What would a BBC version of The Magician’s Nephew look like?  The Victorian time setting would probably be used. I can picture it resembling the Dickens series of the 1970’s and ‘80’s, which was shown here in America on PBS’ Masterpiece Theatre. In some ways the other Narnia miniseries did look about as old fashioned even though the part of the story that takes place in our world was at a later time.  The BBC series looked vintage even though it was made in modern times. But that was much like C. S. Lewis intended it to be.  And that is the closest to the spirit of the original books.

Posted by: @narnian78

What would a BBC version of The Magician’s Nephew look like?

If you mean a BBC version as in a continuation of the late 1980s / early '90s series — made in the same era and on the same shoestring budget — well, I would guess the technical difficulties (virtual impossibilities) of it must have had something to do with why they chose not to even try to adapt that story. There was simply no way that they could have portrayed Fledge as a convincing flying horse, for a start. Not to mention the creation of Narnia itself, which would (probably will) be a stretch even with today's technology. Back then, to portray what Lewis described in the book — well, CGI was still in its infancy in the early 1990s, and it cost a bomb (so to speak) to produce anything lengthy and complex with it. The BBC experimented with a few CGI animated characters in their version of LWW, and the results were so awkward-looking and unconvincing that they didn't try that again in any of their other Narnia adaptations.

And using CGI to animate the mouths of real animals, so that they look like they are talking, didn't come along till 1995, in the film Babe. That would be needed in order to have Strawberry / Fledge played by a real horse, which is essential to the plot (because he starts out in life as an ordinary London cab horse, not as a Talking Beast). Never mind having him grow wings and fly, as I mentioned above!!

On the other hand, if the BBC decided to do new adaptations of the Narnia books today, then they would have the technology (and, I hope, enough money) to do a much more sophisticated job. But while nearly all their adaptations of classic children's stories 30-35 years ago were almost painfully faithful to the books, I don't know if they would be if they started making new adaptations today. I suspect there'd be a lot of concern about making them relevant to a modern audience and removing or changing anything that wasn't in line with (their perception of) "today's values". And the results might very well be even further removed from the original stories than Greta Gerwig's, so far, looks like being. 

@courtenay 

If the BBC had made The Magician’s Nephew thirty or more years ago people would say that the series production was stagey (too much like a play performed in the theater).  They said the same thing about the Dickens series even though the time setting was accurate.  I doubt if they would have been able to show Fledge flying convincingly unless they animated the entire production and not have partial animation combined with live footage as they did in the 1988 version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.  But today the BBC might have access to better technology. It’s hard to make something look old fashioned without making it appear dated, but I think The Magician’s Nephew is an old style fantasy book.  It might still look vintage even though modern technology is used. And there isn’t any reason why the series couldn’t be reasonably close to the books, although it would be impossible to make an adaptation without any changes from the original story.

@courtenay ...well, I would guess the technical difficulties (virtual impossibilities) of it must have had something to do with why they chose not to even try to adapt that story. There was simply no way that they could have portrayed Fledge as a convincing flying horse, for a start. Not to mention the creation of Narnia itself...

Quite so, but there wouldn't have been any such problem with such technical difficulties in the 1979 animated version I viewed a few nights ago, when it all depended on the skill of the animator's drawing to begin with. And I wonder why they didn't do the whole series then & there?

@narnian78 If the BBC had made The Magician’s Nephew thirty or more years ago people would say that the series production was stagey (too much like a play performed in the theater). 

Maybe you could have been right, but there was likely more going on in the BBC than we realise was happening, which I learned this morning to my horror. On my MSN feed I learned the following information, which I have quoted, from a news item referencing an old BBC scandal which unfortunately went on until the culprit passed away in 2012. The title of this article was "Child cast of BBC's Narnia say they were warned about

Broadcast over six weeks in 1988,The Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe was the first of four Narnia books written by CS Lewis to be adapted over three series for the BBC. {Quote 1}

The article went on to show details of a documentary to be made of a reunion.

The show cast relative newcomers as the Pevensie children who discover a magical portal to a new world inside the wardrobe of a country home. Sophie Wilcox starred as Lucy, Richard Dempsey as Peter, Sophie Cook as Susan, and Jonathan R Scott as Edmund. Nearly 40 years after the show aired, the original cast have reunited for a two-hour documentary Return to Narnia. {Quote 2}

I wouldn't have minded seeing this documentary, in the light of what has been said on this NarniaWeb thread about the BBC series as we dream about what it might have done with Magician's Nephew, had this book been included, say, in a follow-on. 

The cast told The Times that they felt looked after by the show’s production team. Elsewhere in the interview, the actors recalled being pointed at in restaurants and being followed after the show aired. They also found some of the negative reviews particularly hurtful. Wilcox, who played Lucy, said she had seen the press say she was “‘bursting out of my cardigan’ or something like that. Literally fat-shaming. And I was a chubby child”. {Quote 3} 

At least, it was reassuring that this production remained unaffected by any such BBC scandal in the studio next door to where they were working, though I would have liked to see what the cast of Silver Chair might have also said, in the article as well. 

The Chronicles of Narnia remastered Blu-ray edition boxset including Return to Narnia is released on 24 November. {Quote 4}

24 November is tomorrow.  

@waggawerewolf27 

People were so unkind to Sophie Wilcox. I have heard people say about the cast of the BBC Narnia, “They were not good looking children”.  It never mattered to me whether they were good looking.  I thought they were just ordinary kids. I think they did a fairly good job for not being experienced actors.

If the BBC made Narnia today they would have to spend a lot more money. And that is probably why Greta Gerwig is making it. I don’t think having the Victorian timeline would cost the filmmakers much more and it would preserve the time setting of the books. Fledge flying would be a lot easier to do with today’s technology. The BBC can do much more with special effects, but they might not be interested in something that might not make them a lot of money. Sadly enough, that may be the reason they lost interest after The Silver Chair.

@narnian78 Fledge flying would be a lot easier to do with today’s technology. The BBC can do much more with special effects, but they might not be interested in something that might not make them a lot of money. Sadly enough, that may the reason they lost interest after The Silver Chair.

Yes, you are right, when today's CGI technology is so much better. However, in the 1979 LWW animated film, I noticed there was actually a flying horse depicted in Peter's battle forces at the LWW Fords of Beruna battle scene. But it isn't just about money in the case of the BBC, which, like our own Australian ABC, is funded by taxpayer's or government money. 

Yes, I agree that people, & especially the press, were unkind to Sophie Wilcox, but this might not necessarily be the fault of the BBC, itself, which according to the Annabel Nugent article I accessed, noted that Sophie Cook who was 13 years old when she began playing Susan, said: “It was a very strange time...It was just known … [I’m] not picking holes in the BBC. I think that [it] was just … culturally accepted. This level of knowledge of stuff going on, you know, of a darkness, only just a studio away.” What about David Thwaites as Eustace Scrubb & Camilla Power as Jill Pole in Silver Chair as well? I would have liked to have read their point of view. 

In 1990, the commercial British Press, run by powerful figures like Robert Maxwell (Daily Mirror), or Rupert Murdoch's son, James, (The Sun, the Times) could be fairly scathing about productions like BBC's Chronicles of Narnia, just as they were going to be throughout the 1990's & the BBC in general. And there were others, literary figures, like Philip Pullman, especially allergic to C.S. Lewis as well, who had already branded the deceased C.S Lewis as racist & sexist for portrayals of any of the Narnia stories. Nor was the scandal I mentioned the only one in the BBC, when in November 1995, an infamous Panorama Martin Bashir interview took place, because of the shoddy methods used to acquire this interview. 

And by 2001, the film world would take the world by storm when Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings was released in 2001, 2002 & 2003. This is when modern-day CGI started to come into its own, so that by the time Walden released LWW, it seemed far and away the best depiction of the lot. And, as we have seen, Walden never got around to depicting even Silver Chair or Magician's Nephew, either. But this time, it was due to the box office for VDT being nowhere as good as they would have liked it to be, especially when they also included no-doubt expensive 3D effects. Since then, these 3D effects have quietly gone by the by. 

And that, too, is also why I'd be cautious about current anti-colonialism social pressures Greta Gerwig might be hoping to avoid in her current endeavour to film Magician's Nephew.  

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

Quite so, but there wouldn't have been any such problem with such technical difficulties in the 1979 animated version I viewed a few nights ago, when it all depended on the skill of the animator's drawing to begin with. And I wonder why they didn't do the whole series then & there?

There were actually plans to do The Magician's Nephew as an animated film in the early 1980s, but for some reason they never went ahead... A few years ago, The Lion's Call website did a report when they bought a set of storyboard sketches for the animation, which seems to be as far as the project got, sadly. You can read the article and watch the "unboxing" video here: Storyboards for an unmade animated "The Magician's Nephew" come to light

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

In 1990, the commercial British Press, run by powerful figures like Robert Maxwell (Daily Mirror), or Rupert Murdoch's son, James, (The Sun, the Times) could be fairly scathing about productions like BBC's Chronicles of Narnia, just as they were going to be throughout the 1990's & the BBC in general. And there were others, literary figures, like Philip Pullman, especially allergic to C.S. Lewis as well, who had already branded the deceased C.S Lewis as racist & sexist for portrayals of any of the Narnia stories...

And that, too, is also why I'd be cautious about current anti-colonialism social pressures Greta Gerwig might be hoping to avoid in her current endeavour to film Magician's Nephew.  

Well, it's a long time now since 1990, but the tendency to brand classic stories as racist / sexist / colonialist etc. is even more rampant now than it was back then. I'm not convinced, though, that Greta Gerwig's decision to set her production of MN in 1955 instead of 1900 is simply a matter of We Can't Possibly Show Britain at the Time When It Ruled the World's Biggest Empire. (British imperialism doesn't actually come into the story at all, whereas there are plenty of classic children's stories from the early 20th century that make far more reference to it.) That's a long bow to draw, when there are still plenty of adaptations being made of, say, Austen and Dickens and the Brontës and so on, who were writing stories set entirely in Britain at the time when the empire (and, in Austen's era, the slave trade) was thriving.

There's also the fact that the Chronicles of Narnia are unabashedly Christian, and that is something else that really doesn't sit well with a lot of critics. I'm significantly less concerned about the time period change for MN (it wipes out a lot of that story's unique atmosphere, but it may not otherwise have a huge impact on the plot) than I am about how Aslan is going to be portrayed and how the underlying messages of the book are going to come through, if at all. The BBC series managed to keep most of that aspect intact, as did the 1979 animation of LWW, but as far as I understand, the Walden trilogy was less successful in that regard. I don't know what we can hope for in this new version. (Especially if "that" casting rumour turns out to be true after all, but I'm not taking it as gospel until we have actual confirmation from the studio itself, as to what Aslan is going to look like and who is providing his — hopefully his — voice.)

I still reckon the most credible proposed reason for the change in era for MN, so far, is the argument that Gerwig intends to set the rest of the series (the parts that occur in our world, that is) in the present day or the recent past. Because, as I've said already, whatever effects the period change may have on MN, that is the effect it WILL — inescapably — have on all the other stories. And there's no way I can imagine Gerwig and her associates could have made the change to MN without thinking of that.

@courtenay

Thank you for the link to an unmade version of Magician's Nephew, which never got much past the storyboard stage. I found it very interesting to look at, especially this link to the Episcopal News Service Press, which seems to have been behind the 1979 animated Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe, as well as the storyboards you mentioned. I am quoting from this article because of the information due to what it reveals about Magician's Nephew. 

The article's actual title is Second 'Narnia' Book Set for Production

Episcopal News Service. February 11, 1982 [82035]

ATLANTA, (DPS, Feb. 11) -- The action packed adventure The Magician's Nephew, chronologically the first book of the famous Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, is being prepared for production by Ray Carlson of Glenray Productions and Theodore Baehr of the Episcopal Radio-TV Foundation.

Already I can see from the quote above, that it would have been a USA production, based in Atlanta which staged the 1996 Olympic Games, & which was planning in 1982 to start producing MN the following January 25. I've linked the full article above, so I won't be quoting all of it. It also lists a Texas address. But the very name of the organisation tells me of its links to the worldwide Anglican communion. It also claims responsibility for recording C.S. Lewis' Four Loves in 1958.

The Episcopal Radio-TV Foundation has already brought to the television screen, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe which won an Emmy award for best production in 1979 and had 37 million viewers on CBS-TV in prime time. Based on the strength of that book, it has been decided to go first to theaters with The Magician's Nephew and then to television...The Magician's Nephew is the exciting story of the birth of Narnia, an allegorical reflection on creation, full of mystery, fantasy, and adventure. Good triumphs over evil in this classic fantasy written by the late C.S. Lewis.

The Episcopalian Church in USA would be not only interested in C.S Lewis, himself, but also is specifically connected to the Anglican Church, that is to say, the Church of England, & I'll explain its organisation, if necessary, in the Christianity, Religion & Philosophy thread, maybe tomorrow, when I have a bit more time to do so. 

@courtenay Well, it's a long time now since 1990, but the tendency to brand classic stories as racist / sexist / colonialist etc. is even more rampant now than it was back then. {Quote 1}

Too right it is, though I agree with your aside that "British imperialism doesn't actually come into the story at all, whereas there are plenty of classic children's stories from the early 20th century that make far more reference to it". 

@courtenay There's also the fact that the Chronicles of Narnia are unabashedly Christian, and that is something else that really doesn't sit well with a lot of critics.

Exactly, and that is what I have been driving at. There is Christianity and there is Christianity, such as includes the Orthodox churches, the Catholic church and, in particular, the Church of England, of which Charles III, King of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (and 14 other countries, including Australia, New Zealand & Canada) is the supreme Governor, also called the Temporal Head of the Church of England. That doesn't mean he conducts church services and the like, when he is more like a chairman & an observer at church synods, just like he is the one who opens Parliament at Westminster. The real spiritual head of the Church of England would have to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, whilst Charles III is also the "Defender of the Faith", which I might also have to explain on another thread, like the Spare Oom thread, History buffs unite 2nd edition.

And yes, when British imperialism & specifically colonisation grizzles crop up, the Church of England really does get targeted, more so than the other churches, & even more so than Roman Catholics, headed by the Pope in Rome. I've noticed that though colonisation has been going on since before King David, who ruled Israel, which was about 1000 BCE, and when since 29/5/1453 AD, the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire, triggered the Age of Exploration after 1488 AD, it was hardly the British who could be held responsible for ALL colonisation's ills. 

Posted by: @waggawerewolf27

Too right it is, though I agree with your aside that "British imperialism doesn't actually come into the story at all, whereas there are plenty of classic children's stories from the early 20th century that make far more reference to it". 

Actually, I can think of one place where it does, indirectly: Digory's father is in India, which in the context of the times would imply that he had something to do with the colonial administration. But that isn't a major element of the narrative — it's largely a plot device to keep Digory's father out of the story until right at the end. And nothing about the actual plot is dependent on Britain ruling a lot of other countries as imperial possessions at that time. (I'm pretty sure that at the time I first read this story, as a 7-year-old in Australia with very little knowledge of history, I wasn't actually aware that India had once been ruled by Britain. I picked that fact up later from other books where it features much more directly, like The Secret Garden.)

And I'm sure we were discussing this a while ago, but it's also an interesting fact that within the Narnia books, the empires we do see directly are presented in a very negative light: Telmar, Calormen, Charn. The clear impression we're given is that it's wrong for powerful rulers to conquer other countries and oppress or exploit their people, and that Narnia — where an incredible range of sentient species live largely in harmony with each other, where the rulers' main job seems to be to make sure everyone is able to live free and happy, and most of this small country's history is filled with joy and peace and no ambitions to conquer anyone or anything else — is the sort of land we should want to live in, if only we could. 

In a way I am glad that British imperialism was mostly kept out of The Magician’s Nephew. I don’t think Lewis would have agreed with Rudyard Kipling’s views on that subject. He would have seen the imperialism and expansion as materialism, which was something that didn’t agree with his Christianity. So a film version should keep the imperialism to a minimum as in the book. It would be hard to not mention it at all since Polly and Digory lived at that time.  But Lewis wisely kept it out of the story except where it was necessary to mention it.

@courtenay   Actually, I can think of one place where it does, indirectly: Digory's father is in India, which in the context of the times would imply that he had something to do with the colonial administration. But that isn't a major element of the narrative — it's largely a plot device to keep Digory's father out of the story until right at the end

Up until 1857, the British East India Company held sway in India, but that was the year that the Indians rebelled, after which the  British Raj, ruling India directly, lasted from 1858 to 1947, & though British rule brought technological knowhow like railways, education etc, such a massive change wasn't necessarily to the benefit of India, itself, especially the poorer people.

Yes, I agree with your post, that Digory's father being away, maybe due to colonial administration, is just a plot device to crank up the pathos of his mother's illness. But it could work just as effectively as a plot device, even in 1955, once the dust had settled after the independence of India, Pakistan & Sri Lanka, when there are always different postings, not necessarily for colonial reasons, & when all three newly independent nations remained in the British Commonwealth of Nations. Or better still, like the 1979 LWW, just don't mention at all where Digory's father was posted, or why he is away?

@courtenay  And I'm sure we were discussing this a while ago, but it's also an interesting fact that within the Narnia books, the empires we do see directly are presented in a very negative light: Telmar, Calormen, Charn.

Telmarines (Go tell it to the marines?) invaded from the west & were descended from pirates & their native wives in some South Pacific location, maybe Pitcairn Island which certainly comes to mind. They oppressed the original Narnians, not understanding them or their culture.  Calormen was a trading nation whatever else it was. Knew the price of everything but not necessarily everything's value. And dealt in slavery as well. The sort of place which one would expect to find along the old Silk Road of yore, and in most colonial powers, especially in the Ottoman Empire & through the Middle East. Though to do the British some justice, by early 19th century they had banned slavery, releasing 800 of them in South Africa alone. Whilst in Charn, Jadis pressed the destruct button, using the Deplorable Word in Charn to defeat her sister, leaving nobody else alive. Each of these empires might well be seen negatively, but in three different ways.  

Yes, C.S. Lewis, born in Ulster, might well have had a negative view of colonialism, especially after the foundation of the Irish Republic in the 1920's. But in his Narnia stories he always had a place for a king, providing the king played by the rules, & in WW2 he manned the radio waves to loyally add his contribution to UK's war effort. 

@narnian78 So a film version should keep the imperialism to a minimum as in the book. It would be hard to not mention it at all since Polly and Digory lived at that time. 

Yes, I agree, that is, if you stick to the original time frame. Rudyard Kipling was actually born in India, of British parents, & grew up there, but I'm not sure that he was quite as jingoistic as he might have been perceived, today.