I just found out yesterday that my church has scheduled a sneak-preview viewing on Dec. 8 in a local theater. That’s one less day I’ll have to wait!
(if I can get a babysitter…)
Except that wouldn’t be an ash tree, but the Apple Tree. Re-read The Magician’s Nephew.
And one of the only things I have specifically planned for Christmas break is to take my mom to see this movie. Fortunately, my mom did and does read, and introduced me to these and many other great books as a child.
I’m going to a Narnia preview this Friday in NYC, held for members of the ministry and selfless, hard-working church youth group leaders such as myself.
A link to a description of the event is here.
Yowza!
I attended a preview of **The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe ** that included 10 minutes of material from the movie. Douglas Gresham, CS Lewis’ stepson, and son of Joy Gresham - the Joy as in Suprised by Joy - was there to talk about bringing the book to the screen, what they wanted to accomplish with the movie, and what the Narnia books meant to him. Gresham also spoke about the character of CS Lewis and what it was like to have him as his stepfather.
Here is what I thought you might like to know:
- Douglas Gresham is co-producer of the movie. He has been adamant that the movie stay faithful to the book.
- I’ve read the series four or five times. As I watched the advance clip, there was nothing that struck me as incongruous or ‘not like I pictured it.’
- Turkish Delight is still called Turkish Delight.
- The movie looks amazing.
Thank you, CBCD and Douglas Gresham!
Woo-hoo! I don’t have to burn any theatres down!
Dung Beetle, I reported the possible changes to the movie (the change in setting etc.) at work, and your proposed response. You had at least eight (out of a staff of ten) willing co-burners.
Good to know there are people out there who care about what’s really important! 
It boggles the mind when filmmakers take some beloved source material and make such idiotic, unnecessary changes.
Why do I hear this post in Dana Carvey Church Lady voice? 
He is not a tame lion!!
Well, isn’t that special!
CBCD , could you summarize the 10 minutes you saw (maybe in a spoiler box). How many scenes did they show?
thanks
Brian
Pshaw. Piker. I might have read them that many times from grades 3-5 alone.
I second this request. Details! We want details! (And when are they going to release a new trailer, I want to know?)
Sorry for the delay in responding. Sometimes work gets in the way!
They showed a 10 minute film that was a series of scenes, in sequence, from the movie. I don’t remember all of it, and I was trying not to let my friend seated to my left see that I started crying about 2 minutes into the clip. It started with some very scary shots of bombers over London, and scenes of Pevinses running from the house into the bomb shelter during a Blitz. Hmm…looks as if Evil is a real presence in world. Then to the train station, for some pretty emotional good-byes from the mother to the children as they got on the train. Handkerchief check-point #1. The lamppost in Narnia looks exactly right to me. Edmund being a creep and making fun of Lucy, Lucy’s despair, all is well again when the children all go into Narnia and meet the Beavers. What’s odd is that the movie seems so well done there isn’t a lot new to tell. Scary scenes of nasty Maugrim, et al, chasing the children over the ice. Edmund in the statue garden of the White Witch…you know the story, and you know the scenes, and it was just grand.
An excellent detail was the growl of utter disdain that Aslan let out as he walked up to the Stone Table to meet his appointment with the White Witch. Her slobbering minions were taunting him, and he gave them a look as if to say ‘Don’t f*ck with me.’ Handkerchief #2 is completely sodden by now, time to start using my left sleeve.
One thing that is different from the book, but not a problem, is the focus on the battle at the end. In the book it’s given a few pages, and in the movie it obviously is a grand finale of sorts. Peter’s fight with the Witch is described in a few lines in the book, in the movie it is longer and given more flourish. It’s not a problem at all - again, it’s so well done. It appeared that the White Witch was wearing Aslan’s pelt as she went to battle in her chariot. That wasn’t in the book; it is a completely fitting detail nonetheless. You see the White Witch wearing what she thinks is the skin of her vanquished enemy, and she looks like the foulest creature in the world. Then Aslan appears on the top of a crag and roars. She looks up, sees him, and she shouts, in A+ Tilda Swinton style ’Impossible!’ My left sleeve is now soaked, time to start using my right sleeve.
Just glorious.
The event was about two hours long. There was a representative from Disney who gave an introduction to the story using slides from the movie. She described it as a great story, with wonderful characters, who do amazing things, and learn a great deal doing so. I realized later that she demonstrated that the movie can be enjoyed at all the different levels that the book was. If you saw Aslan as Christ in the book, you’ll see him as Christ in the movie. If you saw Aslan as a brave lion in the book, you’ll see him as a brave lion in the movie. Disney is not marketing Narnia as a Christian movie. Other folks are, and some of them presented at this preview.
Steven Curtis Chapman was there and sang two songs. Apparently he is a big deal in Christian music, but he was just a name to me.
Everyone there got the coolest Narnia box full of ‘stuff’ - posters, CD’s, cards, more stuff, pictures, and more stuff. Like this and this.
CBCD writes:
> It started with some very scary shots of bombers over London, and scenes of
> Pevinses running from the house into the bomb shelter during a Blitz.
> Hmm…looks as if Evil is a real presence in world. Then to the train station, for
> some pretty emotional good-byes from the mother to the children as they got
> on the train.
This entire sequence is, of course, a massive expansion of what’s one paragraph (and a rather vague paragraph, at that) in the book. This is rather disturbing to me. I do not consider it a good sign when, instead of telling the story that the author thought was important, a filmmaker decides to tell another story that’s at best incidental to the main story because it’s more “cinematic” (or maybe because the filmmaker just doesn’t particularly like the main story.
Or maybe the author could get away with a shortcut (merely mentioning the London blitz) because most of his audience were familiar with all that the term implied, while the vast majority of the film’s audience would not be.
Besides, the best way to make a movie out of a book is NOT necessarily to just treat the book as a screenplay/script. In fact, I’d venture that that’s rarely, if ever, the best way.
If your point is that people today are too ignorant to know about the London blitz, then they are also too ignorant to know about World War II. If it’s necessary to start the film with scenes of the London blitz, then it’s necessary to start it with an explanation of the timeline of World War II. The Chronicles of Narnia are not about the London blitz. They’re also not about the professor’s household. Wasting a long sequence on the blitz and on the arrival of the Pevensie children at the professor’s house just cuts into the time that should be spent in Narnia. I’ve got a bad feeling about this movie.
It’s not a long sequence on the Blitz by any means - it’s about 30 seconds. I’m not worried about this movie at all.
Just to let you all know – I was in Barnes & Noble this weekend and they had a Narnia picture book there with lots of still pictures from the movie. From what
I could see in the picture book there seemed to be one major deviation from the book (other than that increased focus on the blitz, which I had no problem with as it seemed to be limited to a brief explanatory sequence at the very beginning), was a scene in which Peter encounters Maugrim some time before the big battle and dithers a bit – he doesn’t want to fight. Aslan pumps him up though and, at the battle, Peter comes through and kills the wolf. Now, in the book, I recall the Peter as being unsure of his ability to rule a country, but not ever concerned that he did not wish to fight. This felt to me like a concession to modern sensibilities in which not-wanting-to-fight is considered to be the honorable default position. But Peter was going to be in a battle, and he was going to kill … so they (the movie-makers) felt they needed to have it explicitly explained why it was necessary that Peter fight. This was all pretty sketchy in a picture-book format, of course – maybe I’m reading too much into it. Also, in the movie, Susan apparently kills somebody (I don’t remember who) in the battle. So I think we can assume that the whole “wars are ugly when women fight” thing was dispensed with. These were the most glaring differences I noticed.
As for the good stuff – the movie stills looked great. The children appear well-cast (especially Peter, who I think looks exactly right, and the Witch, whom I’ve always ‘seen’ as dark-haired, but who looked perfect as a blonde anyway). And Father Christmas looked wonderful – just exactly as he ought to look. Overall, I’m optimistic and very much looking forward to seeing this.
Most kids today are not going to understand why the Pevensies are being sent out into the country to stay with total strangers. I didn’t when I read the books. It’s not that important because you can just gloss over it to get into the real story, but I was pretty happy when I figured out the set-up of the book. Lewis didn’t need to explain it at the time, but then he probably didn’t expect it to become the worldwide classic it is now. It’s not necessary to explain all of WWII, just that home has become dangerous and children are being sent to safer places. If it’s a short expository scene, then I’m glad it’s there.
I’m more worried about the things I’ve seen in the preview that make the house seem like an oppressive, scary place and the professor a forbidding mystery. CBCD, any word on that?