These Movies Are Horrible

We have to remember, they did these in the late 80s and the BBC didn't give them a very large budget. They did what they could with what they had.
 
I can assure you they are pretty high quality for the time they were produced! They were, as Paul said, on a limited budget for the BBC (who pooured most of their £ into Jane Austen re-creations!), and when they were first aired- around 4-5pm on Sunday afternoons in the winter (I remember-I was there!) they didn't need to be all that and a bag of chips as they were mainly aimed at a younger audience who wouldn't be bothered about the quality of the filming- we hadn't seen anything like it before (speaking personally) so had nothing to compare it to. I do remember them as being the highlight of the week telly-wise,a nd fro that they should be applauded!
 
no kidding. i watched them the other day cause i needed something to netflix and thought that would be interesting...i had to laugh at the giant sized beavers. they looked so fricking dumb. but as rosymole said, i am sure that when they were made they were much more well recieved. they also seem to me like they were more of a recorded play as opposed to a movie. so that could take into account some of the technological shortcomings.
 
hey, i love those movies! (btw, LucyGoosey, welcome back. i haven't seen ya in a while!). yes the beavers were a bit large, but it's better than nothing. for their time, the movies are great!
 
I think that Samuel West was a great Caspian and I would love to see him in the new films somehow. These films were poorly done and they deserved a bigger budget but you have to take them for what they are. Honestly, I am surprised they are as good as they are. I did hate the musical score though. Sure, it was pretty. But I got tired of hearing the same 30 second track played over and over and over and over and over again in The Silver Chair.
 
he was the older Caspian, correct? if so, which i'm pretty sure he is, than i agree. he did a great job. he also was in another movie.. but i don't remembe what it was called. it was another one of those movies that was a novel. i think it may have been Persuasion? maybe. but what do i know?
 
Samuel West is Prunella Scales' son - certainly he was going to be good! ;)

I, personally, really love these movies, despite the fact that they weren't exactly tophole in the effects department. I grew up on them and now own a boxed set of the DVDs, of which I am very proud. :)

~Nelli.
 
I saw these movies -- well, the first one -- when I was really little, and I must say, even being that young (or maybe, being that young I was more picky) I really didn't like it. I can't remember much, but Lucy especially confused me. I remember thinking, "is she supposed to be the sister of the others? She doesn't look anything like them!" I remember bad acting, bad sets, and well, I just remember not liking them. lol

OK, now that I've made enemies of people on this board...

I'm not saying that all movies with bad effects and bad acting are bad. I like a lot of movies that have bad of both. But I guess these in particular just aren't my cup o' tea. If a handful of people enjoy them, then, well, I can't say that it was a waste of time for them to be made.

Just don't watch them while I'm in the room.

hehe
 
You will learn to appreciate this older BBC-made SERIE (not movies), when this newer adaptation comes and shows us, that they are nothing but a prequel or a sequel to the LOTR.

Sad but true. Just take a look at the short clip that they have published on this site too. A plain horror movie, nothing more.
 
I don't know about that Resident. These newer adaptations are the SAME story as the BBC ones, with a much LARGER budget, and a better effects crew.
 
Yes, I realize that those were a series rather than movies. I just said movies 'cause well, I didn't think people would care that I was technically inaccurate. Guess I was wrong. Anyway, I don't see how you can call Narnia simply a sequel or prequel to LotR. Of course it's possible it will have a similar cinematic style since the same people are designing the creatures and armies. But remember, it's a completely different target audience, completely different director, different studio (Walden and Disney vs. Newline and Wingnut), inspired by different mythologies (LotR was heavily norse based. Narnia draws from greek and eastern mythologies), etc. etc.

And even if it has the same visual style as LotR, (which would make since, since the AICN clip was focused on weta) is that a bad thing? I mean, Return of the King alone won 11 oscars (a number of the recipiants of those oscars are working on Narnia), a record tied by only two other movies. I'd say that's a crowning achievement, and if Narnia is visually anything like LotR, that'd be great.

I'm not really sure what your point is with the "horror" movie idea. You may recall (if you've read the book) that CS Lewis even wrote "ogres with monstrous teeth, and wolves, and bull-headed men; spirits of evil trees and poisonous plants; and other creatures whom I won't describe because if I did the grown-ups would probably not let you read this book -- Cruels and Hags and Incubuses, Wraiths, Horrors, Efreets, Srites, Orknies, Wooses, and Ettins."

So, yeah, that's just a part of one paragraph of the book this movie is based off of. And the AICN clip was focused on showing the creatures and only the creatures because, well, that's what weta is in charge of. That doesn't mean that they will be overpowering in the movie. If you want one five-minute scene to have all those things described, you've got to make them all. They may just be in there a brief moment of film time, but this particular video clip was showing all of the stuff they have to make for just a short piece of the movie.

But anyway, I think most of us here are awaiting these fine films with eager anticipation, and that's why we've stuck around this particular website, which I believe is a sort of fansite for the movies and books. (hence the domain name)
 
Aaiiee, the younger generation and its failure to appreciate the BBC versions!

I saw them as an adult Narnia fan after years of reading the books and was pleased for the most part. The low budget effects were not a hindrance, IMHO, but part of the charm. And I own them on VHS and DVD both.

What I fear the most is the adaptation of the book(s) to the audience - generating potential of hash-work cultural accomodation rather than telling the story (-ies). I think that if the strength of the faithfulness to the story that is present in the BBC version is maintained and coupled with the current special effects technology, then we may have a better over all production.

But really, in all the versions of Black Beauty that have aired on TV, do the color versions NECESSARILY outdo the B&W? (I'd vote no.) So technological production values alone will not make these films. Sure Metropolis and Nosferatu are silent films with woeful (by current standards) SFX, but they were and remain classics of film because powerful stroies. May the same be said of the current productions, We know it can be said for the BBC 'cause I am saying it! :D

edit: my 14 year old daughter seconds my opinion of the BBC versions and she has seen them from age 4 yrs...........so there!!!!! :p
 
Last edited:
I dunno, I love these movies. :D I will admit that the acting could have been better. I.E., Mr. Tumnus didn't look like he was really crying, and Lucy was a bit over the top sometimes when it came to enthusiasm. But for the most part, the acting was okay. My only complaint was the special effects, but they were on a small budget, so they did their best. A little cheesy, maybe, but it still takes you there.
 
Are you talking bout the late 80's versions by the BBC with the overacting Whit Witch, terrible special effects and a brilliant version of Puddleglum????
 
Well, I was talking about the BBC version. I don't know anything about the late 80's version. I don't know about everyone else...
 
PS,

The late '80s version you refer to was the BBC production series. It initially ran on TV and was released between, IIRC, '88-'90.

There was a prior animated production in the late '70s run on TV and jointly sponsored by Kraft foods and the Episcopal Radio and TV Foundation.

These are the only versions released in VHS or DVD formats of which I am aware. There were earlier productions on the BBC of which I have heard reports, I think in the late 60's or early '70s.
 
Back
Top