SoyLeche said:
Lewis wrote this book first, and he didn't give any explanation, so it would be wrong to add it into the movie. People need to relax. It is a children's story for goodness sake.
I'm aware of that, but if you recall The Lord of The Rings trilogy, there was no in depth explanation of how the ring came to be in Bilbo's posession...that was in the prequel, which was written after. Peter Jackson managed to fit it in nicely though, I thought.
I'm in no way suggesting they should have had a nice bit of grainy flashback involving Jadis throwing lampost bits around the place, all I'm saying is that the
lack of backstory is going to - and already is - prove difficult for some people. Assuming they continue on to make the rest of the books, you're going to end up with a situation like we've had with Star Wars where they're going back and making the start of the story after they've finished telling it.
I don't see why they couldn't have done the somewhat sensible thing and make The Magicians Nephew first. It's a perfectly good starting point in it's own right, and sadly I think the
intent of C.S. Lewis is of less interest to a lot of the general public than is the ability to be able to watch a film and understand why there's a working British lampost in the middle of a country full of talking beasties and a decided lack of modern amenities. It is jarring precisely because it doesn't belong where it is...it's a piece of mundane modernity in a land of otherwise complete magic and fantasy.
What can I tell you...people are spoilt. They expect to know why things are and they expect a logical progression from the start of the story.
*Netdoc - The Magician's Nephew was the prequel.