Into the Wardrobe

I disagree there, Dan. I think that LWW stands up on its own much better than PC.

As a stand-alone film, I think PC is kind of a mess. The reason I like it is that I as a fan know they were working with extremely uncinematic source material. There were many many unavoidable problems with adapting PC into a movie. On top of that, it's generally the least liked of the books. So considering all the things PC had going against it, I think they did a good job. That's why I call PC a good adaptation. Or, at least, as good as it could have been.

LWW was more accurate than PC, but I think PC was more faithful. LWW made fewer changes, but the emotional core of it is very different from what I got out of the book. With PC, they made many changes (most unavoidable or necessary), but the emotional core is very similar to what I got out of the book.

But "emotional core" was not the point of the books at all.
The ideas and themes of the books - the very things that make them Christian - are precisely what got gutted to a much greater extent in PC. How you emotionally feel about something can perhaps be invoked by almost anything - but the value and interest of Narnia for most of us is that they are Christian literature - not just any literature. As I said before, the all-important theme of skepticism and falling away from faith was eliminated.

My wife walked out on the film halfway - at the castle raid - and proceeded to rant all day on how totally un-Lewisian the film was.

Thanks, Glumpuddle! (You helped me sharpen my thought.)
I meant eliminated among everyone in the story EXCEPT the children. The issue of doubt among Narnians and Telmarines alike was gone - the Telmarines about the Narnians was wiped early on by the early capture of Trumpkin, Trumpkin's doubt of the children and Aslan (the most important of the 'skepticisms', I think) was largely dispensed of, etc, etc.

Of course the film retained Christian ideas. But the main idea of a falling away from faith - specifically, the skepticism that resulted among the people - was removed.

And the whole 'sending out Susan and Lucy to go get Aslan at the end' was a complete departure from Lewis, too, like so many others, but that's another issue.

The ultimate question is not whether PC had only a few Christian themes or many Christian themes, but whether it said what Lewis was trying to say. And the answer is a resounding "NO!"

rusmeister,
If you really think it through though, many of those changes were almost unavoidable (see for more on this). Trumpkin, for example. Because of the necessary re-structuring of the story, they needed another way to explain what happened to Narnia, and Trumpkin was the only way to do it. They needed him to believe in more of the old things so he could explain what happened to the Pevensies. You can tell by watching the movie that the writers struggled with this. Trumpkin's position in the movie seems to be that Aslan did exist, but has since abandoned Narnia. When Lucy says she saw Aslan at the gorge, Trumpkin says "I'm not about to jump off a cliff for someone who doesn't exist."

The issue of sending Lucy out was another unavoidable problem (I talk about that in more depth ). We've been complaining about it for months over at NarniaWeb, but haven't really come up with a better solution to it. Again, I think you can tell from watching the movie that the writers were caught between knowing it didn't really make sense and knowing there was no other way to solve this adaptation problem. I think this was the reason they decided to have Lucy being pursued by a Telmarine when Aslan appears. It takes the emphasis off Lucy "looking" for Aslan. In that moment, Lucy was simply running for her life, not looking for Aslan. Aslan appeared of his own will to rescue her. I think that was done to make Aslan seem less "tame."

So, I think we essentially agree on what's wrong with the PC film. The difference is that I'm more accepting of the film because I think most of the problems couldn't be helped because of the book that was being adapted. Now, I'm just relieved they managed to get past PC so we can get onto the books are are much more suited for film. (If VDT is as far from the book as PC, I'll be just as upset as you. PC was a big exception)

I agree that the PC film does not quite reflect Lewis' intentions. But I also believe this was largely unavoidable, and under the circumstances, they did a pretty good job. The book is just so uncinematic, there were many changes that simply had to be made. That's why I say the PC film was about as good as it could have been.

I think there's a lot that's reasonable in your position.
But the skepticism issue could have been totally left in there together with the cool cinematic battles and special effects. The simple fact that nearly everyone doubted both Aslan and the Pevensie children need not have been eliminated. Changing the idea to stuff that everyone accepted as true but merely long ago undercuts the entire problem of the disbelief of the modern age. The lack of faith in Christ, the Apostles, the miracles and the early Church is what the book was about, and what the movie absolutely was not about.
Otherwise, there's a lot that I wouldn't argue with you on.

Rus,

How old is that child in the picture in your avatar at this point in time?

- Dan -

That's great. I'd love to see a picture some day in a new avatar or just a separate pic.

- Dan -

random fact/boast - did you know Prince Caspian was filmed partially in Poland? The foresty and rocky parts...I have been to the places, walked the same paths.

Actually there is a nice pun in the movie which is only noticeable for those who know the name of the place: at some point there is a moment the group walking through the foresty-rocky area stops by a rock, confused and one of them (I think it's Caspian... or Peter) asks sth like "are we lost?" The pun is that the very name of the place in Polish implies it is very easy to loose your way there. (sort of a labirynth of rocks).

Recently I finished watching the cast commentary on PC. It's interesting that Adamson mentioned the "Archery lesson" scene with the flirtatious look between S and C that got us all a little worried when we saw it in the trailer but then never made it into the movie. Adamson said he thought the scene just made the flirtation subplot go over the top and made the kiss at the end less spontaneous.

Again, the kiss didn't bother me that much, and I found that I also didn't mind Lucy sitting on the Stone Table as much, keeping in mind the special relationship between Lucy and Aslan and how she might draw comfort in troubled times from being in contact with the Table.

What I did mind is what Rus has mentioned several times, is the lack of the very important theme of belief in a world of unbelief.

- Dan -

I thought major problems were that:
(1) Price Caspian was evidently of an age to have been made King. This weakens the whole story.
(2) His Uncle fails to defeat Peter in combat. This strengthens a view that might is the solution whereas in the book the whole point is that Peter is unable to do this.

I thought these major defects but perhaps not to the age group intended as audience. It might have been inevitable that there was going to be change but perhaps it could have been scripted to more readily reinforce some of the issues which others have pointed out may not be flagged with sufficient clarity.

The biggest surprsie for me was that a friend mentioned in passing at dinner that he had been an extra on the film: a Narnian with an animal mask on his head!