Adapting one of history's most beloved children's books for the big screen isn't what most of us would call a simple job, but Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus had it comparatively easy when they adapted The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe in 2005. Writing the follow-up to that blockbuster, Prince Caspian, Markus, McFeely and the movie's director Andrew Adamson were faced with telling a story that didn't so much resemble a movie as a campfire tale. Changing what C.S. Lewis wrote was difficult, but they came up with a story that packs in plenty of drama while staying true to the world Lewis created decades ago.
McFeely and Markus were the first in a long series of interviews Cinema Blend did with the people behind The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, which comes out this Friday. Read about their battle for the Bulgy Bear and why you won't see Lucy jump on an elephant, and check in throughout the week for more looks behind the scenes of what's guranteed to be one of May's biggest movies.
Did this adaptation confront you with different challenges than the first one did?
Christopher Markus: Definitely, in that the book is structured very differently. In the book, the kids come to Narnia and are told Prince Caspian's story for about 60-70 pages. Then they finish the story, go off, and in about 20 pages the book is done. That didn't really make for an exciting movie, in that your main characters from the last movie are basically gone for the meat o the story. We had to work out a way where we could combine the two in the same chronology. Also we wanted to get them mixed up with Prince Caspian and start interacting. So we had to kind of untelescope time.
Stephen McFeely: There's a big structural change in terms of when they get into Narnia. Thematically and character-wise, we've taken what's in the and shined it up a bit.
Percentage-wise, how much of the script is you guys and how much of it was originally there?
Stephen McFeely: To be fair, there's a little more invention in this one among Andrew, Chris and myself than in the first one. The first one is an easier three-act structure, it's a more beloved a well-known book, so there's certainly fewer liberties you can take. Certainly there were a lot more times when we said to ourselves, 'Well, that part won't work.'
Christopher Markus: I would say that most of what's there is, if not in the book, hinted at in the book or inspired by the book-- I would say that we took our more Lewis than put ourselves in. There are things that just don't work on a movie level that people might miss. I'm not sure we replaced them with our own inventions so much as we amped up other parts of the book to fill that space.
Did you put in extra creatures, or re-emphasize some of them more than the others? Stephen McFeely: Griffins are pretty cool, so you'll see a decent amount of griffins. And the minotaurs are not necessarily in Prince Caspian, but Andrew liked them, and they're a nice comment about what's happened after 1100 years-- even the guys on the bad side can suffer and turn and hide in the woods.
Christopher Markus: And there are some you try desperately to hold on to, because you like them, and they don't quite work in the movie. Like the Bulgy Bear, in the book, sucks his paw. I fought for that Bulgy Bear like my life depended on it, but in the end I think he says one line in the movie, which is totally correct.
Allegorically, who does the bad side represent in this one?
Stephen McFeely: Oh, the allegory question. I can't speak for Lewis, and certainly not everything is allgeroical. He steals from several myths, obviously one more than others. If you were to ask Lewis, the story of Prince Caspian is the story of what happens when belief or falth are allowed to falter or fall away. The Telmarines represents some laxness in faith. They've become selfish, they've become greedy. Other than that, our job has always been to not underline stuff and not take stuff away.
Can you tell us more about Voyage of theDawn Treader?
Christopher Markus: No boat! No boat in this one! [Don't worry, guys, he's kidding]
How do you write with the special effects in mind? Do you write toward them, or do you say, hey, we'll do anything and let Andrew figure out how to make it happen.
Stephen McFeely: A lot of confidence in Andrew. We would not have a lot of visual effects arguments with Andrew.
Christopher Markus: Part of that's unique about writng these movies is that, while we're writing them, there is already a team of guys visualizing these things, storyboarding them, doing them on computers, making models. You can say-- this doesn't happen in the movie, but you know-- Lucy jumps 50 feet and land on an elephant or something. And then three days later you walk into this office, and there's a little clay elephant, and you're like 'Oh, that doesn't work at all!' So there's a lot of checks and balances. We're free to come up with stuff, and that stuff is pretty quickly indicated by the powers that be that A, that's silly, or B, that wll cost an insane amount for no value onscreen. Generally we write for the story, and I think they can do pretty much anything [with special effects].
Do you ever have any actors in mind when you're writing?
Stephen McFeely: Ken Stott as the badger was the guy I thought of from day one.
Christopher Markus: I have to say, I am more pleased by the badger on screen than I was in the script.
Are you guys contracted through to the end of the series?
Christopher Markus: No, they're very wary. It's pay-as-you-go around here.
What are your feelings about staying with it throughout the run?
Christopher Markus: It's terrifying in that, if we go at this pace, I will be in my 60s [at the end of seven movies], which is not something I like to think about.
Stephen McFeely: This is our fourth movie, second Narnia movie, and the other part of our career we really cherish, because it's dark and strange. We would like to move on with a nice balance, and if on the one side these big movies, the Narnia movies, are there, we would be happy to welcome those. As long as on the other side someone let me do an indie for no money.
What about the violence in this movie? It's pretty intense for a kids' movie. Was it that violent on paper?
Christopher Markus: It's built in in that the enemies in this one are human, whereas in the last one they were fantasy characters. You're faced wth that challenge. If it isn't violent, it becomes the A-team, or silly-- there's a crash, and then all the bad guys run away. It takes the gravity away from the sitatuion.
Stephen McFeely: But everyone was very aware of that. There's not a lot of blood in it. The fact that everyone's wearing face plates most of the time, I think sort of desensitizes you-- it doesn't look like your father. It just looks like a storm trooper or something.
