books. If you've seen them, and read them, you'll know what I mean! About the only things actually adapted from the books into the films were the names of the characters (for the most part), and the title of the books. In light of that, PC was very close to the book versus something like that.
Click to expand...
If the filmmakers pulled a Love Comes Softly on us Narnia fans, I'd sue! Michael Landon Jr. shouldn't be allowed near these films...

I don't know why the writers decide things that they do. They're trying (presumably) to do two things: Please the book fans, the ones who mostly decide the future of the series, and they are also trying to please the majority of people who have never read or never will read the books. It's a very fine line. Say that you have the choice to write a blockbuster or an adaptation that's word for word and probably wouldn't make more than $50 million at the box office. If you could write a blockbuster that added elements, fleshed out, but kept the main story intact, would you choose that or an exact adaptation?

Who, in the end, would be paying for the film's success? Peter Jackson and his team had nearly no room for leaving anything to the imagination because they had so much "extra" material to glean from. That's why the movies are so much more faithful to the books. If you look at LWW, it's almost not any further than Dawn Treader. I could go into a list of comparison, but as I'm getting off topic and this post is already long enough ( :p ), I won't.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you think VDT is as close to the book as LWW.

and even if you made a faithful adaptation, I guarantee you that people won't be entirely happy because every person imagines something different of a character, place, building, etc...
Click to expand...
Yep. Terrible, isn't it? Poor filmmakers...

bjdoureaux said:
Another difference between LOTR and CON is that LOTR is a trilogy, and for everything to remain cohesive they couldn't change too much from one movie to the next. CON is a series, but each book has it's own plot. That makes it easier for Hollywood to change things... they only have the one movie to worry about. They can change a lot of things in one movie, then stick completely to the book on the next and it's not going to effect the series as a whole.
Click to expand...
Actually, LOTR is more than just a trilogy: it's actually a single novel, split into three parts for easier publishing, which made it harder to adapt!
 
His films are great, but they're never faithful adaptations. I don't even want to think about what he'd do to a Narnia movie...:eek:
 
Conflicting Thoughts...

My thoughts:
Aside thoughts: I actually hadn't read the book recently before I went to see the movie (although I have read it eight times).

Lucy Beauty Conflict:
Personally I see both sides of the argument, the book reveals dark consequences with Lucy and her desire for beauty which I feel gave much more depth to the plotline as a whole. However I really liked the movie's interpretation also concerning it connected it to other people that everyone knows like Susan. Also, it made a very bold point to emphasize that the children would never have known (Aslan/God) or entered into Narnia if it hadn't been for Lucy.

Eustace as Dragon:
Here is where I didn't like the movie's adapted version. Although I will say that I like some of the scenes between Reepicheep and Eustace (as the dragon), they could have had so much more content and depth to the Eustace as the dragon. For example Eustace (as dragon) in the book is constantly trying to scrape away his scales and in the movie you caught a brief glimpse of that before his transformation. (Which lost much depth to his character and made the dragon actually seem like a happy thing to have become)

Overall:
I guess my main thoughts concerning the movie vs. the books... Is that some of the added things to the movie I love, however I feel that they shouldn't even be trying to look for things to add to the movie as already many things are being left out. The books are fleshed enough and rift with content that the film makers shouldn't even really need to add anything.

The movie for me is losing so much of the behind depth that the stories capture, sure it's hard to communicate some things through a film, but it's possible if you think of ways. I feel so often that the Narnia film adaptions (in general, Voyage of the Dawn Treader in particular) are rushed. They are so busy trying to enrapture the audience in the story that you miss so many things underlying the plot. Connection and references are quickly lost in added action scenes (that originally never existed). I feel that so much of a novel or movie is how it silently speaks through visual and music rather than physical action or a myriad of words that often can't communicate emotion properly.
 
No offense, but if you knew anything about adapting a book to screenplay, you'd realize that nothing is ever so straightforward. Peter Jackson and his team wrote and re-wrote the scripts for "Rings" every single day. The main reason was is that they came up with new ideas or lines, or realized that something they had changed wasn't working, or something they had adapted didn't work. While we would all prefer to have the books adapted as faithfully as possible, it just can't be done. A Christmas Carol (2009) is one of the few adaptations that I enjoyed without having read the book. It's almost a literal adaptation, but even then, there were some major deviations from the book itself.

Dawn Treader is one of those books where, try as you might, the plot just doesn't have a common thread aside from the lost lords. Where is the adventure in that? The only adventures the group has are on Narrowhaven and on DeathWater. Having the Swords plot, whether you agree with the change or not, gave the movie a plotline. It gave it a thread to connect everything else to.

As for Eustace as a dragoning, the fact that he was unhappy as a dragon is made apparent in other ways than him scratching at himself. Remember him crying beside the fire? And even though he was a dragon, he was afraid to enter Dark Island (something I found important). Reepicheep had to convince him to fly into the Island regardless of his fears. I never saw where Eustace was glad that he was a dragon. IF he was glad to be a dragon, his demeanor would not have changed at all after being changed back into a boy.

When you have a large audience that has never read teh book, and probably will never read them, you have to put in things that make sense to them. You can't write for the book fans. You have to write for both. They accomplished that task beautifully in LWW (and why it wasn't repeated I will never know), and there are times when you have to change the story's elements. I've never heard anyone holler about Harry Potter. Were they good adaptations for every film? What about Twilight?

The problem with Narnia is the fact that there are no backgrounds to these stories. Lord of the Rings had other books, stories, and appendices that the writers drew from, and they fleshed out characters that were otherwise insignificant. You have to give the writers some credit; they didn't have much material to work with. And they know that literal adaptations never work. It doesn't sell.
 
Threads and Evolving...

@ Avaris Kenobi

I understand many of your points, at the same time though it's not that I want a 100% adaption = to the books I understand the major difficulties with that. As personally I actually liked the green mist (swords a little less). But it is true that they gave the story a common thread. For me I see the common thread as their ultimate destination, the end of the world. I feel that there were ways to find a common thread that could have worked much better than what they used. Honestly I can criticize little about the movie because I did like it a lot, I just know it could have been better. (Although they did sadly have the smaller budget problem). I see your points about Eustace not liking being a dragon, he did cry... Overall I believe they just could have fleshed more upon even their additions. It seemed rushed and not quite an elaborate plot that slowly evolved into a captivating climax and conclusion even with their newly created threads.

I agree completely with your statement why they don't continue like they did with LWW, I'll never know, there were plot changes from the book but they adhered to both audiences. The plot changes were utilized in a way to cover all ends though not to introduce whole new tangents.

 
I get mad when people say it's a voyage to nowhere... that there is no purpose for the Pevensie's being in Narnia.

Aslan's line at the end says it all. THEY WERE THERE IN NARNIA SO THAT BY KNOWING HIM THERE A LITTLE, THEY COULD KNOW HIM IN THERE WORLD. Along the voyage, they are all growing in their faith, learning to grow closer to Aslan. The voyage was not pointless. If you pay attention, you can pick up on that. You can see that all the events were leading up to the final destination.
 
Fleshing It Out...

MissReepicheep said:
I get mad when people say it's a voyage to nowhere... that there is no purpose for the Pevensie's being in Narnia.

Aslan's line at the end says it all. THEY WERE THERE IN NARNIA SO THAT BY KNOWING HIM THERE A LITTLE, THEY COULD KNOW HIM IN THERE WORLD. Along the voyage, they are all growing in their faith, learning to grow closer to Aslan. The voyage was not pointless. If you pay attention, you can pick up on that. You can see that all the events were leading up to the final destination.
Click to expand...


It wasn't a voyage to nowhere I heavily disagree with that statement.

You can pick up on it and it did lead up to it, I just felt it was rushed and could have incrementally built up and crescendoed to it much better...

Everything was in the film adaption in some sense, I feel they could have fleshed it out much better than they did.

They are still great films and I loved the Voyage of the Dawn Treader actually am going to go see it for a third time this Wednesday. :eek: :p
 
Last edited:
Oh, dear, I wasn't trying to imply that YOU had said that it was a voyage to nowhere. I was just ranting after reading several negative critical reviews on the movie. Sorry. :eek:
 
Negative and Positive...

MissReepicheep said:
Oh, dear, I wasn't trying to imply that YOU had said that it was a voyage to nowhere. I was just ranting after reading several negative critical reviews on the movie. Sorry. :eek:
Click to expand...

Hah, no problem... I understand I have heard people not wanting to go see the movie simply because Prince Caspian didn't follow the book 100%... I get frustrated all the time that some people are without basis negative towards The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and they haven't even seen it. Or, if they have seen it they only point out negative without realizing all the things that were done beautifully. :eek:
 
For one, I didn't say that the book OR the film was a voyage to nowhere. for mainstream audiences, however, it can seem that way. Like the book itself, the whole film culminated in the ending with Aslan.

To keep mainstream audiences interested, something else needs to be added in for a purpose. If you notice, they don't really change the whole goal of sailing to Aslan's Country. It may not be very evident, but it's still there.
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
For one, I didn't say that the book OR the film was a voyage to nowhere. for mainstream audiences, however, it can seem that way. Like the book itself, the whole film culminated in the ending with Aslan.

To keep mainstream audiences interested, something else needs to be added in for a purpose. If you notice, they don't really change the whole goal of sailing to Aslan's Country. It may not be very evident, but it's still there.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, yes!!! :D That's exactly right!

Again, I was not accusing ANYONE ON THIS FORUM for calling it a voyage to nowhere. ;)
 
"To keep mainstream audiences interested, something else needs to be added in for a purpose."

Why Aravis? There was nothing wrong with their purpose for going on the trek other than exploration and seeking the lost lords.

To me, the mist storyline was too supernatural. I would have preferred more of a character driven plot than a magical device they are seeking to create in order to somehow destroy a greater evil.

The mist story implied that Aslan was not in total control of his own creation. If they wanted to add more, then the character issues should have been highloighted. Keep the focus on Eustace and his ransformation from jerk to loyal crewmember.

MrBob
 
I think it was not a bad idea to give a visual to the evil. They were being tempted, and having the visual made it seem even more real. The only part with the mist that I really didn't like/approve of was the sacrifice to the mist. It seemed a little too supernatural, as well as cheesy. =/
 
MrBob said:
"To keep mainstream audiences interested, something else needs to be added in for a purpose."

Why Aravis? There was nothing wrong with their purpose for going on the trek other than exploration and seeking the lost lords.

To me, the mist storyline was too supernatural. I would have preferred more of a character driven plot than a magical device they are seeking to create in order to somehow destroy a greater evil.

The mist story implied that Aslan was not in total control of his own creation. If they wanted to add more, then the character issues should have been highloighted. Keep the focus on Eustace and his ransformation from jerk to loyal crewmember.

MrBob
Click to expand...

Because as I've said, and I won't say again, literal adaptations do not work. Using the example of Disney's A Christmas Carol (2009) which, incidentally, was very close to the book (and in a lot of places word for word), but it wasn't exactly like the book. They deviated from the book in several places. I'm not saying you shouldn't aim for a close adaptation. But if you follow the storyline as it is in the books, you will bore your audience. Every person knows that at the end of Christmas Carol, Scrooge turns his life around. No surprise there, so can you imagine how difficult it is to create a film that's entertaining, despite the fact that most audiences know how it ends? In Narnia, it's the same thing. As fans, we all know how each book/story ends. Others don't. And to be perfectly honest, I do NOT want literal adaptations because I would know exactly what happens and how.

Having deviations in adaptations can be good (If done correctly) because not only are you surprising your book audience, your keeping the mainstream audience connected as well.

MrBob, let me pose this question to you: since there is evil in this world...evil that has destroyed countries and people, is God not in control over it? Is He any less powerful than He was in the Garden of Eden? He doesn't intervene in daily affairs, and neither does Aslan. (This does not mean He doesn't care; I'm speaking more of the nature of free will). Simply because evil exists doesn't mean there isn't something over it. If Aslan wanted to, he could have destroyed Jadis at the very beginning. It wasn't impossible for him to do; but he didn't.

Now I ask, how is the green mist idea any different than when Aslan is absent in other parts of Narnian history? We are never told just how often he shows up, but we know that his appearances are few and far between. How is this any different than his absences in other stories that we know of? In my mind, not at all. If there is evil, there has to be good. It's like night and day. They are opposites but they both exist. The evil in this world is absolutely NO different than the Green Mist concept. There is one thing I really like about the ending of PC, and it's something I think that helped emphasize Aslan's authority: the River God only came when Aslan roared. It was clear that the RIver God was in submission to Aslan, as all things are in submission to God.

MissReepicheep said:
I think it was not a bad idea to give a visual to the evil. They were being tempted, and having the visual made it seem even more real. The only part with the mist that I really didn't like/approve of was the sacrifice to the mist. It seemed a little too supernatural, as well as cheesy. =/
Click to expand...

I didn't like the whole sacrifice thing either...however I do have to remind myself that these were secular people writing the script.

But I do have to say, we're getting very off topic again.
 
Last edited:
Temptation Absolved...?

@ Avaris Kenobi

I agree with you on some points, (I liked them giving the evil a visual through the green mist)

However the fact I didn't like is it was a common good vs. evil situation and mildly predictable. Why was there simply a grand "villain" to conquer such as the green mist? The green mist represents temptation throughout the film adaption and in a way they made it seem like it was completely conquered through the island "absolving" of the darkness. Temptation really isn't something you can conquer it is ever-present and that's why in many ways I love Tilda Swinton's (sp?) cameo appearances as the White Witch throughout. When something profound and grave impacts your life it still affects your thoughts and mind until you die. That's why I love the addition of in many ways of the White Witch still haunting the Pevensie children, because she profoundly altered their lives in Narnia.

Now concerning Aslan versus the mist yes he could have spoke it away, but I agree with you here that "things never happen the same twice" yet I wish Aslan (at least I don't remember him doing so) had acknowledged the mist or at least created legends surrounding the mist. It seemed like this great "villain" appeared rather than had a legacy or origin behind it.

Now maybe they'll delve more into that in the hopeful Silver Chair adaption but we'll just have to wait and see for that...

 
Last edited:
Icewolfer93 said:
Temptation really isn't something you can conquer it is ever-present
Click to expand...

Of course temptation is ever present, but be careful when saying it's something you can't conquer. If you couldn't overcome temptation, then Jesus wouldn't have been able to resist Satan's temptation in the wilderness! They didn't "conquer" their temptations so much as "overcame" them, and you must be careful in addressing that. There is a big difference between the two words.
 
Back
Top