I went to see this movie with high excitement, but low expectations. Not that I expected it to be bad, just that I didn’t expect too much in the way of accuracy. (as far as the book was concerned)
This was due to a combination of remembering the liberties taken in the previous film and the premovie talk of this film’s deviations.
I’m very sorry to say that, even with these lowered standards, the movie still felt unfulfilling to me.
However, I’m not prepared to label this as a bad movie yet, because I have learned from past experience that I personally have to see a movie twice to really get it. I recall one time, I saw a certain movie and I thought it was just one of the worst things ever. But a little while later I saw it again, and it became one of my favorites.
So hopefully this is like that. Maybe I just have to see this again to appreciate it.
So, with that in mind, I’ll now examine various points of conflict I had with this film.
First of all, I have to say that when analyzing this film I had to look at it from many angles.
First, of course, as an accurate portrayal of the book. Not only in following the book’s events, but in capturing the symbolism that Lewis held so important.
Second, as a film in general. Just something to put in theaters and sell dvds.
The first angle also has subangles. These are somewhat complicated (actually, very complicated) to explain, but the main idea is, when judging how well a book based movie is done, you have to keep in mind that it will never be exactly like the book. However, it should be as close as it can. I realize though that some artistic liberties can be acceptable, but sometimes that creates a whole new angle you have to take the movie at. First, is the liberty acceptable, and second, if it is, how far can it be taken. (I know that is a very poor description, but I think you will see what I mean when I actually begin going through the points)
The second angle was easy. This was an incredible film. From a movie standpoint. It had action, emotion, and everything else a movie like this needs. I’m sure it will make lots of money and sell lots of dvds. This movie, from a commercial standpoint, was a great success.
The first angle, not so much.
There were many things that did not follow the book, or even were not from the book entirely.
Now, as I said before, these have to be viewed in two different ways. This is because of the one major change they made:
The fog.
In the book, the fog is only toward the end. It’s the Dark Island, where they find Lord Rhoop. That’s all. No wisps of green smoke following them throughout the lands. No ‘temptation’ at every turn, capable of making boats of people all the way in the Lone Islands disappear.
By enhancing the Dark Island’s power like they did, the filmmakers created their own plotline, separate from the book’s. The story now revolves around defeating the Dark Island. While this was an event in the book, in the movie it was not an event, it was the event.
I didn’t personally favor this change, but I accept it as artistic license.
Now, because of this new take on the plot, we have two separate categories in which to place things that don’t follow the book.
One, things that don’t follow the book for no apparent reason. Things they did differently, or just plain made up.
Two, things that don’t follow the book because of the plot change. These are things that differ from the book, but they differ because they are necessary now that we have this ‘stop the Island’ theme going on.
The best way to make this clear is probably an example.
Let’s take the following two events:
1) Dragon Island and Deathwater Island being combined
2) The addition of two new characters, the man and his daughter
Now, both of these things differ from the book. However, this first one was just ‘done’ (I realize it was for the sake of easier plot advancement, but it’s still a book deviation) The second was done because of the new plotline. If there wasn’t a green fog causing people to disappear, the man and girl wouldn’t have joined the crew, and there would be no deviation from the book. See what I mean?
So while the first change can be debated as to whether it was necessary or proper, the second one can’t. Because I said earlier that I accepted the new ‘fog plot’, it follows that changes relating to that plot are also accepted. (not all, but most)
I hope I made that clear.
Anyway, on to the points.
As I said, there were many deviations from the book. There were also varying degrees. As such, I have divided them into the categories of overlookable (things that were different from the book, but they’re minor or unimportant) disappointing (major changes that I feel were uncalled for) and in between (major changes, but not necessarily ‘bad’ ones)
Overlookable:
Eustace has live bugs in his room. (in the book, he likes bugs that are dead and on cards)
Lucy is brought on board the Dawn Treader unharmed. (in the book, she bumps her knee)
Ramandu is not shown, only mentioned
Coriakin is not revealed to be a star
Disappointing:
Lord Bern not buying Caspian, but instead being a prisoner himself
No overthrowing of Governor Gumpas
Eustace’s change from dragon back to boy
Aslan not being a lamb
Caspian being at the end of the world
In Between:
The Dufflpuds did not make themselves invisible
Eustace remains a dragon much longer than in the book
They find a lord dead on Dragon Island
The sea serpent attack was part of the Dark Island, not a separate event
Now, I’m going to run down that list to give my thoughts.
It is also important to note that some of these need to have that second filter of the second plot applied to them. I’ll make note of that when I get to them.
The first two overlookables are just that, so I’ll move past them.
Ramandu not being shown was somewhat overlookable since it isn’t, strictly speaking, necessary. However, the whole thing about him being a retired star and how he gets younger to go back up again is an interesting side story. As well as the food being eaten and regenerated each day.
Coriakin being revealed to be another star gives this story a new layer. And it also provides mystery at the unanswered questions like ‘what faults a star can commit’ that I always thought was a nice touch. It gave something to think about. But again, it isn’t technically necessary.
Lord Bern being a prisoner and not overthrowing Gumpas combine into what I thought was one of the biggest disappointments in the whole film: the relatively emotionless fight against the slave trade.
That was always one of my favorite parts of this story.
Bern buys Caspian, and when he discovers who he is he helps form a plan to rescue the others. They then abolish the slave trade, give Pug his comeuppance, and then proceed to overthrow Governor Gumpas and replace him with Bern. It was a great side story about fighting injustice.
All the movie had was them getting captured and then being freed. It actually felt quite apathetic to me.
Eustace’s change back from a dragon was also very disappointing. It is meant to symbolize being cleansed of sin by Baptism. It’s very descriptive and moving in the book. All the movie had was scratch, roar, wow he’s a boy again. It really lost the meaning.
Aslan didn’t appear as a lamb at the end of the world. The symbolism there is obvious, but once again lost in the movie.
In the book, Caspian is not allowed to go to the world’s end. In the movie, he not only goes, but almost continues on into Aslan’s country.
This was quite disappointing for me.
I understand why it was done, to keep the main characters involved, but it misses the point. Caspian staying behind was a test of his obedience to Aslan. He wanted to go very much, but he was told to let the others go instead. Changing that took something out.
Coriakin says that he was the one that made the Dufflpuds invisible. In the book, they did it themselves.
Now, this is one of the ones that has to be taken in stride with the new plot.
Coriakin did it to protect them from the green mist. In that context it makes sense, and is even acceptable. Indeed, it fits very well. However, changing it like this erases the whole side story of the Dufflpuds being so stupid they don’t see Coriakin is trying to help them in the various things he did that led up to them making themselves invisible.
I always found that part of the story amusing so I was sorry they took it out, but I can understand why they did. Since it wasn’t essential to the new plot of stopping the fog, it was removed so as to not include too many ‘unimportant’ storylines. I guess I can go with that.
Eustace remaining a dragon, again, is because of the new plot direction. They needed him to remain a dragon so he could fight the sea serpent, get the last sword, and save the day. Once again, if they hadn’t changed the plot the sea serpent wouldn’t have been saved for the end, and Eustace probably wouldn’t have still been a dragon. So in the context of the new storyline, I guess it’s okay.
Finding the dead lord on Dragon Island/Deathwater was an understandable plot device. They needed to identify him as one of the lords so they could account for his whereabouts and move on.
But I like how in the book, it isn’t as clear as that. They never actually find out for certain what happened to that lord, they just assume he met his end there. Was he eaten by the other dragon? Was he the other dragon? Did something else entirely happen to him? We’ll never know.
Of course, in the film they left out the other dragon entirely. So that sort of explains why they didn’t have those options.
The sea serpent attack, again, needs to be thought of in terms of the fog plot.
In the book it’s a separate event, but in the movie it is part of the Dark Island’s spell. And, it was used as a main plot device, making it necessary to appear where it did. In this context, I found this change acceptable.
There are probably a few other things I could touch on, but those are the main ones that I made note of.
What is my final judgment on this movie then?
Again, it depends on the point of view.
As a general movie, I found it very entertaining and enjoyable.
But, that’s not what it is.
It is, or should be, a visual representation of its Narnia story as C. S. Lewis meant it.
This means it should keep the symbolism intact. That was why Lewis wrote the books. Not to tell a story, to make a point. They had a deeper meaning, another message.
In this story, there are three main symbolisms.
The allusion to Baptism, Aslan as a lamb, and Aslan’s other name.
This film only contained one of those three.
To its credit, the one it did get it got perfectly. I thought they did that scene very well, and was very pleased that they took the line exactly from the book. By doing that, they kept the message perfectly intact.
But, in just about anything, one out of three is not very good.
Therefore, sadly, I must say that this movie failed to live up to what I believe is its responsibility.
The purpose here shouldn’t be to just make a blockbuster, it should be to preserve and present the message Lewis sought to reveal.
In my opinion, it seems the filmmakers strayed away from that and got caught up in their own goals.
As I said before, I understand that a book based movie is never too much like the book, and I kept that in mind. I’m not being picky about every little thing and making a fuss because they took liberties, I’m saying I believe that because of the story they chose to present they had certain duties, and I don’t feel they fulfilled them well enough.
This film definitely could have been a lot worse, but I believe it could have also been better.
* Disclaimer:
The text above is solely my personal opinion. It is not meant to cause offense to anyone who may have thought the movie was great.
As I said, I need to see movies twice. Some of the above stated positions may change once I see this film again.
The preceding was merely my personal take on the film as I saw it.
This was due to a combination of remembering the liberties taken in the previous film and the premovie talk of this film’s deviations.
I’m very sorry to say that, even with these lowered standards, the movie still felt unfulfilling to me.
However, I’m not prepared to label this as a bad movie yet, because I have learned from past experience that I personally have to see a movie twice to really get it. I recall one time, I saw a certain movie and I thought it was just one of the worst things ever. But a little while later I saw it again, and it became one of my favorites.
So hopefully this is like that. Maybe I just have to see this again to appreciate it.
So, with that in mind, I’ll now examine various points of conflict I had with this film.
First of all, I have to say that when analyzing this film I had to look at it from many angles.
First, of course, as an accurate portrayal of the book. Not only in following the book’s events, but in capturing the symbolism that Lewis held so important.
Second, as a film in general. Just something to put in theaters and sell dvds.
The first angle also has subangles. These are somewhat complicated (actually, very complicated) to explain, but the main idea is, when judging how well a book based movie is done, you have to keep in mind that it will never be exactly like the book. However, it should be as close as it can. I realize though that some artistic liberties can be acceptable, but sometimes that creates a whole new angle you have to take the movie at. First, is the liberty acceptable, and second, if it is, how far can it be taken. (I know that is a very poor description, but I think you will see what I mean when I actually begin going through the points)
The second angle was easy. This was an incredible film. From a movie standpoint. It had action, emotion, and everything else a movie like this needs. I’m sure it will make lots of money and sell lots of dvds. This movie, from a commercial standpoint, was a great success.
The first angle, not so much.
There were many things that did not follow the book, or even were not from the book entirely.
Now, as I said before, these have to be viewed in two different ways. This is because of the one major change they made:
The fog.
In the book, the fog is only toward the end. It’s the Dark Island, where they find Lord Rhoop. That’s all. No wisps of green smoke following them throughout the lands. No ‘temptation’ at every turn, capable of making boats of people all the way in the Lone Islands disappear.
By enhancing the Dark Island’s power like they did, the filmmakers created their own plotline, separate from the book’s. The story now revolves around defeating the Dark Island. While this was an event in the book, in the movie it was not an event, it was the event.
I didn’t personally favor this change, but I accept it as artistic license.
Now, because of this new take on the plot, we have two separate categories in which to place things that don’t follow the book.
One, things that don’t follow the book for no apparent reason. Things they did differently, or just plain made up.
Two, things that don’t follow the book because of the plot change. These are things that differ from the book, but they differ because they are necessary now that we have this ‘stop the Island’ theme going on.
The best way to make this clear is probably an example.
Let’s take the following two events:
1) Dragon Island and Deathwater Island being combined
2) The addition of two new characters, the man and his daughter
Now, both of these things differ from the book. However, this first one was just ‘done’ (I realize it was for the sake of easier plot advancement, but it’s still a book deviation) The second was done because of the new plotline. If there wasn’t a green fog causing people to disappear, the man and girl wouldn’t have joined the crew, and there would be no deviation from the book. See what I mean?
So while the first change can be debated as to whether it was necessary or proper, the second one can’t. Because I said earlier that I accepted the new ‘fog plot’, it follows that changes relating to that plot are also accepted. (not all, but most)
I hope I made that clear.
Anyway, on to the points.
As I said, there were many deviations from the book. There were also varying degrees. As such, I have divided them into the categories of overlookable (things that were different from the book, but they’re minor or unimportant) disappointing (major changes that I feel were uncalled for) and in between (major changes, but not necessarily ‘bad’ ones)
Overlookable:
Eustace has live bugs in his room. (in the book, he likes bugs that are dead and on cards)
Lucy is brought on board the Dawn Treader unharmed. (in the book, she bumps her knee)
Ramandu is not shown, only mentioned
Coriakin is not revealed to be a star
Disappointing:
Lord Bern not buying Caspian, but instead being a prisoner himself
No overthrowing of Governor Gumpas
Eustace’s change from dragon back to boy
Aslan not being a lamb
Caspian being at the end of the world
In Between:
The Dufflpuds did not make themselves invisible
Eustace remains a dragon much longer than in the book
They find a lord dead on Dragon Island
The sea serpent attack was part of the Dark Island, not a separate event
Now, I’m going to run down that list to give my thoughts.
It is also important to note that some of these need to have that second filter of the second plot applied to them. I’ll make note of that when I get to them.
The first two overlookables are just that, so I’ll move past them.
Ramandu not being shown was somewhat overlookable since it isn’t, strictly speaking, necessary. However, the whole thing about him being a retired star and how he gets younger to go back up again is an interesting side story. As well as the food being eaten and regenerated each day.
Coriakin being revealed to be another star gives this story a new layer. And it also provides mystery at the unanswered questions like ‘what faults a star can commit’ that I always thought was a nice touch. It gave something to think about. But again, it isn’t technically necessary.
Lord Bern being a prisoner and not overthrowing Gumpas combine into what I thought was one of the biggest disappointments in the whole film: the relatively emotionless fight against the slave trade.
That was always one of my favorite parts of this story.
Bern buys Caspian, and when he discovers who he is he helps form a plan to rescue the others. They then abolish the slave trade, give Pug his comeuppance, and then proceed to overthrow Governor Gumpas and replace him with Bern. It was a great side story about fighting injustice.
All the movie had was them getting captured and then being freed. It actually felt quite apathetic to me.
Eustace’s change back from a dragon was also very disappointing. It is meant to symbolize being cleansed of sin by Baptism. It’s very descriptive and moving in the book. All the movie had was scratch, roar, wow he’s a boy again. It really lost the meaning.
Aslan didn’t appear as a lamb at the end of the world. The symbolism there is obvious, but once again lost in the movie.
In the book, Caspian is not allowed to go to the world’s end. In the movie, he not only goes, but almost continues on into Aslan’s country.
This was quite disappointing for me.
I understand why it was done, to keep the main characters involved, but it misses the point. Caspian staying behind was a test of his obedience to Aslan. He wanted to go very much, but he was told to let the others go instead. Changing that took something out.
Coriakin says that he was the one that made the Dufflpuds invisible. In the book, they did it themselves.
Now, this is one of the ones that has to be taken in stride with the new plot.
Coriakin did it to protect them from the green mist. In that context it makes sense, and is even acceptable. Indeed, it fits very well. However, changing it like this erases the whole side story of the Dufflpuds being so stupid they don’t see Coriakin is trying to help them in the various things he did that led up to them making themselves invisible.
I always found that part of the story amusing so I was sorry they took it out, but I can understand why they did. Since it wasn’t essential to the new plot of stopping the fog, it was removed so as to not include too many ‘unimportant’ storylines. I guess I can go with that.
Eustace remaining a dragon, again, is because of the new plot direction. They needed him to remain a dragon so he could fight the sea serpent, get the last sword, and save the day. Once again, if they hadn’t changed the plot the sea serpent wouldn’t have been saved for the end, and Eustace probably wouldn’t have still been a dragon. So in the context of the new storyline, I guess it’s okay.
Finding the dead lord on Dragon Island/Deathwater was an understandable plot device. They needed to identify him as one of the lords so they could account for his whereabouts and move on.
But I like how in the book, it isn’t as clear as that. They never actually find out for certain what happened to that lord, they just assume he met his end there. Was he eaten by the other dragon? Was he the other dragon? Did something else entirely happen to him? We’ll never know.
Of course, in the film they left out the other dragon entirely. So that sort of explains why they didn’t have those options.
The sea serpent attack, again, needs to be thought of in terms of the fog plot.
In the book it’s a separate event, but in the movie it is part of the Dark Island’s spell. And, it was used as a main plot device, making it necessary to appear where it did. In this context, I found this change acceptable.
There are probably a few other things I could touch on, but those are the main ones that I made note of.
What is my final judgment on this movie then?
Again, it depends on the point of view.
As a general movie, I found it very entertaining and enjoyable.
But, that’s not what it is.
It is, or should be, a visual representation of its Narnia story as C. S. Lewis meant it.
This means it should keep the symbolism intact. That was why Lewis wrote the books. Not to tell a story, to make a point. They had a deeper meaning, another message.
In this story, there are three main symbolisms.
The allusion to Baptism, Aslan as a lamb, and Aslan’s other name.
This film only contained one of those three.
To its credit, the one it did get it got perfectly. I thought they did that scene very well, and was very pleased that they took the line exactly from the book. By doing that, they kept the message perfectly intact.
But, in just about anything, one out of three is not very good.
Therefore, sadly, I must say that this movie failed to live up to what I believe is its responsibility.
The purpose here shouldn’t be to just make a blockbuster, it should be to preserve and present the message Lewis sought to reveal.
In my opinion, it seems the filmmakers strayed away from that and got caught up in their own goals.
As I said before, I understand that a book based movie is never too much like the book, and I kept that in mind. I’m not being picky about every little thing and making a fuss because they took liberties, I’m saying I believe that because of the story they chose to present they had certain duties, and I don’t feel they fulfilled them well enough.
This film definitely could have been a lot worse, but I believe it could have also been better.
* Disclaimer:
The text above is solely my personal opinion. It is not meant to cause offense to anyone who may have thought the movie was great.
As I said, I need to see movies twice. Some of the above stated positions may change once I see this film again.
The preceding was merely my personal take on the film as I saw it.
I have a followup commentary from yesterday, but this one turned out so long that I will wait until someone posts after this one and put in in a seperate post.
Liam Neeson has nothing to do with Narnia, and if anyone read the books they would see how much Aslan ISN'T like the other 'gods'. 
Of course I knew that. I've known that. He still has nothing to do with the essence and originality or Narnia which is not films but pages. 
The filmmakers were trying to keep the running time low. Perhaps there will be an awesome extended version on DVD?
Seriously, I was almost crying by the end. But I wasn't gonna cry. 
The movie was NOTHING like the book, and I mean NOTHING, aside from the character's names and places. 
