Andrew Adamson is the only thing that probably could have saved us from the watered down soul eating LotgK in VDT (a.k.a. the green mist).

I voted Andrew Adamson. I feel like he "got" and liked Narnia a lot more than Mr. Apted. Also, it seemed like he really had a good connection and relationship with the kids.

I'm assuming 7Chronicles that you're asking us for choices based on the existing VDT script they filmed and not going from square one with a good VDT script (minus seven swords, green mist, and cameos from White Witches).
Maybe a fifth selection might have been added for a better, faithful-to-the-book script, which LWW had over PC.

Yeah, I based the poll on the existing script.
Which is why I didn't think to put a "faithful to book" option (I should have thought of that).
I just chose a few options that I think may have contributed to the movie as it is.

'A Better Script' should be an option.

I didn't think of adding that option, I think because I personally didn't mind the actual script in the movie.
(still, I should have thought about adding the option )
But if you mean the adaption part of the script, that's a diffrent story.

I personally agree with everyone else.
My first choice would have been More Time, and then Andrew Adamson.
I really really liked VDT, and even though I personally feel that the Seven swords and Green Mist was not needed at all, I think it could have been something much worse.
It didn't stop me from greatly enjoying the movie, but makes me think what might have been had the extra plot never been added.

I said Disney, because I think in return, the film would have most definitely had a larger budget, and running time. Disney might have even pushed more to see Adamson return as director.

More time, hands down. Then they probably wouldn't have crammed Deathwater Island and the Sea Serpant into the same timeframe, or transformed Eustace back to a human in like twelve seconds. >_> Actually, Eustace would have been able to transform back when he was supposed to, AKA back on Dragon Island.

I said Disney, because I think in return, the film would have most definitely had a larger budget, and running time. Disney might have even pushed more to see Adamson return as director.

Actually, Apted was confirmed as the director for VDT back in 2007, when it was still a Disney project. Also, one of the reasons Walden and Disney split is that Disney insisted that they cap VDT's budget at $100 million, whereas Walden wanted $140 million. So, no, if it was a Disney film, Apted would still have directed and the production budget would have been a lot smaller. However, they might have done a better job with marketing, having moved past the overconfidence of the PC marketing strategy.

The closest thing I have to go with is the time frame. That's not so much what I had the problem with, but rather with the pacing of the film. It was far too rushed. The time, although shorter than its predecessors, would have been fine if they weren't running te audience through it like their pants were on fire. Then again, maybe that was the point. Maybe they knew that their plot (if you can really call it that) was so bad that they had to run you through it so fast that you didn't have time to say "what?".

I'm not sure how Andrew Adamson would have handled VDT as a director, so I can't put this as my number one, but it's my number two. This is because, in the behind scenes footage of both LWW and PC, he always seemed so happy and passionate, excited to talk about the films. From what I've seen of Apted in behind the scenes clips for VDT, he never really came off that way. It was like he was just talking about work, something mundane, and not really of the film as a passion. I could be wrong, I'm not either of these people, so I can't speak for them. I'm just going by with what I have seen.

Even if Adamson didn't fully understand the themes or messages of the books, at least he tried to do them justice and even liked the books. I doubt the plot would have changed so much if Adamson had directed it.

I don't think VDT needed Disney, and even if VDT had Adamson, it wouldn't have been a whole lot better (but getting rid of this green mist stuff would make me happy). What VDt needed was more time, then (if we were lucky) they wouldn't have to combine Islands like they did.

More time, I noticed that VTD had less running time.
but I'm glad Disney dropped the project. I mean if you watch Disney Channel you would get it, the shows on there are awful, (Excludeing Phineas and Ferb) the jokes are bad, the actors are bad, so if Disney had done the next Narnia that would've been a disaster!

@D-T
The quality of the shows and jokes on Disney Channel are different than their theatrical films. Just saying...

VDT needed the script writers from LWW & PC.

@D-T
The quality of the shows and jokes on Disney Channel are different than their theatrical films. Just saying...

VDT needed the script writers from LWW & PC.

Those scriptwriters from LWW and Pc were on VDT. Michael Petroni was the only new writer.

I voted for Disney. Why? Even though they had little to do with the actual filming itself, they at least know how to market a movie. I didn't Fox's strategy, especially in the USA. While VDT's marketing was far more limited, I think Disney would have put more effort in than just TV spots and banners. They know how to market to all ages from my perspective. Plus Disney has more accurate marketing, and tries to at least make films look good from the TV spots. Maybe we would have had as few WW free TV spots as possible.

Too bad Disney probably won't do any other Narnia films right now, but you never know, especially in the time we fans are facing...

Hmmmm...

Well, since I think PC was a disaster and Adamson was in charge of it - he's definitely not the answer I would choose. (Gosh, I can almost hear Vicini from Princess Bride saying, "I clearly not choose the cup in front of you")

I don't really think that Disney would have made much difference either - but I can go with that argument a little better.

Longer run time would have been good.

More money would have definitely helped.

I don't think it should have been done in 3D (it just didn't add to the film) and a better script would have helped.

But I LIKED this movie anyway.

At first, I thought time would be best. Another 25 minutes would have given the story more time to breathe, and possibly the characters would have been able to be fleshed out more. It seems really sad to me that the longest of the chronicles ended up being the shortest movie. But then, I realized even more time wouldn't have saved it if the director was not inspired.

I voted for Andrew Adamson because even though his adaptations and movies were not perfect, they were miles better than what we got with VDT. I'm sure Fox had something to do with it as well as the terrible script, but I mostly blame Apted for not having a vision for the movie. It felt completely unispired, like he just did it to get a job. Plus, in interviews he never seemed to have respect for the books. Adamson had that, and I'm sure that if he had the reigns, the film would have ended up slightly less of a disaster than the result we got.