[LMB] [OT:] piece of trivia about Narnia film

Susan Fox selene at earthlink.net
Wed Dec 14 16:04:06 GMT 2005


Rowena writes: 

>I just read that in Dutch cinema's 2 versions of the Narnia film will be 
>showed. This is not uncommon with foreign childeren films. One version 
>will be in it original language and subtitled (as is common over here) 
>and a dubbed version, usually for the younger audiance. But generally 
>there is no conscience effort made to change the dubbed version in any 
>other way than the translation.
>For Narnia they have done the latter. The script is rewritten in such a 
>way that with the same images the film can be judged suitable for a 
>younger age group. The English&subtitled version is aproved for  12+ and 
>the Dutch-dubbed version is for 6+. I find this weird!!!!! 

I have the sneaking suspicion that they may cut down the battle scenes a bit for the dubbed version for the younger children.  Those were awfully scary even if the combatants were obviously not human beings.  You might want to find out the running time of each version and see if they are diffent.

I'm not sure if you meant "no conscious effort..." or if you were implying that "conscience" might lead to editing for the tiny tots!  <smile>

I've finally seen the film and enjoyed it very much.  Yes, they streamlined the story and added some motivation to Susan in particular that was not there before, but it all "felt" right enough to satisfy me and I'm a notorious book-purist.  Fabulous creature work, I am greatly looking forward to their treatment of important animal characters in the next book.  [And I had to admire the gryphon air power; Ms. L*ck* & Mr. Dixon are going to squee with delight.]

The Narnia films will have two less problems than the Harry Potter films:

1.  All the books are written already.  The author is not going to spring any interesting, unpalatable nor unfilmable surprises on the studio.

2.  Carefully composed to avoid spoilers:  Not all the children are in all the books, so if there is an 18-month filming gap in a story that takes place only one year later, it won't amount to kids being three years too old by the end of the series as is likely for the Potter films.  The one tricky one will be Eustace, who is a major character in #3, #4 and #7.  Should they shoot #7 before #5 and #6, which are non-sequential anyway?  Or just make #7 take place when Eustace is a later teenager anyway? It might play just as well that way.

Susan Fox / Ma Foxti
selene at earthlink.net





More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list