Bear in mind, I'm the type of person who prefers animated movies/TV shows to live action in general, as well as voice actors to on-camera actors.

But I completely agree. While I know full well that it can be done differently, it seems like live action adaptations are more prone to adding unnecessary action than an animated film, and trying to put more action into TMN... um, no. In addition to that, animated adaptations (in my experience) are less prone to change things that are too "childish" for a mainstream audience (though sometimes they take it to the other extreme, of course).

There's also just that I think animation can handle some of the visuals better than live-action. For example, the Wood Between The Worlds. If you think about it, in terms of what's physically there, it's really just a very quiet forest with pools of water, and very green lighting. And... I don't see how you'd get much more than that with live action without going too far. I don't see that capturing the calm serenity of the Wood Between The Worlds without reliance on music and the like.

Animation, on the other hand, has the advantage that it is not bound by what the set really looks like. Animation is much freer to manipulate everything from lighting and color scheme to even dimensions and shapes of objects. And frankly, I imagine the Wood Between The Worlds much more like a painting--even then, a painting more like Vincent van Gogh's "Starry Night" than anything more realistic--than I do like a photograph.

Sorry if that made utterly no sense. It's easier to make an opinion on something like the difference between animation and live action than to explain it.

I agree that the movie would have more possibilities if it were animated, but I am not big on animated movies and would be dissapointed if MN were one instead of live action.
Then again I might change my mind if they had to mangle it too much. But a little bit so that it would work would not bother me too much.
Just my take.

At least an animated Magician's Nephew movie has the possibility of managing the Narnia creation scenes much better. I doubt a live movie could do that.

Could be a good idea. I just don't know if audiences would flock to a animated Narnia movie. Also animation is just as expensive as live-action if done right. So i prefer live-action. It's much more impressive to see a photo-realistic Aslan than one done as Animation. Animation films also tend to be very short, around 90-100 minutes, too short for adapting a Narnia novel.

Are we talking about a "realistic" 3D-style animation like the recent Tintin movie, or a Disney-style cartoon like Aladdin?

I was thinking either classic 2D or standard 3D animation like what Pixar or Dreamworks uses. The motion capture they used in Tin Tin(Although it worked really well in that story) would kind of defeat the purpose of animating it.
I would prefer CGI animation rather then hand-drawn though.

Could be a good idea. I just don't know if audiences would flock to a animated Narnia movie. Also animation is just as expensive as live-action if done right. So i prefer live-action. It's much more impressive to see a photo-realistic Aslan than one done as Animation. Animation films also tend to be very short, around 90-100 minutes, too short for adapting a Narnia novel.

You bring up a good point. What makes tent pole fantasy movies so expensive are the large teams of animators that are paid for hundreds of hours to make their CGI creations. Animated films aren't any less expensive than live action films - many times they are MORE expensive since they too require large teams of animators. So if 20th century Fox is going to invest $150 million into another Narnia film, then I'd prefer it to be live action. If it ends up being executed poorly, I can guarantee you that it's not because of technological shortfalls, I've seen pretty much everything on screen that can be done. CGI is very advanced nowadays.

What if they do both animated and live action? I think it would have a really striking effect if the London scenes were live action, and then the characters become animated when they go through the ponds into the wood between the worlds.

Ryadian's Van Gogh comment also gave me an interesting idea:

What if the backgrounds for the non-london scenes were styled after different types of painting? Ryadian likes post-impressionism for the wood between the worlds. The animators might use surrealist inspiration for Charn and romantic landscaping for Narnia.

I have actually always liked the idea of doing a very styleized 2D animated version of a Narnia movie. A style that feels very emotional and adult.

If the animation is done in the style of Disney's 90's films, I would love to see it. The animation was so well done and amazing to look at. As others have said, the creation scene in the Magician's Nephew would look much better this way, and maybe a bit cheaper.

Well, that is my thoughts, anyway. It is not only the creation scenes which would be better done with animation scenes, it is also the Charn scenes, such as the Hall of Statues, plus the withering collapse of the building.

I like the idea of an animated film... the stylized backgrounds and such that have already been mentioned... I could get really excited about it. The biggest problem might be choosing which direction to take it.

But the script would be the selling point. It would have to keep not only the whats, and wheres, whos, etc. but also the whys.

I don't like the idea, except for some of the special effects parts.

Please no. Not without a full reboot and making them all animated. If they are going to do one format, then stick with it for all 7 films.