>Peter is cast by a girl
>Susan is a black
>Edmund is a gay
>Lucy is quadriplegic
It sounds like another case of producers not understanding what "reboot" means.
Most producers and studios only seem to understand "reboot" as being "this is a new movie in a franchise we haven't made a movie in for a while, and we want it to be accessible to people who may not have seen the other ones." I've seen people call Tron Legacy a "reboot" even though if you saw the original Tron you can very clearly tell that Legacy is a sequel.
Exactly. They are just using the nomenclature incorrectly, as per the norm. The only thing that will be a "reboot" about this movie is that they will probably recast Eustice since they sat on this project for too long and now the old actor is an adult. And they will probably still have Liam Neeson as Aslan and he'll look exactly the same as he did in the last 3 movies.
Horse and His boy would be dope
Silver Chair was my favorite as a kid
didn't they already do and fuck up Voyage of the Dawn Treader? What a disgrace. That would be worthy of a reboot
from what I remember The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe and Prince Caspian were decent
Just start with The Magician's Nephew then stick with the chronological order.
The Magician's Nephew
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Horse and His Boy
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle
It's not actually a reboot, guys. They are picking up exactly where Voyage of the Dawn Treader left off. The only reason they used the word "reboot" is because it's been 10 years since VODT came out.
The last one bombed because the retards behind it didn't understand that the charm of Dawn Treader was that it was just an adventure about exploring uncharted lands and threw in some fanfiction about the White Witch resurrecting as an evil cloud.
Isn't it just an adaptation? A reboot is putting life into an old franchise, Narnia is a series of old books.
Did they call it a reboot when Baz Luhrmann made his Romeo and Juliet?
rebooting the franchise, continuing chronologically in adaptation
>putting life into an old franchise
that's exactly what they're doing by recasting the film and going with a fresh direction
Did anybody read the books recently? I liked them as a kid, but I have a feeling they wouldn't hold up if read them again, especially with all the jesus stuff that went over my head when I was young
>they wouldn't hold up if read them again, especially with all the jesus stuff
The main producer died after Voyage of the Dawn Treader and everything kind of went to shit from there. They've spent the last 10 years trying to unfuck the situation with getting the next one made, and at one point they were actually planning on doing The Magician's Nephew as the next one.
The problem with the Dawn Treader book is that it really plays out more like a TV miniseries than a movie. They kind of shoehorned it into an overarching plot that would be more filmable.
If you can accept how far they deviated from the book it's a pretty decent movie, but it suffered from the same problems as The Hobbit as far as adaptation goes. Just like the Hobbit had to make changes and add new plotlines for the sake of stretching one novel into three movies and stylistically matching it to Lord of the Rings, Dawn Treader added new plot elements and changed stuff for the sake of giving the audience an easier to digest beginning-middle-end movie plot, no doubt due to fears that the episodic nature of the book would have left audiences bored and / or confused.
It's one of problems where only people who read the book would really understand it. I think that the general audience's reaction to Dawn Treader was with surprise and confusion that it's tonally much different from the first two due to being an adventure movie set at sea. In some ways it feels a bit more like Pirates of the Caribbean than it does the first to movies, and I have little doubt that the producers chose to make the changes because of fear that the audience would react poorly to the tonal shift between Prince Caspian and Dawn Treader, especially since Prince Caspian made less money than LWW, and it was a departure in tone from the first movie since it was much darker and had less magic (which is part of the source material, but for the movie they chose to play it up and expand upon it).
I'd be lying if I said I didn't love all three, but I can certainly recongize that they have problems, and they are not always very faithful adaptations of the books.
I really don't know what they're going to do for The Last Battle if the movie series gets that far. It's kind of a weird book and it lays on the not-so-subtle Christian metaphors even thicker than LWW. It's probably going to be a repeat of what happened with Dawn Treader where they take the basic narrative of the book but make a bunch of changes for the sake of not losing the audience. I would dare say I expect it to be the least faithful of an adaptation out of all the movies, but really who knows. It's probably going to be the last movie in the series, so either way they'll be getting paid and it wouldn't matter if it flopped-- unless they're hoping to go back for The Magician's Nephew and A Horse and his Boy.
I would love to see all of the books in the series get adapted, even if my gut tells me that we're only going to get the main 5. All of the books have things that I would like to get to see on the screen with my own eyes, although this series has been on somewhat shaky ground ever since Prince Caspian made less money than LWW, and I would be relieved just to see the main story finally completed after a decade of uncertainty.
Yeah, Last Battle would be terrible I bet. I was never even a big fan of the book, and I think a screen adaptation would make it even worse. It was so ham fisted I noticed the Christian allegory when I was like 10.
There are actually some subtle Catholic references that Tolkien put in LOTR. The books aren't really religious allegories, although Tolkien did at one point fess up that Lembas Bread were a reference to communion wafers, and also the Phial of Galadriel is basically filled with holy water. LOTR was more of an allegory of European and British history, and the black and white good vs. evil themes were influenced by Tolkien's religious beliefs. There are few morally gray characters in Middle Earth like you'd find in something like Star Wars, because ultimately everyone is ultimately serving good or evil whether or not they recognize it.
>Rather than film this over 25 years Netflix never just took this and made it as the answer to Game of Thrones but for kids and finished it in 5
They could have been done by now.
It was alright
It literally has no ending scene though. The story is just progressing and then stops suddenly. There isn't a climax and resolution, it just ends. It makes it even worse when you realize they never made a sequel
Damn this looks pretty good, I'm pretty hype.
It's got nice special effects, but like other anon said, there's no story resolution and books are obviously better. If you haven't read the books though, it's entertaining enough, most people were just pissed off at how it was worse.
Prince Caspian was actually my favorite. Dawn Treader is the weakest, and as an adaptation of the book it's mediocre, but I still like it. I think that The Silver Chair will probably put the series back on track since it's more along the lines of LWW, with kids wandering through Narnia again and seeing the sights.
And then, depending on how they handle The Last Battle, it's probably going to go completely off the rails again. But at least we'll have gone through the whole thing and gotten closure.
It's a delicate path to go down. If The Silver Chair is a success they'll pretty much be obligated to finish the series at that point, but there's not exactly a dynamite script in their waiting to burst out. They'll either have to give themselves a creative free hand to make a movie that will sit well with audiences and risk pissing off the fans, like they did with Dawn Treader, or they can try and play it by the book and risk losing the audience, which I doubt the studio would like, and then we can kiss Magician's Nephew and A Horse and His Boy goodbye.
I can't even begin to imagine how I would try to "fix" The Last Battle to make it work as a movie, and anything I could come up with would end up being like bad fanfiction. It's a hard balance to strike between acknowledging that the source material is flawed and might benefit from some tweaks, and still being respectful to the author's vision.
I'm not sure if Lewis ever thought they would make movies out of these books, but I doubt that he was particularly concerned with whether or not the final book was unfilmable. There are going to be changes, and they're probably going to be significant.
No it won't because it was a shit book series to begin with and only the original both book and movie were worth wasting your time on
Even normies stopped caring because it got so bad
>Only sith believe in absolutes, because sith are absolutely evil!
Absolute good and evil do exist in Star Wars, but there's a surprisingly vast amount of space for neutral characters to occupy. Some of them are friendly and others are mean, but ultimately they are characters out to serve themselves rather than a greater cause.
In LOTR, you generally get the sense that people who do wrong to one another are in some way or another aidind the dark powers, even if they aren't aware of it. The only two characters that spring to my mind that are legitimately neutral are Tom Bombadill, who really was only in LOTR as a cameo, and Bill Ferney, who is a conniving con man who ultimately helped the heroes by selling them a pony, but only because he wanted their money (and of course, he overcharged them). For the most part either you are a law abiding citizen, or someone who is making middle earth a worse place in some way.
>not doing the prequel book with Jadis
>Lucy's character arc in Dawn Treader was all about learning not to be jealous of Susan's beauty and popularity
>In The Last Battle Susan ends up being kind of a bitch anyway, so take that
What Lewis did with Susan is nothing short of bizarre.
Oh no, someone who was described as not having the child-like imagination of her siblings partially due to her need to be the mother figure to her younger siblings while they were fleeing to the countryside from bombs, gradually grew over the years to believe that Narnia (which Aslan told her she would never return to, anyway) was a game she played with her siblings when she was a 12 year old. Then she's interested in being social, after a traumatic childhood, which is just awful. Then literally her entire family, and family friends she'd known since a child, are killed in a train crash.
It's a pretty great childrens fantasy book. The ending of the last book gave me my first feel ever I think.
Also it's about Angels are evil interdimensional space gods who use childrape as their powersource and God is a senile old man trapped in a magic coffin. It's 10/10.
Maybe it's because I was raised in an atheist home or because I was fairly young when reading them, but they felt very complicated and grim for a children book. Specially the second and the third. I loved them but I was like "what the fuck I'm reading" all the time.
I also hated the female doctor chapters though I don't remember why.
And it's portrayed as though she wasn't worthy of joining them. I don't know if it's worse that her social life and forgetting about Narnia were supposed to be horrible enough sins that she can't go to heaven, or that being killed in a train crash is supposed to be a gift.
They'd better not ruin Puddleglum
How can it be a reboot if its litterally picking up where it left off. It doesn't even have the same characters in it.
>Adapt first 3 books
>starting with the 4th book
Is it the film makers that are retarded or just the people promoting it?
The Horse and his Boy is the story of a perilous journey through the desert country of uncivilized, barbaric, false-god-worshipping brown people. It's by far the best book, but wouldn't be made in today's political climate.
>rebooting a franchise that didn't even finish
>with a movie in the middle of the franchise
>main producer died
Explains everything post 2010
She was probably studying abroad. I can't picture if they will use the same actors now or if they'll select a new bunch.
I don't really see why not. They're all supposed to be adults by the time the final book takes place anyway, so it's not like they have to be too worried about the ages. The kid who played Eustace kind of got shafted though, because he's too old to play him in Silver Chair and obviously they wouldn't waffle backwards after recasting him. Such is the industry, though.
Maybe in the movie they will try and put a bit of a redemptive twist on Susan, in that she's the living legacy of the family. It's going to turn out sad for her either way, but I think they should try to downplay the notion that not being on the train was somehow a punishment for something she did wrong. She went to Narnia during a very traumatic time in her life and it's understandable that she started questioning what was real and what wasn't after having spent many years away from it.
If I remember right, there's like, one character from the previous book that comes back for that one. The kid that got turned into a dragon for a while, Eustache or something ?
What's even the point of a reboot ?
It's kind of funny going back and seeing the old BBC Narnia again, because in the back of my mind it's so much like retro Doctor Who.
Speaking of which, how would you guys feel if they got another former Doctor to play Puddleglum in the new movie?
>that being killed in a train crash is supposed to be a gift.
Right? It was really fucked up because it wasn't just "oh, it just so happened along the years that as Lucy, etc, died (of old age, ailments, whatever) they were welcomed into Aslan's Country where they could live in Narnia forever" but it was a very specific, predestined "all of the people who believed in Narnia died in a horrific train crash and went to Narnia heaven, and poor ol' Susan didn't ~believe~ so she didn't get to join them in their tragic, early death."
Hollywood's definition of a reboot is different from what it is for fans. Fans hear "reboot" ant we think of it as a series starting over, usually going back to the beginning with a pseudo-remake.
Hollywood just uses "reboot" to refer to anything that's a relaunch of a brand, including sequels. Sometimes what they call a "reboot" might also be a remake, but they will call just about anything a reboot these days. Terminator Salvation and Terminator Genesys were both billed as reboots despite being sequels, as was Tron Legacy, Superman Returns, and Predators. I swear I saw some publication even refer to Star Wars Episode VII as a "reboot" of the franchise even though all 6 prior episodes were box office hits.
When we say "reboot" we almost always are referring to a continuity reset-- either completely starting the series over, or ignoring unsuccessful sequels and starting over from the franchise's peak. When Hollywood says "reboot" they are just saying they want to attract new fans to an old series that hasn't had a recent film, which would make it a pretty much worthless term to anyone who isn't involved in the business/marketing side of things.
>It's by far the best book, but wouldn't be made in today's political climate.
Just wait until January. Memes will come true.
whats /tv/'s opinion on the first movie?
i liked it, it was really comfy
I always imagine her becoming a.professor, and after her retirement she finds some remnant of her childhood while going through boxed things kept in her attic. then she decides to write books based on her childhood game of Narnia, from her POV. as she finishes the last book, which ends with the death of her family, she writes that perhaps narnia is real--if you're willing to krep the belief alive. then when she dies she finds herself at the border of Aslan's Country, on a precipice.
I think that shit would rub audiences the wrong way. I think people could accept it if it was "well, they were all going to die in the crash so Aslan brought them to live with him in his country instead since it was better than dying in the crash," but they'd have to re-frame Susan's role in it all if they wanted audiences to accept it.
Maybe during Susan's grieving she's visited by Aslan one last time, and he gives his condolences and promises her that she'll see her family again someday as long as she keeps believing, and that she needs to be strong and live her life for them. It would give the ending a kind of bittersweet but hopeful tone, even if that's not exactly the message Lewis wanted to leave the readers with about Susan.
I want to watch the series again now. I have really fond memories of the first film especially. I own the whole series on Blu-Ray so I should really get to it.
I even have the cardboard slip cover for Prince Caspian, which even when I bought it a few years ago was already rare.
It would be an interesting twist if in the movie's universe, Susan ended up becoming the author of the Chronicles of Narnia books. Maybe they could imply that she also started studying theology as an homage to CS Lewis.
I wonder if that is something Lewis might have done if he had lived longer.
After The Last Battle was published, he got a lot of letters from readers about Susan. He wrote that: "The story of her journey would be longer and more like a grown-up novel than I wanted to write." According to the Narnia Wiki he ws planning a book called Susan of Narnia but I've never been able to find a source for this.
If there are notes, probably. But I don't know if there are notes to be found.
I wonder if we'll ever get an 'official/authorized' new Narnia book, if Lewis' estate would ever allow it.
If that's the case then I think Lewis would be okay with them appending Susan's ending to give her a better sendoff. I really don't think Aslan would just give up on her, especially since in Prince Caspian he told Susan and Peter that they had both learned all they could from being Narnia and now it was time for them to grow up. The movie could have an epilogue following Susan around through different stages of life, and then end implying she finally sees her family again in Aslan's country-- perhaps after she finishes writing the Chronicles of Narnia books, which would also be a bit of an in-joke about how her ending in the book was unsatisfying. She didn't know how her story was going to end, so it wasn't in the book.
You'd probably have better luck with it than trying to get the Tolkien estate to authorize a new Middle Earth book. Which is really sad and ironic, because one of the biggest reasons Tolkien was writing The Silmarillion was because he wanted future authors to have a more complete history on which more Middle Earth books could be written. He intended for Middle Earth to keep going after he was gone, but his estate is notorious for not wanting anyone to write more material. Pretty much the only way you're going to see new Middle Earth stories is through video games, because they didn't exist when Tolkien died and yet somehow his estate ended up selling the rights.
Not to mention that of course Susan would have viewed it as a game or dream, or would have at least hoped it was.
Susan didn't even want to go to Narnia at first, but had to because of her siblings. Then after all they went through in LWW, she and her siblings became rulers. She became a queen, ruled a kingdom, and settled down for more than a decade of her life. She grew into an adult. Then suddenly, without warning or choice, as a 27 year old woman, she was thrust back into the body of a 12 year old back on Earth. The books even say at one point that Narnia became something "half-remembered," like a dream to them.
A year later, their lives are back to normal. Then suddenly, she was dramatically and more forcefully than before--she literally tells the magic to 'stop, stop!'--thrust from Earth back into Narnia. But Narnia thousands of years later. Everyone she knew and loved in Narnia is dead. She goes through war, and then is told by Aslan that she can't ever come back to Narnia because she's "too old." (13 and you're out the door!) Again, they're back on Earth, where Narnia is half-remembered.
Even if part of her believed in Narnia, what good would continued belief do her? She could not return. She could not share her experiences with anyone but her family--who practically obsessed with Narnia and, unlike her, never seemed to really cultivate a normal life on Earth--and a handful of other people.
yeah but not going to heaven because of the silly reasons isn't that bad, the top of hell is surprisingly decent, and people who repent just have to climb a mountain with the weight of their sins and then hey get to go to heaven anyway.
Or if you take the other interpretation everyone just goes to shoel for a bit until the big sorting in which some are resurrected and some die for realsies.
I liked the first one
Do the others have to be that expenaive though?
I feel like if they want to make a quality product, they need to film their new trilogy or whatever in one swing like Peter Jackson did with lotr.
The children getting older kills the immersion and waiting too long for a sequel kills the hype
Yeah I know it makes sense, she didn't believe in Narnia so she couldn't go to Narnia heaven, but it's still a fucked up thing for a kids book. It's consistent with the allegory but it doesn't make the overall message of the allegory any better.
>wanting to create this
Bloody hell this would completely ruin all Tolkien ever wrote. Basically all events of Middle Earth finally led to Lord Of The Rings. Of course there are numerous stories and thematics in the middle earth mythos, but it can't bve contested that Lord Of The Rings is the centerpiece of it all. Giving room to some retarded fan fiction BUT WAIT, ANOTHER EVIL LORD LIVES BEYOND RHUN/HARAD/FOROCHEL/WHATEVER- crap would completely ruin the importance of Frodo's quest.
Of all of Lewis' works why can't they do something like "Till we have faces"? That would be more original and much deeper than these stories, but yeah prob not the money bag children's movie tend to be... I would like film version of TWHF that stayed pretty true to the point of the story.
If I recall, the Silver Chair had a female protagonist, did it not? Ah well, I suppose that'll make it an instant 0/10 worst movie ever raped my childhood mary sue forced diversity won't do well in china failure on /tv/.
I recently listened to the audiobooks as an adult ( read them as a kid) and I found them more enjoyable. They have some content you miss in them as a child even if you arent fond of the religious tones
Why didn't they just start with The Magician's Nephew and carry on from there? Even if it meant combining two books into each movie so there's more action or whatever the overarching story has such a clear progression that jumping forwards like they did made each of the films lesser and the franchise even less than the sum of its parts, instead of more.