Where They Messed Up

tirian_son_of_erlian

tirian_son_of_erlian

Active member
I'm glad they started the series off with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. In many ways they relayed the beautiful story of C.S. Lewis. But I'm a sucker for details. I just have to point out some blunders. Maybe I'm just curious if these things bothered anybody else. To me, these hiccups seriously interefered with the flow, development, and cohesion of the story in its translation to the big screen. They are an expression of my extremely high expecatations for the series.

Just looking at the first 30 minutes of the film, the first thing by which I was taken aback was the tone and language Peter uses addressing his brother Edmund, after he runs back to the house to get the picture of their father. The way he angrily calls Edmund selfish may have fit the scene amid the anxiety of being bombed, but for us book fans, this tone set a clear precedent: that Peter would not be depicted as the noble, patient, and kind young man that he is in the book.

I had no problems with the train rolling through the countryside or even with the liberties taken in Mrs. MacCready's role. These enhancements and additions augmented the heart of the story Lewis wrote.

My next problem though was when they are playing hide and seek. The music they played during this scene ("Oh Johny" I guess it's called) was cute and representative of the era, it's just that I don't associate that style of music with the Chronicles of Narnia, you know? So that was a bit off for me. But what was too dramatic was Lucy's reaction when she opened the door to the spare room. She about flipped! I have never seen a child so mesmerized by a piece of furniture covered by a cloth. If TLW is filmed with the newcomer in mind, shouldn't the expression of amazement in Lucy's face be a bit more subtle?

Altough that my seem like belabouring a minor point, this final mess up from the first thirty minutes is not minor: Mr. Tumnus. How did they mess up with him? Let's see...Mr. Tumnus is the first non-human creature we meet on screen, right? As such, you want to make especially sure that he is convincing. Well, at very first glance, Mr. Tumnus' ears are fake. Fake! It is sooooooo obvious. For a film with such a high budget, this is cringeworthy. Additionally the hair glued to his forearms is distracting at best. What an oversight. It wouldn't bother me so much in the middle of the film. But when your first non-human character is dressed in felt, fabric and prosthetics, you're really doing an injustice to the movie-goer; anyone with even slight suspension of disbelief is not going to be convinced. The other problem I had with Tumnus is how he talks to Lucy about the White Witch. You can barely decipher what he is saying. I think it's unfortunate because this is where the moviegoer is introduced to the antagonist. Yet Tumnus says her name so fast you can barely catch it, as he chokes (I guess from sobbing) on his words.

Anyway...

For whatever reason I am in analysis/let's look for improvement mode. So, if you care to join me, take the next 30 min of the movie (or take any chunk from one of the other two movies) and tell us what you think went wrong. I want to know if people are on the same page with me on what happened as well as on what you want to see happen differently should another Narnia film ever ever ever ever ever get made.
 
Last edited:
The use of the song "Oh, Johnny" didn't bother me; it helped to identify the Pevensies with a particular era of real-world history, before they were transported to another dimension. But I agree with most of your criticisms. The first movie's flaws were not so bad as to ruin the story the way "Prince Caspian" was intentionally ruined; but the flaws that occurred in the first movie were maddening because they were needless.

What I will point out is the tampering that was done with the character of the Professor. The reason why he even exists in the LWW story (besides providing the entrance to the Narnian dimension) is to show us that logic is important, and that logic does not have to be in conflict with faith. In the book, when Peter and Susan spoke to the Professor about Lucy, he prompted them to think about things, like the fact that a prank-playing child would not pretend she'd been away for hours (and expect to be believed) if she had only been out of sight for a moment. This line of argument was to help the older siblings to grasp the possibility that other dimensions existed. But in the movie, the Professor was changed into a 21st-century therapeutic figure, making a mere emotional appeal: "She's your sister!"

This tampering contributed nothing positive to the movie; it only cheapened the script intellectually.
 
I didn't mind "Oh, Johnny," because I find the song so cute, representative of the era, and suitable for a hide-and-seek game. I would have minded if it appeared in the Narnia world, but in World War II England, it didn't feel out of place to me. However, I think that could definitely vary with personal preference.

I agree about Lucy's fascination with a cloth falling off a wardrobe being weird. It also to me cheapened her awe when she goes into Narnia. I mean, I trust her sense of wonder a little less if she, like a toddler, acts as though she has never seen cloth or common furniture before...

I also agree about Tumnus's costume leaving quite a bit to be desired. (It's almost as bad as BBC school play-ish costumes, lol.) It also is true that it was hard to hear when he introduced the main antagonist. That might be a bit problematic for people who hadn't read the books, especially.

The professor's talk with the children bugged me for the reason Copperfox mentioned. I liked Professor Kirke in the book because he could make me laugh while at the same time being really logical. I felt like he was able to appeal to the children's minds while at the same time taking into account emotional realities (such as whom they trusted more, etc). In the movie, he was just reduced to making illogical, emotional appeals you wouldn't really expect from a noted scholar.

I admit that Peter's anger with Edmund in the bombing scene didn't bother me too much. I guess I didn't mind Edmund's or Peter's portrayal in the first movie (Prince Caspian is an entirely different matter and I have many issues with Peter's depiction in that film), but I can see how some viewers would see it as ominous foreshadowing of the abuse Peter's character would endure in PC.
 
For me, I can certainly agree about Lucy's expressions. A for instance being when she tells Tumnus to keep the handkerchief because he needs it more, and then turns very serious...a bit too serious for a child her age in my opinion. But I think she did a marvelous job in most other parts of the movie.

As for the professor, I think his interactions with Peter and Susan were not what you would expect from a wise, caring, and dare I say a God fearing man? (for Digory was certainly familiar with the Lion). The movie brings him down (at times) to the same childish, hideous display we were all treated to in Prince NOT Caspian, and once again sounds like his lines were written by a clueless selfish teenager.

Yeah, I generally agree with you Tirian, but you knew that already :D
 
Peter: his anger at Edmund at the beginning were fine. This was a life or death situation and Edmund was going from safety to danger. Consoidering a bomb fell very near their house, this was a stupid move on Edmund's part. Where I thought they did a bad job was after the crcket game. Instead of acceptng the blame, he chose to run away from the accident.

Lucy: most of the doors were locked. This one happened to be unlocked and she got to see this new room. I was fine with her reaction. I do agree with Firefly that her sudden change to serious mood after telling Tumnus to keep the handkerchief was off-putting. I know what they were trying to do, but they didn't pull it off well.

The Professor: I also didn't like that they didn't expand the conversation into the logic of the amount of time she spent in Narnia.

The music: I was happy with the soundtrack.

MrBob
 
Firefly77 said:
For me, I can certainly agree about Lucy's expressions. A for instance being when she tells Tumnus to keep the handkerchief because he needs it more, and then turns very serious...a bit too serious for a child her age in my opinion. But I think she did a marvelous job in most other parts of the movie.

As for the professor, I think his interactions with Peter and Susan were not what you would expect from a wise, caring, and dare I say a God fearing man? (for Digory was certainly familiar with the Lion). The movie brings him down (at times) to the same childish, hideous display we were all treated to in Prince NOT Caspian, and once again sounds like his lines were written by a clueless selfish teenager.

Yeah, I generally agree with you Tirian, but you knew that already :D
Click to expand...

Totally agree about the professor. It was sad to see what they did with one of my favorite characters from the books:(

I also agree with Lucy looking a bit to serious with Tumnus and the hanky.

I do want to make clear, though, because I didn't say it and I meant to, that I don't blame Georgie for the weird expressions. I blame the director. I think she looked fascinated and serious because she was told to do so, and she just put on the expressions they told her to. She was a young actress, and I think that she did a great job with her role overall. She is basically exactly how I pictured Lucy's personality when I read the books. I don't want to come off as ripping into Georgie when she did an awesome job for someone her age, and I think any flaws in her performance can really be laid at the feet of the director.
 
Yep, I agree Sunshine, and I even though I don't like that response from Lucy in this movie, I think it shows a small glimpse of Georgie's amazing talent.
 
Thanks for responses!

Yes I too had issues with the professor, but was having trouble putting my finger on them.

While Peter's anger could be rationalized by our own measures, it clearly misrepresents his character. In the book when angy he reacts calmly; like when Edmund's lie is exposed, he calmly ascribes him "a posionous beast." Here is the exact text:

"So you really were here," he [Peter] said, "that time Lu said she'd met you in the here - and you made out she was telling lies."

There was a dead silence. "Well, of all the poisonous little beasts-" said Peter, and shrugged his shoulders and said no more. There seemed, indeed, no more to say...

So does Peter ever yell, get in his brother's face, or turn his own face red? Nothing I remember from the books suggests that he does. As Lewis points out in Prince Caspian, some things he says are "not because he is cross."

Anyway, a lot of this came up from rewatching The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (at least the first 30 minutes of it) recently. Should I continue to watch it, I may post more. And then onto Prince Caspian (that could take a while!). But don't hesitate on my behalf if you do in fact have comments of your own about the remainder of the film. I had an idea, but now I am relieved, that most of my perceptions are not unique.
 
tirian_son_of_erlian said:
Just looking at the first 30 minutes of the film, the first thing by which I was taken aback was the tone and language Peter uses addressing his brother Edmund, after he runs back to the house to get the picture of their father. The way he angrily calls Edmund selfish may have fit the scene amid the anxiety of being bombed, but for us book fans, this tone set a clear precedent: that Peter would not be depicted as the noble, patient, and kind young man that he is in the book.
Overall, I really enjoyed the film. However, I agree with this observation about Peter. To me, he came across as little more than a bully in the way he treated Edmund in this scene. If this was meant to portray the normal relationship he had with Edmund, and the usual manner in which he treated his younger brother, is it any wonder that Edmund was so easily enticed by the White Witch, as Jadis did appear (on the surface) to show Edmund kindness, noticeably lacking on Peter's part?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Firefly77 said:
Yep, I agree Sunshine, and I even though I don't like that response from Lucy in this movie, I think it shows a small glimpse of Georgie's amazing talent.
Click to expand...

At the risk of being off topic, I'll say that I thought that Georgie, of the actors and actresses who played the Pevensies, struck me as having the most talent. I felt like even her "mistakes" were cases where she still showed her natural talent and was probably misguided by a director who told her to show too much awe or seriousness in a certain situations. I hope she lands some other roles in other films. I would like to see her talents continue to grow in other roles.
 
Well, I watched the next thirty minutes of LWW, and this section is considerably better. But since this thread is to focus on what didn't work, let me comment on a few things.

Mr. Beaver. Granted, he was well-designed and conceptualized. Is the actor who plays him from Britain, New York, the Midwest or none of the above? I can't remember the actor who plays him let alone decipher his accent. It's a bit incompatible with his character, and all too often it gets exaggereated. A more mysterious approach to Aslan around their dinner table would have been appreciated. Having a veteran Narnian creature throw a temper tantrum because four humans he knew had just set foot in Narnia don't know who Aslan is, is, well, childish. Personally I think a different voice actor would have been better.

When the children make it to the Witch's house of ice (not a bad conceptual idea, but as a purist I would have preferred a cold stone castle) and Peter attempts to fetch Edmund, an argument ensues. This happens frequently with the Pevensies throughout the first two films, and I'm guessing Adamson is to blame. In the books, they reasonably talk things out. Rarely do they shout. On screen we see them crucifying each other with their words.

I'm probably overlooking some other things. But again with the beavers, there is a good bit I like about them. But a few things in the filming are directed disorderly in the beaver's home. In addition to Aslan's introduction, the prophecy is casualized. Mr. Beaver rushes through it seeming again to forget they just arrived in Narnia. Microseconds after finishing it, Susan decides "That doesn't even rhyme." But in fact bone and throne rhyme perfectly while bone/throne and done is an example of slant rhyme. So not only does her comment immediately distract from the already hyper-modulated prophecy Mr. Beaver presents, it also just isn't true.

Other than that I think I'm ok. I know the idea was to perhaps make Narnia-under-Jadis look dark and dismal with constant dark skies, but moonlight or something could have brought a little more life to the second half-hour of the film. In other words, this section feels very one-dimensional.
 
Last edited:
That bothered me as well Tirian. In the books, and even in the BBC version, the beaver's are represented as kind, sweet, and as though they have been anxiously awaiting the arrival of the children to fulfill prophecy. This contrasts horribly with the attitude of the new Mr Beaver, who watches Edmund staring at the castle, and says "Enjoying the view are we?
 
tirian_son_of_erlian said:
Well, I watched the next thirty minutes of LWW, and this section is considerably better. But since this thread is to focus on what didn't work, let me comment on a few things.

Mr. Beaver. Granted, he was well-designed and conceptualized. Is the actor who plays him from Britain, New York, the Midwest or none of the above? I can't remember the actor who plays him let alone decipher his accent. It's a bit incompatible with his character, and all too often it gets exaggereated. A more mysterious approach to Aslan around their dinner table would have been appreciated. Having a veteran Narnian creature throw a temper tantrum because four humans he knew had just set foot in Narnia don't know who Aslan is, is, well, childish. Personally I think a different voice actor would have been better.

When the children make it to the Witch's house of ice (not a bad conceptual idea, but as a purist I would have preferred a cold stone castle) and Peter attempts to fetch Edmund, an argument ensues. This happens frequently with the Pevensies throughout the first two films, and I'm guessing Adamson is to blame. In the books, they reasonably talk things out. Rarely do they shout. On screen we see them crucifying each other with their words.

I'm probably overlooking some other things. But again with the beavers, there is a good bit I like about them. But a few things in the filming are directed disorderly in the beaver's home. In addition to Aslan's introduction, the prophecy is casualized. Mr. Beaver rushes through it seeming again to forget they just arrived in Narnia. Microseconds after finishing it, Susan decides "That doesn't even rhyme." But in fact bone and throne rhyme perfectly while bone/throne and done is an example of slant rhyme. So not only does her comment immediately distract from the already hyper-modulated prophecy Mr. Beaver presents, it also just isn't true.

Other than that I think I'm ok. I know the idea was to perhaps make Narnia-under-Jadis look dark and dismal with constant dark skies, but moonlight or something could have brought a little more life to the second half-hour of the film. In other words, this section feels very one-dimensional.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Mr. Beaver's accent was weird. Sometimes he acted like he was British with his diction, but then he would say something that made him sound like a cowboy in the Wild West, and I'd be like, "Huh? Where are you supposed to be from, Sir Beaver?"

I didn't like when he yelled at the kids for not knowing Who Aslan was. It seemed very immature. He should have welcomed the chance to explain about Aslan, especially to children who had just come into Narnia and couldn't be expected to know about the Great Lion.

I didn't necessarily mind his question to Edmund about enjoying the view, since his words in the book after Edmund disappeared do indicate that he was suspicious of Edmund from the moment they met because Edmund had the look of someone who had eaten the Witch's food. I could see the justification for that line more than for his temper tantrum about the Pevensies not knowing who Aslan was.

Susan's comment was odd, 'cause bone and throne do indeed rhyme as the middle and end sound of both words are the same. I can only assume that this was meant to show that Susan wasn't as smart as she thinks she is...It also did distract from the very important prophecy, which Mr. Beaver, knowing that the kids it pertained to had just arrived and didn't know who Aslan was, should have elaborated on more. I mean, if you think somebody is going to fulfill a prophecy for you, Sir Beaver, you might want to be a bit more specific about what that prophecy is. Just a suggestion:p

So, mostly, I again agree with everyone's comments.
 
Ray Winstone, who supplied the voice of Mr. Beaver, is British if I'm not mistaken. He first came to my attention by his role as Bors in the 2004 "King Arthur" movie. This movie was one that intentionally and viciously mocked Christianity (the only characters in it who even mentioned Jesus at all were monstrously wicked villains). In view of that fact, I highly doubt that Mr. Winstone came to the LWW project with anything like reverence.
 
Copperfox said:
Ray Winstone, who supplied the voice of Mr. Beaver, is British if I'm not mistaken. He first came to my attention by his role as Bors in the 2004 "King Arthur" movie. This movie was one that intentionally and viciously mocked Christianity (the only characters in it who even mentioned Jesus at all were monstrously wicked villains). In view of that fact, I highly doubt that Mr. Winstone came to the LWW project with anything like reverence.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like it, unless he had a complete change of heart, but that would/should have been more evident in his performance as Mr. Beaver. Oh, well, we can always hope and pray for his seeing the light before the end...

At the very least, he has shown himself to be a "Christian" who doesn't mind playing in movies that are biased against Christianity.

Edited to fix grammar tense issue.
 
Ray Winston played Indy's "partner" in the latest Indiana Jones did he not? As some of you know I am in the process of editing the Narnia movies to be as good as they can be, and as I am especially feisty at present, I could always take Ray's lines and paste them into LWW at key points. Would anyone care to join me in laughing if, when Mr Beaver meets Aslan, instead of being reverent he says" What a stupid legend, what a waste of my time" just before Aslan roars and we see Mr Beaver go flying.

But seriously, one thing that does bother me is the way they changed the depiction of Aslan in some places. It is as if a real Aslan/Christ is so far-fetched and unbelievable that we have to somehow dumb Him down so the rest of us unbelievers can understand it. Aslan acting somewhat puzzled and asking how this could happen, when He hears the news of Edmund's betrayal.

This is not the Awesome God Who knows everything about us and loves us still. This is not the God Who is not surprised when we mess up, and is waiting to welcome us back when we repent. The fact is God is Awesome, His Majesty is overwhelming, and no words can adequately describe Him, whether you believe or not. Sinners and saints alike become dumbfounded in His Awesome Presence, and can only marvel at His Greatness. And yet in all this, it is children of all things that come so easily and freely to Him. So that is another aspect I wish they had kept true to, and I will get off my box now.
 
Firefly77 said:
Ray Winston played Indy's "partner" in the latest Indiana Jones did he not? As some of you know I am in the process of editing the Narnia movies to be as good as they can be, and as I am especially feisty at present, I could always take Ray's lines and paste them into LWW at key points. Would anyone care to join me in laughing if, when Mr Beaver meets Aslan, instead of being reverent he says" What a stupid legend, what a waste of my time" just before Aslan roars and we see Mr Beaver go flying.

But seriously, one thing that does bother me is the way they changed the depiction of Aslan in some places. It is as if a real Aslan/Christ is so far-fetched and unbelievable that we have to somehow dumb Him down so the rest of us unbelievers can understand it. Aslan acting somewhat puzzled and asking how this could happen, when He hears the news of Edmund's betrayal.

This is not the Awesome God Who knows everything about us and loves us still. This is not the God Who is not surprised when we mess up, and is waiting to welcome us back when we repent. The fact is God is Awesome, His Majesty is overwhelming, and no words can adequately describe Him, whether you believe or not. Sinners and saints alike become dumbfounded in His Awesome Presence, and can only marvel at His Greatness. And yet in all this, it is children of all things that come so easily and freely to Him. So that is another aspect I wish they had kept true to, and I will get off my box now.
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph made me:D

Your last paragraph was great. Don't get off your box yet.
 
There is one blunder which I can't greatly blame the moviemakers for, because Mr. Lewis innocently made the same mistake himself. Lewis was just not thinking of all the implications when he dashed off the first book.

If you've read ALL the Narnian tales, you know that the name "Narnia" properly means only PART OF the flat-topped quasi-planet that Aslan created; and that there were still plenty of human beings alive in that world DURING the time that Jadis ruled Narnia proper. They were out of reach of Jadis' power, and some would have been quick to repopulate Narnia once the Pevensies took authority. But Lewis didn't think ahead about this when he wrote "Lion/Witch"; therefore, the Walden people saw no need to bring it up either.

The movie, accordingly, leaves the uninformed viewer thinking that the four Pevensies GREW TO ADULTHOOD without ever seeing EVEN ONE other human being anyplace in the Narnian world. That's two grown men and two grown women with NOBODY ELSE of their species around, and no way of knowing that they would ever get OUT OF the Narnian world.

I was startled, but not for long, when I found out that several persons had written fanfics of a sort.... in which the four Pevensies were depicted.... as adjusting to this human-population limit.... in a way that the Moderators DEFINITELY would not wish to discuss here. Like it or not, that IS an inference that many would draw. But the idea would never even have come up if the movie had made SOME kind of reference to human realms existing outside the zone of the White Witch's power.

SELF-CORRECTION: Senior moment, my bad! I just remembered that Lewis DID at least passingly refer to the presence of other humans, by writing about the adult Susan and adult Lucy having men seeking to marry them. So the blunder IS after all the blunder of the moviemakers.
 
Last edited:
Copperfox said:
There is one blunder which I can't greatly blame the moviemakers for, because Mr. Lewis innocently made the same mistake himself. Lewis was just not thinking of all the implications when he dashed off the first book.

If you've read ALL the Narnian tales, you know that the name "Narnia" properly means only PART OF the flat-topped quasi-planet that Aslan created; and that there were still plenty of human beings alive in that world DURING the time that Jadis ruled Narnia proper. They were out of reach of Jadis' power, and some would have been quick to repopulate Narnia once the Pevensies took authority. But Lewis didn't think ahead about this when he wrote "Lion/Witch"; therefore, the Walden people saw no need to bring it up either.

The movie, accordingly, leaves the uninformed viewer thinking that the four Pevensies GREW TO ADULTHOOD without ever seeing EVEN ONE other human being anyplace in the Narnian world. That's two grown men and two grown women with NOBODY ELSE of their species around, and no way of knowing that they would ever get OUT OF the Narnian world.

I was startled, but not for long, when I found out that several persons had written fanfics of a sort.... in which the four Pevensies were depicted.... as adjusting to this human-population limit.... in a way that the Moderators DEFINITELY would not wish to discuss here. Like it or not, that IS an inference that many would draw. But the idea would never even have come up if the movie had made SOME kind of reference to human realms existing outside the zone of the White Witch's power.

SELF-CORRECTION: Senior moment, my bad! I just remembered that Lewis DID at least passingly refer to the presence of other humans, by writing about the adult Susan and adult Lucy having men seeking to marry them. So the blunder IS after all the blunder of the moviemakers.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to be a bit sympathetic to the moviemakers on this point, since Lewis doesn't talk about humans in the Narnian world that much in LWW, and they just might not have thought of the sick theories that people would come up with as a result of them not mentioning that there are other humans in the Narnian world, and some of them would have come back to Narnia or would have been rulers seeking marriage with the Pevensies. Those fanfics make me want to vomit and scream at the same time, but I do understand that the moviemakers might not have been thinking of those implications in the way that some viewers apparently did.

Then again, these are the moviemakers that gave us the horrible Suspian nonsense in PC, so I don't know why I bother to make excuses for them about anything. They probably have no idea that there were other humans in the Narnian world (in places like Archenland and Calormen) because they don't seem to have read the books too well given that they forget Caspian's marriage to a woman not named Susan when they were making the second movie...

Still, in hindsight, I do wish that they had a voiceover near the end of the LWW movie or something describing kings/princes seeking Lucy and Susan's hands in marriage, or that Tumnus, when Lucy first stumbles into Narnia, might ask her something about being a lost person of Archenland or just anything to give the impression that there are humans in Narnia. The BBC got around that because many of the Naiads and Dryads looked so human that someone not familiar with the books would probably have just assumed they were completely human. There are some advantages to school play special effects:p
 
SunshineRose said:
Still, in hindsight, I do wish that they had a voiceover near the end of the LWW movie or something describing kings/princes seeking Lucy and Susan's hands in marriage, or that Tumnus, when Lucy first stumbles into Narnia, might ask her something about being a lost person of Archenland or just anything to give the impression that there are humans in Narnia. The BBC got around that because many of the Naiads and Dryads looked so human that someone not familiar with the books would probably have just assumed they were completely human. There are some advantages to school play special effects:p
Click to expand...

So there are. And I'm sure most folks involved HADN'T read the complete Chronicles. Maybe we should be thankful that they didn't stick a motorcycle chase into the movie.
 
Back
Top