I have to admit I haven’t watched or heard any other iterations of Aslan besides Liam Neeson’s portrayal, which I loved as a kid. I think I hear his voice when I read the books, but I can’t be entirely sure.

I absolutely agree with the ‘good not safe’ aspect. It’s one of the most unique qualities of Aslan, and if Netflix gets that right...

What do people think about a motion capture Aslan? My personal opinion is that this is a better route to take than a CG lion-the Walden animation was fantastic, but a motion capture performance could allow a more personal performance, and could better portray that good but not safe characteristic. Just check out Christian Bale as Bagheera in Mowgli-it’s actually Christian Bale’s face, emoting, not just his voice. It may not look as realistic as a CG lion could be, perhaps, but that’s something I wouldn’t mind if the motion capture allowed a great performance.

Side note:Netflix didn’t actually make Mowgli, they ended up distributing it after Warner Bros sold it to them, I think.

I just want to take a minute to compare the roars of each Aslan that I've heard.
BBC- Pathetic. It sounds like he's violently burping.
Walden- Like Glumpuddle said on the podcast, not impressive.
It just wasn't very loud at all.
FOTF (David Suchet) THE BEST ROAR EVER. It has an earth shaking quality to it that I find totally awesome. It has the power of an artillery volley. Suchet may not have always known how to act as Aslan, but he sure knew how to roar!

You know it's a shame this topic doesn't have more posts when it's so important. Unfortunately, I don't have much to say that other people haven't already said.

But the question of how to do Aslan with a limited budget has got me thinking and I have an idea....but it's a bad one. But I'll share it to get this topic back in the spotlight for a few minutes. They could avoid depicting Aslan's entire body. Instead the camera would focus on the characters and their reactions to him during the Aslan scenes. When they did show Aslan, we would only see small parts of body like his mouth, his eyes or his paws. Practically speaking, that would get annoying fast but I can't think of another way how they could turn a lower budget into a way to make the character more interesting.

P.S.
If having the script close to the book is the most important part of character adaptation, FantasiaKitty, have you heard the Radio Theater dramatizations of the Narnia books? They're probably just as close to the books as the BBC versions and IMO they have better writing, better casting, better music, etc. I realize those things can be relative though.

Actually, Col Klink, your idea of limiting footage of Aslan's body might really help making him mysterious and awe inspiring. Obviously you couldn't do this all the time, but I think the idea of keeping Aslan somewhat veiled visually might make his character louder and more significant.
Great thought! Send that one to Netflix!

Personally I hope that Netflix has a big enough budget so that they are able to CGI Aslan just like the film series did as those were my favorite physical depictions. Motion capture like hiraeth talked about would be very cool as it works well with video games. I think The first "voice" of Aslan that I heard was David Suchet in the BBC radio theater drama. Once I actually read the books, I would read it in the actors voices. While David Suchet was very good, no one can top Liam Neeson for me, his voice just holds power and yet a gentleness.

The more I see from Netflix in the CGI department, the less I am concerned. Netflix has undertaken some rather big challenges.

If anything, I would emphasize the need to adapt his character properly. I usually have no problem modifying lines to suit film, BUT Aslan’s scenes are so integral I think altering his lines should be done minimally. And when I say minimally, I mean if you need to add a couple for practical reasons, ok go ahead. But don’t alter the wording when pulling directly from the book (every year you grow, so shall I? For real?). Sure, his dialogue sometimes makes you feel a little stupid, because you can’t quite grasp what he is saying... but that’s the point!

So in a nutshell: stay almost-slavishly faithful when it comes to Aslan. The only way to get him right is not to think you know him better than the original author.

Could you imagine walking up to a lion just sitting there in a zoo, not in a cage? There's no way I would. But I think that's how it needs to be presented in the movie. And that's just LWW... think of HHB with the lion chases.

That's a really interesting point, I wonder why that's been so hard to capture? I know that I've gone into basically every visual adaption of Narnia knowing that Aslan is good and won't harm the children, but I suspect even if I did know that, the thought would never cross my mind.

I don't think the solution to this is simply to make Aslan bigger - I think even if he were a dragon or a giant, that in and of itself wouldn't solve the problem. Frankly, I think audiences by now know that size =/= dangerous or even intimidating (not to us with the fourth wall to protect us). I think they'll have to figure out a way to visualize "wildness" on our first impression. I feel like Aslan's first appearance is treated very somberly, which isn't necessarily wrong, but it almost neglects the fact that he is a lion. As impressive as the CGI was in his first appearance in the Walden movie, perhaps his walk was, dare I say it, too regal and too controlled - perhaps he should have stalked out more like a great cat. Perhaps we should see more of his teeth and claws.

I'm not really sure about any of this, to be honest, I was just reading through fantasia's first post and now these ideas won't leave my mind. I'm trying to think back to how Toothless was portrayed in the first How To Train Your Dragon - obviously that's not an exact example to follow for Aslan, but it is, I think a good example of an ultimately good character who was nonetheless frightening for both the character and the audience at first.

That's a really interesting point, I wonder why that's been so hard to capture? I know that I've gone into basically every visual adaption of Narnia knowing that Aslan is good and won't harm the children, but I suspect even if I did know that, the thought would never cross my mind.
...I feel like Aslan's first appearance is treated very somberly, which isn't necessarily wrong, but it almost neglects the fact that he is a lion. As impressive as the CGI was in his first appearance in the Walden movie, perhaps his walk was, dare I say it, too regal and too controlled - perhaps he should have stalked out more like a great cat. Perhaps we should see more of his teeth and claws.

Good thoughts; his body language needs to be re-examined.

I also think part of the problem is also how characters respond to Aslan. There was no sense of fright in the children when they first saw him in the movies. Sure, they were clearly in awe, but there wasn’t sense of nervousness or fear. That also goes for the villains. The White Witch can’t be as bold as portrayed by Walden, either. How can we be convinced that this lion is intimidating if nobody around him is intimidated?

I also think part of the problem is also how characters respond to Aslan. There was no sense of fright in the children when they first saw him in the movies. Sure, they were clearly in awe, but there wasn’t sense of nervousness or fear. That also goes for the villains. The White Witch can’t be as bold as portrayed by Walden, either. How can we be convinced that this lion is intimidating if nobody around him is intimidated?

Agreed! This ties right in with my earlier suggestion (I didn't check to see if I wrote it on this thread or not) that they use a REAL LION and just animate his mouth! Can you imagine the reaction that even an -*ahem*- "tame" lion might get from the human actors?
More real stuff in general could really help make Narnia believable, so why not make the central figure real?