Alright. So it does also raises the question for a faithful adaptation what changes are acceptable. Well, I'll go ahead and give some examples of change I've liked or didn't liked.

A change I didn't liked was the Green Mist in VDT (along with most Narnia fans). I mean, I can kind of understand why they wanted to add a villain to make it into a "saving the world" story. It's pretty traditional; that's what people expect to see! It wasn't even a good villain! I think that's where they've crossed the line! It would almost be as if a screen adaptation of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde added a villain, which would only ruin the complexity of the main character's dual personality! I'm on the lines on, "Okay, I understand what you're doing, but why are you even doing it?"

A change that I've actually liked was how they've depicted Glozelle as sympathetic and conflicted. It fleshed out his character in a way. While he was serving as a general under Miraz, he was feeling conflicted about whether he was really loyal to Miraz. In the book, Glozelle and Sospesian tried to talk to Miraz out of accepting the challenge from Peter. Then it turned out they were not all that loyal to him. The movie actually depicted him as feeling conflicted about his loyalty to Miraz and even sympathetic. Plus, in the movie, Glozelle was among the first to volunteer to go through the doorway.

So there are changes that are acceptable and changes that are unacceptable. That’s what a faithful adaptation should be: making changes only when necessary. 

Another scene I think would be interesting to see on the big screen for the first time is Rabadash's transformation into a donkey. The sequence could easily last from a mere 10 seconds to over 2 minutes long. My only downside is the risk of making it too scary like the transformation in Pinocchio. This is supposed to be his "Villain Defeat" scene, and it should not be over exaggerated to the point where it's scary for the kids. I am also sure that the Logos Theater version of HHB also included this scene because of some of the clips that are shown in some trailers both have Rabadash and Aslan in them. Another concern I have is the sequence ending up being too cheesy. Obviously this scene would be easy to do in animation but if a HHB adaptation would be live action I am curious of what they will come up with.

Posted by: @courtenay

* Not add entirely new sub-plots or unnecessary invented characters just to pad the story out — and definitely not make substantial changes to the plot, like the Walden film of VDT making it a quest for "seven swords" instead of seven lords and trying to add some kind of villain (the Green Mist) to a story that doesn't have one. To me, that's like saying "We don't much like what C.S. Lewis originally wrote, so here's the story we think he should have written."

Not only that, but Walden created the Green Mist to lead into the Lady of the Green Kirtle in The Silver Chair. Trying to turn Narnia into an overarching narrative (like what Harry Potter and Star Wars does is not advisable. Even the idea of trying to connect two stories makes me wince. The books actually each gives us a glimpse of what happens in the world of Narnia. So why would anyone want to try to connect all the stories together and turn it into an overarching narrative? 

Let's say the seven films are done in chronological order. For overarching narrative, The Magician's Nephew foreshadows the prophecy that is to occur in The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe; The Horse And His Boy takes place during LWW then sets up for Prince Caspian; Prince Caspian, The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader, and The Silver Chair are some kind of a trilogy, featuring Caspian (though his role as not as big in The Silver Chair); in The Silver Chair, Puddleglum suspects an an enemy to come and attack Narnia, possibly foreshadowing what would later occur in The Last Battle.

For a faithful adaptation, it should be unique and special and not turn into some overarching narrative!

Posted by: @queencrunchytheweeb

Another scene I think would be interesting to see on the big screen for the first time is Rabadash's transformation into a donkey. The sequence could easily last from a mere 10 seconds to over 2 minutes long. My only downside is the risk of making it too scary like the transformation in Pinocchio. This is supposed to be his "Villain Defeat" scene, and it should not be over exaggerated to the point where it's scary for the kids.

I was actually kind of wondering how a HHB movie will be able to handle that! I know that some people expect a huge epic battle scene "to save the world" in fantasy movie. At the Battle of Anvard, Rabadash gets caught hanging because of the hole in his armor.

As for Rabadash being turned into a donkey, that's kind of tricky! It's a dark moment, yes! So I kind of wonder how a movie will be able to handle that without being over exaggerated!

I always wondered why the Green Mist was even necessary for the Dawn Treader movie.  There is enough from the book keep the viewers interested such as The Dark Island. I am not sure why the director Michael Apted approved of the mist. The BBC Narnia and Focus on the Family Narnia were able to do without it and still have scripts that were quite close to the book.  One can still be faithful to the book and dramatize the story with reasonable accuracy. 

@narnian78 That's a good question. Michael Adpted actually thought that VDT needed a villain because the book doesn't have one! Though I agree that a movie or series can be done without one!

I've actually heard that in a leaked script of Walden's VDT, there was implied Caspian and Lucy romance (winces). Well, it made me feel better that it actually didn't happened!  

I remember when I saw the White Witch in the trailer for VDT, I kind of wondered if she was going to be in all seven movies. For instance, they may have done her instead of Tash in LB, and be all like, "Oh, it was the White Witch that Rishda called on!" (certainly something I would not want to see! ) Well, I would be relieved if she wasn't in the new adaptations! The only two movies she should only be in are MN and LWW.

@jasmine I am pretty sure for the Leaked Script of VDT, Lucy just liked Caspian and was rejected. Which would have been awkward to say the least.

One of the biggest problems in the movie VDT besides the ''overarching enemy'' that they added, was the fact that they did not understand why certain scenes were in the book. This is clear when they ruin The Lone Islands scene, having the crew rescue everyone using a fight scene rather than using smarts to dissolve slavery and free everyone. 

This is not the only time, but, it seems to be one of the best examples of not understanding a scene in the book. This was in direct opposition to the scene in the book.

If the director/scriptwriters want to change a scene to make it more cinematic, that's fine, but first consider why it was written that way in the book. 

I know I tend to be a purist about these things, but, I want some director/scriptwriter to prove me wrong and show me how their version was a great adaptation even if they changed scenes. 

As for romance, which Hollywood is obsessed with, I will allow if it is not ruining the couples we already have in the books. (In other words, no love triangles.) Caspian was not in love with Susan, He was only in love with RD. Same thing with Aravis and Cor, I do not need to see a scene where Corin is also in love with Aravis, but she chooses Cor. 

Posted by: @eustace

One of the biggest problems in the movie VDT besides the ''overarching enemy'' that they added, was the fact that they did not understand why certain scenes were in the book. This is clear when they ruin The Lone Islands scene, having the crew rescue everyone using a fight scene rather than using smarts to dissolve slavery and free everyone. 

Right. I think sometimes Hollywood has an excuse for adding action scenes in their films.

Posted by: @eustace

If the director/scriptwriters want to change a scene to make it more cinematic, that's fine, but first consider why it was written that way in the book. 

I agree. It's understandable that there are things that are well written in the books which probably wouldn't work as well for a movie.

Posted by: @eustace

As for romance, which Hollywood is obsessed with, I will allow if it is not ruining the couples we already have in the books. (In other words, no love triangles.) Caspian was not in love with Susan, He was only in love with RD. Same thing with Aravis and Cor, I do not need to see a scene where Corin is also in love with Aravis, but she chooses Cor. 

Oh, aren't we all dreading romance in Hollywood? I wouldn't mind if there was an implied romance between Caspian and Ramandu's daughter expanded in VDT. As for Cor and Aravis, I wouldn't want Corin to have feelings for her as well. It's possible a movie could cut out Ahoshta and have Anradin be the one Aravis marry off to, then Anradin somehow fancies Aravis.  

Love triangle was a trend about ten years ago (Hunger Games, even Peter Jackson enforced it in his Hobbit film Trilogy). I actually kind of got worried that an LB would enforce a love triangle with Tirian, Eustace and Jill. I don't think it's likely to happen, given that trends may have changed. 

Though all in all, even though Hollywood tends to be obsessed with romance, it doesn't really belong in Narnia as a whole.

I guess when it comes to a faithful adaptations, here's what I think it is-

1. Stay close to the books as much as possible, but make some changes if need to. I don't really think it would be a great movie if it followed the books 100%. I know we've all heard before, "Oh, books and movies are not the same thing." It's a bit too cliche, I know. Even I don't like saying it. There are even some purists that don't even like the smallest change. I'm not a purist or even a strict one when it comes to Narnia. I'm on the lines of wanting to follow the books closely, but acknowledges the needs to make some changes.

2. It resolves around great storytelling but can be expanded on a bit. Narnia are short books and there's so much you could do with them for movies or TV series adaptations. You could do more emphasis on the coming of Spring in LWW. You could even cut every now and then to the Battle scene, like the 1979 animated LWW. It wouldn't be as epic as the Walden nor as cheesy as the BBC (Peter and Edmund swinging their swords at animated creatures is a bit cheesy, at leas for me). You could even explore on the different landscapes so much in movies or series.

3. And this is kind of a big one, but it is it doesn't diminish the Christian aspect yet make it so that even non-Christian audiences can enjoy. Hey, no one is perfect! But it should let the audiences figure out the Christian aspect yet at the same time, not turn into a sermon.

Decades ago TV series for children could be made to appear much like an elementary school play. The 1967 production of The Lion, the Witch, and Wardrobe looked much like that, and at that time most children were satisfied with it.  The BBC series offered some different locations, but it also had people in animal costumes and it was made on a small budget.  Children and adults demand more sophistication today, but it is possible to have higher production values and remain reasonably faithful to the books.  The first Walden film was the best in achieving both faithfulness and quality in the technical aspects of production.  The other two had more departures from the original stories, although they looked good on the screen. It is still too early to tell, but Greta Gerwig may be able to bring us closer to the original Narnia.

Right. It seems that fantasy has kind of fallen out of favor. It was the big thing when Lord of the Rings Film Trilogy came out. Then it went into Narnia, though they only made it through all three. It seemed that after VDT, they had a hard time to keep going. 

LWW- The most successful in that franchise. The reason may be is that it didn't stray too far from the book. I actually remember anticipating for the movie to come out in theaters when I heard that Narnia was being turned into a blockbuster franchise. I actually remember the theatre being crowded when I saw LWW (I was like 12 when it came out). I enjoyed for what it is. Even though the battle is epic on Lord of the Rings scale which seems a bit out of place, I actually give credit for not showing any blood (it's supposed to be for kids, after all). I also could have done without the Melting River scene. But it's beautifully done, even with the landscapes of Narnia.

PC- It's hard to believe that this came out 15 years ago in theaters. I remember following news updates on Narniaweb while anticipating for the PC movie to come out (and this was even before I joined Narniaweb). Then I saw it in theaters. I know there was various opinions about how successful it was, but it was well done from a cinematic view point. I wasn't even mad that there were changes; though I could have done without the Caspian and Susan romance (winces). I'm generally fine with a boy and girl character being close, but they don't have to fall in love. Overall, I still enjoy for what it is.

VDT- This was more of a hit-miss, mostly a miss. The Green Mist was not a good villain! Then the climatic battle with the sea serpent was totally different than the emotional climax of the book! While it's not the best adaptation, there's still some aspects I like about it. The transition from Earth to Narnia with the picture in the bedroom was creative; the design of the Dawn Treader looked beautiful; and the Pauline Baynes illustrations at the end of credits was actually a nice touch!

Hopefully that the new adaptations are faithful enough to keep going with the franchise.

I'm more of a character purist than a book purist. There should be some wiggle room for the actors to put their own spin on things and fleshing out shorter books like Narnia, but generally I think that the makers should stick as much as possible to the personalities from the books.

@bismdweller 

Right. I think that was a major problem with Walden's PC, particularly Peter and Susan. 

Peter was kind of a jerk in the Walden PC. He was full himself, and he and Caspian would get into constant tension. He wasn't willing to give Caspian in the kingship. It was in total contrast of the book, where Peter tells Caspian, "I haven't come to take your place but to place you in it."

Susan was turned into a warrior-queen, which was not fitting for her character. In the books, she's not keen on going into battles (even in The Horse And His Boy, where as Lucy is eager to do so). Susan being depicted as a warrior-queen is not fitting for her character, given her title as "Queen Susan the Gentle."

I guess there are two groups of a faithful adaptations- the book purists and the character purists. And of course, I'm not here to debate which is preferred.

I've just been thinking that when it comes to a "faithful adaptation", it's not so much making everything in the film exactly the same as the book — word for word, scene for scene — which, as we've all said before, often doesn't work well in movie-making anyway. It's getting the feel of the story right, to the point where you just feel pretty much the same way watching the screen version as you do reading the books, so that you can accept them as the same story overall, even if they're not absolutely identical.

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy definitely works for me that way. I'm a huge fan of the original books and I was very sceptical that anyone could do a film version without making a total hash of them, but to my surprise (and relief), they really worked for me. He didn't get everything absolutely "right", but he definitely captured the spirit of the books and made it feel like he'd brought them to life, totally believably. There are only a few major things I'd pick at (like the leaving out of Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire, and the choice to have Frodo personally throw Gollum into the Cracks of Doom, which outright ruins the deeper point Tolkien was trying to make), but none of those spoil the films for me overall.

Or another example — including how to do it right and how not to — is Disney's two treatments of The Jungle Book. The hand-animated version from the 1960s is terribly cute and sweet if you like light-hearted cartoons with lots of singing and dancing animals. In terms of adapting what Rudyard Kipling actually wrote... it's a complete travesty. Apart from the characters' names and some very vague similarities of plot, it's absolutely nothing like the original books. Then in the 2010s, Disney did a new CGI version that, quite apart from being visually realistic (breathtaking, in fact), actually feels like the original Jungle Book stories by Kipling. They did change some elements of the plot, including making Shere Khan's death a lot more dramatic and having Mowgli stay in the jungle at the end rather than leaving to join a human family (which happens at the end of both the original stories and the 1960s animation). But when I watch the newer adaptation, I feel like I'm seeing the same characters and the same basic story (albeit with variations) that I know and love from the books, which is what draws me right in and makes me thoroughly enjoy it. 

That, basically, is what I call "a faithful adaptation" and what I want to see done with Narnia, somehow, some day!!  

@courtenay 

I actually enjoyed the 2016 remake of The Jungle Book, which was darker in comparison to the original 1967 (it was actually the last animated feature that Walt Disney himself over saw). Then of course, the original Rudyard Kipling book is much darker. A lot of fairy tales that Disney based their movies on are much darker. 

For a faithful adaptation of Narnia, as far as “dark” goes, the closest we come to is The Last Battle. That’s a really dark book, so I kind of wonder how they’re going to pull it off for a movie. The other books has some really dark moments, but it doesn’t necessarily make them “dark”. 

@jasmine_tarkheena 

As I remember there was still another movie version of The Jungle Book that was made in the 1940’s.  It looked something like the old Tarzan films, and it was darker than the 1967 film. And it was a live action movie instead of an animated production.  They used to show it years ago on the Turner movie classics channel on cable TV.  If a Narnia film were made in that way today it would be very retro looking, but today people want the modern technology. However, the old fashioned Hollywood type of film may work better for a book adaptation when it comes to vintage books like the Narnia series.  Or maybe it would be really unique if a film were made with the modern technology which looks something like an old movie classic. The Narnia books are something from the past. I kind of like the old fashioned theater even though it was decades before my time. I guess my taste is very vintage. 🙂