C. S. Lewis wrote a letter to a girl named Anne in 1961 explaining some of the deeper elements to the Narnia Series. He said the following:

"The whole Narnian story is about Christ. That is to say, I asked myself 'Supposing there really were a world like Narnia and supposing it had (like our world) gone wrong and supposing Christ wanted to go into that world and save it (as He did ours) what might have happened?' The stories are my answer. Since Narnia is a world of Talking Beasts I thought he would become a Talking Beast there, as he became a Man here. I pictured Him becoming a lion there because (a.) the lion is supposed to be the King of beasts: (b.) Christ is called 'The Lion of Judah' in the Bible: (c.) I'd been having strange dreams about lions when I began writing the books. The whole series works out like this:

The Magician's Nephew tells the creation and how evil entered Narnia.

The Lion etc ——— the crucifixion and Resurrection

Prince Caspian ——— restoration of the true religion after a corruption

The Horse and his Boy ——— the calling and conversion of a heathen.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader ——— the spiritual life (especially in Reepicheep)

The Silver Chair ——— the continued war against the powers of darkness

The Last Battle ——— the coming of Antichrist (the Ape), the end of the world and the Last Judgement."

He didn’t care about Digory or Polly at all like what 💀 No concern for their safety.

I still think they are gonna voice effect the heck out of Meryl Streep’s voice to be unrecognizable deep and masculine especially after Greta Gerwig keeps referring to Aslan with he/him pronouns. 🙂 I too was against the casting until this but after her keeping his pronouns the same I still think this is the case.

https://x.com/vhsdvdbluray4k/status/2110742434322014285?

There’s a difference between disliking an adaptation, criticising its creative decisions, and approaching every available detail as if you’re investigating a conspiracy, and some of the latter are beginning to sound borderline mentally ill.

People are reading extraordinary amounts of ideological significance into individual casting choices, interpreting creative decisions as deliberate acts of hostility towards Christianity, and treating their own suspicions about the filmmakers’ intentions as though they’ve uncovered some hidden agenda.

I saw someone saying confidently that because the windows of the Eagle and Child pub (where C.S. Lewis met with Tolkien in Oxford to compare writing while at Oxford) are broken by Jadis’s magic in the trailer— that obviously means Greta Gerwig hates Lewis’s work and wants to destroy it.

These people sound unhinged, and I don’t say that as an accusation, it’s just genuinely worrying.

And the religious outrage is particularly strange when you consider what we’re actually talking about: an adaptation of a beloved Christian allegory. It’s perfectly reasonable to care about how C. S. Lewis’s work is adapted, to disagree with particular choices, or to worry about whether an adaptation understands the source material. But there’s a considerable distance between those concerns and treating deviations from your personal expectations as evidence of an attack on your faith.

What I find most telling is how some people seem determined to find something to be angry about regardless of what the trailer actually shows. When one argument falls apart, the objection shifts to something else. When a creative choice can’t reasonably be interpreted as hostile, it becomes evidence of something more subtle and insidious. The theory keeps changing, but the conclusion remains fixed: somebody, somewhere, must be trying to undermine the things they believe in.

At a certain point, you have to ask whether these people are evaluating the film in front of them or simply projecting their existing fears onto it.

Nobody has to like the trailer. Nobody has to approve of every adaptation choice. But there’s a difference between substantive criticism and a worldview in which every disagreement, every unexpected casting decision, and every departure from your preferred interpretation becomes further evidence of a hostile agenda. At the end of the day it’s just an adaptation of a popular book— nobody is out to get anyone, and if you feel otherwise you might need to step back and examine your thinking.

And honestly, some of these reactions seem to tell us considerably more about the anxieties of the people making them than about the film itself.

I know it’s a slight departure (at least one can assume) from the book, but I quite like the fact that Digory is Irish in this new version, given the fact that CS Lewis himself was Irish. It feels like a nice nod to that.

Interested in this: Why are there only seven (eight counting Susan) friends of Narnia? Why does Aslan only appear to the Pevensie children and Jill and Eustace?

The version in the new trailer is first, the version in the old movies is second:

SO I HAVE NO INE TO DISCUSS THIS WITH because none of my friends have read Narnia 😭😭

So I think what bothers me most about Susan Pevensie is not that she stopped believing in Narnia. It is that people seem so quick to judge her for it without really considering everything she had already lost.
Susan did not just visit Narnia. She lived there. She grew up there. She became a queen, formed an entire identity, built relationships, and spent years becoming an adult in that world. Then, in an instant, she was sent back to England and became a child again. That alone feels like the kind of experience that would permanently change someone.

Then she returns to Narnia only to be told that she and Peter will not be coming back again.
That part matters to me.

Because if someone tells you that a place you love is no longer available to you, eventually you might begin protecting yourself from that loss. You might start treating it like something from childhood. You might tell yourself it was imaginary. You might convince yourself you have moved past it because admitting how much you miss it would hurt too much.

That is why I have a hard time seeing Susan as shallow.
People often reduce her ending to lipstick, nylons, parties, and adulthood, but I think there is room for a much sadder interpretation. Susan may not have stopped believing because she became vain. She may have stopped believing because believing meant holding onto a world she had already been told she could never return to.

Peter was able to carry Narnia with him. Susan may have needed to bury it.

And then there is the ending!

Almost everyone she loves dies together in the train accident and enters Aslan’s country. Susan is left behind. She survives, but she loses Peter, Edmund, Lucy, and the rest of that shared history all at once.
That is the part that makes me feel especially protective of her.

Everyone else receives reunion, certainty, and closure. Susan receives grief.

And yes, maybe her story was not finished. Maybe she eventually found her way back to Aslan in another form. I actually like believing that. But I also think she deserved more compassion from the narrative before reaching that point.

Susan’s story feels less like a story about someone who abandoned Narnia and more like a story about someone who survived it.

She lost a kingdom.
She lost adulthood.
She lost the ability to return.

And eventually, she lost nearly everyone who remembered that life with her. So when I think about Susan, I do not really see “the one who stopped believing.”

I see someone who may have loved Narnia so deeply that distancing herself from it became the only way she knew how to keep living.

I've recently finished reading these two (for the first time). I will admit that I enjoyed both. However, I didn't enjoy Prince Caspian as much as Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe. As for Voyage of the Dawn Treader, I couldn't find the right words to describe it but the end was kind of emotional for me, and I love the fact it made me feel that way. Anyone else who felt the same towards these two?

P.S. I'm taking a break from Narnia, and headed back to the Discworld then back again to Narnia. 😆

Visually, the movie looks really good.

Was anyone really concerned on if the movie would look visually stunning?

However, what we can take away from the trailer, is that Gerwig is really does seem to be going with the "rock and roll" version of Narnia that she has been talking about.

I was not a fan of the music choice at all, surprised most people liked it.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't want modern Led Zeppelin rock in a medieval high fantasy movie.

So peoples fears of her "modernizing" the Narnia story seem to be coming to fruition.

I'm assuming people are going to say "its just the trailer", but I don't why she would sign off on the trailer having this music if she wasn't going to include it in the movie.

So let's say for the sake of the argument, the soundtrack is like modern rock. We are all ok with this?

An even more interesting question that I want to pose to the people who are constantly advocating for a "new", "fresh", "unique", take on the movie, if the song Aslan sings to create Narnia is some sort of rock and roll Led Zeppelin style song....y'all are going to be ok with that? Think its cool / awesome / unique?

So we didn't get much from the trailer but what we can take away is that people that were concerned that Gerwig is going to try and be unique by adding modern elements to Narnia like "rock and roll" are having their concerns well founded.

Hey all. Long-time lover of the books and the 05 LWW/08 Caspian movies. I have been waiting for Magician's Nephew to be put to film for longer than I know, and I have been super skeptical of many of Greta Gerwig's decisions thus far. However, I loved the use of Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven in the trailer.

First of all, it's one of the greatest songs of all time. I do find it funny that Zeppelin was so heavily influenced by Tolkien and now they're on his long-time companion's movie trailer (see the final verse of Ramble On for example). However, it's a big deal because Zeppelin as far as I know has NEVER allowed a movie to use Stairway in their movie. (Wayne's World got in trouble for playing even three notes of the song!) So it's inclusion in the trailer made me go back and do several listens and read throughs of the lyrics, and I think it's just so perfect for this story.

There's a moment in the trailer where Jadis jumps forward from what I believe is her throne, and the lyric from the Bridge plays, "There walks a Lady we all know..." That seems super purposeful to me from Greta's perspective, and really makes me wonder (pun intended) how much the lady of the song echoes the themes of Jadis found in the original book. Of course, I don't believe the song is actually about Jadis, but I do love the parallels for the purpose of the trailer.

Not to go through the entire song, but consider some of it's most important lyrics...

There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold,
and she's buying a stairway to Heaven.
When she gets there she knows, if the stores are all closed,
with a word she can get what she came for.

Back in a 1988 interview for Total Guitar magazine, lead singer Robert Plant explained the song as being about " a woman getting everything she wanted all the time without giving back any thought or consideration." I think that is such a perfect description of Jadis, who brought about the destruction of her own home world (Charn) through her own selfishness. But she seeks immortality. Like the woman of the song, she is focused on getting what money can't actually buy, "the stairway to Heaven", or eternal life itself. We see this later in the book when she enters into the Secret Garden which possesses the Tree of Youth and Silver Apples, but does so in the wrong way by climbing over the wall rather than entering in through the front gate (like Diggory did). This leads me to the next lines of the song...

There's a sign on the wall, but she wants to be sure
Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings
In a tree by the brook, there's a songbird who sings
Sometimes all our thoughts are misgiven

The "sign on the wall" reminds me of the words on the Golden Gate at the entrance to the Garden "Come in by the Gold Gates or not at all, Take my fruit for others or forbear, For those who steal or those who climb my wall, Shall find their heart's desire and find despair." Of course, the tree and the songbird reminds me of the trees which bear the Silver Apples and the Phoenix which guards them. All our thoughts are misgiven speaks so well to how all of her actions within the book come from a place of selfishness and evil which lead to further destruction.

There's a feeling I get when I look to the west
And my spirit is crying for leaving
In my thoughts, I have seen rings of smoke through the trees
and the voices of those who stand looking

Funnily enough, if "look to the west" is a reference to anything fantasy related, I think it would actually be a reference to the Undying Lands in Lord of the Rings. Still, it is interesting that Diggory, Polly, Fletch, and Jadis all travel west from where Aslan creates Narnia to seek out the silver apples of the Garden of Youth. The next verse is where I think things get real interesting though.

And it's whispered that soon if we all call the tune
Then the piper will lead us to reason
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
and the forests will echo with laughter

In the original song, the piper seemingly refers to the inevitability and captive nature of death. Here this lady thinks she can buy anything, even her afterlife, but she's wrong. If Greta is indeed using this song to be a brief overview of Jadis's story, I think the piper could indeed be death, with Jadis terrified with her own mortality and the end of her world, but I also think the piper could be a good description of Aslan. He is the one who sings the world into existence after all, and all of his creation follows. Though he wants all visitors to his world to join in the following, Jadis is threatened by this premonition. She has no desire to follow a song or it's singer. She wishes only to rule, and Aslan stands in her way. The new day dawning could easily apply to the dawning of the first day of a new world, and the forests of this new world are filled with animals laughing and enjoying their new found life (including at the expense of Uncle Andrew). Speaking of Uncle Andrew, let's consider the next two verses from both his own perspective in the book as well as the children and Frank the Cabby.

If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now
It's just a spring clean for the May Queen
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on

You're head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know
The piper's calling you to join him
Dear lady, can you hear the wind blow? And did you know
Your stairway lies on the whispering wind?

At the creation of Narnia, there's two different paths that the visitors from earth experience. Most of the visitors hear Aslan's song, but Uncle Andrew specifically only hears roars....The piper's calling forth his creation and the visitors from earth to join him, but some don't know and only hear the unrecognizable humming roar...but there's still time to change the road you're on. What will you do with the choice given? And for Diggory, will your path lead you over the wall seeking the Silver Apples for selfishness like Jadis did, or will you enter by the gate and only use them to benefit others?

Let's move on to the Bridge, which features heavily in the last minute of the trailer once Jadis awakens from her slumber on Charn when Diggory rings the bell.

And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How everything still turns to gold
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last
When all are one and one is all, yeah
To be a rock and not to roll

I'm kind of shocked that Greta didn't include that line about the lady shining white light and wanting to show everything still turns to gold, that felt spot on for Jadis, who obviously is transformed by her eating of the Silver Apple (which we even see in the trailer). But I also love that line "If you listen very hard the tune will come to you at last." By throwing aside the allure and deception that Jadis presents, the characters come in tune with Aslan's song, and part of the world which he has created.

Of course, there's also the music beyond the lyrics. I think Stairway to Heaven starts with a slow melodic sound which is perfect for the post-war Britain that Diggory and Polly are born into in the movie, but then ramps up and gives way to an amazing other-worldly energy by the time you reach the Bridge.

I really don't know whether this movie will be good or not, but I think Greta cooked with the song selection for the trailer. The parallels to the overall story are just so good, and I am hopeful the end product will similarly be an insightful depiction of these stories and characters we hold so dearly. Thanks for reading!

It’s been winter for 100 years by the events of LWW, and Tumnus talks about summers as if he’s experienced several, so he must be at least 120, right? What’s the average faun lifespan? Is he still relatively young for a faun?

I'm going to drop my thoughts on Aslan in the upcoming Nexflix film here. Take them with a grain of salt, it's just a movie, and it doesn't need to be life and death... :)

If I understand the Narnia text correctly, Aslan is not (primarily) an allegory of Christ, at least not at the highest level. But rather, Aslan is Christ as he appears in Narnia. Earth, the home of the humans, exists in the world, and so the stories of Narnia cannot be reduced to allegorical fiction. Now.. That said, Lewis absolutely does make heavy use of allegory within the stories, but the "Narnia-as-allegory" genre classification misses an important nuance in Lewis's literary imagination.

If, per Lewis, Aslan is Christ as he appears in Narnia (i.e., Narnian name), while it might be argued that Aslan needn't necessarily be imagined as male, it remains true that Lewis did, in fact, imagine Aslan as male. As many here have said, the Christian/Hebrew Bible uses a mix of masculine and feminine language to describe God. But the assumption that this somehow justifies an (apparent) feminized Aslan is, imo, misplaced.

In the Christian/Hebrew scripture, creation often operates as a structure of figurative language God uses to describe himself. It does not mean that the God of the Bible is ontologically gendered, and the most traditional understandings would acknowledge God as wholly transcendent of nature. But then, Aslan is not God, but specifically Christ. Importantly, Christ incarnate, whose humanity expresses itself as undoubtedly male. The God of Narnia might very well transcend gender, but Aslan's "Narnian nature" does not, just as, per Christian orthodoxy, Christ's humanity does not.

IMO, understanding Aslan, not just "religiously", but Christologically, ought to give us cause to conclude that the most faithful representation of Lewis's character in film would, at least in the way viewers and characters encounter him, be irreducibly male. If anything Lewis's affinity for neoplatonism would imagine Aslan as "more" male, not less or other.

Honeslty, I do not care that much that Meryl Streep is voicing the character. It's just a movie, and it's not like the book is being rewritten... However, I do wonder if stripping the character of its distinct Christological composition will, in effect, make Aslan less interesting, and devolve (potentially) into a generic and impersonal "voice of the universe". I hope not...

If Greta Gerwig gets to do The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe, who would people cast as The Beavers and Mr Tumnus? The cast for the 2005 for those characters are so wonderful, especially James McAvoy. They have to be British for me, especially The Beavers. My ideas are:

Mr Beaver: Billy Connolly
Mrs Beaver: Emma Thompson
Mr Tumnus: Joseph Quinn

I've seen resent debates on whether it matters if Aslan is male/female as well as other changes as to conform the message of the story to more modern sensibilities, morals etc.

I wanted to offer a small perspective on why perhaps C. S. Lewis made Aslan appear as masculine, and why a Christian as well as archaic cosmology uses the male symbolism for God. C. S. Lewis was a Christian after all, and was very interested in medieval history and older mythologies.

The archaic perspective is centered to a large degree on the direct human experience in relation to the outside reality, it's very phenomenological. If we observe males, he produces a seed that is able to grow inside the womb of a woman. This pattern is understood as a microcosm of the more fundamental macrocosmos, which consist of Earth and Heaven. From the sky comes water, which in Greek mythology is Uranus that rain his seed down on Earth, who acts as a womb for his seed.

So there's this consistent structure and logic which is being build upon, with the pattern expanding in ever more microcosms. God's law is also an image of seed, invisible but is able to grow inside the human consciousness.

In the Christian perspective and symbolism, God the Father is above the invisible Heaven, but acts through this higher reality from which seeds of life come down on earth. In the beginning, it's said earth was formless until God spoke. Meaning from his domain raised earth in a pattern that increases in complexity, forming a mountain on which paradise is set. It's the navel of where Heaven and Earth meet. This image is seen for example in Norse mythology, where Heimdal lives on top of the sky mountain. He bridges Midgaard to the heavenly domain by Bifrost.

The male isn't above the female in the sense that they are co-creating. From the invisible seed that contains all the wisdom for the pattern to evolve, it needs a womb that is able to physically express the idea. It's when invisible ideas/meaning meet with the tangible physical world. The physical is being shown great value from the incarnation of Jesus.

This might seem strange to modern materialism that has a completely different cosmology, that reduces everything to the physical only. But to archaic thinking, this worldview offers meaning at a hierarchy at many different scales, thus having a metaphysical dimension that gives meaning all the way down to our personal experience.

If we move away from this traditional way of seeing reality, we might miss some of its meaning. Perhaps both cosmologies, the spritiual and materialistic can co-exist. ​The femine nature is by the Catholic Church being expressed in the nature of Mary, who is taken to be the Mother of God, Jesus. As every human male (and female) should be thankful to their mothers for the life she produced, but also in thanks to their father who gave his seed.

I hope this made sense, otherwise what do you think?

Why do ya'll forget the BBC miniseries like Disney/Walden Media wasn't the first company to make Narnia, so I'm sick of people calling the Disney movies the first, they're not. There was the 80's BBC miniseries in the 80's and 90's. There was the animated movie in the 70's and even a lost media version in the 60's so stop saying the Disney version is the first. It never was.