First off no hate to the child actor who is doing the best he can with the material he's given. His acting is not what I'm taking issue with here.

That said, from the minute I saw this scene in the trailer I've been trying to figure out why it rubs me the wrong way and here's what I've come up with:

1. The tone makes it seem like everything is bright and happy, Digory is cheerfully waving to a little girl and grinning, a horse is galloping. As if this is supposed to be whimsical. Just no. A bloody witch from another world with magic powers is rampaging through the street! On a stolen horse. Where's the gravity of that? This would be like if Tumnus said, "Even some of the trees are on the white witch's side" while taking Lucy back to the lamppost and Lucy started giggling and going "Hello trees!" like a happy psycho. You're in danger. Act like it.

2. In the book Digory was not a firsthand witness to the witch's (Magicless!) full rampage. He was also not a victim of hers in that. It was very telling thematically that the minute she had a bigger world to play in and Andrew to boss around as her servant and stuff to steal and people to bully, Jadis acted like the children (Polly and Digory) stopped existing. She didn't even talk directly to them when complaining Andrew was taking too long getting a chariot or flying carpet for her. To involve Digory in her horseback chase very much takes away from the fact that she only cared about what was an immediate threat to what she wanted. And Digory waiting at home without Jadis, waiting for Polly, was how he first got the idea in his head a magic fruit MIGHT heal his mother.

To take that away for a whimsical action sequence they're trying to make seem like it's ET on a bike or flying on Falkor is just stupid.

With the upcoming film adaptation splitting portions of the fanbase, it's becoming very common to find fans who are excited about Greta Gerwig's adaptation operating on the assumption that anyone who critiques details of the pre-release material (photos, statements from the team, and now the trailer) is a right-wing religious person who is angry because Aslan is being voiced by a woman.

This has led to a shut down of many fans who speculate over unconfirmed or partially unclear details, including Jadis having magic in our world or people touching the rings and not disappearing or the names of minor characters.

The problem is it's very common for neurodivergent fans (be they autistic, ADHD, OCD or something else) to be drawn to fantasy works like Narnia and to hyper-focus on small details (including adaptational changes whether confirmed or potential), and the current discourse of wait and see or you're a bad fan or "if you fixate on this detail, you're a troll ruining the space for others" is very unwelcoming to the way most neurodivergent fans tend to interact with their favourite properties.

Disclaimer 1: I don't claim to speak for all neurodivergent fans of Narnia or fantasy, I'm just talking in general terms about what is most common.

Disclaimer 2: while I understand it's completely possible we could have a Greta Gerwig fan who is neurodivergent and be on the opposite side of the issue, most neurodivergent hyper-focus subjects tend to lean towards fantasy like the original Narnia books (and Walden Media films) rather than the kinds of movies Greta is largely known for making. Therefore I've focused this post more on Narnia book fans who may fall on the autism spectrum and interact with the work in a way that could get them wrongly labelled or mistreated in this current fandom disagreement.

The Narnia books have been translated into many languages, and I'm curious to know how translators handled the bit in TMN after Uncle Andrew tricked Polly into putting on a yellow ring, when he gave Digory one yellow and two green rings and instructed him to keep the yellow ring in his left pocket and the green rings in his right:

Remember very carefully which pocket the Greens are in. G for Green and R for Right. G.R. you see: which are the first two letters of Green.

Obviously, a direct word-for-word translation of this would not work for the majority of languages, so the translators would have to invent something suitable. If anyone here has read the book in other translations, I'd love to know what those scenes say! In Spanish, perhaps the translator could do something clever with the "d" sounds at the end of verde/green and beginning of derecha/right, or perhaps they did something completely different. I lack the knowledge to even speculate about other languages.

I keep seeing the argument among certain fans that it doesn't matter what details Greta Gerwig changes, simply because "all adaptation is ultimately a form of fanfiction".

On the one hand I understand the angle users of this argument think they're coming at this from. Screen is a different medium, the book has to be rewritten (in the case of classic where the author died years ago, almost always) by a different person with their own interpretation of the work, their own bias towards the work, etc...

This alone, however, as a fanfiction writer (initially FOR the Narnia fandom!) of many years, I can 100% attest does not a fanfiction make.

Adaptations when done faithfully (as in taking the themes, characters, setting, etc, as conceived by the author and putting them on screen for a visual audience, not as in some abstract "who can say what faithful really means, since it means different things to different fans" rabbit hole theory) are not transformative enough to constitute what would be allowed on the majority of fanfiction sites without being flagged for copyright. The major change is the medium. Oftentimes if you were to write out the events of a movie in prose and post it (this is called a novelisation btw) you would be asked by most sites to take it down because the work is not transformative enough not to get those who run the site into trouble.

This is also why the trend of going through a book or movie's story with one added character (an OC) and everything else identical to the original work tends to get backlash from fanfic readers. The addition of the one tiny new element might technically just tip the transformation scale to legally allow the story remaining up on whichever site is hosting the fic but it's still a play by play of a story, almost more of an adaptation than a proper fanfic.

Expectations for what makes a good fanfiction (expansion on certain characters, often resetting familiar events in a different time setting or location be it a fantasy realm or a coffee shop, gratuitous descriptions of certain couples being paired up and interacting when they weren't together in the original work) are often the exact opposite of what a fan looks for in a film adaptation of their favorite book or video games or any other mediums that can be adapted.

So when someone criticizes a choice Greta has made (let's say taking the story into the 1950s) and says "it's like she's writing a fanfic", this is, whether you personally mind the change or not, a legitimate argument.

It is common for a Narnia AU fanfic to be set in a different time period just to see what changes with the characters. I had a good friend back in my teenage years of writing Narnia fics who used to primarily write either the Pevensies in modern day or Pevensies in Edwardian era timelines (you know, like Polly and Digory were SUPPOSED to be). But I doubt even she would have wanted the movies billing themselves as adaptations to have done the same. That stuff belongs firmly in fanfic for the most part, given how few (in done cases none) adaptations of Narnia books exist so far.

I'm getting rather tired of seeing the "But what about Clueless!" argument when it comes to this. That is completely apples and oranges.

Firstly Clueless while a retelling of Emma in "modern day" (90s) never presented itself as a straight adaptation of a work with no other screen versions. Cher is not literally Emma. She's a stand in within a modern story inspired by the plot of Emma.

Second, Clueless wasn't made in a vacuum. There was another more traditional Emma movie greenlit/being made around the same time and studios were open to that. People could literally watch either movie by 1996. Unfortunately nowadays you would be hard pressed to find a studio willing to compete with a similar story being made by another studio even if the approaches are vastly different. This is why an allegedly more faithful version of JA's Persuasion was scrapped when the one with the actress from fifty shades with an alcohol problem and a pet rabbit was announced by Netflix.

So if Greta was making "Polly" a 1950s deconstruction of The Magician's Nephew and billing it as a complete reimagining, at worst the naysayers would be disappointed because we don't have a faithful adaptation of MN yet and aren't likely to get one greenlit for years after Greta makes her deconstruction. But I think if it wasn't being billed as a straight up prequel/origin story to Narnia but with a David Bowie Aslan and rock n roll, most fans would have shrugged and moved on. Because THEN it would be more similar to Clueless or Ten Things I Hate About You.

Unfortunately as is it DOES feel like she's using her big name status to just put her million dollar + AU fanfic on screen.

Irregardless of if you view it that way or not, or whether you're personally excited to see the movie, there are going to be a subset of older fans who at the least feel this isn't an on screen translation of the work they've loved for so long.

This does not make half the fanbase "babies" or "idiots who don't know what adaptation means". It just means they're seeing the whole situation differently than those who are excited about this adaptation.

I have been ambivalent about Greta's portrayal of the magic rings from the book ever since the picture was released with Digory and his mother in bed holding one while it looked like Digory was telling "Flora" (😡) about his adventures.

Why? Because it looked like they were touching a "yellow" ring (the colour in the film stills and now trailer is just gold) and not vanishing. When I tried to express my adaptational worry over this aspect I got comments insulting my intelligence telling me I didn't know what the picture was and was nitpicking and ruining the fun for everyone else, how it probably wasn't even one of Uncle Andrew's rings but Digory's mother's wedding ring.

I concurred that we couldn't rule out (at that point) it being a wedding ring but I honestly did not think it was. At best, I was vaguely hoping maybe Aslan did something to the ring after the adventure to make it not work anymore (of course that ruins Last Battle, but as a standalone it could explain why "yellow" rings can be touched). However the trailer shows the children touching the yellow rings a lot and not vanishing. As far as I could tell there WASN'T any sign of the green rings in the trailer at all (if I missed this please do correct me and give me a timestamp as to where they are, because I'd be interested to see them!).

This does make me a trifle miffed as someone who has loved watching Narnia adaptations since 2006 when I first saw LWW and 2007 when I started following Narniaweb for PC news. We had a certain subset of fans 20 years ago calling the Walden Media movies soulless Lord of the Rings knock offs just because they were filmed in New Zealand. Now we can have Digory looking like he's doing a full on Frodo cosplay with a gold ring instead of the ring lore Lewis invented (yellow/Green with different rules), and because it's Greta Gerwig whose fans love saying she's "Never made a bad movie" (and good for them, I'm glad they enjoyed her work!), no one is calling this out?

I know I'm probably going to get comments saying why am I picking on such a small detail, but when it's a million "small" details together, the story they create isn't anything like Lewis's. A go go Jadis, a TARDIS like Charn, character name changes, Aslan with feathers and scales, 1950s setting... Maybe one or two of these changes in the context of a largely faithful adaptation wouldn't be a huge deal but all of them together ARE.

I also can't help wondering if this change wasn't to make Polly look smarter. I love Polly Plummer but in the book she is completely dazzled by the humming and shine of the rings and told she can have a yellow one (the book flat out says if she was younger she'd have wanted to stick it in her mouth), she doesn't question and grabs for one. It's her weak moment. Digory's moment comes later with the bell and Jadis in Charn. But given this is a Greta Gerwig film I wonder if she can't stand to have her female lead make a mistake that big. So she's safely touching the rings with no problem BEFORE she puts it on and vanishes.

I know Greta says she loves these books, but I don't think she understands them or loves them enough not to rewrite them completely for the screen.

I know there's heated debate over the chronological order vs. publication order. But I'm curious in what order you prefer to read it? I feel like I read the series in a different order each time.

Over the last couple of days, increasingly since the release of the trailer for Greta Gerwig's Magician's Nephew yesterday, I have been seeing comments that are basically some version of this:

"I'm glad we're not getting another bland adaptation that follows the book exactly, that's been done to death".

And now that these bizarre comments have become full posts on the main Narnia sub, I really feel I need to say something as a fan of various Narnia adaptations since 2006.

Because this critique makes zero sense.

Firstly there has never been a completely faithful adaptation of any of the Narnia books, apart from maybe BBC's Lion, Witch, Wardrobe. Because let us not forget BBC combined PC and VDT into a single presentation and shortened parts of PC to make that happen. Silver Chair was amazing but there were budget restraints preventing certain parts of the book from being accurately depicted. I love the Walden films especially the first two directed by Andrew Adamson, but the praise for his LWW has always been that he captured the spirit of the book, understanding how to make the White Witch scary and depict WW2 as a framing setting. It's never been that he did a line for line recreation; and nothing in that movie was "bland". It was shot in friggin New Zealand for goodness sake! That's more dramatic and colourful and striking than any CGI greenscreen can ever be. While I love Prince Caspian, no one has ever claimed it was exactly like the book, from the Spanish Telmarines to Susan and Caspian sharing a kiss, it's been controversial in the book fandom since before its release. VDT lost a lot of Andrew's original touch since the director was swapped out, and while personally I still liked it a lot, you'd be hard pressed to find a hardcore Narnia book fan on this sub who would give it blind praise for anything like faithfulness to the source material. They were also all three considered visually pleasing (AGAIN New Zealand!), particularly the first two, and being "bland" was never a critique.

I don't think even the lower budget BBC versions have ever been accused of being bland, even by the handful that dislike it.

However all of that is moot anyway because The Magician's Nephew has never HAD an adaptation for Greta's "colourful and brave reimagining" to be compared to. You can't creatively subvert an adaptational expectation that doesn't exist.

I think it's time for certain members of the fanbase to admit they either don't like Narnia, liked the Narnia books as kids but are bored with them now/outgrew them, or just don't care HOW they are adapted as long as they personally like the previous work of whoever is helming the adaptation.

It's fine to just admit you're fans of Greta, guys. There is literally nothing wrong with being a Greta Gerwig fan. But acting like you love the original books and then scoffing at the very idea they might be adapted faithfully and calling it boring or bland tells the rest of us exactly what you think of Lewis's original books.

No one is making you love them. But you're also not a superior or more open minded fan for wanting them "reimagined".

I know we don't actually know for 100% certain if rock music will be playing over Jadis's introduction in the Gerwig film simply because the trailer shows the scene with rock music (it is common for certain songs in a trailer not to appear in the finished film at all, for example 7 devils being in the Beautiful Creatures trailer and almost all of the actual music in the movie being thenewno2 original music), however we do know the movie has previously been described as being a rock opera and "all about rock and roll". We've also been told it will feature 1960s/1970s rock music.

And anyone who complains about this is often censored with "But what about The Call in Prince Caspian?" The Call was a soft ballad written specifically FOR Narnia. All the songs (as far as I could discover) such as "Place for us" and "Can't Take It In" were written for Narnia as original songs.

The only song that wasn't written for the Walden films specifically was a period accurate 1940s song by the Andrew Sisters called oh Johnny; this was used during the hide and seek scene in LWW.

There is a world of difference between a song written for a film and taking a song that already exists and overlaying it with Narnia like a jukebox musical. And I'm not coming at this from a book purist perspective. One of my FAVOURITE hobbies in my late teens and early twenties was to splice Narnia movie clips with Avril Lavigne music in my media editor. I still do that from time to time just for fun. But it doesn't mean I think it would actually be appropriate for My Happy Ending or Complicated or Girlfriend to play during an actual Narnia movie as opposed to just a fan video. Would I be tickled pink if Avril contributed an original song to a Narnia movie someday? Well obviously. But that doesn't seem to be what Greta is doing with the rock music for this upcoming movie. She's not making the rock music about Narnia (like the music inspired by LWW soundtrack that contained songs that sounded rock and disco-y); she's seemingly making Narnia about rock music.

And it's not disingenuous for a fan to both like The Call being at the end of Prince Caspian and still think what Greta appears to be doing with the Magician's Nephew soundtrack is wrong.

We love Narnia and we are looking for other books for our young boys so I thought I’d reach out to the Narnia Family for recommendations.

We all enjoyed the Nicholas Flamel series by Michael Scott and Keys to the Kingdom by Garth Nix. We also enjoyed Tolkien’s Tales From the Perilous Realm. This would be the target profile for now.

LOTR and Wheel of Time are definitely on the menu but we aren’t there yet. And the Kingkiller Chronicles… if Rothfus ever finishes it.

Thoughts on Wingfeather?

What do you recommend? Why do you like it?
Thank you for any suggestions!

This is not a post about the new film. The topic has certainly been inspired by the reaction to it, but this post is just about the books (and I'll ignore any comments trying to debate the film adaptation).

Narnia is a fictional story. But the way some people treat it, it seems more like it's an honorary part of the Bible now. In the past few years it has been interesting (and sometimes concerning) to see how some readers intend to view Narnia's value as a literary work only, or mostly from a theological perspective.

Narnia is important because it is a Christian allegory (or supposal), it has value because it's a vehicle for Christian proselitizing, and sure, non-Christians can and should enjoy them, but this is Christian work. This goes so far that even a modicum of cricitism of its internal value system is conflated with an attack on Christianity itself.

I've seen claims that Lewis wrote the books explicitly as a form of conversion tool, which is just false. Yes, he did claim they enabled Christian theology, but the books were written first and foremost as stories he wanted to tell, from the myths and literature he was inspired by. Treating the books Christian literature alone dimish their value.

What do I mean by this? If the books are theology first, then their values relies solely on their use as a tool for whatever narrow theology you possess (narrow as in limited, because no one believes every single complex theological concept in the Christian faith, it's not a term of derision in this post). This is the reason most "Christian" media is, frankly, mediocre, because they are far too worried about "the message" than cultivating art for its own sake. The complex inner workings or good art becomes secondary or even tertiary in this kind of ecosystem.

This is the reason I believe a lot of fans get wary of any changes done by adapations, of any kind. Treating the books as pseudo biblical canon, (even when the books blatantly incorporate occult and pagan symbols and ideas), means they are sacred, untouchable and changes done, no matter how mild are an affront to Lewis, to sacredness and to the Divine itself.

I cannot help but to find this an inspid way to engage with any form of artistic expression. The malleability and freedom to be what it wants to be is what makes art good (or at the very least, it grants the work the opportunity to be good). The Christian myth in the books doesn't behold them to it, it enhances them, it gives them texture and flavor and spice. But that gets lost the moment we decide that the stories of these books "should" be what a particular dogma dictates.

The Magician's Nephew is, in my opinion, one of the "quietest" books of the series. Victorian England, horses instead of cars, and a more manual life. Everything from the Victorian houses Diggory and Polly live in, the space between the rafters, Uncle Andrew's study, are all quiet and peaceful. His study does have mysterious boxes etc, but it doesn't look Sci fi, and I believe that lends to the shock of what starts within it. It's unassuming. The children venture in, because they perceive no real danger other than getting caught.

London of the trailer is industrial, noisy, the skyline is busy and grey. Vans, buses, engines, cranes. It all drowns out the quiet peace in which the magic takes place. No one would ever expect a giantess queen from another world to turn up and wreak havoc, and the fact that she does, is so out of place. Meanwhile, Jadis on a horse galloping through industrial, noisy London...not as shocking or striking.

The Wood between the Worlds is peaceful and quiet. Everything from the light, to the colours, to the grass. It's a place where you can easily fall asleep.

The one in the trailer isn't a place you'd feel safe falling asleep in. There's nothing peaceful or relaxing about it.

Charn again, plain, unassuming, old, filled with silence and intrigue. Maybe it would make sense to ring the bell, because what's the worst that could happen in a place like that? Whereas Charn in the trailer instantly screams at you that this is something possibly threatening.

The magic and mystery in the book is largely/mostly in part to the quiet, and simplicity of everything. And it doesn't need to shout, or be fantastical. There is enough mystery and magic simply in the hum, which all concludes in Aslan's song, and the new world being born. Again, a world which is just grass and trees after its creation, but happens to be birthing animals. The book doesn't need rock, tardis-like fantasy, Bowie influences, flash or modernisation to have mystery, wonder and intrigue. It stands by itself, and I don't think Greta realises that at all.

I've been thinking about something interesting about the history of Narnia: we know quite a bit about the Telmarine dynasty from Caspian X's story, but we don't have a complete chronology of the kings who ruled between the original conquest of Narnia and Caspian X's restoration.

What if we tried to piece one together as a community?

We could start with Caspian I, the Conqueror, and work our way through the intervening generations to Caspian IX, Miraz's older brother, and finally Caspian X, the Seafarer.

Some questions we could explore:

• How many Telmarine kings ruled between Caspian I and Caspian X?
• How long might each king have reigned?
• Did the dynasty initially use a variety of names before the name Caspian became increasingly common?
• Were there any particularly great, peaceful, or disastrous reigns?
• What might Telmarine royal architecture, traditions, and court life have looked like at the height of their power?

Obviously, much of this would be fan-created history rather than canon, since the books don't give us a complete list of Telmarine monarchs. But I think that's part of the fun!

We could even try to construct a consistent timeline that fits the dates and events we do know from the books.

Would anyone else be interested in working on something like this? I'd love to hear your ideas for the missing kings and the history of Telmarine Narnia!

A lot of Greta Gerwig's fans who are excited about the new film are either making short one-line posts saying screw the haters on the main r/Narnia sub, or just arguing in the comments of a post made here by someone who doesn't like the look of the new film based on the materials we've gotten so far.

Despite being encouraged to make their own posts, on this sub in particular, to discuss the adaptation, they generally don't. I'm a mod on this sub and I haven't deleted any posts talking positively about the upcoming movie; they simply aren't being written and submitted to this sub. However, fans of the books and fans of past adaptations (BBC, Walden Media) and fans of Lewis's writing in general have been much more vocal and detailed in saying, with each new release (pictures, trailer), what they don't like/agree with, myself included.

While it isn't all fans looking forward to the upcoming film, by any means, the majority of them seem to feel detailed discourse prior to release of a movie is "cringe" or that it's a sign of aggression to make multiple posts. Therefore they only engage in the comments for the most part, and then seem upset that the larger part of the discussion is pro the opposite side of their opinion on the adaptation.

This sub can do nothing to correct this. People are going to post how and about what they feel comfortable.

This does not indicate a bias. It is simply working with what is submitted to the sub.

Based on everything that has been released so far, I am excited to see Gerwig's take on The Magician's Nephew. I think it will be interesting to see a modern take on a classical story. I first read the books as a young kid, and have read the whole series again three times since. I feel like from everything Gerwig has said, she has a similar appreciation for the Narnia world and series.

In particular, I think the child actors from the trailer look very promising, which is great because that can be very hit or miss. I think the wood between the worlds looks great in the trailer, very ethereal. I am not so sure how I feel about the snippets of Charn, I would say out of all the visuals we have gotten so far that is the one I am not convinced about. Mostly, I'm just interested to see such a nostalgic children's story come to life.

So I am not a fan of Greta Gerwig but I will always champion female directors with strong visions that love film. I have nothing to say about her adaptation that hasn’t already been said. What I will say is, I would have LOVED to see Gerwig make a film about an adult Susan struggling with the loss of her entire family and how she begins her journey back to faith and Narnia. Gerwig is incredibly talented at capturing a women’s internal struggle and it would have been so cool to see a new ending to Susan. That’s just me though.

Putting aside that the stubborn C.S. Lewis fangirl in me does feel rather affronted by the trailer/tone of the new movie to the point where Greta wouldn't be my personal choice to helm ANY Narnia adaptation after seeing what she's doing to this, I legitimately can't help thinking this might not be nearly as bad if she was adapting Silver Chair instead of the Magician's Nephew.

Firstly, she found two really good child actors whose obvious talent 100% comes through in just the two minutes of the trailer and completely endeared me to them. Two actors who happen to look a LOT like Eustace and Jill! I think them being cast as Eustace and Jill would have been applauded by the fanbase from day one rather than them being cast as Polly and Digory (though I'm sure they'll do great as those characters as well, despite not physically looking like them).

Second, in the trailer it looks like Uncle Andrew is an awkward, unkempt whimsical mentor rather than the mean selfish, and physically vain uncle figure he is in the book. I could almost see him as Puddleglum with a bit more makeup and a few alterations to his costume.

Three, while I don't like the Doctor Who-ish look of the fantasy elements in the trailer, I would argue they would be a more understandable adaptational choice from a stylistic standpoint if they were meant to be the underground where Rillian was kept prisoner. Rather than Charn, which is meant to be a ruin.

Four, yes, I think Jadis looks incredibly stupid and no I wouldn't think it was okay if she were the Green Lady instead, I can see a musical (if not necessarily rock and roll) vibe working better for her than Jadis. The Green Lady does in fact play the lute and speak/sing at the main characters so.... Jazzing her up a bit and emphasizing the music element of her character wouldn't be horrible.

I also think if Greta is indeed going for a Neverending Story, Legend, Labyrinth 1980s tone (I don't really see it but others have) that vibe would work a lot better with something like Silver Chair than something earthy and pastoral like MN.

Not to mention there are a LOT of people/fans who have been waiting for The Silver Chair specifically because VDT teased it at the end of the Walden Media film and they would have been really excited for it.

(Unfortunately her Bowie Aslan looks like he would have been terrible in any Narnia adaptation, including SC, imo.)

Thoughts?

Attached is a fanfic I've put together about Susan after the events of The Last Battle. I'm looking for feedback on it from fans of C.S.Lewis — not just of the Narniad, but of his wider writings. Am I being appropriately respectful of Lewis? Taking into account that I'm an amateur (this is literally the first story I've ever written), is it entertaining, or entirely too predictable? Did I get the characters' voices right? Is the underlying concept a good one, or is is too derivative?

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wyj7hlaewhb8chyo74osh/once-a-queen-manuscript.pdf?rlkey=nidb0iuyibfbegltpmhveeao4&st=2d9p5as1&dl=0

So I saw the trailer and... It's literally exactly what I surmised it was from the production photos and previous announcements. 🙄

I never had the slightest doubt the child acting would be good, and the trailer confirms the acting is good. Do they look exactly like I pictured Polly and Digory? No. But Georgie Henley and Ben Barnes weren't blonde and I still loved them as Lucy and Caspian 20 years ago, so that's never been a deal breaker for me with an adaptation. I expect the two leads will indeed be really good and I sincerely hope this gets them more and bigger acting jobs in the future. I also still think everything with Fledge/Strawberry looks good.

The crawlspace where Polly and Digory play also looks about right. Including how they get into it.

Everything else, however?

Yeah, I don't know what Greta thinks she's doing, but it's not a faithful adaptation. And I do NOT believe she loves Narnia beyond a concept she can change every detail of for profit. And yes, I can tell from a 2 minute commercial. The bait and switch of showing a wardrobe in the opening shot and slapping C.S. Lewis's name in there and then nearly everything that follows having zip and nada to do with the book was grating to say the least.

Jadis indeed has magic in our world when she shouldn't. Charn looks like a crappy TARDIS knock off. I hate the way Jadis looks, from her make up, to her height (or lack thereof), to her horrible costume. And as I predicted it doesn't look any better in the trailer than it did in the pictures.

I don't like starry Mufasa Aslan.

This very much feels like a Barbie 2.0 and I'm sure hardcore Greta fans will love it. And I genuinely hope they enjoy this movie (someone at least should get something out of this), but this definitely isn't my Narnia. I'm not a grandma, but this was definitely not made with the main fanbase in mind.

Here's the thing, book fans can spot a bad (as in unfaithful, regardless of the movie itself being good or bad as a standalone work) adaptation miles off. We all predicted this from day one. We're not raving or angry, or forgetting the original book still exists and we can in fact re-read it, but we are disappointed.

I really wanted this not to be what I thought it was. I wanted to be wrong. But the trailer has convinced me I was right.

I want to preface this by saying that I love the Greta project and am very much looking forward to it.

But seeing how angry people are about the aesthetic choices of the movie, I believe animation is a medium that can capture the whimsical charm, pastoral feel, and fantasy of the books. I’m thinking of films like The Secret of Kells or Miyazaki’s movies (not 3D Disney style). It would be a great way to capture the visual variety of the books.