What is ONE thing you hope happens in the Netflix Narnia stuff, that you are concerned they won't do?

The question is if they get to all of the books. I don't think the Walden movies intentionally skipped TMN, it's just that VotDT didn't do nearly as good as they wanted or expected it to and discontinued the series due to the latter two likely losing a lot of money. I don't know how the BBC made the decisions to adapt only four books. There is no way within LWW to add any Jadis backstory. Heck, we never learn how she gained the right to take the lives of traitors.
 
They skipped over TMN in order to do the three movies they did first. TMN was scheduled to be their 4th movie. However, Walden Media took too long and, not only was the main cast aging out, but their contract for the rights to the films with the Lewis estate expired in 2011, thus preventing them from continuing. It depends on how you were to do the LWW, the beginning of the Walden film focuses a great deal on Jadis. You could easily have her drop a few lines when first speaking with Edmund and/or when she is talking to her henchmen/turning enemies to stone.
 
There's a reason every series has started with LWW first. It's not because they are skipping TMN, it's because they are starting with the first published and most popular and known of the books. Where did you see that Walden would be going to TMN next. The end of VotDt was almost a sequel tag with Eustace's mother telling him that Jill Pole was at the door.

Personally, as I have stated before, I think they could put TMN in right after the first movie with the Professor explaining to the kids why he believes them having gone to Narnia. That could then transition to Digory's tale in TMN, although they could also fit H&HB between the end of LWW and before they get back or continue it as a narrative of the kids telling the Professor what they did after he finishes with his story. The positives with this is that it would allow the PC and VotDT to quickly be filmed without the kids aging too quickly while also filming the two other films.
 
Walden didn't do anything with the Professor except to show how he was in the books. In fact, Lewis wrote TMN last. You are dealing with inner chronology. That's not necessarily how movie makers deal with making movies. They didn't skip any books, they just started them in publication order.
 
They need a way to make it clear that they’re not doing a one-to-one translation of the books. We spend way too much time discussing that than the actual content they put out.

Maybe something like “based on the stories of CS Lewis” right at the beginning of each episode.
 
ShastaoftheNineRealms said:
However, Walden Media took too long and, not only was the main cast aging out, but their contract for the rights to the films with the Lewis estate expired in 2011
Click to expand...
The Magicians Nephew is an entirely new cast. No need to dumb down the movies because audiences have become used to story tellers spoon feed them. This was the second to last book to come out and my favourite along side with The Last Battle. Beginning and end stories both beautiful described and told. If you had read the previous 5 books you would be in for a treat when reading this one. And if you did not piece together who Jadis is you would be in for some awe and wonder as it all comes together. The Lamp post bouncing off Aslan's face and sinking into the mud and then growing to be a lamp post. The magic and wonder of this revelation as everything comes together is not something I would want to spoil for anyone. Of course I think people should read the books first. The movies, at least the latest Disney versions are horrible poor attempts at a copy of the beauty and wonder of the original tales untouched by Hollywoods hands,
 
crjr9833 said:
The fall of Susan into worldliness.
Click to expand...
why would you want to see that? It is a sad thing at it is simply mentioned in the book. And of all the things that would get dropped or not make it into a movie/tv adaptation, this is a dark piece I could leave as described in the book, a sibling asking about her and Aslan giving his brief answer.
 
In the book, it was Tirian who inquired about where Susan was and I think Lucy and Polly saying what happened to her, Polly in particular.
 
I'm slightly more concerned if she's caved to pressure from the so-called "entertainment journalists" who hyped up Neil Gaiman's short story "The Problem of Susan" (to the point that was treated as canon with Lewis books), and used it as a source material, and not just because of the current NSFW ( and for this forum) accusations against him. I read that short story once...and to quote Bruce Wayne in the pilot episode of Batman Beyond..."Never again".

It was distrubing on so many levels, even before the accusations.
 
Copperfox said:
Does anyone know if it's true that Greta Gerwig wants Jadis to HAVE A LEGITIMATE EXCUSE for being a murderous tyrant?
Click to expand...
It would not surprise me. Can't have a big villain who is a women who does not have some sort of redemptive justification for her evil deeds. I have no hopes for a good adaption of any of the Narnia books, but am open to being proven wrong. I think anyone who truly loves the stories and messages Lewis brought out Narnia would be concerned by any Hollywood approach to his work. Hollywood is so anti the Christian message, it is hard to imagine that people coming out of the movie scene can even truly grasp the beauty and wonder in Lewis's tales.

Sven-El said:
I'm slightly more concerned if she's caved to pressure from the so-called "entertainment journalists" who hyped up Neil Gaiman's short story "The Problem of Susan" (to the point that was treated as canon with Lewis books), and used it as a source material, and not just because of the current NSFW ( and for this forum) accusations against him. I read that short story once...and to quote Bruce Wayne in the pilot episode of Batman Beyond..."Never again".

It was distrubing on so many levels, even before the accusations.
Click to expand...
Who treated this book as canon? I have not read the book, nor do I have any interest in it as I personally think the only one who could truly add to this series is Lewis himself. Though I do have to say I am curious about what Francis Spufford wrote. For the very select few who have read his Narnia tale it was called a "seamless recreation".

www.theguardian.com

Francis Spufford pens unauthorised Narnia novel

The Stone Table hailed as a ‘seamless recreation’ of CS Lewis’s style, but this addition to the acclaimed series of children’s books may never be published
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
ShastaoftheNineRealms said:
It's very lame to have a one note villain who is just evil just for the sake of being evil. It's also not very realistic.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the last thing I need, or want with Jadis is for us to receive some sob story to justify her omnicidal tendencies. I've reached a point where I get tired of trying to make villains, in particular irredeemably evil ones just "misunderstood". I actually miss the days of memorable Disney villains like Jafar, Ursula, Hades, Scar, Professor Rattigan, Yzma, The Wicked Queen, and Malefiecent. Yes, they were one note. But man..do I remember them.

Case in point, I skipped the Joker movies as a mater of principal. As a fan of Batman I couldn't stomach the idea of trying to make a character who's canonical greatest hits in the comics include murdering Robin, crippling ( and potentially violating) Batgirl, and torturing Commissioner Gordon out to just be "misunderstood" and and try to justify his actions. Or Cruella? So the only reason she wanted to kill and skin puppies to make a coat is because pack of dalmations killed her mother? Please.

Now, in the case of Jadis, we must remember that when she is telling the story of the destruction of Charn we only hear her side of the story. We can't assume she's telling the truth, but she should convince us that maybe she is. That can only come if she's played by a great actress with a great script. If anything, perhaps she should be closer to Thanos in Avengers Infinity War.

Or, closer to home, the inspiration should be Screwtape. Everything Screwtape tells us is a lie, but he is so convinced he is right that it comes across as the truth.
 
Last edited:
"It's very lame to have a one note villain who is just evil just for the sake of being evil. It's also not very realistic."

Shasta, Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter was one of the most popularly hated villains in the series, even surpassing Voldemort in some areas. In the novels and books, she was evil just for the sake of being evil. Even Voldemort, who was given a sympathetic backstory, embraced evil just for the sake of evil.

With Jadis, it actually showed in the hall of statues that the rulers in the beginning of the room had faces that were described as nice. The faces as Polly and Digory moved down the hall became sterner but still happy, then started to become cruel while still keeping a somewhat happy expression. Eventually, the happy faces were gone and despairing and cruel faces were on the statues. Jadis' face was described as fierce yet prideful. But I would ask regarding Jadis how to give her redeeming qualities when she committed complete genocide on her planet and tried to kill Aunt Letty simply for not kneeling in front of her and speaking ill of Jadis when Jadis was a guest in her house.

As for being realistic, there are real life people who are evil just for the sake of being evil. They may have somewhat sympathetic backgrounds, but their actions go far beyond their pasts and into pure evil.
 
MrBob said:
"It's very lame to have a one note villain who is just evil just for the sake of being evil. It's also not very realistic."

Shasta, Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter was one of the most popularly hated villains in the series, even surpassing Voldemort in some areas. In the novels and books, she was evil just for the sake of being evil. Even Voldemort, who was given a sympathetic backstory, embraced evil just for the sake of evil.

With Jadis, it actually showed in the hall of statues that the rulers in the beginning of the room had faces that were described as nice. The faces as Polly and Digory moved down the hall became sterner but still happy, then started to become cruel while still keeping a somewhat happy expression. Eventually, the happy faces were gone and despairing and cruel faces were on the statues. Jadis' face was described as fierce yet prideful. But I would ask regarding Jadis how to give her redeeming qualities when she committed complete genocide on her planet and tried to kill Aunt Letty simply for not kneeling in front of her and speaking ill of Jadis when Jadis was a guest in her house.

As for being realistic, there are real life people who are evil just for the sake of being evil. They may have somewhat sympathetic backgrounds, but their actions go far beyond their pasts and into pure evil.
Click to expand...
I think CS Lewis would disagree that there are people who are evil simply for evil's sake.

"Badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled. We call sadism a vice because sexual desire is good in itself; we call envy a vice because personal success is a good thing. You can be good for the mere sake of goodness; you cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness."

Evil is parasitic on good, it cannot stand on its own.
 
"I think CS Lewis would disagree that there are people who are evil simply for evil's sake."

wonderlings, people do embrace evil merely for evil's sake. They do it for the great feelings it gives them, for the power it gives them, for many reasons, all falling on the evil aspects of their behaviours and reasons behind it.
 
Back
Top