I really don't think so because they moved Aslan's lines about the children needing to know him in their own world from the end of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader to the end of The Silver Chair. They also included a montage of the past Narnia stories over the end credits of The Silver Chair's final episode. It really feels like they planned that to be the big finale, not like it was the ending by an accident of history. 

Posted by: @col-klink

I really don't think so because they moved Aslan's lines about the children needing to know him in their own world from the end of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader to the end of The Silver Chair. They also included a montage of the past Narnia stories over the end credits of The Silver Chair's final episode. It really feels like they planned that to be the big finale, not like it was the ending by an accident of history. 

Oh interesting. Like I said before, I think it was for the best that they ended it there as the later books would be too hard to believably adapt given the time and budget. I’ve never really watched TSC but it seems like pretty faithful adaptation from what I can tell.

I remember thinking even at the time — watching the BBC adaptations when they were originally shown on TV, that is — that they almost certainly wouldn't adapt the remaining three books. Even if they'd had the money to spend on the best special effects available at the time (which, as some may have noticed, they didn't ), it would have been impossible to adapt the creation scene in MN, or the wonders of Aslan's country in LB, in live-action in a way that would have looked convincing. CGI was in its absolute infancy (as you can see from the way it's used in the BBC version of LWW!) and it wasn't until at least 10 years later, in the early 2000s, that it had developed enough to the point where film-makers could blend CGI and live-action scenes so seamlessly that you could no longer tell what was real and what was digital.

By the way, my apologies for a correction, but could I just please point out something (and I'd like to let the Talking Beasts hosts know this too)... just so everyone here knows, the BBC is always referred to as "the BBC", never just "BBC" on its own. You can use it as an adjective like this — "There's a BBC adaptation of Narnia" — but as a noun, it always has the "the" before it. So, "The BBC adapted four of the Narnia books", not "BBC adapted four of the Narnia books".

Hope nobody minds me pointing that out as a British citizen. (People here also call it "the Beeb" for short — out of affection, or irritation, or maybe both!)

@courtenay  Interesting, I've always known that the BBC was "the", but I'm sure I've often typed just the three initials, in the same way that titles tend to lose their little words when being reduced to initials ("VDT" etc). [fyi in the same way, my country's main islands have 'the" in front for a noun but not for an adjectival use]

@col-klink thank you for the answer to this question; I did know there was a reason, but couldn't remember it.

@nicemice23 thank you for raising the question. I also assume there are issues for a secular organisation, to present such biblical parallels.

Posted by: @col-klink

I really don't think so because they moved Aslan's lines about the children needing to know him in their own world from the end of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader to the end of The Silver Chair. They also included a montage of the past Narnia stories over the end credits of The Silver Chair's final episode. It really feels like they planned that to be the big finale, not like it was the ending by an accident of history. 

That's a good point — it's many years since I last watched the BBC version and I'd forgotten that particular detail of them moving Aslan's line to the end of SC.

Posted by: @coracle

I also assume there are issues for a secular organisation, to present such biblical parallels.

That's almost certainly the other reason, I reckon. The Magician's Nephew and The Last Battle have by far the most obvious "religious" content of any of the Chronicles — the creation of a world in MN (and the scene where Jadis tempts Digory to take the apple for his mother is a pretty obvious nod to Adam and Eve as well), and then in LB, the end of the world, the Last Judgment, and the reunion of the faithful in heaven. Even in the early 1990s, that wouldn't have been seen as appropriate content for a secular and publicly-funded broadcaster to promote to children — definitely not when that broadcaster itself was the company producing the series.

It seems that both BBC and Walden had a hard time to keep the Narnia franchise going.

Even though CS Lewis never intended Narnia to be a Christian allegory (like John Bunyan's Pilgrim Progress), it does have Christian elements in it. And that can be hard to come by even with a secular organization.

In HHB, there's Aslan's Providence. You don't see much of Him in the story, but He has been working behind the scenes. Then there's where He says "Myself" three times, each in a different voice. In MN, there's the Creation of Narnia. There, you learn that Aslan is not just the Savior of Narnia, as He is in LWW; He is also the Creator of Narnia. In LB, It's about the last days of Narnia, life and death, and Aslan's Country.

Yes, I've read somewhere that BBC thought that The Last Battle would've been too complex. Well, it's a very complex book, probably the most complex in the series. It could have been at the time for BBC (late 1980's-early 1990's). I think CGI would have come by if they had continued on. So if BBC had continued on, my guess would be- HHB- 1991, MN- 1992, LB- 1993.

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

I think CGI would have come by if they had continued on. So if BBC had continued on, my guess would be- HHB- 1991, MN- 1992, LB- 1993.

CGI wasn't used for any full-length film (or TV series) until Toy Story in 1995 — that made a huge splash precisely because it was the first-ever movie to be fully digitally animated. And although it's quite beautifully done (I rewatched it a few months ago!), there was a reason they chose to make that first CGI film about toys that are quite "cartoonish" in themselves. It wasn't possible at that early stage to produce realistic-looking skin and hair (or fur) textures in CGI. Those didn't come along until the very late '90s / early 2000s.

Now it's possible to have a film that is entirely or mostly computer generated and yet looks completely photo-realistic, like Disney's remake of The Jungle Book in 2016. But there's no way the technology of the early 1990s could have helped the BBC produce the rest of the Narnia series. CGI simply was not advanced enough then to have been of any use for the kinds of effects needed, and wouldn't be for several more years. (And even if it had been available, given how expensive CGI was in its early stages, I doubt the Beeb's legendary tight budget could have covered it! )

Right. It’s not likely BBC would’ve done CGI if they had continued on with Narnia. Then how would they have been able to do talking horses in HHB? Maybe have two real horses and two voice actors in the background? 

It’s hard to say how BBC would’ve depict the Calormenes in HHB and LB. Maybe at the time, it wouldn’t have been such a big deal as a lot of people are making out to be today. 

Then given that BBC reused a lot of actors, some may even wonder if they would still be doing that if they had continued on. Puddleglum coming back as Uncle Andrew, the White Witch’s dwarf and Trumpkin coming back as Poggin, Mrs. Macready coming back as Aunt Letty? It would’ve been too confusing, especially at the end of LB, when all of the beloved characters are at the reunion. 

I wonder if the BBC would have had enough money to adapt the last three books.  In 1990 there was enough money to complete The Silver Chair, but could have they afforded three more dramas?  The reason why they had the low budget special effects is that there was no money for anything better. The production is sometimes criticized for being too cheap, but if nothing better was affordable what else could they do?  I think that what they accomplished was quite good when one considers their resources.

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

Right. It’s not likely BBC would’ve done CGI if they had continued on with Narnia. Then how would they have been able to do talking horses in HHB? Maybe have two real horses and two voice actors in the background? 

Well, by 1995 (I had to check the date!) we had the film Babe, which was radical for the time in that they filmed it using real animals for the many talking animal characters, but used computer animation to make their mouths move realistically. I remember that being a huge deal back then too! (I was in my early teens then and we were all hugely proud that this groundbreaking film was produced in Australia. )

But again, that's too early on for the BBC versions (please note, by the way, as I said, the name of the corporation is always the BBC, never "BBC" on its own). That's most likely the main reason why they never did HHB. While they could get away — just — with having people in costumes for the legendary bottle-shaped Beavers and far-too-large Reepicheep, there's no way they could have done that with Talking Horses that need to be ridden by the human characters and to be able to gallop at top speed in scenes like the one where they're chased by the lions (or rather, THE Lion).

Aslan in the BBC versions was done slightly more realistically than any of the other talking animals, but he was still two people in a lion costume, "pantomime horse" style (one standing and holding the head, the other bent over and holding the first person's waist, to form the back and hind legs), with a remote-controlled animatronic face. They could get away with that for an animal character who doesn't have to move very quickly — of course it meant they had to cut out the scenes where Aslan romps with the children, where he leaps on the White Witch to kill her, and so on — but they definitely couldn't have done that with the horses in HHB. They never did manage to make Aslan lip-sync either, although if you look carefully in the BBC version of SC, he does move his mouth slightly faster than in the previous adaptations...  

It’s hard to say how BBC would’ve depict the Calormenes in HHB and LB. Maybe at the time, it wouldn’t have been such a big deal as a lot of people are making out to be today. 

That is harder to say, although I'm pretty much certain there WOULD have been controversy even in the early 1990s if a children's TV series had an all-white-skinned cast of good guys versus an all-dark-skinned cast of bad guys — which is what the "big deal" about the Calormenes basically is. The drive to avoid racial stereotyping and to avoid being branded "racist" was very much in the public consciousness when I was still at school (for example, golliwogs being written out of Enid Blyton's Noddy stories in the late 1980s). There's another possible reason for why the BBC avoided adapting the books that feature the Calormenes.

Then given that BBC reused a lot of actors, some may even wonder if they would still be doing that if they had continued on. Puddleglum coming back as Uncle Andrew, the White Witch’s dwarf and Trumpkin coming back as Poggin, Mrs. Macready coming back as Aunt Letty? It would’ve been too confusing, especially at the end of LB, when all of the beloved characters are at the reunion. 

Ooer, gosh, I hate to think!!   Although actually, I've always reckoned Tom Baker played Puddleglum absolutely perfectly (I still see and hear him in my head whenever I read The Silver Chair!), and it's interesting to think how he might have portrayed Uncle Andrew. But I'm not sure he'd have been right for the role. Tom Baker could certainly do tall and thin and mournful-looking, but he has a very deep, resonant voice, which was perfect for Puddleglum, but it's not how I imagine Uncle Andrew talking. (I don't think we're told exactly how he talks in the book, but going by the kinds of things he says and the general way he acts, I imagine him having a fairly high-pitched, wheedling, cackling kind of voice.)

Posted by: @courtenay

 

But again, that's too early on for the BBC versions (please note, by the way, as I said, the name of the corporation is always the BBC, never "BBC" on its own). That's most likely the main reason why they never did HHB. While they could get away — just — with having people in costumes for the legendary bottle-shaped Beavers and far-too-large Reepicheep, there's no way they could have done that with Talking Horses that need to be ridden by the human characters and to be able to gallop at top speed in scenes like the one where they're chased by the lions (or rather, THE Lion).

That's true. Then there was Trufflehunter, who for some reason was portrayed as a female.

It'd be kind of hard to do Talking Horses, especially at that time. Then there's also Fledge. LWW did have an animated flying horse. But it seems that they didn't even bother to do animated characters in the other stories. Maybe if they did, maybe two animated horses would've been the way to go (it'd be like Mary Poppins, where it featured both live action and animated).

Posted by: @courtenay

They could get away with that for an animal character who doesn't have to move very quickly — of course it meant they had to cut out the scenes where Aslan romps with the children, where he leaps on the White Witch to kill her, and so on-

I think BBC cut out the romp with Aslan and the girls after his resurrection for timing. It would've been too long if they kept it in. I think that was the reason for Walden to cut it out, too. I think they wanted to get on with the action (pretty typical of Hollywood, sort of).

Posted by: @courtenay

That is harder to say, although I'm pretty much certain there WOULD have been controversy even in the early 1990s if a children's TV series had an all-white-skinned cast of good guys versus an all-dark-skinned cast of bad guys — which is what the "big deal" about the Calormenes basically is. The drive to avoid racial stereotyping and to avoid being branded "racist" was very much in the public consciousness when I was still at school (for example, golliwogs being written out of Enid Blyton's Noddy stories in the late 1980s). There's another possible reason for why the BBC avoided adapting the books that feature the Calormenes.

I don't know what would have been the greater risk- white washing the Calormenes or depict them as stereotype. I know the Focus on the Family Radio Theatre adaptations of HHB and LB used British voice actors for the Calormenes (and amazingly they were able to get by with it). They sounded almost like how I would have picture them- Rabadash being the arrogant and whinny prince, Rishda having a commanding voice, and Emeth having a youthful voice.

Then again, I don' think we can say for sure how BBC would have gotten by with portraying the Calormenes.

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

LWW did have an animated flying horse. But it seems that they didn't even bother to do animated characters in the other stories. Maybe if they did, maybe two animated horses would've been the way to go (it'd be like Mary Poppins, where it featured both live action and animated).

I really don't think that could have worked, not believably. I've always suspected that the reason the BBC didn't do any further animated creatures in the later serials was because they looked so unrealistic and out-of-place in the first one! They did manage to show Edmund riding on the flying horse, very briefly, when he's being rescued from the Witch and taken to Aslan's encampment. But with that very low level of technology (and budget), there's no way they could have portrayed two animated Talking Horses in conjunction with live-action humans for the duration of an entire story, as main characters within that story, and have it all look credible. Even in Mary Poppins, the combination of live-action and animated characters is only done for the comical fantasy scenes in a relatively short part of the film, and the animated characters are not ones we're meant to take seriously. 

Posted by: @jasmine_tarkheena

I don't know what would have been the greater risk- white washing the Calormenes or depict them as stereotype. I know the Focus on the Family Radio Theatre adaptations of HHB and LB used British voice actors for the Calormenes (and amazingly they were able to get by with it). They sounded almost like how I would have picture them- Rabadash being the arrogant and whinny prince, Rishda having a commanding voice, and Emeth having a youthful voice.

Goes to show that even in the late '90s / early 2000s, they were very conscious of avoiding accusations of racism — which they would almost certainly have copped if they'd used any kind of stereotypical "foreign" accent (particularly something "Middle Eastern" sounding) for the Calormenes. 

Then again, I don' think we can say for sure how BBC would have gotten by with portraying the Calormenes.

Sorry to keep harping on about this, but please — it's THE BBC. That is what it's always called. If I kept saying to those of you here who are American, "You live in United States, don't you?", or "What's the weather like in your part of US?" or "I've been to US myself a few times"... that sounds a bit bizarre, doesn't it??  

@courtenay 

I know you tend to harp on different things (“It’s ‘The BBC’, not ‘BBC’” or “Aslan is pronounced ‘A+ss-lan’, not ‘Az-lan’” although I’m not too worried about how a new Narnia adaptation will say it.)

Anyhow, as for the BBC depicting the Calormenes, well, we can't say for sure how it could have been done. "Middle Eastern sounding" would've been hard to come by. Given that the BBC had mostly English actors, Calormenes could have been done with English actors. 

Another is how would they have handled the Battle of Stable Hill, because that's probably the biggest one in the series. The BBC wouldn't have done on the Lord of the Rings scale, because they wouldn't have the budget to do that. I've kind of thought that the Battle scene in LWW was a bit cheesy (Peter and Edmund swinging their swords around at animated creatures). The one in PC was kind of short (which then of course, it was shortened for some reason). Then the Battle of Anvard- it's not as big at the Battle of Stable Hill, but it is kind of big. Then the Battle of Stable Hill. How could the BBC have done that? It's hard to say.

If the BBC were somehow able to adapt the last three books would they have used the partial animation as they did in the first series of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe?  Many have said that it didn’t work very well, and they are probably right. It was too artificial looking especially for the battle scenes.  But I can’t criticize the creators of the BBC series too much when you realize the  budget and technology limitations that they had to work with.  If they had done all seven books it may have looked artificial for The Last Battle too. With The Magician’s Nephew and The Horse and His Boy some good sets and intriguing outdoor locations might have worked as they had before. But sadly enough the productions never happened, and it disappointed many fans of the series. I still think the BBC series was very enjoyable as far as it went with the books. 🙂