BBC vs Disney/Walden Media vs Animated

Have you seen the *Animated* LWW?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 64.0%
  • No

    Votes: 9 36.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Eeyore, you definately don't offend me by stating your opinion.

My point was that you can like a movie better even though it isnt as good of a movie.

When I was talking about the book adaptation I mean, when you compare movies as to which is the better movie it doesnt matter if it sticks word-to-word to the book. Of course it would ruin the whole movie if Lindsey, Stephanie, Patrick and Edward entered a land that is always hot or something. As long as the movie captures the main idea of the movie and stays close to the book it is a good ADAPTATION. I think that BBC is closer to the book but the new one isnt horribly far away from the book.

What do you mean that the movie was rushed? It took them about 3 years to do the pre-shooting things as well as the shooting and post-production. That is rushing?

About to definition of a "better movie"...
Just because you enjoy a movie doesn't make it better. Take this example: My sister doesn't really like the Lord of the Rings, does that make it a worse movie? No. It still is a good movie in MANY people's opinions. If you had say 100 people who weren't biased in any way watch both movies then the new one would get a good majority of the votes.

We can both have our own opinions though.

What I liked:
New One- funny, great battle scene, good music, good actors, great pictures and effects, good director, great white witch and more...

BBC- funny because of the corniness, true to the book, worked under a small budget with less technology (props to them), and a few more
 
I wouldn't say that the BBC version sucked but the new one really out did it by far.
I am a lover of the BBC version so don't get me wrong I really think they did the best with what they had but the new one is so much more quality. I think that is what people mean by saying that the new one is "better".
I mean the acting was wya better in the new one. the actores fit their parts better, in age I mean, and al in al the computer graffics in the BBC version really were less than to be desired.
If it says anything for the BBc version I have seen the new one three times as of today and I have seen the BBc version approx. 30.
 
In my PERSONAL opinion, there is no movie that HAS ever or WILL ever 'out-do' the new Narnia. I've never seen the older onces, but the new one has just blown me away and I'm convinced there is nothing better. JMHO.
 
I didn't mean too rushed in the making, I meant some of the things happened too quickly, and I felt that we didn't get to know Aslan quite as well as we did in the book. Thats just what I got out of it.

I understand what you mean about a better movie, I'm afraid the paragraph in my last post didn't come out quite the way I meant.

And your right, the new movie isn't really different from the book. I don't know why the little differences made such a big deal to me, because for most other movies-based-on-books I don't care if it's not exactly like the book. Maybe because they didn't do my fave scene out of the whole series like in the book(Peter and Susan's talk with the Professor).

What I liked about the movies:

WM: The Minotaurs!!! And Lucy was very good. The beavers were cool. And I loved the final battle, especially the part with Edmund.

BBC: The White Witch, the Professor, and Edmund. The beavers, and when they're all at Aslan's camp. Actaully LWW is probably my least fave of the BBC series, I like the others a lot more, SC and VDT especially.

I don't think I've ever enjoyed myself so much in a debate. . .

ForNarnia<3 - Lindsey, Stephanie, Patrick and Edward are not anybody(that I know of), Iamnotjustdreaming was just making a point that the new movie isn't way different from the book.
 
Like others on this thread, I grew up with the animated film and the BBC version, though when the latter was originally shown on terestial television, I was only 7 years old. I loved Narnia as a child, and hadn't revisited it for a long time until my sister gave me a new complete set of the books for christmas last year. Being an analytical person by nature, I made certain to watch the BBC series again (digging out my old tape) before seeing the film, in order to compare the two.

I have to agree, the film is far superior. While I continue to have a soft spot for the BBC series, all nostalgia aside, the acting was terrible. All the children, with the exception of Peter (Richard Dempsey), were melodramatic almost to the degree of amateurs - I'm not surprised that they left the profession after making the series (to my knowledge, only Dempsey has continued as a successful actor). Barbara Kellerman, who played the White Witch, was equally horrendous, massively over-acting her part - she seemed to think she was in a pantomime. The puppet for Aslan was laughable, robotically jerking along, the mouth flapping open and shut in a bizarre attempt to approximate speech. The beavers were equally hilarious, in overlarge costumes restricting their movement meaning they had to shuffle along, arms held aloft like furry dinosaurs.

Having said all that, the effects weren't bad for 1988. As a child, I thought it was magnificent. But unsurprisingly, it doesn't hold up to the CGI wizardry of the new film at all (compare the beavers, or the cartoon griffin of the BBC to the fully realised depiction in the film). In addition, the acting in the new film is infinitely superior, in particular Tilda Swinton, who at no point descends into ham acting, and the children are much improved. Lucy of the BBC series was all agape, treating the whole thing like a school play. Today's Lucy is actually capable of acting, along with the rest of the cast. Before I looked again at the BBC series, I would have laboured under the misapprehension that it was a work of genius, untouched by time. Believe me, its not - anyone who grew up with it and hasn't had a look since then, do so before imagining it an equal to the new film. It irks me to think a Disney film which has been touted as a Christian parable (though I would argue it is considerably less religious than the book, much to my relief - thats another thread) is a superior adaptation than the cherished BBC effort, but unfortunately I find it to be undeniable.

I still enjoy the series, because it was a part of my childhood and I'm extremely sentimental about these things - I'll be getting myself a DVD copy, if only to watch the cast reunion. :)

As to the animated film, I'm at present too clouded by fond memories to make a reasonable judgement - I'll have to rewatch it and see if I'm still holding illusions about it as was the case with the BBC series. When I re-read the book, I had firm images of the animated feature in my head; I'd like to think it was better than the film, but we'll see how I feel after a repeat viewing. ;)

Out of interest, has anyone seen the 1967 Narnia series? I didn't even realise there was an earlier live action version until checking through some old newspapers recently.
 
Fornarnia, I was just making a point that the new one is still very close to the book. I definately wouldnt like it if they changed the names and the plot though (which was my point).

eeyore, I like the debate as well :)

slidey, I agree that the effects were great for when it was made and what budget it was made on. It just doesn't compare to new technology and the money that was used in the new one. The BBC version was just a TV miniseries. The new one is an actual movie which gives it a greater budget.
 
I was just making a point that the new one is still very close to the book

I imagine this has already been run through, but there were numerous and significant changes to the plot of the book, many of which were positive. Firstly, the opening sequence; unsurprisingly for a children's book, Lewis didn't go into any detail about the horrors of civilians in warfare. This also marks the first instance of a new backstory provided by the script - Peter's treatment of Edmund. In the book and the series, Peter is generally cast as a mature, slightly over-protective older brother while Edmund is (for most of the book) an entirely objectionable little brat. In the film, Edmund is softened considerably, and in turn, Peter is made far less 'noble', if thats the word.

This is followed by numerous minor changes, such as the first entry into Narnia is caused by a hide-and-seek game - in the series and the book, Lucy's initial entry is due to exploration, not her search for a hiding place. The cricket is invented (perhaps to emphasise the 'Englishness' of the book?), as is the cricket ball through the window and knocked-over armour. Instead of Susan, Peter suggests taking the fur coats, and both Lucy and Edmund (in the opening two visits) are bereft of fur coats in the film whereas they were not in the book or series. One other little mistake is the White Witch's pigmentation - she should, as her name suggests, be a very pale white, not merely pale-skinned.

The main change, aside from the softening of Edmund and staining of Peter, comes with the rush from the beaver's home. First, Edmund leaves with his coat - the suffering of his cold journey to the witch, without a coat, was dealt with at length in the book. A few religious details are missed out, such as Jadis' parentage (Lillith doesn't crop up in the series either). The party follows Edmund all the way to the castle, rather than briefly searching then returning to the house. Mrs Beaver does not spend hours preparing for the journey, the wolves are right outside rather than coming to an empty house, and there is an escape tunnel. The pub is another new detail (though an entertaining one), as is the character of the fox (presumably based on the old fox at the christmas meal). Needless to say, the fox's role in tricking the wolves is a further fabrication. Finally, the flight down the river, a major sequence, is entirely made up, along with the wolf encounter.

Another important change is the children's reluctance to take up their quest - there is no such hesitation in the book or series. The little scene where the animals have a christmas meal, much to the witch's dismay, is missing, replaced by the cunning fox. Much to my pleasure, the sexist commentary by Father Christmas was modified - previously, he told the women that 'the battle is not for you', but this changes to a general lament about the horror of war. Susan and Lucy are shown to have skill with their weapons, and Susan even gets to kill a dwarf (the one notable sexist comment is Susan's epithet remains 'Gentle', compared to the rather more impressive titles of the men. However, I can see why the script writers chose to keep it, albeit I'd rather they'd been braver and changed it to something less patronising). The battle is much extended, but as there was little focus on this in the book, there is plenty of scope to add detail.

Probably a few I've forgotten there, but you get the idea. The film was far from faithful to the book, but as has been mentioned, it was a reasonable adaptation. Less religious, less sexist, and arguably more realistic in parts (dialogue of the children, for example).
 
The film was far from faithful to the book, but as has been mentioned, it was a reasonable adaptation. Less religious, less sexist, and arguably more realistic in parts (dialogue of the children, for example).

Wow... The movie was not far from faithful to the book. There are changes. Most of them are slight changes or just to make the movie more appealing. The movie was very faithful to the book They changed one scene (the chase) for the most part. The book doesn't have any waterfall scene but who says that it couldn't have happened? Stop being so freaking nit picky over it.

If I tried I would be able to find a billion things about the BBC version that wasn't exactly like the book.

I challenge you to find one movie that is exactly like its book counterpart (where the movie was created from the book). You won't find any.

There is a huge difference between being true to the book and being identical to the book. This version was very true to the book. True to the book means that it had the same plotline, same general ideas, theme and feeling, and just generally close to the book. Being identical to the book is much different.

The new movie IS true to the book.


Less religous? How is it less religous? I didn't find any major parts in it that they changed that had an impact on the religious meaning?

Less sexist? The book was never sexist in the first place. People just like finding reasons in a book/movie or anything to call it sexist/racist or what not. In this world where being politically correct rules everything the change to the Father Christmas scene was necessary. I still don't believe it is a sexist comment. I believe Lewis didn't mean any harm when he wrote that dialoge that war wasn't fit for women. I generally agree with it. I mean, I am not saying that women can't fight or whatever because I know they can but generally women aren't supposed to fight in wars. That is usually reserved for the men to do. It is just, I am not saying that women cannot fight in a war it is just GENERALLY men are more physically fit and have a stronger capacity in the draining days of living in the army. This is IN GENERAL, it is not the same for every person. I seriously am sick of political correctness.
 
Last edited:
Iamnotjustdreaming said:
Wow... The movie was not far from faithful to the book. There are changes. Most of them are slight changes or just to make the movie more appealing. The movie was very faithful to the book They changed one scene (the chase) for the most part. The book doesn't have any waterfall scene but who says that it couldn't have happened? Stop being so freaking nit picky over it.
I'm simply pointing out the differences - like I also mentioned, I also think that most of these changes are positive. So its not actually a criticism.

Less religous? How is it less religous? I didn't find any major parts in it that they changed that had an impact on the religious meaning?
As I posted, the main omission, and its an important omission, is that there is no mention of the 'Emperor-over-the-sea', or his paternal relation to Aslan. There is also no mention of Lilith, further cutting the direct Biblical links. This doesn't have an impact on the religious meaning to those who wish to interpret one, but it does reduce the overt prosleytizing. Again, I applaud this change.

Less sexist? The book was never sexist in the first place. People just like finding reasons in a book/movie or anything to call it sexist/racist or what not. In this world where being politically correct rules everything the change to the Father Christmas scene was necessary. I still don't believe it is a sexist comment. I believe Lewis didn't mean any harm when he wrote that dialoge that war wasn't fit for women. I generally agree with it. I mean, I am not saying that women can't fight or whatever because I know they can but generally women aren't supposed to fight in wars. That is usually reserved for the men to do. It is just, I am not saying that women cannot fight in a war it is just GENERALLY men are more physically fit and have a stronger capacity in the draining days of living in the army. This is IN GENERAL, it is not the same for every person. I seriously am sick of political correctness.

Let me introduce you to Zee Vjesalicu.

1057932.jpeg


This woman can certainly fight, with a mixed martial arts record of 10-0. I could give you many other examples, but the point is not whether you feel women can fight or not. Women are capable of being just as effective in combat as men; this is true of any activity which does not rely solely on the highest levels of strength. The point is, they should have the option to prove it. Which in the new film's version of events, they do. This makes me happy. :)

As to the books sexism; it was written in the fifties, and therefore is unsurprisingly sexist. I agree with you that Lewis probably meant no harm, because he had little understanding that he might be making an offensive comment. This was true of many books from the fifties, and is not a criticism so much against the book as the times. The film makers sensibly removed this aspect in their version, updating the script to reflect our slightly more enlightened period (though I could babble on at length about the continuing inequality women face, as I've done elsewhere on the forum ;) ).

No need to take it personally if someone disagrees with you, particularly as in general, I'm not actually disagreeing. We both feel the film is superior. :D
 
I, for one, was disappointed that they did leave out the "battles are ugly when women fight" quote. I'm not saying that women can't fight, I am very much aware that they are quite capable of doing so, I just don't think that's really the women's role.

And what exactly is sexist about being "gentle"?
 
I'm not saying that women can't fight, I am very much aware that they are quite capable of doing so, I just don't think that's really the women's role.
If you think they can fight, then why shouldn't they? If I was looking to overthrow a tyrant, I'd want as many troops as possible, regardless of gender. Susan is supposed to be an excellent archer, and there is the significant inclusion of female centaurs in the fight. Aslan doesn't need the two girls to come with him to the castle; they would be much more useful in a combat situation.

And what exactly is sexist about being "gentle"?
Because the rest of the monarchs have epithets like 'Magnificent' (i.e. impressive), 'Just' (i.e wise) and 'Valiant' (i.e brave). 'Gentle' is not much of a title, especially considering Susan's character (even more noticeable in the film) is supposed to be strong-willed, forceful, brave - 'gentle' strikes me as patronising. Why couldn't she be Susan the Glorious, Susan the Great, Susan the Mighty, or something along those lines?

However, like I said, I can understand why 'Gentle' was kept, and Lucy does at least have a reasonable designation. Its a minor irritation; again, as I said, I enjoyed the film overall.
 
I re-watched the animated film last night, which must be the first time in at least ten years. However, when re-reading the books over the last two weeks, it was the animated film that stuck in my mind whilst reading The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, and in a variety of ways, the animated film is more in keeping with the book than either the series or the film. I've already mentioned elsewhere on the forum one instance where the animated film is the only one of the three to follow Lewis:

The Lion said:
..."And so," continued the Witch, "that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property."

"Come and take it then," said the Bull with the man's head in a great bellowing voice...

In the BBC series, the same challenge is made, but this time by a faun. In the new film, it is Peter himself who says it. A very minor scene, but its interesting that each version went a different route. It may be that a bull with a man's head was a rather bizarre image, perhaps even difficult to recreate in a live-action setting (though this would only pose a problem for the BBC series, as no doubt the CGI of today’s version could easily produce such a creature).

That bull is not the only unusual creature in the animated film; amongst the statues in the Witch's castle are also a flying tiger, a tiger with a unicorn's horn, and a man with the head of an eagle. This trend of genuinely fantastical beings is continued into the battle sequence, which features perhaps the weirdest battle ever seen on the screen: at the opening of the battle sequence to the far left of the view, a giant yellow duck, gripping a weapon in its wing, fights with a grim-faced tree. Such license is one of the advantages in animation, particularly a children's cartoon.

The interpretation of Mr Tumnus is similarly in keeping with a cartoon. Red-skinned, green-haired, and literally prancing like the goats who provide his lower half, we see him scampering around Lucy, eventually alighting on top of the lamp post. His initially devious is emphasised to a greater degree than usual, with sidelong glances and a malicious smile as he prepares his deception of Lucy. Rather than sending her to sleep, he follows his first rousing tune with a melody that sends her into a trance (from which he has to snap his fingers to free her). The Tumnus of the series or the film does not, in my opinion, make a similarly large transition from cruel to kind; the Tumnus is the animated film is the only one who initially appears genuinely wicked.

Mr Beaver is quite different from the new film or the series, as he does not have a regional accent (West Country in the BBC series, cockney in the new film). Instead, he is voiced by Arthur Lowe (who sadly died three years later in 1982), best known as the upwardly mobile Captain Mainwaring from Dad's Army. Lowe plays the character in similarly clipped tones to Mainwaring, complete with pipe, while Mrs Beaver also speaking with an upper class voice. Religious comments like Aslan being 'the son of the Emperor-across-the-sea' are still there, though still no mention of Lilith (which from what I've read and seen of Narnia adaptations only occurs in the 1967 TV series).

On the approach to the beaver's house, Edmund has flashbacks of the White Witch offering him Turkish Delight. Significantly, it is not Edmund who first suggests Turkish Delight, but the Witch herself. His flashback causes him to salivate and lick his lips in anticipation. This is in keeping with the description of the Turkish Delight in the book, where it sounds rather like the Witch gets Edmund addicted to them, as if they were a Class A drug, in order to get him to do her bidding:

The Lion said:
...At last the Turkish Delight was all finished and Edmund was looking very hard at the empty box and wishing that she would ask him whether he would like some more. Probably the Queen knew quite well what he was thinking; for she knew, though Edmund did not, that this was enchanted Turkish Delight and that anyone who had once tasted it would want more and more of it, and would even, if they were allowed , go on eating it till they killed themselves...

The White Witch is also properly white, again following the description in the book; "Her face was white - not merely pale, but white like snow or paper or icing sugar, except for her very red mouth" (p33). The BBC series attempted to follow suit, Barbara Kellerman sporting the necessary make-up, but the new film chooses to simply make her pale (though I think this probably works better than a bright white Tilda Swinton would have done, so a wise decision). I found the vocal performance of Sheila Hancock to be slightly less pantomime than Barbara Kellerman, but as its a cartoon, there is a higher threshold on the ridiculous - therefore, not a fair comparison.

kap9wl.jpg


The escape from the Beaver's house is again distinct from the BBC and Disney. Suspense is the most important element, with the view switching rapidly between the White Witch on her sledge, the ravening wolves led by Fenris Ulf (interestingly not named Maugrim in this version) and the party of children and beavers. The White Witch is only ever a short distance behind, able to see the children as they join the doomed fox and squirrels at their meal, still in sight as Mr Beaver spots her at the meal shortly after he, his wife and the children have left. Mrs Beaver strangely retains her apron throughout, but presumably this is to distinguish her gender from Mr Beaver, in the same fashion as Daisy Duck's hair bow.

In another difference from the BBC and the new film, and indeed the book, there is no Father Christmas (though the jingling of his sleigh-bells are heard earlier in the beaver's hiding place). Another missing character - or at least scene - is Mrs Macready, who does not chase the children into the wardrobe. Instead, the film cuts from the discussion with Professor Kirke straight to the third entrance into Narnia.

The weapons gifted by Father Christmas are now instead given by Aslan himself, whose echoing voice is strongly reminiscent of a character who would hit the screens five years later - He-Man. The sexist lines are also passed on to Aslan, who tells Susan and Lucy that "I do not mean you to fight in the battle", following the book's dialogue exactly in all but the speaker. Peter defeats Fenris Ulf, and receives the title 'Fenris-Bane' rather than 'Wolf's Bane', presumably due to the name change from Maugrim (then again, I haven't read the US version of the book this name change is taken from, so perhaps 'Fenris-Bane' occurs there too?).

In rescuing Edmund, Aslan does not merely send a few troops as in the series or new film, but an army. They almost manage to capture the White Witch, actually grasping hold of her arm, but as in the series, she and her dwarf are able to magically disguise themselves. The Witch's later sacrifice of Aslan on the Stone Table and his ensuing return was, in my opinion, more affecting than in the BBC series. There is greater celebration, and the rush to the Witches castle is well-interpreted. The BBC had Aslan literally fly, which now looks very dated indeed, whereas the animation simply has him run. However, this running is so fluid and fast, interspersed with great leaps, that it is almost flying, and works far better on screen.

My favourite part of the animation comes next, when Aslan transmutes the stone statues back to flesh. His breath flows across them, leaving a glimmering turquoise layer, almost cubist in its form, which is a beautiful visual effect. Back at the battle, Edmund's breaking of the wand makes real strategic impact, in a way in which I feel it did not in either the BBC series or the Disney film. This is because in both the BBC and Disney, shortly after Edmund's action, Aslan arrives and tramples the Witch (knocking her off a cliff in the BBC version). In the animation, while Aslan also arrives not long after, as soon as Edmund breaks the wand, all the combatants who had been turned to stone are instantly restored to flesh, in another pleasant visual effect (a sort of bright flash followed by a pause). Aslan then pounces on the Witch as in other adaptations, causing her to dissipate with a suitably 'evil' sound effect in a cloud of black smoke.

The animation then gears up for the ending, with the coronation scene, featuring Mr Beaver dressed in a costume that looks as though it was lifted from Disney's 1951 Alice in Wonderland cartoon. This is followed by a plump, middle-aged Mr Tumnus telling the now fully grown monarch's of the White Stag. This section struck me as a little off, because while the children are now shown as adult, they retain their childish voices - Edmund's high-pitched squeal, "Let's go!", sounds especially incongruous.

Unlike my recent revisiting of the BBC series, the animation did not disappoint. In particular, the music throughout was excellent and varied. It was also put to good use in numerous sequences, such as the chase from the beaver's house and Aslan's rush to the witch's castle. It was largely accurate, with a couple of interesting omissions, and Aslan felt truly imposing, thanks to his heroic voice. I look forward to getting it on DVD, as my old video is getting a little tired after all these years!
 
I first watched the BBC version when I was really little and loved it, I then read the Chronicles a few years later. The BBC version was really close to the book and that is what I liked the most about it. I have seen the Walden version a few times recently and I think that in comparing the two it is important to consider:

The BBC version - was a low budget series - not made as a movie, it was intended to be shown on television not as a movie feature. It was also made many years ago when, alas, they did not have the computer technology that we now have today.

Walden version - massive million dollar film riding off the success of the boom in the fantasy genre at the moment. They could spend as much as they needed on casts, crew, costumes, sets and most importantly the effects.

Now don't get me wrong, I love the new Walden version, it has been made clear in this forum that it has the better effects, a better Lucy and fabulous action sequences. But the main question is - does that make it the better adaptation? If this forum was simply which version had the better effects then yes I would agree that Walden would win hands down, but it isn't just about effects it is about every aspect of the movie and the series.

Firstly, I think it is insulting to both the author of a book and fans of that book, to say that a movie adaptation doesn't need to resemble the original storyline. Especially with a piece of work like Narnia that generations have grown up with for almost half a century. It has been mentioned in some other posts that important parts of the book were left out of the Walden version. To understand why this is indeed a travesty, one must first understand Lewis' reason for creating Narnia. It isn't simply a children's fantasy novel, it is a vessel for Lewis to convey his interpretation of Christian faith. I am an atheist and have no adgenda for pushing a Christian view, but a lot of the important messages Lewis wanted to convey, were simply moral messages about greed, jealousy and such things. In leaving out, or changing these storylines the messages are ruined. It seems a shame that all some people want out of a movie is entertainment and not a higher understanding. For example in the book and in the BBC version, at the end of the great battle Lucy gives Edmund some of her magical cordial and saves him. She doesn't move to help others until Aslan steps in and says "others also are at the point of death. Must more people die for Edmund." This was left out of the movie...

Another thing that annoyed me about the Walden version was that throughout the entire movie Susan was continually whining about being in Narnia. This is simply not what her character is like. Yes, she has reservations about being there because she thinks like a 'grown up,' but she doesn't carry on like that. I found her character to be entirely annoying, I mean how could a young girl not get caught up in Narnia, besides if she hated it as much as she looked, then surely she wouldn't have stayed in Narnia. It ruins her character.

Then there is the 'resurrection' scene. In the BBC version they stick to the book, I am not sure what the Walden team thought they were doing with their version. Not only is an entire chapter in the book called "Deeper Magic from before the Dawn of Time," but the entire concept behind the deep magic is a fundamental foundation for the plot. Aslan sacrifices himself in a traitors stead. Aslan comes back to life and all is well. this remains constant in all versions, but this alone doesn't satisfy the plot line. In the Walden version when Aslan returns and looks down upon the cracked Stone Table he talks about how the White Witch had 'interpreted' the deep magic written on the table incorrectly. There is NO mention of the Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time. This is the concept that explains the plot. Knowledge of the Deeper Magic is what Aslan has over the Witch, he sees the writing on the Table differently becuase of that knowledge. Aslan was around before the dawn of time. He is used as a metaphor for an almighty power, I mean he created Narnia in 'The Magician's Nephew,' therefore he will obviously have a higher understanding than the witch, not simply a differing interpretation that was never explained.

I would like to address the idea that Lucy from the BBC was too old for the part, I disagree, (yes her acting abilities were lacking) but as for her age, i think you need to consider the timeline and adventures that she has later in the other books. A year after the LWW the Pevensies go back to Narnia to help Caspian and then in that same year Lucy and Edmund go back again to sail on the Dawn Treader. I find it difficult to believe that a child as young as the Walden version would cope with the trials of the following stories, whereas the girl in the BBC version was of a much more believable age for the following stories.

The Walden version must be praised highly for its battle sequence, it was indeed spectacular and certainly more realistic looking and also in terms of the numbers of creatures in the battle. The BBC version didn't have the budget or ability to create something as sepctacular as that and it also wasn't created in the wake of the Lord of the Rings and their battle sequences.

Personally for me one of my favourite things about any fantasy of historical film are the costumes. I love to recreate them with my mother, a gifted seamstress. However I was completely appalled by the Walden ones. Although to give it credit the BBC was only marginally better. The White Witch in her massive gowns make her look like an American footballer. Also the story is based on medieval times with swords and battles, in comparing it to LOTR, well really there is no comparison. Nothing was spectacular or particularly beautiful. These kids are the long awaited Kings and Queens of Narnia and yet they are dressed as commoners. I think both versions were in need of a decent costume designer. But the Witch will remain laughable - hehe Dreadlock were so last century...

The music in the BBC version not only suited it but was more realistic in creating the magical world, it had an old world feel to it, which is what it needed, the new version had too much vocal work and is not a soundtrack i would ever consider buying. It didn't have that old world feel and it was far too fragmented in the background.

In conclusion I think that the BBC version was better considering it from all points of view and given the obvious differences between them. I come to this conclusion not because of a biased nostalgic feeling. I had anticipated the release of the Walden movie and had even thought a few years ago with the release of the first LOTR movie that it was high time that they made a movie version as they now have the effects to do it justice. I know and admit that the animated creatures in the BBC were silly looking because they looked fake and that the animatronic Aslan was confined in its abilities to look realistic, but if this is all that someone bases their opinion of which is the better of the two then why pose the question in the first place because you can expect a low budget series from years ago to compete with a multi million dollar holloywood movie version. The fact that it has been sugested that the BBC version inspires a feeling of nostalgia only reinforces my point, it means you enjoyed it, learnt from it and will always remember it fondly, much unlike the Walden one which substituted plot for action. Overall the character development, music and storyline of the original is far better than the new one which left an endearing Chronicles fan feel disapointed.
 
deathitselfshallbedenied said:
Firstly, I think it is insulting to both the author of a book and fans of that book, to say that a movie adaptation doesn't need to resemble the original storyline.

Resemble, perhaps, but not a mere replica. The books are still there; if you want to read the originals, you can. An adaptation should build upon the source material, translate it into the new medium, not slavishly follow that source, effectively becoming a reading of the book with some visual elements thrown in to act in lieu of our imagination.

Another thing that annoyed me about the Walden version was that throughout the entire movie Susan was continually whining about being in Narnia. This is simply not what her character is like. Yes, she has reservations about being there because she thinks like a 'grown up,' but she doesn't carry on like that. I found her character to be entirely annoying, I mean how could a young girl not get caught up in Narnia, besides if she hated it as much as she looked, then surely she wouldn't have stayed in Narnia. It ruins her character.

I'd agree in part with that - its something that irritated my girlfriend as well, who felt Susan was effectively 'nagging' the entire film. On the other hand, you could interpret this as practicality; various mythical creatures are attempting to slaughter your family, so as an elder daughter it is your responsibility to remove them from that situation. As she comments, they were sent to Professor Kirke in order to escape a war, not start one of their own.

Then there is the 'resurrection' scene. In the BBC version they stick to the book, I am not sure what the Walden team thought they were doing with their version. Not only is an entire chapter in the book called "Deeper Magic from before the Dawn of Time," but the entire concept behind the deep magic is a fundamental foundation for the plot. Aslan sacrifices himself in a traitors stead. Aslan comes back to life and all is well. this remains constant in all versions, but this alone doesn't satisfy the plot line.

I rather liked how they handled the resurrection scene; I feel that it left enough in to satisfy the Christians, but not so much that it became off-putting for secular viewers, or viewers from other faiths. The whole film had to be very careful about the 'religious' sections, particularly considering the battle raging in the media before the film's release (and indeed after) about Christian interpretations.

I would like to address the idea that Lucy from the BBC was too old for the part, I disagree, (yes her acting abilities were lacking) but as for her age, i think you need to consider the timeline and adventures that she has later in the other books. A year after the LWW the Pevensies go back to Narnia to help Caspian and then in that same year Lucy and Edmund go back again to sail on the Dawn Treader. I find it difficult to believe that a child as young as the Walden version would cope with the trials of the following stories, whereas the girl in the BBC version was of a much more believable age for the following stories.

Whole other thread. If you go by the Walter Hooper timeline (which puts her age at around 9 or 10) and Pauline Baynes' illustrations (of which Lewis was certainly aware before publication and could easily have complained about if he felt they were inaccurate), Lucy's age in the new film is about right. I find it difficult to believe a child of any age could defeat three ogres in battle or hold their own with a 7 foot, battle-hardened, 1000 year old witch, but it still happens in the book; one of the joys (or major problems, depending on how you look at it) of fantasy is that it has scope to be ridiculous.

Personally for me one of my favourite things about any fantasy of historical film are the costumes. I love to recreate them with my mother, a gifted seamstress. However I was completely appalled by the Walden ones. Although to give it credit the BBC was only marginally better. The White Witch in her massive gowns make her look like an American footballer. Also the story is based on medieval times with swords and battles, in comparing it to LOTR, well really there is no comparison. Nothing was spectacular or particularly beautiful. These kids are the long awaited Kings and Queens of Narnia and yet they are dressed as commoners. I think both versions were in need of a decent costume designer. But the Witch will remain laughable - hehe Dreadlock were so last century...

Matter of taste, but I for one thought the costumes were excellent. I particularly liked the way the Witch incorporated Aslan's shaved mane into her choice of clothing for the battle.

In conclusion I think that the BBC version was better considering it from all points of view and given the obvious differences between them...I know and admit that the animated creatures in the BBC were silly looking because they looked fake and that the animatronic Aslan was confined in its abilities to look realistic, but if this is all that someone bases their opinion of which is the better of the two then why pose the question in the first place

The central problem with the BBC version was not the outdated effects, laughable as they were. It was the acting, on the part of the children (uniformly awful except for Richard Dempsey - ever wonder why they all left acting, except for Dempsey?) and the pantomime melodrama of Barbara Kellerman as the White Witch. Tilda Swinton was magnificent as the White Witch, and the children were all much improved in the new film.

The BBC had greater accuracy, and I also liked the music. However, the 1979 animated film trumps it in both departments (and is in turn superceded in accuracy by the 1967 TV series), so if those are your main requirements, I would look to that version rather than the BBC.
 
Back
Top