Yes, they are children's books, I understand that, and I totally would want kids to be able to watch and enjoy any film version of Narnia, but the problem is that nowadays things marketed specifically at children are pretty shallow. People think that everything has to be Dora the Explorer or SpongeBob to appeal to children, but it's just not true.In my opinion, the reason the Walden Narnia films (more particularly the third one, VDT) fail to capture all the spirit and magic of the books, and of course the underlying themes, is that Hollywood filmmakers are so desperate to have them appeal to kids that they don't bother to put anything deeper in there. In fact, I think they're afraid of it. They're afraid they're going to actually remain true to the spirit of the book and kids are going to be like I DUN GET IT MUM and reviews will say "too mature for kids" and they'll lose making money off all the people who are only going because their kids want to see the movie about the cute talking animals.
LWW and PC films were pretty good, I especially liked LWW. So I'm not specifically trying to slander them. (Although I do think they were trying too hard to be "kid-friendly"...it just felt too mild when it came to points that were actually darker in the books. Like the watered-down version, almost.) I just think that if filmmakers dare to make something that isn't the same safe, boring, infantile crap, they will be more likely to please critics, Narnia fans, and just regular moviegoers. You can make it appropriate and appealing for children and still draw them in with the imagery and story while keeping those underlying themes.
The books aren't meant for the immature...you have to be okay with not everything being lulz and explosions and teenagers kissing in order for them to make sense. So make the movies for intellectually mature children and adults. Can still be a family film. Just don't add unnecessary crap because "Yo, fourteen year-old girls are like ALL OVER THAT nowadays." I read these books when I was like, eight. Seriously. And I didn't get every single deep idea in them, but I still loved them. So kids can enjoy these stories EVEN IF THEY DON'T 100% COMPREHEND THE DEEPER STUFF. Just actually put that stuff in there so it's not utterly hollow. Kids may not be able to write a thesis on it, but I think many can sense when deeper meaning and emotion is there anyway.
If you love these books, you know that there are intense moments that unify the stories. If you've read them multiple times, you know exactly what these moments are. So when writing a screenplay, their roughest draft, why don't they just open the book and take notes: What's cute and funny? What would look visually spectacular on-screen? What was emotionally stirring? Which parts are hard to imagine really working in the movie, and how can you change them to work better? What are we supposed to get out of certain scenes? How are the characters supposed to develop and change and grow throughout, and how can you convey that? I'm sure this seems like a painfully obvious thing to do, but if you're honest with yourself about these questions, won't it give a better result?
Yes, you CAN add things, you CAN remove things. It's fine if you actually show Jill being bullied to set up what's going on at her school and why she's so miserable. Did it actually show the bullies getting after her in the book? No! It was like "There's these kids at her school who suck and bully her. Let me tell you about them. Okay, but they're not here right now. She just got done being bullied." But you can't say that in the movie, you have to show WHY this school sucks so badly. And that's fine. Show it. Let us get into her character and feel for her. But don't have Eustace just randomly fall off the cliff because he was stupid, show how Jill's arrogance and stubbornness caused him to fall. That's kind of a big deal. You don't really need to show that Jill waited like ten minutes after Glimfeather came to her window before they left. Just make sure we know how tired she is, and how comfortable she is, and how she isn't even thinking about the quest for the Prince anymore, then let Glimfeather come and interrupt it. I won't care if they leave at once as long as the same idea is there: she thought she was going to sleep. Flying out the window in the middle of the night was unexpected.
To me, it really feels that these movies, and a lot of movie adaptations of books today, in fact, are not about "How can I carefully craft an idea through cinematography?" It's like "How can I appeal to as many people at the same time?" I know the movie has to do well, money needs to be made, but these books are immensely popular. So it's not like you have to change a lot to make it appeal to people, they already appeal to people. Trust in what's in the classic book that's sold a bajillion copies. A certain level of humility is needed. I don't know. When I watch older films, like from the 50's and 60's, so often there are things conveyed just by shadow or the way light falls on a person's face, the way someone is standing, angles and shapes. You get a feeling from a character in a second because of the way it's set up visually. There's attention to detail. Can we get back to that?
The Silver Chair is mostly told from Jill's perspective...couldn't the film be also? She could be the main protagonist, easily. School girl being bullied? Not hard for kids to identify with. Someone wanting to get out of their own life and escape to a better place? That's your appeal to the masses right there, and it's all right in the book. People like trios of friends, don't they? (E.g. Harry, Ron, Hermione.) Well then...Jill, Eustace, Puddleglum.
And Puddleglum is hilarious in a totally dry, sarcastic way. No poop jokes, no wackiness, just plain funny. People will love his comments. To me, the things that will draw people in but are just inherent parts of the book are obvious.tl;dr: Problem with movie adaptations nowadays is the watering-down of intense aspects of the books to better accommodate a more juvenile vision that will appeal to children ages 7-14 or whatever. But there are things in the books ALREADY that will appeal to that age range while still leaving room for more mature themes and keeping the magic of the book intact.
It's the point I tried to drive at when I started this thread. The books are enjoyable for children and (unless you are very easily offended) appropriate for children. But there is so much more THERE than just a children's story. Anyone who has seen me post knows I am atheist, and I don't even care for the religious themes outside of discussion purposes. But I ironically refer to these books as my Bible, and the single-volume collection I have looks enough like one. It's not just that these books appeal to adults as well as children, they can appeal to anyone, given an open-minded perspective. There are so many things in the Narnia books that appeal to us as sentient beings with emotions, hopes, and fears, regardless of age or religion. You don't have to agree with every last belief Lewis had to enjoy his writing or watch his writing come to life on-screen.