I would say a good adaptation would have a script faithful to the books, and it is also essential that it has some decent acting as well. The BBC version for the most part had stories faithful to the books. The Walden films had some fine acting although the scripts could have been closer to the original stories. While no film is perfect I think it is possible to have a movie that respects the source of where the story came from. And when people watch the movie if it is an accurate film they will want to read the books. 🙂

It's hard to say because I don't mind some changes, but I do mind some changes. It really depends on the specific change. For example, I'm not necessarily upset that, judging by some set photos, Jadis looks like she's holding Digory hostage during the fight at the lamppost. That could be done without severely impacting the plot of the book or even the scene itself. 

It's easy to say little details don't matter as long as the spirit of the book is preserved but that's tricky in practice because

(a) the details are what make up the spirit,

(b) seeing little details preserved (like the mothballs in the wardrobe in the 2005 LWW movie) is fun and 

(c) fans often disagree as to the spirit of the source material. For example, many fans of the book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory say the 2005 movie adaptation captures its spirit. I feel it doesn't. 

As long as I'm doing this wishy-washy post that doesn't actually answer any of DavidD's questions, I'd like to say that while I'm not technically a purist, I will defend purists since I think there are untrue stereotypes about them. People tend to think of book purists as grim and joyless and that's not really true. They just find joy in different things than non-purists do. 

I could and have watched the Walden LWW movie over and over again. It has its flaws, but it was as close to the book as I could hope for in a not word for word version. The BBC series was amazing for a true to the books adaptation. My issues with Walden's PC stem from a change that created a major change in tone as they cut the line "We haven't come to take your place, but to put you in it." and turned Caspian and Peter into two squabbling overly proud teens trying to one up each other that didn't get fixed until Caspian suggested the dual to Peter. That changed a huge chunk of the tone of the movie. I prefer as close as possible without delving into tonal changes or outright additions like the green mist in Walden's VDT. 

I really enjoyed Walden Media's Narnia series on the whole, but I don't consider it a perfect adaptation or one I'd recommend to every fan of the books. 

Many people say that the 1946 movie adaptation of Great Expectations is a great adaptation, but I feel like while it does a great job of adapting the creepy elements of the book, it doesn't do a very good job with the heartwarming elements. So you might think I'm an impossible-to-please purist. Yet I still really enjoy the 1946 movie for the things that it does adapt well. Also, I really enjoy the 2012 movie adaptation, which is generally considered inferior to the 1946 one, since, while it doesn't do as well with the creepy aspects, it does a better job IMO with the heartwarming ones. 

What I'm trying to say is...I'm going to notice if an adaptation of a book I love isn't perfect and I'm probably going to complain about it to someone but if it has enough elements that are great, I'm still glad it exists. 

Posted by: @narnian78

And when people watch the movie if it is an accurate film they will want to read the books.

Yeah, that's a good criteria for how authentic the movie is.  I did enjoy Waldon's Prince Caspian, but I do not feel like I have seen the book after I had watched the movie.  If I watch Waldon's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I feel like "I should read the Chronicles of Narnia again!

Posted by: @col-klink

It's easy to say little details don't matter as long as the spirit of the book is preserved but that's tricky in practice because

(a) the details are what make up the spirit,

(b) seeing little details preserved (like the mothballs in the wardrobe in the 2005 LWW movie) is fun and 

Yes.  I was just reflecting on how much it would mean to me if Uncle Andrew is chased by the animals and they somehow show the bulldog speaking (for some reason, in my mind with a very formal - "Queen's Good English" accent) to Uncle Andrew, saying “Now, sir,” said the Bulldog in his business-like way, “are you animal, vegetable, or mineral?”

And then somehow showing Uncle Andrew's perspective - where he can only hear it growling at him.  If they could find a way to pull that off and then show the animals discussing whether Uncle Andrew is a tree or an animal - with all the seriousness that the naive animals bring to it, that would do a lot to make the movie authentic to me.  It is a small detail which is not essential to the main story, but it is this sort of thing that gives the book a lot of its charm.

Posted by: @starkat

My issues with Walden's PC stem from a change that created a major change in tone as they cut the line "We haven't come to take your place, but to put you in it." and turned Caspian and Peter into two squabbling overly proud teens trying to one up each other that didn't get fixed until Caspian suggested the dual to Peter. That changed a huge chunk of the tone of the movie.

Yeah - you have hit the nail on the head.  I did not like what they did with Caspian's and Peter's characters.  They became petulant youths - which works in Dawntreader for Eustace - but is not a part of the Prince Caspian story.  It took me out of the film and made me sour that Lewis was not being respected.  Similarly, the green mist in The Voyage of the Dawntreader took me out of the movie, I suspect partly because I knew it was just an introduced element, but I think partly because the writing about the mist did not seem anywhere near as strong as the scenes that were simply based on Lewis writing.  Even scenes that did not originally have the mist, but had the mist added felt like the actors needed to over-act to account for the mist affecting how the character thought.  Thus the tone was different from the books.

Posted by: @col-klink

What I'm trying to say is...I'm going to notice if an adaptation of a book I love isn't perfect and I'm probably going to complain about it to someone but if it has enough elements that are great, I'm still glad it exists.

Yeah, I think that is a good attitude.  I hope I can enjoy the movie even if there are some differences.  (Just hope it does not go too far.)

When I first read that the Walden films were from Walden Media I immediately thought of the book store chain.  I thought that this was something like if Barnes & Noble became involved in the movie business. I can’t say that I was completely disappointed in that, although some people would say that Walden should only sell books. But I was expecting a more faithful adaptation of the books, although I  was generally quite pleased with some of the fine acting from the cast in all three films. With Disney being involved in the first two films I thought that it was mainly for the money. But I still wanted to see the films even though they weren’t always accurate to the books. It is possible to like something that is not perfect, although one can always wish for something better.

I would recommend that any lover of the books should watch both the Walden and BBC series at least once since both of them have scenes that are definitely worth seeing. The BBC series had the advantage of faithfulness to the original stories and the Walden movies had the more professional acting.  It is worth comparing the films and TV series to what C. S. Lewis actually wrote to see the positive and negative qualities about the adaptations. It is true that they could have been better, but they also could have been much worse. I don’t see any reason to dislike the films and TV series completely.  🙂

What I liked about watching the Walden Narnia films in an old fashioned theater is that there is nothing to distract you from the movie itself. You view the film in a dark room, and unless the audience is noisy (which rarely happens) you can give your complete attention to the story. This would be especially good for a Narnia film. I viewed the three Walden films in this way, and I can honestly say that I got the most that was possible out of them.  This is especially good for movies that are based on books.  

I wonder how much longer movie theaters or cinemas will be around since a number of them have been neglected or poorly maintained.  Some of them have even closed. They have to compete with streaming, which I don’t think is always a good thing. Sometimes modern technology can be a distraction from the movie’s story.  The audience should give their full attention.

Posted by: @narnian78

I wonder how much longer movie theaters or cinemas will be around since a number of them have been neglected or poorly maintained.  Some of them have even closed. They have to compete with streaming, which I don’t think is always a good thing. Sometimes modern technology can be a distraction from the movie’s story.  The audience should give their full attention.

People have been predicting the end of cinemas ever since television was invented, and, well, it hasn't happened yet, has it?  

The way cinemas have survived is by making movie viewing into An Experience, so to speak — something much bigger and better than one can ever have at home. Absolutely huge screen, surround sound, that great feeling of excitement as the lights dim and the screen brightens (sometimes with curtains drawing back or raising as they do for live theatre), so you're surrounded by near darkness with nothing to see but this (hopefully) thrilling story playing out on the screen in front of you... it's a whole atmosphere that simply cannot be replicated in one's own home, at least for the vast majority of people. (Not counting the handful of super rich people who can afford to build their own home cinema!!)

We're very lucky in my town, in the north-west of England, to have a beautiful Art Deco cinema — it was built in the 1930s, and it closed down in 1995 and was turned into shops, but an independent company bought the building and renovated it back into a cinema less than 10 years ago. It shows a mix of current mainstream films and independent ones, including films of live theatre performances, and they even do special screenings where you get pizza or fish and chips while watching the movie! I haven't made it to one of those events yet, but I'd like to. I have been there a couple of times to ordinary screenings without food, and the cinema has comfy seats and a gorgeous classic atmosphere. Much nicer than the usual generic big chain cinemas and well worth going to for, as I said, the whole experience.

Getting back on topic of what we "really want" from a Narnia film adaptation... something that I can watch and think "Yes, wow, this just totally feels like Narnia to me!" Which is a feeling that — as I know I've said before — I was crashingly disappointed that I did NOT get at all from the Walden Media version of LWW, and on repeated subsequent attempts to watch it, I find it worse than ever. So no, I'm not backing down from that judgment, although once or twice I've had other people here beg me not to be so harsh about it. I know there are plenty of fans who like, if not absolutely love, the Walden trilogy, as they have a right to. It's all a matter of taste. I personally cannot understand how someone who has read and loved the book that C.S. Lewis wrote — The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I mean — can watch that movie adaptation and feel that it's the same thing. For me, it absolutely is not. But that's my opinion and does not invalidate anybody else's.  

(The reason I never comment on the other two Walden movies is that I cannot bring myself to watch them. )

On the other hand, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy DID have me feeling "Oh wow, this just IS Middle-earth!!" — even though not absolutely everything in those films was the same as in the books, and they left out a few of my favourite parts (especially Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire). They were all true enough to the spirit of the books overall that I could, and can, immerse myself in the story and not mind the occasional, mostly minor, bits that I don't think were done so well. That's the kind of standard to which I hold modern-day adaptations of Narnia, and that's what I really want from any future film versions.

I cannot help suspecting that I will not feel that way about Greta Gerwig's adaptation of MN, going by the little we know for sure so far and the rumours that we've heard. It may well be a spectacular piece of cinema in its own right (as the Walden LWW adaptation genuinely is), but for me, most likely, it just won't be Narnia. But I will definitely go and see it for myself before I make any firm judgments of it.

@courtenay 

Unlike you I was not completely disappointed in the first Walden film.  It delivered partially what I expected from a decent film adaptation. Of course I would be happier if Walden movies were better films in the preservation of the original stories, but I do not see the sense in hating them completely.  I respect your views completely, but I cannot fully agree with you that the first film was a complete failure.  It delivered at least part of what I wanted in a Narnia film adaptation— maybe about fifty percent. I think Douglas Gresham’s involvement helped with the quality considerably, although he probably thought the films had imperfections. I ended up buying all three films because I thought that the parts that they did get right were well done.  I think we will end up agreeing to disagree on this one, although with most of the topics you and I are in agreement.

I think part of the trouble in defining a "faithful" adaptation is that there are so many different elements for an adaptation to be true to.

If asked, i would boil down the core message of The Lord of the Rings (books) to be about hope and despair. But it's also about humility and courage, loyalty and sacrifice, the dangers of embracing "progress" without valuing what we have, but also that holding onto the past at all costs isn't worth it, either. If i'd re-read the books recently, undoubtedly i could find more. No film, even a nine-hour extended edition, could possibly tackle all of those themes in the same depth with the same tone and same conclusions, even if the filmmakers tried their hardest to do so. 

The Narnia books i think are deceptively simple in this regard. The early ones don't go very in-depth with their characters, and the plots tend to have one storyline and stick with it. For myself, the central Narnian quality is a feeling i couldn't possibly explain. I don't think i could stand to watch the old BBC adaptations again, but watching them as a child conveyed that inexplicably Narnian feeling in a way the Walden adaptations with their higher production values never did. 

Even if i was less unsettled by various decisions Gerwig has potentially made, expecting that "Narnian" feeling would be too high a standard, i think. I'd settle for something that at least successfully translates the crucial scenes and message of the story, though i can't say i have high hopes for that, either.

I know that props used in movies and television shows cannot always look like they do in the original books because they may be too expensive for the budget or for other reasons.  Was anyone else disappointed in the Dawn Treader ship used in the BBC series production of that book?  I read somewhere that a polystyrene covering was placed on an ordinary boat to make it look like an old fashioned sailing ship. I actually thought it was a replica built to look like the ship in the story, which was a little disappointing.  The Walden Media ship had no bottom so it actually was not a complete replica. Otherwise it was quite a good replica of the one that was portrayed in the story.  It looked more authentic than the BBC ship, but I would have liked it better if it were a complete replica.  Some people might say the movie directors are faking it too much, although I can understand why for financial reasons they are not able to build a complete full size replica for every film or television series.

I was actually really happy with the BBC ship when I first saw it in 1990 (but my standards weren’t that high and I was just happy to see Narnia on tv). I was disappointed with how small the “crowds” were on the Lone Islands in that production. The sea serpent in the BBC version made me laugh - it was really difficult to suspend reality.

@davidd 

They made the picture on the wall look real and convincing in the Walden film of Dawn Treader. It was much more real looking than in the BBC version.   I was really satisfied with it.  In fact I think that film delivered more from the book than what some critics would have us believe. I wonder what Dr. Michael Ward would have said about it if it had a script that was closer to the book. The film’s director Michael Apted did wonders with the appearance of the movie, and Dr. Ward, in spite of all of his education, does not give Apted enough credit for the film’s realism.  In fact he does not seem to give the film any credit at all for anything positive.  Calling it a “disaster” was surprising to me coming from a man of Dr. Ward’s education.  I was actually quite satisfied with most of the film, although I think some of the deviations from the plot did not work such as the Green Mist. But the movie delivered at least part of what I wanted.