BBC had the whole narnia experience all wrong

[lions mane]

I think that BBC had the whole narnia experience wrong. I haven't seen them but from what i hear they had everything screwed up. For instance all the childrens ages, Prince Caspian's age, and the fact that only a few weeks go by from P.C. to Voyage.

[glamel]

no, i think you must be mistaken, the bbc version is good, though the animals there is cartoons and mr. and mrs beaver is just costumes, basically the whole point of getting to NArnia was there.
as i have said in the other thread, the BBC version although poorly budgeted, and the technology before was not that great, the BBC version was good.
besides, there are lots of things from the book that was on the BBC version.

[lions mane]

Glamel, u know you're probably right like i said i haven't seen them. All this is just what i've read and heard.

[glamel]

yeah, although the movie's really terrific, many loved the old ones,
those who says the bbc is not good, its because they didnt saw it before, when the world's technology is not yet that great, :)

[slideyfoot]

Or the fact that the acting was really, really bad (I say that as one of the many on here who saw the BBC series when it first aired in 1988). Its not only the less advanced effects that make the BBC series an inferior version (at least in terms of the first installment) to the recent film, though the BBC adaptation was considerably closer to the book. The main points in its favour are its accuracy (again, for comparative purposes, I'm only referring to the first one) and the nostalgia of those who saw it as children.

[lions mane]

that may be true. the only thing that i think adamsion did wrong was being faithful to lewis. (he really wasn't).

[slideyfoot]

Not in a slavish way, no, and certainly less accurate than the series (in general - a few things in the film follow the book where the series didn't, such as the absence of coats in regards to Lucy, Edmund and Mr Tumnus, but overall pretty minor plot points). However, I did enjoy the little nods present in the film waiting to be picked up by readers of the books; for example, Professor Kirke's apple on his desk, pointing to The Magician's Nephew, and the moustache and glasses Edmund draws on the stone lion (which you see that same lion made flesh still has drawn into his fur at the end of the film).

[lions mane]

that's a gr8 point.

[marshwiggle@1216]

hey lion's mane
i agree that the BBC versions wern't that great and it has nothing to do, for me at least, with the reacent film. its annoying to me how they made some serious mistakes in charactor's looks as i have mentioned in other forums, some charactors looked waaaaaaaaaay to human for my tastes, but other wise they are actually quite good, you should look into buying or renting a set and see for yourself

[lions mane]

thanks for your reply marshwiggle. i will look into seeing them for myself.

[Black_Coffee]

They were xtremely nice and I enjoyed em all the time, while watching them.
U shouldn't b talking boutta smth, without knowing what it is... So go and see them. :)

[jillthevaliant]

i dunno. i mean, the BBC versions were fairly good for the time that it was made. but i thought that the acting wasn't very good and there might also be something as being too faithful to the book (saying things line by line from th ebook).

[lions mane]

they really said it line by line (they might as well have done a play on broadway) :eek:

[jillthevaliant]

amen!!!!!1

[marshwiggle@1216]

Jillthevalient: i dunno. i mean, the BBC versions were fairly good for the time that it was made. but i thought that the acting wasn't very good and there might also be something as being too faithful to the book (saying things line by line from th ebook).
they really said it line by line (they might as well have done a play on broadway) :eek:

hey excuse me, its good that they stayed so closed to the book and i, myself, think it was good that the quoted some fermiliar lines, especially some of my favorite lines. its good that they tried to do CS Lewis justice as aposed to a hackjob like they do with some other book adaptions, you guys should really REALLY give the BBC some credit! i mean come on will the bashing ever end!

[jillthevaliant]

i am giving BBC credit. i did say that with what they were limited with, they did a pretty good job, but still, they might have been a bit too faithful to the books, and sometimes that's not always good. yes, it's nice to hear familiar lines, but when they say things like, "lucy, susan, put your hands on my mane and walk with me...", that's kinda too faithful and outdated.

[slideyfoot]

The effects were seen as fantastic at the time, even if now they appear badly dated. It might interest others than me to read this old piece from Televisual - even back then, the way in which Aslan spoke was described aptly as 'gormless':

A look at the award-winning team behind the effects in BBC's epic The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.
654 words, Televisual, 10th November 1988
(c) 1988: Centaur Communications Ltd. and licensors

The BBC has gone overboard for its new showpiece in children's drama - the re-working of CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. Karen Hutchinson talks to the award-winning team behind the epic whose past credits include The Box of Delights.

A blend of live action, special effects and models with a dash of animation is the recipe for one of the BBC's biggest children's productions ever - The Chronicles of Narnia.

Satisfying preconceived images of the fantasy realm of satyrs, dwarves and fauns is tough, even for the BBC team behind award-winning series The Box Of Delights.

So with coffers boosted by pre-sales, executive producer Paul Stone drew on animators TVC and model creator Vin Burnham for the magical moments of the first six episodes, based on The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe.

Two CS Lewis tales - Prince Caspian and The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader form the next series, the final one is based on The Silver Chair.

While just eight minutes of the first three hours incorporate animation, Stone complains of the "huge but necessary expense". Jimmy Murakami directing at TVC doesn't reckon the company will be bidding for the rest of the Chronicles. He says TVC, best known for The Snowman and Where The Wind Blows, will be lucky to break even.

TVC tried to be illustrative rather than cartoony, distinguishing the evil sprites,freaks and whoozies from the six animated goodies by making them wraith-like, he says.

The evil followers of the wicked White Witch battle against Edwardian protagonists Susan, Edmund, Peter and Lucy and the friends of Leonine deity Aslan.

But while the BBC made most of the models, some barely more than fluffy costumes, the central character was farmed out to Burnham.

She insisted on an all-fours lion - departing from drawings in the original manuscript and past Narnia productions.

Andy Whitman, producer and director of a BBC documentary about Narnia records, operates, cartoons, stage shows and television productions, says it's unusual not to have a simple humanoid with lion's head.

Director Marilyn Fox was dubious - "she thought it would be like a pantomime horse", says Burnham.

But as you'd expect from the hands behind models in Time Bandits, The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, and Volvo's Dummy ad there's little trace of the comic theatre.

Aisla Berk and William Todd-Jones do a fairly convincing double act inside the body, though it's still the head that's most impressive.

It inclines at various angles, and combined with moving eyes, ears, nose and mouth, expressions range from the fierce to the benevolent.

At times it looks a bit gormless when it gapes as words boom forth, with no attempt at lip cync. Stone, though, is adamant. "It combines a sense of human and animal to get a religious sense of majesty," he says.

But he surprised Burnham by only requesting one head. "It will need a facelift for next year," she says. "Normally you'd have a close up head and a lighter version for action shots."

Such action shots include the massive Aslan flying with two children on his back - all wired up like a huge marionette, says Burnham.

The resulting multi-layered fairy tale is another BBC period piece, ostensibly children's drama, with obvious adult appeal.

So it will probably go out in the Sunday afternoon Charles Dickens slot, perhaps accompanied by the Whitman documentary on the making of the series.

Stone isn't keen on pairing his production with the study of adaptations. "I want to retain some of the mystery," he says.

"No matter how advanced the technical elements are, they should be appreciated and forgotton," he says. "We are telling a story, not showing how clever we are."

[marshwiggle@1216]

as i said, i love them, in fact me and some of my friends were watching LWW last night, its actually kind of cute and naustalgic (sorry marshwiggle can't spell!) and we ll hd a good time reliving the story, my firend anna said that it all made "prefect sence in my head" so even though the special effects were not that great, its still a good retelling of the story, i am glad i own them :-D

[Deep_Magic]

The BBC version is really good - Lion's Main you should watch them and try not to compare them with the new movie as of course there is no comparison with the special effects - it's like today buying a new mobile phone or Ipod, etc. and in a couple of months there is going to be something bigger and better - this is always going to happen!! And of course everyone is entitled to have their opinion on which is better but I think they r both really good and retell a classic book extremely well :)

[lions mane]

The BBC version is really good - Lion's Main you should watch them and try not to compare them with the new movie as of course there is no comparison with the special effects - it's like today buying a new mobile phone or Ipod, etc. and in a couple of months there is going to be something bigger and better - this is always going to happen!! And of course everyone is entitled to have their opinion on which is better but I think they r both really good and retell a classic book extremely well :)
i don't know from what i've heard they're not that good. and i don't really want to waste my time watching these movies but considering the fact that i am a fan of narnia and all the stories i think i will watch the older bbc versions.

[jillthevaliant]

i don't know from what i've heard they're not that good. and i don't really want to waste my time watching these movies but considering the fact that i am a fan of narnia and all the stories i think i will watch the older bbc versions.
that's what i did too. after i saw the new LWW, i decided that i wanted to see the BBC versions too, so i saw them as well. just beware:i rented all 3 at the same time and didn't realise that they were about 3 hrs. each and they were due, like, 4 days from then, but i only had 2 days to watch them because of my schedule so yeah. i ended up watching LWW and PC on 1 night and then the rest the 2nd night! please make sure you either don't rent them at the same time or you have plenty of time to watch them all!!

[lions mane]

that's what i did too. after i saw the new LWW, i decided that i wanted to see the BBC versions too, so i saw them as well. just beware:i rented all 3 at the same time and didn't realise that they were about 3 hrs. each and they were due, like, 4 days from then, but i only had 2 days to watch them because of my schedule so yeah. i ended up watching LWW and PC on 1 night and then the rest the 2nd night! please make sure you either don't rent them at the same time or you have plenty of time to watch them all!!
I'll take this into consideration. Thank You!

[marshwiggle@1216]

i don't know from what i've heard they're not that good. and i don't really want to waste my time watching these movies but considering the fact that i am a fan of narnia and all the stories i think i will watch the older bbc versions.

dude they're NOT bad! they are adorable! they are DEFINTELY worth getting, seriously if you don't want to buy them, just rent them or something. but pleeeease just give em a shot would ya :eek:

[lions mane]

dude they're NOT bad! they are adorable! they are DEFINTELY worth getting, seriously if you don't want to buy them, just rent them or something. but pleeeease just give em a shot would ya :eek:
i would. :D

[William_Luvr]

I sooooooo agree!!! the bbc version was terrible!! LUCY WAS GIGANTIC!! AHHH IT DROVE ME NUTS!! And peter was ugly!!! NOT LIKE WILLIAM!!

[SacredSpirit]

LOL!!
are you all talking about the old narnia movie

BECAUSE THAT WAS STUPID
THE BEAVERS TALKED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR

[lions mane]

LOL!!
are you all talking about the old narnia movie

BECAUSE THAT WAS STUPID
THE BEAVERS TALKED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR
that's what i hear!

[marshwiggle@1216]

WILL YOU PEOPLE PLEASE STOP RAGGING ON THE BBC!! :mad:
so what if the beavers talked
it was still cute yeeeesssh

[Mar]

i heard the BBC version STUNK! so i haven watched cuz people warned me no too lol. but i heard lucy was not cute lol..she was fat hehe

[Matko]

So what if she was fat??? I don't mind it! She was a child for God sake!!!

[sarahnarnia1983]

im extremly fond of the bbc version. it was very well acted out at the time and things change after all it was done in 1988 when i would of been about 5 maybe slightly older. as i was born in december 83

[TimmyofOz]

Though the visual effects were not well done, It was Narnian story. Of the 4 books done by the BBC the best was the last, The Silver Chair. The visual effects of VDT were the best done.

[marshwiggle@1216]

Though the visual effects were not well done, It was Narnian story. Of the 4 books done by the BBC the best was the last, The Silver Chair. The visual effects of VDT were the best done.

the silver chair was by far the best of all, i have red the book three times and seen my copy of the movie about two and a half. i know the effects were bad and lucy didn't look that grate but she was still kind of cute and i just wish people would stop ragging and try to enjoy them!

[lions mane]

some of u guys say that we should all give these films a chance, but yet u still say that the effects and everything (u even say that the acting and lucy wasn't that gr8) was horrible.
so i don't understand!

[Namaste]

I have posted to this sort of topic before, given the technology of that day, and given the fact that they filmed it as though doing a play of sorts (on a stage and such), the BBC version was alright. It was also closer to the books than any adaptation, including the recent Disney / Walden Media film. When people stop to compare the two, it's like comparing apples and oranges. IMHO, this is like trying to compare a cartoon like 'Cinderella' to 'The Incredibles'. I appreciated the BBC version for the fact that they did give the characters lines that were straight out of the books, thus showing an adaptation that was much more in line with CS Lewis' words and plots.

I can also understand someone not liking the BBC version of the Chronicles, but I can also see why it is people do like them. I was 17 when they came out, and in 1988 or 1989 when they aired them on PBS, I wanted to watch them and I did. I didn't stop to think that the beavers costumes were cheesy at the time of viewing, I simply enjoyed them. Today, I still do, and I give the BBC a lot of credit for trying to make something using both live action and animation. In today's world, things would look much different, but I say kudoes to them for going with what they had.

[glamel]

yeah, well, said,
i never watched the bbc version before, just recently before the movie came out,
i bought the copy, and watched it and i found it really good even with those cartoons battles,
i just wished the recent movie was closer to the books, like the bbc.
i can watched it over and over again.

[Matko]

I got dvd of BBC version of LWW and I watched it today. I watched this series 10 years ago and again I watched it today and I still adore it! I know that there's no visual effects but for me this movie is great!!! :)

[lions mane]

but my question is how can u guys like a movie that doesn't live up to expectations, like the bbc version?
i mean the graphics and the acting and being way to loyal to the books make it un-intresting!

[Matko]

I like BBC version because I know that it was made in 1988. and for that time movie is excellent! What would you expect of movie made in 1988.? Special effects??? Oh, please! BBC version cannot be compared with this new version because is made before 15 years!

[marshwiggle@1216]

I have posted to this sort of topic before, given the technology of that day, and given the fact that they filmed it as though doing a play of sorts (on a stage and such), the BBC version was alright. It was also closer to the books than any adaptation, including the recent Disney / Walden Media film. When people stop to compare the two, it's like comparing apples and oranges. IMHO, this is like trying to compare a cartoon like 'Cinderella' to 'The Incredibles'. I appreciated the BBC version for the fact that they did give the characters lines that were straight out of the books, thus showing an adaptation that was much more in line with CS Lewis' words and plots.

I can also understand someone not liking the BBC version of the Chronicles, but I can also see why it is people do like them. I was 17 when they came out, and in 1988 or 1989 when they aired them on PBS, I wanted to watch them and I did. I didn't stop to think that the beavers costumes were cheesy at the time of viewing, I simply enjoyed them. Today, I still do, and I give the BBC a lot of credit for trying to make something using both live action and animation. In today's world, things would look much different, but I say kudoes to them for going with what they had.

yeah i agree with you dude, the BBC did a good job for what they had at the time, and it was nice that they were so close to the books, i have been getting mad at people for putting them down :)

yeah, well, said,
i never watched the bbc version before, just recently before the movie came out,
i bought the copy, and watched it and i found it really good even with those cartoons battles,
i just wished the recent movie was closer to the books, like the bbc.
i can watched it over and over again.

dude i agree with you as well, i have watched the BBC silver chair over and over again and could watch it even more! :) i think people who haven't seen them should see them. even thought it does have bad parts its charming in its own way :)

three cheers for you both! YAY! YAY! YAY!

but my question is how can u guys like a movie that doesn't live up to expectations, like the bbc version?
i mean the graphics and the acting and being way to loyal to the books make it un-intresting!

lion's mane, being loyal to the books is what MAKES it interesting, for people like me, who haven't read them in soo long, its nice to hear the old lines, it brings back memories. so please be nice to them, okay, give em a shot, you'll be glad you did

[Namaste]

I have already answered the question you raise, Lion's Mane, it is your choice whether to read the response or not. Marshwiggle said it best, the trueness to the books makes the BBC version appealing, and I have to add that this is what makes this version work for me. When I first saw it, I was still a kid, and CGI was a misspelled word. You can't expect someone at my age to have today's expectations for something that wasn't real in 1988. Not everyone here is 15, and not everyone here can remember a day when there was no internet, no microwave ovens, and grainy photographs. But, I remember those things, and so when I saw the BBC version in my youth, it was bloody brilliant, and there were no expectations.

Something doesn't just suddenly become cheesy because times change, one grows to appreciate the things that people had to do in the past to enable them to reach a certain level with things. In 1988, a realistic looking lion would only be a real lion. Today, we've achieved a massive computer revolution, but 18-years-ago, the technology that we could hold in our hand today, would literally fill a room.

[lions mane]

well 1st of all i hope that u don't think i'm a 15 y/o kid (cause actually i'm 18, yah not much of a difference, but please do not compare me to immature child). 2nd of all they could've done so much for those films they just choose not to. and don't froget that jurassic park came out just 2 years later, i mean tech. couldn't have changed that much in just 2 years. but please can u explain to me how being so loyal to the books (basically saying line for line) does en-one good, even the really true narnia fans (which i think i am)!
and if u like the line for line why not read the books u said that u hadn't read it in a long time, so pic it up and read! come on now!

[lions mane]

well i guess you're not ganna reply to me r u namaste?

see i wasn't even on when u said i didn't reply to u!

[Namaste]

When someone writes 'u' unstead of 'you' then yes I do start to wonder about their age and maturity. I'm sorry, but I'm a writer by trade, and it drives me nuts when people don't use proper English. Secondly, I don't spend every waking moment on this forum posting stuff, I live in Germany, and by my time tables, that is 6 hours ahead of Eastern Standard time, so when someone Stateside is awake in the early evening, it's late at night here. Yet, when you respond rudely to people, as you did with me, then it is truly no wonder that they don't wish to respond to you or participate in your threads.

Incidentally, I wasn't saying that 15-year-olds were immature or unintelligent, that's your words not mine, but I am saying that there are a lot of people on this forum who are 15, and your words insult their intelligence. So before you start fighting people with an opposing viewpoint, you might try listening instead of doing all the talking. I am rereading the books by the way, and I stand by my arguments.

[lions mane]

i say u and not you becuase i want to hurry and type, sorry about that. and i was only rude because it really sounded like u were trying to be.
and i don't live day and night on this forum either, but that's basically what u (you, sorry) asumed, by saying you answered my question and it was up to me to respond.

[Namaste]

I am not going to argue with you about this. Your postings came across rude to me, and that speaks volumes about your level of maturity. I made the point, not out of rudeness, but out of experience and I was around in 1988, I was your age back then.

You inferred that I was being rude, but I was not. I was stating what I felt, and chances are, you interpreted it as being 'rude' because it was an opposing viewpoint that supported something you don't support. Rude, implies insult, and I was not insulting you, I was explaining why older people can appreciate something that you don't.

You mentioned 'Jurassic Park', as being made in 1988, but that is false, the book may have been written before 1988, but the film, according to the IMDb, they have the first Jurassic Park film copyrighted at 1993, a good five years after the BBC released LWW, and even The Silver Chair was copyrighted in 1990, three years prior to Jurassic Park's release. In 1993, the internet was just getting started as a means of communication, so that should indicate how far we've come since, and how far Mr. Spielberg came in his producing of feature films.

By the way, out of curiosity, I googled 'Special Effects in 1988', and probably one of the highest budgeted films of that day was 'Beetlejuice', but the BBC Chronicles also came up. If one had the money back in those days to create a high budget film, then it would be at around the same level of what 'Beetlejuice' was. Now granted, I will concede to the fact that the BBC Narnia stories were not at that level, but then one would have to ask questions about what their budget was compared to Beetlejuice's budget, but also target aim (that is what sort of audience are we looking at; theater, or made for TV). There exist a lot of reasons as to why one film has more attention over another, but it's not cut and dried. This does open up questions about it, and would require a great deal more research than I have time to do, but it is something to consider.

[Eustace Scrubb]

Something doesn't just suddenly become cheesy because times change, one grows to appreciate the things that people had to do in the past to enable them to reach a certain level with things. In 1988, a realistic looking lion would only be a real lion. Today, we've achieved a massive computer revolution, but 18-years-ago, the technology that we could hold in our hand today, would literally fill a room.

Very true, Namaste, you're absolutely right *claps*. I think it's more than a little unfair when people sit down to watch BBC's LWW expecting today's effects and then proclaim within minutes of watching it that the whole production sucks because the effects aren't as good as today's. How could they have been any better back in 1988? In that time the effects were considered ground-breaking. It's simply unreasonable to compare them with modern special effects, but it's only the viewer who misses out if you can't accept and get past them, because the BBC series is incredible, in my humble opinion.

Yes, I'm a true-blue BBC enthusiast; I grew up watching the television Narnia's and I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that I'll ever like (even with better effects) any other adaption as much. Being modern and disney with better CGI doesn't make the new Narnia better. Of course, anyone has the right to think what they like, but personally, I judge better by acting and how faithful one is to the books. And BBC cannot be surpassed in that department, because their script was basically straight out of C.S. Lewis's novel. The children were good actors, and they looked and played their parts well (especially Edmund and Lucy), even if Susan was meant to have dark hair while Lucy had blonde. Big deal. Edmund captured the essence of his character - spiteful, bullying, jealous and vulnerable, and Peter was exactly as he should be - the loyal, proud and protective leader. And nothing could beat the way they spoke with their lovely 1940's old-fashioned style.

As for characters such as supposed-to-be-animals, I understand that it wasn't a great move in the special effects dept, but if the CGI beavers in the new movie are the apparent improvement, then I'll choose costumed people anyday. The CGI went too far in the new movie. They must have decided that "hell, now we can use CGI, the more the better!" and went bloody wild with it. The CGI beavers and Aslan looked fake no matter how great the special effects were, because that's what CGI is - you can always tell, even if only just. At least with the BBC production the characters were really there, and the actors could react to that, they weren't talking to thin air or green tennis balls. And I think that some of the costumes looked quite fantastic - nothing can beat talking animals and dwarves at the Christmas Table that Jadis turns to stone... that squirrel was gorgeous!


but my question is how can u guys like a movie that doesn't live up to expectations, like the bbc version?
i mean the graphics and the acting and being way to loyal to the books make it un-intresting!


Right. Way too loyal to the books. How is that bad? What is the point of making a movie from a novel if not to try to replicate the reading experience into images? You want to capture the essence of the novel; that's what many people go to see when they want to watch book adaptions. At least half of the Narnia movie fans would be fans of C.S. Lewis's books, and they want to see those books done justice by being brilliant and most of all faithful screen adaptions. People want to see C.S. Lewis onscreen. Not some "inspired by" garbage.

And it doesn't live up to expectations? What expectations are those? I'd guess they were those set down by CGI-loving fans of the movie version, am I right?

[Maiden of the woods]

I think my favourite film out the BBC films is 'The Silver Chair'. I don't know why but I think it is because the acting is done so well for it. I love Tom Baker who plays Puddleglum, he is awesome!

[Namaste]

I loved Puddleglum. I watched the Silver Chair video yesterday and just adored him. He's so much like Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh, what's not to love about that character? ;)

[lions mane]

o.k.. not to be rude but some of u guys write so much. some of the things that u guys put i can shrink into a small 5 sentance paragraph.
and to namaste i don't want to argue about this topic either, so let's not. i don't really remember what else u might have said, so that will be it.
and to eustace scrub (my favorite character in all the books) saying line for line is ridiculious sorry. and u can picture if u really read the books (which i'm not implying that you didn't) you can picture everything just right, even without all the right lines. and how's having great CGI special effects bad for the new narnia movie?

i don't know if any of this makes any since but, i tried! :D

[marshwiggle@1216]

I have already answered the question you raise, Lion's Mane, it is your choice whether to read the response or not. Marshwiggle said it best, the trueness to the books makes the BBC version appealing, and I have to add that this is what makes this version work for me. When I first saw it, I was still a kid, and CGI was a misspelled word. You can't expect someone at my age to have today's expectations for something that wasn't real in 1988. Not everyone here is 15, and not everyone here can remember a day when there was no internet, no microwave ovens, and grainy photographs. But, I remember those things, and so when I saw the BBC version in my youth, it was bloody brilliant, and there were no expectations.

Something doesn't just suddenly become cheesy because times change, one grows to appreciate the things that people had to do in the past to enable them to reach a certain level with things. In 1988, a realistic looking lion would only be a real lion. Today, we've achieved a massive computer revolution, but 18-years-ago, the technology that we could hold in our hand today, would literally fill a room.

namaste, i am glad you agree with me, even i remember when CGI wasn't that great, one of my favorite movies was made by stop motion and its still wonderfull, i think we have become too used to flashy tech in our films, it kind of takes away from the story and the BBC stories were top notch!

....and as for computers filling a room, thats a scary thought :D

well 1st of all i hope that u don't think i'm a 15 y/o kid (cause actually i'm 18, yah not much of a difference, but please do not compare me to immature child). 2nd of all they could've done so much for those films they just choose not to. and don't froget that jurassic park came out just 2 years later, i mean tech. couldn't have changed that much in just 2 years. but please can u explain to me how being so loyal to the books (basically saying line for line) does en-one good, even the really true narnia fans (which i think i am)!
and if u like the line for line why not read the books u said that u hadn't read it in a long time, so pic it up and read! come on now!

well first off lion's mane, most of us don't have time to read book over and over lion's mane, believe me, i love reading and would be more then happy to sprawl out in my university's garden with a stack o C. S Leweses by my side but i can't, so, the movies do for now, and will still be enjoyed by me even if i read the books athousand times over!

Very true, Namaste, you're absolutely right *claps*. I think it's more than a little unfair when people sit down to watch BBC's LWW expecting today's effects and then proclaim within minutes of watching it that the whole production sucks because the effects aren't as good as today's. How could they have been any better back in 1988? In that time the effects were considered ground-breaking. It's simply unreasonable to compare them with modern special effects, but it's only the viewer who misses out if you can't accept and get past them, because the BBC series is incredible, in my humble opinion.

Yes, I'm a true-blue BBC enthusiast; I grew up watching the television Narnia's and I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that I'll ever like (even with better effects) any other adaption as much. Being modern and disney with better CGI doesn't make the new Narnia better. Of course, anyone has the right to think what they like, but personally, I judge better by acting and how faithful one is to the books. And BBC cannot be surpassed in that department, because their script was basically straight out of C.S. Lewis's novel. The children were good actors, and they looked and played their parts well (especially Edmund and Lucy), even if Susan was meant to have dark hair while Lucy had blonde. Big deal. Edmund captured the essence of his character - spiteful, bullying, jealous and vulnerable, and Peter was exactly as he should be - the loyal, proud and protective leader. And nothing could beat the way they spoke with their lovely 1940's old-fashioned style.

As for characters such as supposed-to-be-animals, I understand that it wasn't a great move in the special effects dept, but if the CGI beavers in the new movie are the apparent improvement, then I'll choose costumed people anyday. The CGI went too far in the new movie. They must have decided that "hell, now we can use CGI, the more the better!" and went bloody wild with it. The CGI beavers and Aslan looked fake no matter how great the special effects were, because that's what CGI is - you can always tell, even if only just. At least with the BBC production the characters were really there, and the actors could react to that, they weren't talking to thin air or green tennis balls. And I think that some of the costumes looked quite fantastic - nothing can beat talking animals and dwarves at the Christmas Table that Jadis turns to stone... that squirrel was gorgeous!

Right. Way too loyal to the books. How is that bad? What is the point of making a movie from a novel if not to try to replicate the reading experience into images? You want to capture the essence of the novel; that's what many people go to see when they want to watch book adaptions. At least half of the Narnia movie fans would be fans of C.S. Lewis's books, and they want to see those books done justice by being brilliant and most of all faithful screen adaptions. People want to see C.S. Lewis onscreen. Not some "inspired by" garbage.

And it doesn't live up to expectations? What expectations are those? I'd guess they were those set down by CGI-loving fans of the movie version, am I right?

WAY TO GO SCRUBB!! as i said to namaste...i agree 150 percent!!!! although i did like the new one too :D

I think my favourite film out the BBC films is 'The Silver Chair'. I don't know why but I think it is because the acting is done so well for it. I love Tom Baker who plays Puddleglum, he is awesome!

yeah, maiden of the woods, i agree with you, baker was AWSOME i love the faces he made, as i said, your my new favorite person on the forum!

I loved Puddleglum. I watched the Silver Chair video yesterday and just adored him. He's so much like Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh, what's not to love about that character? ;)

well dude, i agree with you on the lovible part, but not the Eeyore part, puddleglum looks better :)

[Eustace Scrubb]

o.k.. not to be rude but some of u guys write so much. some of the things that u guys put i can shrink into a small 5 sentance paragraph.
and to eustace scrub (my favorite character in all the books) saying line for line is ridiculious sorry. and u can picture if u really read the books (which i'm not implying that you didn't) you can picture everything just right, even without all the right lines. and how's having great CGI special effects bad for the new narnia movie?

i don't know if any of this makes any since but, i tried! :D

Oh yeah, I know I write too much, but I doubt much of it can be condensed into just 5 sentences... I just feel very strongly about BBC Narnia and I'm quite defensive ;).

I love Eustace too (hence the name), he's a brilliant character. And as for saying things line for line, I never said it had to be straight from the book, every line and every action. I just like to see people staying loyal to C.S. Lewis's masterworks. And, for the new movie, taking out important dialogue which is critical for the overall story to be replaced with action sequences and modern dialogue not even in the books isn't my idea of being loyal. I understand where you are coming from but I would still have liked at least a few more direct lines from the book and less waterfall action.

Don't get me wrong, having more CGI doesn't make for a worse movie. Most of the time the disney crew got away with it, but I just think they went a bit far in places. And I don't like it when people take short cuts; "oh let's not bother making this look real, we'll just CGI it over the top". It's too easy. And I do feel they did that too much in the film - what happened to good old-fashioned effort?


well first off lion's mane, most of us don't have time to read book over and over lion's mane, believe me, i love reading and would be more then happy to sprawl out in my university's garden with a stack o C. S Leweses by my side but i can't, so, the movies do for now, and will still be enjoyed by me even if i read the books athousand times over!

WAY TO GO SCRUBB!! as i said to namaste...i agree 150 percent!!!! although i did like the new one too

I also would read 24/7 if I had the time and patience. I don't have either, but I read the books when I can, or at least refer to them or read my favourite parts ;). But yes, I agree with you Marshwiggle. And btw lion's mane. You do realise that BBC Narnia was BBC Narnia don't you? It was a small little English production with extremely tight and limited funding. Jurassic Park is a Hollywood production with millions of dollars devoted to special effects alone. There's a massive difference. Yes, the CGI wasn't great in Narnia, but CGI doesn't make a film.

And marshwiggle I actually do like the movie version! I thought it was a cute adaption, well acted and all. The CGI got to me a bit (I found it excessive), but it gets to me in any production where it features a lot.

Tom Baker... what a legend of this earth! I LOVED him as Puddleglum, I thought he was brilliant, so gloomy and woeful. His hands looked great too. And you know, Tom Baker is THE BEST Dr Who ever, so they couldn't have cast anyone better for Puddleglum. All I can say is he'd better be good in the new movies!

Sorry... long post again. But I got carried away, and I'm stuffed if I'm editing it now.

[lions mane]

you guys are so funny (in no offence)
i just laugh cause you all talk about how great the old films are and all but this is just my opinion i think the old versions are to old to really enjoy, and you guys might be right i may have been brain-washed from all the new technology that we now have and are able to use.
but like i said it's just my opinion, and it's not that i don't like old films or anything, in fact i love the bbc cartoon of L.W.W.
i'm just saying that i think the films might be to loyal to books (if that's possible)
sorry if i offended any one here!

[lions mane]

yah, eustace scrubb i do agree (and i've never said otherwise) they could've used a lot more lines from the books and the river scene i really wasn't a fan of (even though it was done well), but i do agree that they added a lot of things in that they really shouldn't have!
but let's not froget that the movie was still great and so was the acting, and they stood very loyal to all the basics!

[glamel]

just to let you all know:

BBC LWW has been nominated and WON Best Video Lighting (John Mason) at BAFTA TV Award (1989)
nominated:
1. Best Children's Programme (Entertainment/Drama) (Paul Stone & Marilyn Fox)
2. Best Costume Design(Judy Pepperdine)
3. Best Make Up(Sylvia Thornton)

it was also Nominated at the EMMY award for
Outstanding Children's Program [Paul Stone] (executive producer)
[Jay Rayvid] (senior executive producer/WonderWorks)
[Dale Bell] (executive producer/WonderWorks)

-----------------
they wont be nominated and won if it is not that great.(period)

[lions mane]

is all this old or is this new news! :confused:

[glamel]

geez? cant you understand??
they won during that time,
what i am trying "you" to understand is that
the old version had been nominated (that is with an "ed")
and won, (see my sentence, won, meaning past).

[Jill Pole]

Its old. 1989 ... is a while back.

I think that BBC had the whole narnia experience wrong. I haven't seen them but from what i hear they had everything screwed up. For instance all the childrens ages, Prince Caspian's age, and the fact that only a few weeks go by from P.C. to Voyage.

And so the new movie had the whole experience right, now did it?

I don't think everything is the right word. Especially when you've not seen it.

[lions mane]

geez? cant you understand??
they won during that time,
what i am trying "you" to understand is that
the old version had been nominated (that is with an "ed")
and won, (see my sentence, won, meaning past).
well what i didn't understand is why u put has been, like if it was just nominated recently!

[glamel]

now mr. or ms. or whatsoever
i never put any "had been nominated recently"
and all you have to do is to understand the whole phrase,
besides, so what if the news is old?
its an award, an achievement.
forever treasure.
fine if you dont like watching the old version,
just dont say anything bad about it.
you can say you like the new movie,
but if you're gonna talk nonsense, better to keep your mouth shut.

[lions mane]

GLAMEL, oh mi god! how rude you're being, how rude a lot of u are being! :mad:
but glamel, if u go back and read what u put u would realise that it does sound very present. in fact u posted this, "has been nominated" those are you're words, not mine.
and why should i keep my mouth close isn't that what this is for (the forum) so that we could all have dicussions. and i don't know where you're from but i'm american, and i'm taught to open my mouth when need be and whenever i want!

[glamel]

look I said, "had"
its you who are rude,
by the way i read through all your post, you are rude, for saying you dont like the bbc version when infact lots of people liked it
of course, from what i see, you dont care what others care about,
you only listen to the other side of the story
which is so ridiculous.
its better if you just leave it alone and just said you prefer the new one
i dont really understand why people like you have the guts to say
that its not good, and so on and so forth...

[lions mane]

WOW!
o.k., no if u really read through all of my post u will see that i started this thread and u will also see that i put i hear that it's not good.
and if u read all my post u will also see that i was never rude on this thread, only when i felt that what's his name (i can't think right now) got rude with me.
so please do not try to start lectering me on any thing. o.k.!

and so what if i like the new version better than any other version what's wrong with that!

[Namaste]

well dude, i agree with you on the lovible part, but not the Eeyore part, puddleglum looks better :)

I love cartoons, but I was referring to eeyore's disposition being similar to Puddleglum's. ;)

[glamel]

ok, look, this is really becoming pathetic,
we all have our own opinions,
we all have our own freedom of speech,
theres nothing wrong in saying you love the new movie
and not the old one
i am not lecturing you
i am just giving you my side,
so, you'll get more opinions not just the ones who hated the movie.

[lions mane]

but the thing is glamel i never said that i hated the movie! people replyed that to me! you would see that i wrote i've never seen-saw the movie!

well, you know what it's late i have school in the morning and i just don't want to argue on this topic!

[Namaste]

Before I exit stage right on this thread, I have a few more things to say. My offense about this whole business isn't because it sounds rather like someone is putting down something that they haven't yet seen, but it is because someone has put down the way things were created and entertainment was conveyed in my time. I grew up in the 80's, and I feel a special bond to the time because I know how hard it was back then to create an 'effect' that today would only take seconds / minutes to do. As I read through this thread, what I was seeing was someone trying to force a point with the use of weak and repeated argumentation. When that didn't work, they resorted to jibes and accusations of rudeness to push their point. No one here was being rude, but yet we were accused of it because we wouldn't change our arguments.

Based on what I have read here, this individual has somehow conveyed that he/she haven't seen the BBC film at all and is not interested in taking a look at it. Well, to be blunt, this is sort of like only reading the Cliff's Notes to 'War and Peace', not the novel its based upon, and then trying to write a doctoral dissertation about the Russian Revolution. It won't convince anyone of anything, I'm afraid to say, and repeated arguments only bring others out of the woodwork in order to argue said point.

Personally, I get blown away with how they were able to do so many things during the 80's by simply using their imaginations. I am not anti-computers (I met my husband of 10 years through one), but I do think that there is a lot to be said for people taking their imaginations and trying to create an artform instead of depending on a technology to do it for them. I simply think that the effects from the 80's are a lot more gratifying, simply because of the added work that went into creating them. This is why, given their creative limitations and budget, the BBC did do a great job with this. In other words, if DVDs with director's cuts and comments were around back then, then I'd have eaten up everything they said about the manner in which they were able to create these characters and make these films.

Thus, I cannot help but to agree to some extent how we have become a bit too dependent on computers and CGI, but I will admit that the Disney / Walden film is positively wonderful and as a film, I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, I must also concede to being someone who loves CGI and this is because I have a fascination with an area I'll loosely call the 'evolution of animation', although, my appreication tends to lie more or less with the older stuff and the painstaking effort that went into creating it. I mean; specifically, the drawing of the individual film cells and inserting each image into a background and so on is rather impressive. Today, all one has to do is pop them into a computer, move them around a bit, and voila!

I further agree with whoever said that more book loyalty would have been better than sequences like the waterfall. The dialogue was present in CS Lewis' work, and the BBC was loyal to that, so why didn't Disney and Walden have to go and change up the dialogue so much? I have encountered so many Narnia fans (not just here but in other places) who say they love the film, but have never read the books at all and my experiences have been that the books are better than the movies. This film, although following the basic storyline of CS Lewis, was not completely loyal to the work it was based upon, and it could easily have been without having taken away from the overall effect or feel of the movie. The added lines were good, but there was a great deal omitted that could have been used to make it better, they just chose not to, which I think is a crying shame.

What totally blows me away are the distinctions between both the BBC's Narnia and Walden / Disney interpretation. They are like night and day and thus, for me, they cannot be compared because they are made in two different times, and as this thread has indicated, these films do tend to target two distinctive generations, but I just happen to be a huge fan of both of them. However, with regards to the loyalty to the book, the BBC wins, hands down.

[Of Mice and Narnia]

Friend gave me copies of all three BBC productions. Only want to make 2 points. No way I could get Lucy of the film out of my mind and accept the Lucy from the BBC. The substitutionary death was clearer in the BBC than in the film.

[slideyfoot]

In terms of loyalty to The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, I believe the 1967 series was most accurate (the only adaptation to mention Lilith, as far as I'm aware), followed by the 1979 animated film, then the BBC series.

The effects for the BBC were horrendous by todays standards, but pretty great by late 80s standards. This is glaringly obvious. The problem with the BBC version, in my opinion, is that the acting was terrible. Barbara Kellerman played it pantomime, while the children seemed to think they were in a school play. All of them except Richard Dempsey (who played Peter) left acting shortly afterwards.

The new film has much better effects; thats to be expected. However, it also has much better acting, in particular Tilda Swinton, and Lucy is vastly improved. The effects of the BBC version can be excused; the acting, however, cannot. Having said that, nostalgia means I still enjoy the BBC series, as I saw it when I was 7; no doubt I'll find the same is true of the other BBC adaptations when I get round to rewatching them.

I love the 80s; music, film, computer games, TV, cartoons, comics, books - all of it. I've spent the last few weeks getting very excited about my Dogtanian DVD boxed set, and I literally spent months watching old 80s cartoons while at uni - Ulysses 31, He-Man, Thundercats, Dungeons & Dragons etc, and listening to old 80s bands like Strawberry Switchblade, Orange Juice and Oingo Boingo. So I speak as somebody who is frankly pretty obsessed with the 80s, born in 1981.

In the end, its always a matter of taste, but I very much doubt that there is anyone posting on this forum who can objectively look at the various versions.

[Namaste]

In terms of loyalty to The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, I believe the 1967 series was most accurate (the only adaptation to mention Lilith, as far as I'm aware), followed by the 1979 animated film, then the BBC series.

The cartoon was so cute. I will never forget Edmund's salavating at the mention of the Turkish Delight, that scene just makes me laugh every time. :D I would love to see the old 1967 series. I've been trying to find it through Ebay or through Amazon, but I can't find it anywhere, I don't even think they released it and I've never seen it so I can't say for certain about how accurate it was. My copy of the cartoon was taped off of German TV (In German of course) and I can't say for sure how close to the book it was, but for the most part, yes, it was rather close to the book, if memory serves. At present, the only things I can really comment on is the BBC and the Disney/Walden film, but I'd love to see the series. If anyone has any ideas where one can find them, then please do tell. I even checked tvshowsondvd.com and no listing at all, they probably don't even know if it existed. Can one get them in the UK?

[Malacandra]

WOW!
o.k., no if u really read through all of my post u will see that i started this thread and u will also see that i put i hear that it's not good.
and if u read all my post u will also see that i was never rude on this thread, only when i felt that what's his name (i can't think right now) got rude with me.
so please do not try to start lectering me on any thing. o.k.!

and so what if i like the new version better than any other version what's wrong with that!

I wish you'd been taught to spell, punctuate, capitalise, and write paragraphs, as much as you declare that you have been taught to open your mouth when you like. (FTR, I often hang out on a message board with a great many Americans, and I promise you faithfully that they would say the same to you.) If you can't manage anything else then please. spell. the. word. "you". out. in. full. What you're basically saying is that no-one else is important enough for you to address them properly, and that's crassly insulting.

Your belief that you can say in five lines as much as Namaste can in a series of paragraphs is a little ill-founded, too. :cool:

---

I remember the BBC series well, and thought it well-done at the time. It had its faults - the woeful miscasting of the horrid little fat girl as Lucy was one (she may well have been an excellent actress, but not Lucy-like enough in appearance) and the scene where she gave Aslan back-chat after his resurrection was another - but plenty of good points, and I second and third the comments about The Silver Chair and the casting of Tom Baker as Puddleglum; he had the height and the demeanour and the tone of voice, and I can't think who could have carried it off better. And in my opinion, the more of the original author's dialogue included in the proper context (as opposed to Jackson's approach in LotR of giving lines to the wrong people or in the wrong place) the better.

Telescoping PC and VDT as they did was not above criticism, but it's by no means nonsensical in context, although the books' approach is more logical - that King Caspian X needed three years to settle things down at home (let alone have a ship suitable for the voyage) before he could go searching for the seven lords. I'm only sorry that they stopped after TSC - they were doing well up to that point and, if nothing else, could probably have had a fair go at The Magician's Nephew. Still, as long as the films keep coming. *rubs hands* :)

[lions mane]

oh! O.k, im, sorry!, about?that! :D

[slideyfoot]

If anyone has any ideas where one can find them, then please do tell. I even checked tvshowsondvd.com and no listing at all, they probably don't even know if it existed. Can one get them in the UK?

Unfortunately, I think the 1967 series has effectively been lost to the general public. However, as I mentioned in another thread, its possible a copy is around in some university library. Would be difficult to obtain one as (and I could be wrong with my history here) I think the earliest VCRs go back to 1969 (and I'm not sure they included recording off the TV, but I'm going by limited googling), so home recordings off the TV unlikely. Perhaps there is some comprehensive TV archive that might store such things?

The source I'm using to indicate its accuracy is this (http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=10456):

In 1967, BBC television produced a ten episode series in black and white. Well-intentioned and deeply respectful of C. S. Lewis’ allegory, this dated, but charming, series focuses on the relationships of the four children and does a wonderful job addressing the epic struggle between good and evil from an adolescent’s point of view. In this series the children act like children, and their passages through betrayal, shame and competition to loyalty, honor, and cooperation are sweet. Lewis’ Christian symbolism is strong throughout the series, and the other mythological references—Lilith, Bacchus, and the like—were left intact. Not currently available in VHS or DVD format, this BBC production is the version many baby boomers remember as their first vision of Narnia, and the memories stand the test of time.


And quick note; Tom Baker is awesome! One of my favourite voices in film and TV, and one of the few notable actors I've seen 'live' (at a random memorabilia event my gf took me to last year, he was signing autographs).

http://www.freewebs.com/tombakerornormal/tom9.jpg

[marshwiggle@1216]

Oh yeah, I know I write too much, but I doubt much of it can be condensed into just 5 sentences... I just feel very strongly about BBC Narnia and I'm quite defensive.

I love Eustace too (hence the name), he's a brilliant character. And as for saying things line for line, I never said it had to be straight from the book, every line and every action. I just like to see people staying loyal to C.S. Lewis's masterworks. And, for the new movie, taking out important dialogue which is critical for the overall story to be replaced with action sequences and modern dialogue not even in the books isn't my idea of being loyal. I understand where you are coming from but I would still have liked at least a few more direct lines from the book and less waterfall action.

Don't get me wrong, having more CGI doesn't make for a worse movie. Most of the time the disney crew got away with it, but I just think they went a bit far in places. And I don't like it when people take short cuts; "oh let's not bother making this look real, we'll just CGI it over the top". It's too easy. And I do feel they did that too much in the film - what happened to good old-fashioned effort?



I also would read 24/7 if I had the time and patience. I don't have either, but I read the books when I can, or at least refer to them or read my favourite parts ;). But yes, I agree with you Marshwiggle. And btw lion's mane. You do realise that BBC Narnia was BBC Narnia don't you? It was a small little English production with extremely tight and limited funding. Jurassic Park is a Hollywood production with millions of dollars devoted to special effects alone. There's a massive difference. Yes, the CGI wasn't great in Narnia, but CGI doesn't make a film.

And marshwiggle I actually do like the movie version! I thought it was a cute adaption, well acted and all. The CGI got to me a bit (I found it excessive), but it gets to me in any production where it features a lot.

Tom Baker... what a legend of this earth! I LOVED him as Puddleglum, I thought he was brilliant, so gloomy and woeful. His hands looked great too. And you know, Tom Baker is THE BEST Dr Who ever, so they couldn't have cast anyone better for Puddleglum. All I can say is he'd better be good in the new movies!

Sorry... long post again. But I got carried away, and I'm stuffed if I'm editing it now.

hey scrubb don’t worry about the long posts, mine are kind of long too, though they are mostly quotes, there is nothing wrong with a long post now and then, especially if you got something to say! As for books, I do the same thing you do; i read my favorite parts of the silver chair when ever i have the book arround and time to go a-sifting through the pages looking for lines! As for the CGI i think it was cool, especially the tree people made of leaves, they looked fake but how else would you portray that! And as for tom baker, your right, he is a great Puddleglum, I don't know much about Dr. who, however, but if they do get another person to play Puddleglum and he's not as good I will be sorely pained! :D

you guys are so funny (in no offence)
i just laugh cause you all talk about how great the old films are and all but this is just my opinion i think the old versions are to old to really enjoy, and you guys might be right i may have been brain-washed from all the new technology that we now have and are able to use.
but like i said it's just my opinion, and it's not that i don't like old films or anything, in fact i love the bbc cartoon of L.W.W.
i'm just saying that i think the films might be to loyal to books (if that's possible)
sorry if i offended any one here!

Lion's mane, you in no way what so ever offend me, I HAVE been deeply offended this week and it has nothing to do with you, just know that nothing you say on this forum could ever offend me. in fact, I am very opinionated myself and also love to argue, so I rather enjoy this debate, its fun to have a good argument once and a while, especially if its on a topic we all enjoy, as long as no one insults one another, i don't see how we could get offended. as for the movies, i will say what i always do give `em a chance, you'd be surprised, when i first saw them i thought I wouldn't enjoy them because the were so old but i actually did, so just give `em a shot, you might like them…..and as for us being funny, we are HYSTERICAL! :D :D

now mr. or ms. or whatsoever
i never put any "had been nominated recently"
and all you have to do is to understand the whole phrase,
besides, so what if the news is old?
its an award, an achievement.
forever treasure.
fine if you dont like watching the old version,
just dont say anything bad about it.
you can say you like the new movie,
but if you're gonna talk nonsense, better to keep your mouth shut.

WOW DUDE! don't you think that that’s a little harsh, while I agree that the BBC award should be forever treasured, i don't think yelling at lion's mane is going to change anything, he has his opinion and you have yours, its bad enough that an online fight started between him and namaste above lets not start another one, pleeeeease

[Namaste]

its bad enough that an online fight started between him and namaste above lets not start another one, pleeeeease

I was not trying to get into any sort of fight with anyone here, I was stating my opinion about these films, how my words were interpreted was where specifically the conflict came up, but I wasn't trying to be rude with anyone, nor was I trying to argue a point. If that was how it came across then I'll remove myself from even reading this thread.

I've said what I had to say anyway.

[lions mane]

marshwiggle@1216, thank you so much for your kind words. that was really cool. :)

and namaste please don't remove yourself from this thread. althogh we've been a little rude to each other, i like the debate very much. it's intresting, and when has there been a debate where people didn't start to take it overboard?

and i do beleive the next time that i go to bereans i will rent the first film of the bbc version.

[Eustace Scrubb]

In terms of loyalty to The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, I believe the 1967 series was most accurate (the only adaptation to mention Lilith, as far as I'm aware), followed by the 1979 animated film, then the BBC series.

What was disloyal about the BBC version? They almost followed the book word-for-word. Granted, I haven't seen the other two versions that you mentioned, but they must follow every single line, action and detail of the book's if they're more loyal than the BBC one. Because that was very close to C.S. Lewis's original work, minus perhaps the appearance of Lucy. As far as acting standards go, I didn't think the kids were so bad. A little wooden in places perhaps, but they understood and conveyed their characters well, and Jonathon R Scott (Edmund) especially played his part with all the bitter, jealous spitefulness that was Edmund. Loved him.

hey scrubb don’t worry about the long posts, mine are kind of long too, though they are mostly quotes, there is nothing wrong with a long post now and then, especially if you got something to say! As for books, I do the same thing you do; i read my favorite parts of the silver chair when ever i have the book arround and time to go a-sifting through the pages looking for lines! As for the CGI i think it was cool, especially the tree people made of leaves, they looked fake but how else would you portray that! And as for tom baker, your right, he is a great Puddleglum, I don't know much about Dr. who, however, but if they do get another person to play Puddleglum and he's not as good I will be sorely pained! :D

Oh my oath! I'll be rather crushed if the new Puggleglum doesn't do Tom Baker justice. Of course, I'm not expecting a replica of him, but I do want him to be similarly brilliant ;). Hoping for a lot, I know, but my standards are high concerning our favourite Marshwiggle! As for the CGI... well, it was no doubt good in Disney Narnia, but I just felt that they used it too uch because it was easier. The tree people were kind of cool, and yes, sometimes things are going to look fake for the simple point that they are not real in real life. Sometimes it does look cool regardless. Like those costumed foxes and squirrels and Maugrim in the BBC version. Fake as whatever, but I loved them nevertheless. Sad but true!


As for the movies, i will say what i always do give `em a chance, you'd be surprised, when i first saw them i thought I wouldn't enjoy them because they were so old but i actually did, so just give `em a shot, you might like them…..

Yes, lion's mane... give the BBC version a chance! You never know, you may really fall in love with their innocent simplicity and find their old-age charm endearing. Or, of course, you may hate it, and fair enough but at least then you may criticise it with a cause :).

[glamel]

WOW DUDE! don't you think that that’s a little harsh, while I agree that the BBC award should be forever treasured, i don't think yelling at lion's mane is going to change anything, he has his opinion and you have yours, its bad enough that an online fight started between him and namaste above lets not start another one, pleeeeease

I only said that because I was just pissed off!!!!!!!!!
geez, I've said enough, and i've said sorry too to the person who got offended,
besides when i post that one, i am not yelling,
and that's the truth.

[slideyfoot]

What was disloyal about the BBC version? They almost followed the book word-for-word. Granted, I haven't seen the other two versions that you mentioned, but they must follow every single line, action and detail of the book's if they're more loyal than the BBC one.

In that case, I'd suggest you watch the animated version and judge for yourself; you might disagree. As for the 1967 version, I doubt we'll ever know, but if the source I quoted above was accurate, then it is the only version I'm aware of that mentions Lilith is Jadis' mother. No other adaptation I've seen has done so. That may or may not indicate it is especially accurate in terms of text; not having seen it, I can only postulate.

Off the top of my head, I can point out two instances in which the animated film is more accurate than the BBC. Firstly, in the BBC version, Lucy and Edmund both wear fur coats on their first entrance into Narnia. In the animated film, they do not. Secondly, in the BBC version, a faun tells Jadis to "come take him, then!" when she comes to claim Edmund. In the animated film, it is a bull with the head of a man.

Those are pretty trivial examples, but if I remember the text correctly, they're also valid ones. However, the animated film had various diversions of its own (for example, Lucy tells the story of her first entry into the wardrobe in flashback, and instead of Father Christmas, it is Aslan who gives the children their weapons); like I said, you'd have to read the book carefully then watch both the animated film and the BBC version in order to judge which you thought was most loyal to the text. Thats what I did, and came to the conclusion that the animated film was closer to the book. Your judgement might well be different.

Just to repeat once again in case people get the wrong impression, I do enjoy the BBC version, because I grew up with it. I simply feel it has now been surpassed, though I'd be very interested to know what an objective observer might say. However, objective perspectives on Narnia aren't likely to be found on a forum specifically created to cater for Narnia fans. ;)

[marshwiggle@1216]

I was not trying to get into any sort of fight with anyone here, I was stating my opinion about these films, how my words were interpreted was where specifically the conflict came up, but I wasn't trying to be rude with anyone, nor was I trying to argue a point. If that was how it came across then I'll remove myself from even reading this thread.

I've said what I had to say anyway.

marshwiggle@1216, thank you so much for your kind words. that was really cool.

and namaste please don't remove yourself from this thread. althogh we've been a little rude to each other, i like the debate very much. it's intresting, and when has there been a debate where people didn't start to take it overboard?

and i do beleive the next time that i go to bereans i will rent the first film of the bbc version.
I was not trying to get into any sort of fight with anyone here, I was stating my opinion about these films, how my words were interpreted was where specifically the conflict came up, but I wasn't trying to be rude with anyone, nor was I trying to argue a point. If that was how it came across then I'll remove myself from even reading this thread.

I've said what I had to say anyway.

yeah, seriously Namaste, i agree with lion's mane, don't remove yourself, it just sounded like you guys were getting into a fight, but you have good opinions and i don't think that the forum would be the same with out you in it :D
and lion's mane, nice idea, I aplaud you for agreeing to give them a chance, and i am glad you like my opinions, lots of people haven't latly
and, yeah, seriously Namaste, don't remove yourself, it just sounded like you guys were getting into a fight, but you have good opinions and i don't think that the forum would be the same with out you in it


What was disloyal about the BBC version? They almost followed the book word-for-word. Granted, I haven't seen the other two versions that you mentioned, but they must follow every single line, action and detail of the book's if they're more loyal than the BBC one. Because that was very close to C.S. Lewis's original work, minus perhaps the appearance of Lucy. As far as acting standards go, I didn't think the kids were so bad. A little wooden in places perhaps, but they understood and conveyed their characters well, and Jonathon R Scott (Edmund) especially played his part with all the bitter, jealous spitefulness that was Edmund. Loved him.



Oh my oath! I'll be rather crushed if the new Puggleglum doesn't do Tom Baker justice. Of course, I'm not expecting a replica of him, but I do want him to be similarly brilliant ;). Hoping for a lot, I know, but my standards are high concerning our favourite Marshwiggle! As for the CGI... well, it was no doubt good in Disney Narnia, but I just felt that they used it too uch because it was easier. The tree people were kind of cool, and yes, sometimes things are going to look fake for the simple point that they are not real in real life. Sometimes it does look cool regardless. Like those costumed foxes and squirrels and Maugrim in the BBC version. Fake as whatever, but I loved them nevertheless. Sad but true!



Yes, lion's mane... give the BBC version a chance! You never know, you may really fall in love with their innocent simplicity and find their old-age charm endearing. Or, of course, you may hate it, and fair enough but at least then you may criticise it with a cause :).

ookay, i really gotta ask, are you British, cuz you DEFINATLY sound it! and i liked the squirrels too, especially the one with the high squeaky voice who yelled at the white witch. as for everyone's favorite marshwiggle, i don't want a replica either, i just want someone who plays the parts almost, if not, just as good as Baker did. and i think lion's mane said he'd give the first one a chance, i praise him for that

In that case, I'd suggest you watch the animated version and judge for yourself; you might disagree. As for the 1967 version, I doubt we'll ever know, but if the source I quoted above was accurate, then it is the only version I'm aware of that mentions Lilith is Jadis' mother. No other adaptation I've seen has done so. That may or may not indicate it is especially accurate in terms of text; not having seen it, I can only postulate.

Off the top of my head, I can point out two instances in which the animated film is more accurate than the BBC. Firstly, in the BBC version, Lucy and Edmund both wear fur coats on their first entrance into Narnia. In the animated film, they do not. Secondly, in the BBC version, a faun tells Jadis to "come take him, then!" when she comes to claim Edmund. In the animated film, it is a bull with the head of a man.

Those are pretty trivial examples, but if I remember the text correctly, they're also valid ones. However, the animated film had various diversions of its own (for example, Lucy tells the story of her first entry into the wardrobe in flashback, and instead of Father Christmas, it is Aslan who gives the children their weapons); like I said, you'd have to read the book carefully then watch both the animated film and the BBC version in order to judge which you thought was most loyal to the text. Thats what I did, and came to the conclusion that the animated film was closer to the book. Your judgement might well be different.

Just to repeat once again in case people get the wrong impression, I do enjoy the BBC version, because I grew up with it. I simply feel it has now been surpassed, though I'd be very interested to know what an objective observer might say. However, objective perspectives on Narnia aren't likely to be found on a forum specifically created to cater for Narnia fans. ;)

this is true, objective is what we narnia fans are not, and what version mentioned jadis' mother? is there another version besides the BBC and animated ones i don't know of??

[Eustace Scrubb]

In that case, I'd suggest you watch the animated version and judge for yourself; you might disagree. As for the 1967 version, I doubt we'll ever know, but if the source I quoted above was accurate, then it is the only version I'm aware of that mentions Lilith is Jadis' mother. No other adaptation I've seen has done so. That may or may not indicate it is especially accurate in terms of text; not having seen it, I can only postulate.

Off the top of my head, I can point out two instances in which the animated film is more accurate than the BBC. Firstly, in the BBC version, Lucy and Edmund both wear fur coats on their first entrance into Narnia. In the animated film, they do not. Secondly, in the BBC version, a faun tells Jadis to "come take him, then!" when she comes to claim Edmund. In the animated film, it is a bull with the head of a man.

Those are pretty trivial examples, but if I remember the text correctly, they're also valid ones. However, the animated film had various diversions of its own (for example, Lucy tells the story of her first entry into the wardrobe in flashback, and instead of Father Christmas, it is Aslan who gives the children their weapons); like I said, you'd have to read the book carefully then watch both the animated film and the BBC version in order to judge which you thought was most loyal to the text. Thats what I did, and came to the conclusion that the animated film was closer to the book. Your judgement might well be different.

Just to repeat once again in case people get the wrong impression, I do enjoy the BBC version, because I grew up with it. I simply feel it has now been surpassed, though I'd be very interested to know what an objective observer might say. However, objective perspectives on Narnia aren't likely to be found on a forum specifically created to cater for Narnia fans. ;)

Yeah, I'll have to see the animated series one day, I hear it's been quite popular in the past and even now has many fans. You're right, it's all a matter of different judgment; I may indeed find it less true to the book than BBC or I may not... Oh and I read the part on Lilith... quite interesting, I had never noticed that in all the times I had read the book. Just adds a bit of background info on Jadis, and I like that...

Objective perspectives? What are those again....? ;) I know it's difficult to not be biased toward the version you love best (and usually saw first, too). I am most certainly biased towards BBC Narnia and I'm not afraid to admit it. Obviously I can see the dodgy effects and battle scenes, but I've watched the series ever since I can remember being alive, so it does indeed hold a very special place in my heart, and I can get very defensive of it (obviously!) But yes, you're right about objectivity. Someone who holds no special bond with any version, or better yet, has seen none of them, should watch and compare all the versions. Personal preference and obviously the modern times would influence judgement, but it would be a fairer assessment than if, say we were to do the comparisons :D.

ookay, i really gotta ask, are you British, cuz you DEFINATLY sound it! and i liked the squirrels too, especially the one with the high squeaky voice who yelled at the white witch. as for everyone's favorite marshwiggle, i don't want a replica either, i just want someone who plays the parts almost, if not, just as good as Baker did. and i think lion's mane said he'd give the first one a chance, i praise him for that

Actually, no I'm not British, I'm Australian! Why do you ask? I guess once upon a time my ancestors did come from Britain on a boat bound for good old Terra Australis, but I've always been a true blue Aussie, mate ;).

Yeah, the little squirrel was great! "He has, he has, he HAS!" Poor little costumed animals, getting all turned to stone. Their faces were done with quite convincing makeup though.. and Maugrim's snout was plain frightful... it really did sniff! YIKES! And Puddleglum, yep, I'm sure they'll find someone fantastic, but me being biased I probably won't like him as much as Tom Baker. Same with King Caspian actually... Sam West was gorgeous, I just hope they find a similarly lovely actor to live up to Sam's portrayal.

Oh yes... I'd read lion's mane's response after I'd posted... so yes, good onya, lion's mane! I'm sure you won't be disappointed! Well, you might be, but hey!

[lions mane]

i'm actually really looking foward to going and renting the bbc versions now (but someone told me if i rent them to rent them 1 by 1, cause they're really long), and the way i was introduced to narnia was through the animated version. and i love that version, it's still one of my favorite cartoons!
so if you guys haven't seen it you really shoul, almost everything about it is identical to the book but father christmas.

[marshwiggle@1216]

Actually, no I'm not British, I'm Australian! Why do you ask? I guess once upon a time my ancestors did come from Britain on a boat bound for good old Terra Australis, but I've always been a true blue Aussie, mate .

Yeah, the little squirrel was great! "He has, he has, he HAS!" Poor little costumed animals, getting all turned to stone. Their faces were done with quite convincing makeup though.. and Maugrim's snout was plain frightful... it really did sniff! YIKES! And Puddleglum, yep, I'm sure they'll find someone fantastic, but me being biased I probably won't like him as much as Tom Baker. Same with King Caspian actually... Sam West was gorgeous, I just hope they find a similarly lovely actor to live up to Sam's portrayal.

Oh yes... I'd read lion's mane's response after I'd posted... so yes, good onya, lion's mane! I'm sure you won't be disappointed! Well, you might be, but hey! [QUOTE=Eustace_scrubb]

[QUOTE=lions mane]i'm actually really looking foward to going and renting the bbc versions now (but someone told me if i rent them to rent them 1 by 1, cause they're really long), and the way i was introduced to narnia was through the animated version. and i love that version, it's still one of my favorite cartoons!
so if you guys haven't seen it you really shoul, almost everything about it is identical to the book but father christmas.

that's GRATE!!! lion's mane, i am glad you are looking forward to it! as for the animated version, i remember bits and peaces from when i was verry small, but thats it, maybe i should rent it again, i mean you are giving the BBC a chance, maybe i should give the animated version a chance as well :D

Scrubb, i ask if your are british because of the words you use, like "ooh my oath" for example, i have been to brition and am usually very good at identifications of accents and word usage, and australians speak British too :DS

[slideyfoot]

Heh - I doubt many Australians would be too happy if you compared them to Brits. ;)

[lions mane]

their's nothing wrong with brits, and australians came from the british people. ;)

[Eustace Scrubb]

Scrubb, i ask if your are british because of the words you use, like "ooh my oath" for example, i have been to brition and am usually very good at identifications of accents and word usage, and australians speak British too :DS

Yeah nah, that's cool. I don't mind being labelled British :D. I actually always thought "my oath" was more Aussie slang, right up there with "crikey", but I'm happy to be proven wrong. You know, if you heard me speaking in real life, it would be impossible to think I was anything but Aussie... I'm from the country so I have a thick Aussie accent, not remotely British. But I've always loved reading and writing so my colloquialisms don't show up so well when I write; when I speak it's a slightly different story ;). Oh and while I didn't lose my accent, I went to England for a five month exchange a year ago... so that may have helped!

Heh - I doubt many Australians would be too happy if you compared them to Brits.

Nah I don't really mind, I mean, many of us came from Pommy Land originally after all. Just so long as we're winning the cricket (ahem, minus the ashes, but let's not mention that), I'm happy :D. Where are all you guys from anyways?

And yeah... kind of gone off track with the whole Narnia thing... but at least I mentioned the word aye?

[lions mane]

yah it's a little off topic but oh well. i'm from CA, U.S.A.

[Malacandra]

yah it's a little off topic but oh well. i'm from CA, U.S.A.

Your "location" field is a bit of a pointer. :p

[lions mane]

yah it is a pointer!

you guys i went to bereans tonight and i rented the L.W.W. and i actually watched most of it. i got to the part where ginnabrik comes to deliver a message to aslan. and know, i'm not going to dis this version or anything cause i know that a lot of you guys are big fans of this version, but i'm going to say that i was really expecting more with what some of you guys were saying about it. and this version really goes off from lewis's work itself. and why are all the kids somewhat around the same age? well i'm ganna have to watch the rest of it tomorrow night cause it's due sat. night! hopefully it gets a little better.

honestly i don't think this version is even half as good as the cartoon, but that's just my opinoin.

[marshwiggle@1216]

Yeah nah, that's cool. I don't mind being labelled British :D. I actually always thought "my oath" was more Aussie slang, right up there with "crikey", but I'm happy to be proven wrong. You know, if you heard me speaking in real life, it would be impossible to think I was anything but Aussie... I'm from the country so I have a thick Aussie accent, not remotely British. But I've always loved reading and writing so my colloquialisms don't show up so well when I write; when I speak it's a slightly different story ;). Oh and while I didn't lose my accent, I went to England for a five month exchange a year ago... so that may have helped!



Nah I don't really mind, I mean, many of us came from Pommy Land originally after all. Just so long as we're winning the cricket (ahem, minus the ashes, but let's not mention that), I'm happy :D. Where are all you guys from anyways?

And yeah... kind of gone off track with the whole Narnia thing... but at least I mentioned the word aye?

well scrubb, i have never heard "OOH my oath" before so from the context of your british like slang i assumed it and you were brirish and i have heard ozzies speak before and some of em sound british so i guess thats also where some of my confusion came from heheh and as for where i am from, i am from the gold old US of A, South orange NJ to be more spesific (SP)

[sfreak]

whats up dawgs im american

[lions mane]

wud up sfreak, welcome to the forum!

you guys i just returned the movie, and i must say i kinda take back what i said earlier about it not being that good. i mean it wasn't as good as the new version or the cartoon version, but this one really gave me the chills on some certain parts. i just didn't really like the fightning scene. but this one did drift from the lewis's book a lot, well quite a bit. but it was still pretty good. i don't think that it was good enough for me to rent the other 3 videos, though.

[marshwiggle@1216]

wud up sfreak, welcome to the forum!

you guys i just returned the movie, and i must say i kinda take back what i said earlier about it not being that good. i mean it wasn't as good as the new version or the cartoon version, but this one really gave me the chills on some certain parts. i just didn't really like the fightning scene. but this one did drift from the lewis's book a lot, well quite a bit. but it was still pretty good. i don't think that it was good enough for me to rent the other 3 videos, though.

well lions mane, i am glad you liked it. as for the fighting scenes i didn't care much for those either. they looked more like football games then fights. but as for the other three: i would suggest renting them, because in my opinion, if you found something good in the first one, you might be surprised by the other three. but you don't have to follow my advise if you don't want :D

[lions mane]

well lions mane, i am glad you liked it. as for the fighting scenes i didn't care much for those either. they looked more like football games then fights. but as for the other three: i would suggest renting them, because in my opinion, if you found something good in the first one, you might be surprised by the other three. but you don't have to follow my advise if you don't want :D
thanks for your reply, i feel like no one likes to come post on this thread anymore. well there wasn't that much for me to want to rent the other three! i think i'm just ganna have to wait for the new version to hit store shelves.

[marshwiggle@1216]

well thats too bad lions mane, as i have said before, i like to argue. some people only like to argue for so long before they get board, short attention spans i guess :D
but i guess since you've already watched the first one and decided that you won't rent the others we need to find something new to argue about, i do think you should rent the silver chair tho, puddleglum's funny :)

[lions mane]

yah, we will have to find something else to argue about! :D
well i dunno, i think i may think about renting the other 2 (i say 2 cause p.c. and voyage are all on one) i've heard that puddelglum was terrific. i froget who played him, they said earlier on the thread. hmmmmmmmmm..

[Holly]

hi, i'm quite new to this... so i hope u don't mind me adding something, was just reading some of the convos... rather entertaining
i think u shd rent out the other videos, i grew up on the bbc versions when they repeated them in the early 90s, i have such lovely memories of them. i was impressed by the movie, i must admit, but the bbc ones will always be the ones close to my heart... cos i was the right age to watch them, still believing in magic etc and young enough to be scared of the warewolves etc, and i thought the kids were amazing, espesh edmund (the blond one that is, not the movie one) so yah defo watch them!! where did u rent them btw? i'd love to buy the whole set, it's just hard to find them in shops, where would u guys reccomend? holly

[Holly]

adding to that i did think the kids were good in the movie too!!

[waterhogboy]

hi, i'm quite new to this... so i hope u don't mind me adding something, was just reading some of the convos... rather entertaining
i think u shd rent out the other videos, i grew up on the bbc versions when they repeated them in the early 90s, i have such lovely memories of them. i was impressed by the movie, i must admit, but the bbc ones will always be the ones close to my heart... cos i was the right age to watch them, still believing in magic etc and young enough to be scared of the warewolves etc, and i thought the kids were amazing, espesh edmund (the blond one that is, not the movie one) so yah defo watch them!! where did u rent them btw? i'd love to buy the whole set, it's just hard to find them in shops, where would u guys reccomend? holly

YAY!!!! I totally agree wivya Holly - you've hit the nail on the head. I also feel BBC portrayed a more British view of the film, you know - laid back, nothing extravagent, very reserved and as much as you can buy for a fiver; whereas the new one has a very American spin on it - a big extravagent blockbuster. Both great in their own ways!

[lions mane]

Holly, i rented it at bereans (that's a christian book store, in case u guys don't know), and they have them all to buy there as well! :D . but after seeing this version of l.w.w. i was very dissapointed, and renting the other ones just won't cut it for me. sorry.
and i think that some of the older people here (not that any of u are old, well probably, but i mean no offense) like this older version cause it's what u saw or grew up with. but after watching the new version and then the bbc version, the bbc version just can't live up to my expectations.
And i think that this (newer) version has almost nothing to do with america. almost everyone (cast AND CREW) from it is foreign. it's just a great movie all around.

lions mane

[Holly]

oh no, you're right, it is a great movie, but if you're looking for one that sticks to the book then the bbc one is more accurate. i am obviously biast as yes i did watch them before the movie and i have sweet memeories of them, where for me the movie was jst ur everyday good movie, but the series will always be close to me... i just meant if you are tht much into narnia why not watch the others, ur choice tho.. u never know u cd really like them..
and i'm not that old, i've just turned twenty lol!! :)

[romanticdraco]

I think that BBC had the whole narnia experience wrong. I haven't seen them but from what i hear they had everything screwed up. For instance all the childrens ages, Prince Caspian's age, and the fact that only a few weeks go by from P.C. to Voyage.

O NO!!! I think that you are very wrong, as a week in the reality equals to years in Narnia... lol~

[marshwiggle@1216]

yah, we will have to find something else to argue about! :D
well i dunno, i think i may think about renting the other 2 (i say 2 cause p.c. and voyage are all on one) i've heard that puddelglum was terrific. i froget who played him, they said earlier on the thread. hmmmmmmmmm..

Tom Porter is puddleglum and he(I] IS[/I] wonderful

hi, i'm quite new to this... so i hope u don't mind me adding something, was just reading some of the convos... rather entertaining
i think u shd rent out the other videos, i grew up on the bbc versions when they repeated them in the early 90s, i have such lovely memories of them. i was impressed by the movie, i must admit, but the bbc ones will always be the ones close to my heart... cos i was the right age to watch them, still believing in magic etc and young enough to be scared of the warewolves etc, and i thought the kids were amazing, espesh edmund (the blond one that is, not the movie one) so yah defo watch them!! where did u rent them btw? i'd love to buy the whole set, it's just hard to find them in shops, where would u guys reccomend? holly

yo holly
before i add my two cents about narnia, i am just curius, you don't have a sister about to go to med school named Rosalyn do you?
now as for finding the narnia movies walmart carries them in bulk
and they are pretty cheap too, i just got mine for christmas this year
and even though i am 22 i sill love em, and you are right about blonde Ednund, he's much better then the dark haired one

[lions mane]

i'm sorry, but i beg to differ! i think the new ed. (skandar) is soooo much better in the new version then in the bbc version!

[I♥Georgie]

sure it was cheesy and weird at least it related to the book right?

[Blue Mask Lover]

I wasn't a big fan of the BBC ones personally, mostly because of the actors used, I didn't think they GOT the whole point of Narnia, the wonderment and awe and everything else. Edmund mostly looked bored.

Other than that, they were great shows to watch when you were a kid - the closest thing you could get to the real thing.

[ali_f]

I just love the BBC version since i had studied it when i was quite young. Unfortunately i did not get to see the 'war episode' since i did not finish my school work....oh well

[Blue Mask Lover]

The war episode? On which story? You know you can buy them all in a DVD set right, on Amazon?

[ali_f]

It was LWW. Also yes you can buy it on DVD. As far as i know, BBC have expanded Narnia DVD's around the world.

[Señor Puntos]

The BBC Narnia movies were great! The only problem was that it didn't really look like Narnia, more like the English countryside. There's only one thing I have left to say, but I think I'll leave that to good ol' Uncle Sam:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c247/catdogbillybob/blasphemer.png

[Lachesis]

I actually prefer the BBC series to the movie. I feel that it captures the feel of the books perfectly. The books place so much emphasis on cosy, peaceful everyday things, and they're very... british, all afternoon tea and "I say!" and stuff like that. I like the movie too, but it felt much more LoTR than Narnia with the big battle scene and everything being so huge and pompous.. And the Pevensies in the movie feel much more 2005 than 1945.

The animal costumes were a bit shabby of course, the beavers looked like giant pine cones (a friend of mine said they looked like walking turds :D) and I'll agree that Aslan doesn't look that impressive and glorious in that suit... But on the other hand it would probably be impossible to represent in a film the kind of beauty and glory that Lewis wanted to describe. The movie Aslan doesn't look more impressive than your average normal lion either (not counting the impressiveness of the CG graphics themselves). I actually think Aslan feels more "kingly" in the BBC series.

And the White Witch, how cool is it that she screams every single one of her lines? :D It would be totally neat if the actress talked like that in real life too. And spat a lot.

[waterhogboy]

Well good! I totally agree with you Lachesis. You make excellent points.

[marshwiggle@1216]

The BBC Narnia movies were great! The only problem was that it didn't really look like Narnia, more like the English countryside. There's only one thing I have left to say, but I think I'll leave that to good ol' Uncle Sam:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c247/catdogbillybob/blasphemer.png

i think that Narnia was SUPPOSED to look like the english countryside at least thats how i pictured it when i read the books :)

[Narnia Man 2006]

I saw BBC version of "LWW". It was alright. Before the Walden version came out, you were stuck with the BBC version. Acting was kind of poor (When Edmund asked for Turkish Delight, the Witch scream "Noooo!!!!"). In the book, the witch has to act nice and sweet as possible.

[Bramblefox]

Hey, lion'smane, I thought I might warn you. I own the movies myself, and everything looks like it was filmed with a cheap video camera. I'm not joking. Plus, Lucy has buck teeth (no offense to people who have them), the animals are animated (which looks pretty corny) and Aslan is a stiff-legged puppet that looks like he was made of wood. Even for back then, it's pretty bad. And, I might add, the acting was HORRIBLE!!! All wooden acting.
No offense to people who liked it, but this is just my opinion.

[lions mane]

Hey, lion'smane, I thought I might warn you. I own the movies myself, and everything looks like it was filmed with a cheap video camera. I'm not joking. Plus, Lucy has buck teeth (no offense to people who have them), the animals are animated (which looks pretty corny) and Aslan is a stiff-legged puppet that looks like he was made of wood. Even for back then, it's pretty bad. And, I might add, the acting was HORRIBLE!!! All wooden acting.
No offense to people who liked it, but this is just my opinion.
ha! yah, after i saw it (a couple months ago) this is almost exactly what i thought! ya know? ;) :cool:

[LifeMaiden]

So I guess its safe to say there isn't any comparison to the Walden Narnia version. I'm going to check out these BBC movies anyways for a different look into Narnia.

[Knight Aaron of Narnia]

Hey, lion'smane, I thought I might warn you. I own the movies myself, and everything looks like it was filmed with a cheap video camera. I'm not joking. Plus, Lucy has buck teeth (no offense to people who have them), the animals are animated (which looks pretty corny) and Aslan is a stiff-legged puppet that looks like he was made of wood. Even for back then, it's pretty bad. And, I might add, the acting was HORRIBLE!!! All wooden acting.
No offense to people who liked it, but this is just my opinion.
I liked the cartoon version when I was youger.
I didnt like the Lucy in the BBC version.
She was alittle too chubby for Lucy.
Not that chubby is bad...but Lucy wasnt chubby.
I hated the Edmund too!

[lions mane]

what i hated the most was the fact that all the kids were only like one year in age apart! ya know?

[LifeMaiden]

It almost appeared to be humorous to me rather than serious from the look on the witch's face on the DVD cover.

[cotton_candyx]

omg. we had to watch the BBC versions in library time in around yr 2. hell i tells ya! it was a really bad long,stupid version. hmm.

[Lucy for 3 nights]

LOL!!
are you all talking about the old narnia movie

BECAUSE THAT WAS STUPID
THE BEAVERS TALKED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR

They only talked for how the book would have told them to. Its just the new film messed all that up and made them escape through some stupid tunnel.

[Lucy for 3 nights]

Anyway I loved the BBC versions they were the best!!!!!!!!! and I don't like people who bash them. I appriciate people don't like them as much, but you have to consider the technology and the time.

Anyway if you think they're bad try doing it onstage with no CG or animation technology at all. Still I enjoyed doing it onstage and our battle scene was quite good I thought.

God Bless
Rachel

[Queen Swanwhite]

I think that BBC had the whole narnia experience wrong. I haven't seen them but from what i hear they had everything screwed up. For instance all the childrens ages, Prince Caspian's age, and the fact that only a few weeks go by from P.C. to Voyage.

For me BBC captured narnia perfectly. I grew up on it and I believed every minute of it. After reading the books before and after the movie I still pictured the BBC version. The ages may have been a bit off but it was still closer to the book than the movie. I love them. lol:D For the time that the LLW version was aired, it was in 1989. The special effects were practically ground breaking at the time for the BBC. It seems bad now looking back but at the time it was good...

[Son of Adam]

hokey looking? Yes with humans made up to look like beavers, etc., and the animation as well, but with the low budget given to BBC to produce the films, the miracle was that they actually did it very well. And, as some others have said, the BBC version was much closer to the books than the current films.

I love the current film, but I do wish that they would have stayed closer to the original books.

[Lucy Fan]

I saw bits and pieces of the BBC version of Narnia on youtube and I have to agree. It was kind of fun to see it, but Edmund and Lucy are nearly the same age, at least they look it. I just saw bits and pieces of the first and second movie before I lost interest.

[Into the Wardrobe]

I love the BBC series because it stayed faithful to the story and all of the characters. The new series is taking WAY too many liberties for my liking. I'll watch the new ones, but I'll treasure the BBC series. Without faithfulness to the stories and characters the production value means nothing to me. Regardless of what happens with the new series, we'll always have the BBC! Good for it's day, budget, technology...good enough for me.

[LadyAnneOfNarnia]

I don't think there is anything wrong with them. They're kinda part of my childhood. I used to watch them whenever I'd go to my grandparent's house. I thought they were pretty faithful although a bit cheesy at parts. But it was made for tv right? So of course it's not going to be perfect

[MrBob]

The new filmmakers will have a lot to live up to when they make "The Silver Chair".

If you were to put the actors and special effects of today's movies with the accuracy and feel of the BBC version, you would have a masterpiece.

MrBob

[oscarreeve]

Personannly i liked the bbc films when i first watched them but once i had seen the new one, while i tended not to like them as much

[Gondlring]

I saw the three BBC ones first and loved them, I read the book to compare and I actually thought sticking to close to exact events of the book don't make a good film. I saw LWW in theatres and I was amazed, I thought(and still do) that it followed the book more closley than the orginal BBC production. Personaly, as an Actor and a screenplay writer I like the new films better.

[Copperfox]

Gondlring, have any screenplays of yours actually been produced?

[Into the Wardrobe]

I have to disagree in some areas on the idea of sticking to the books more makes for a lesser film. There are some things that need to be done to move things along, and some that don't. For instance, Roger Ford didn't think that it was good to stick the duel between Peter and Miraz in a sort of square ring as depicted in the book, and instead he put it in the middle of some supposed temple ruins that weren't in the book to begin with. This is what we call an unnecessary change that doesn't help the film more. For fans like me, it's almost offensive. I don't like it at all. I understand moving things along for walking and talking purposes, but the stories are enough in and of themselves to make for a great film. Those kinds of changes are not only unnecessary but are very unwelcome. If too much of that kind of things are put in, the film no longer would feel like Narnia but rather something else with the Narnia name on it. It wouldn't be the beloved story that I've heard my whole life.

If you want to discuss screenplays I'd put them in the Professor's Writing Club. Otherwise I'd discuss via PMs or the chat thread. Let's keep this thread on topic if possible.

[marshwigglewigwams]

I have to disagree in some areas on the idea of sticking to the books more makes for a lesser film. There are some things that need to be done to move things along, and some that don't. For instance, Roger Ford didn't think that it was good to stick the duel between Peter and Miraz in a sort of square ring as depicted in the book, and instead he put it in the middle of some supposed temple ruins that weren't in the book to begin with. This is what we call an unnecessary change that doesn't help the film more. For fans like me, it's almost offensive. I don't like it at all. I understand moving things along for walking and talking purposes, but the stories are enough in and of themselves to make for a great film. Those kinds of changes are not only unnecessary but are very unwelcome. If too much of that kind of things are put in, the film no longer would feel like Narnia but rather something else with the Narnia name on it. It wouldn't be the beloved story that I've heard my whole life.

If you want to discuss screenplays I'd put them in the Professor's Writing Club. Otherwise I'd discuss via PMs or the chat thread. Let's keep this thread on topic if possible.



hear! hear! :) i totally agree.. :cool:

[Gondlring]

Adamson said in the "Chronicles of a Director" featurette on the 2nd Narnia disc that he wanted to make the Narnia films how he imgined them when he first read them. So before re-reading LWW he wrote down all that he remembered from reading at 9 years old, then read the book.

[Into the Wardrobe]

Right. However, what people have fallen in love with across the board is the book. The stories...all seven of them. They don't care if it's Adamson's interpretation of the books as long as it's the story and characters they read about. LWW wasn't too bad, but the liberties taken for PC are sounding like they're a bit much. I thought in the BBC series that they captured the spirit of all the characters, even with some grossly miscast. They kept the story as the main thing rather than the effects and production. I like the BBC movies. They're simple and heartfelt. Cheezy at times and there's a bit of really bad acting, especially on the part of the white witch, but they're not bad for the era/technology they were created in/with.

[marshwigglewigwams]

true, the BBC series lacked animation and effects, however, considering the technology in their days compared to today they already gave their best and retained NARNIA for what it really is.

if someone would ask you to sit still for a painting whether or not he shows the finished product to the world you wouldn't want him to change how you really look. :p there may be a few alterations which can't be helped, but as a whole, you'd want to have your dominant features intact. ;)

one major fault i noticed in PC is that prince caspian is actually older than peter himself, whereas in the book it states that he was just a kid then. :( its sad because i really love how they developed the ruins of cair paravel..

personally, i think that adamson might go too far in creating "add-ons" to narnia that might totally change it for what it is. :(

[Into the Wardrobe]

Actually the book only says that Caspian looked to be the same age as Peter. If no one told you the actors' ages you might think they were about the same age, however they're using an older Peter with the time between the 2 films being a bit greater than hoped for. They didn't quite know how to work with that I think. It would have served them better to have 2 actors, one younger and one older to play the role to keep the spirit of the character in tact, but oh well.

I liked what they did with the BBC where he was younger and then they had the older actor playing for VDT. That might have been a bit too difficult to do for the new ones. It served the BBC series pretty well. I liked the Caspian they had overall in the BBC. In the book Caspian's younger childhood with his nurse was discussed before Cornelius was brought in. Caspian would have been a boy, but an older boy. Ben Barnes has played a high school kid for a number of years and can look like one if he wants to so he could pass and then turn around for a back to back VDT and look a bit older as necessary. The BBC way of handling it was more to my liking, but I'll wait and see what happens with the new one.

Regardless of what Andrew does with the new one Michael Apted is doing VDT so we won't have a clue what style that one will hold or the range of liberties that could be taken. We'll have to wait and see. I liked the BBC VDT since they hit most of the major points and areas. They left off my favorite speech at the end but then tacked it onto the end of SC...nice save. I hope Apted will do better and put it at the end of VDT, but if it's left out it will be horrid.

[marshwigglewigwams]

oki doki.. :)
i also love the prince caspian parts in narnia, but my favorite is the VDT and the SC..i'm looking forward for them!
:p

[waterhogboy]

I saw bits and pieces of the BBC version of Narnia on youtube and I have to agree. It was kind of fun to see it, but Edmund and Lucy are nearly the same age, at least they look it. I just saw bits and pieces of the first and second movie before I lost interest.

Well, Lucy is supposed to be only one year younger!

I hope too that the add-ons for PC aren't too great. If you thinkabout it, the BBC version was only one hour long and they got most of the book in, so to make it a proper feature length thats gonna be alot of additions. I'm a wee bit nervous really...