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!

That sounds like a fairly good summary of the film we got. Nevertheless, it's questionable how much of an artistic decision-maker Disney ever was in the making of the first two films.

VDT isn't the longest Chronicle of Narnia, that would be either PC or SC.

VDT isn't the longest Chronicle of Narnia, that would be either PC or SC.

In the set I have, PC is 223 pages, SC is 243, and VDT is 248.

VOD would have been grate if Andrew had directed it i'm sure so i chose that one.

Like a lot of people have said, more time would have helped tremendously. But I guess that just wasn't going to be.

I voted for Andrew Adamson. He wasn't perfect by any means. Far from it. There are multiple problems I have with PC to this day, and I was rather disappointed with that movie overall. But it was still somehow Narnia. VDT wasn't. Plus, LWW was amazingly well-done for a book-to-movie adaptation.

As for the other choices, Disney is hit and miss with me. I've liked and disliked movies by them, so I don't think they're really the issue. More time and money would have been quite useful for VDT, but I don't think it would have fixed it. It doesn't matter how much time or money the filmmakers have if they don't know how to use them wisely.

~Riella

... The biggest thing I'd like to change would be the script itself, possibly even Walden. Basically. I'd like to change the entire film, but I do feel that maybe had Andrew stayed on it wouldn't have gone as far south. However, I feel it was a problem with the production and not the director.

The series was already headed in a downward spiral before they switched to Fox. Make's you wonder if it wasn't all the director or the company.

Well, as nn said, the biggest overall problem was most certainly the script. From these options, however, the clear choice in my mind would be the time.

I remember back when we were getting all this information about the film--a new director didn't bother me; I had no particular attachment to Adamson. Disney dropping VDT wasn't a particular bother either, and I generally prefer Fox (though the marketing department... yeah ). The film didn't need more money, as with one (glaring) exception, all the effects looked fine. ...Actually, if they'd had less money, maybe they wouldn't have been able to afford that paltry CGI excuse for green mist. ...Oh that's a happy thought.

Anyway. When we got our first reports on the time, I thought for certain there'd been some kind of mistake. That was also when I first thought that VDT's story line could be in serious jeopardy. Sure enough, the movie was far too rushed, and really, if they'd had more time to work with, maybe they'd have planned out the script a bit better (and not have some of those very oddly timed scene changes...).

So, obviously, my vote goes to More Time.

I'm not voting: It's perfectly fine the way it is in my opinion, so I wouldn't want to add any of those, as it could have changed the movie in a bad way, even though it could have made it better, I wouldn't want to risk it.

That's a really hard question. I can't exactly put my finger on one, but addressing the others...

I know that these are somewhat related to the categories you listed, but I think that screenwriting and a better story-line/a better (MUCH better) adaptation would have saved the movie. After that, I'd say acting and cinematography. But Screenwriting and storytelling definitely make the first one on that list...

Time: Yes, I definitely think it could've been longer. It seemed rushed.

Andrew Adamson: Judging from LWW and PC, Andrew Adamson does seem like he has a better method of storytelling and the screenwriting for the movies he directed but I wasn't very pleased with what he did to Prince Caspian. I think if Andrew Adamson directed VDT, SuCaspian would have inevitably and definitely surfaced.... no idea what would happen to Ramandu's daughter. No idea about the other things in general.

Money: Money might have helped with cinematography, I guess. But otherwise. . . I'm not sure what else money could have helped. Money does not a good movie make, per se.

Disney: Like I said, I'm the same about this one as I am about Andrew Adamson. Prince Caspian was Disney and yet it wasn't particularly faithful and I, personally, did not like it. Disney does have a better reputation in regards to a good fantasy tale, such as with LWW, whereas I'm not so sure about Fox. (I'm very ignorant about these things so I am speaking entirely from subjective information of what I've observed.)

Like narnianerd said, the script is what irks me the most.

I originality voted Disney, but now that I know that our vote doesn't change the script, I want to change my vote. We know that Disney was originally going to include the Lady of the Green Kirtle as the villain. While a travesty to the book, LotGK would have still made much more sense as a villain than the Wishy Washy Green Mist we were left with when she was removed.

But since we're stuck with the same script. Time would have been nice. I always like to see more of Narnia and the characters we all love instead of plowing through them. If the plot is slightly more developed so that the movie actually makes sense? That's always a nice bonus.

I think I would definitely give "More Time". Andrew Adamson was great, but LWW was his first live-action film, and I think he was in a bit over his head when it came to the fine details of directing a large-scale, fantasy film. I think he just didn't have the experience the movie called for. Disney was also amazing, and their CGI quality was much, much better than anything Fox had to offer, but the fact is that they are a very large company, and if we think that Fox started "pushing their trip" onto VDT during its production, I can imagine the greater influence Disney might have had. I could easily see them completely changing everything around and making VDT into some sort of "Pirates of the Carribbean" film, which would not be nice. As for more money, that is rather debatable. I still think it's possible to make a good quality movie with a good script and good actors on a lower budget. It just takes someone who knows how to handle it.
So in my opinion, of these four options, I would choose "More Time". The movie needed time to be developed, for the characters to develop, and for the entire story to move along smoothly. Personally, I think the main problems were the script and the directing - but time was definitely the third deciding factor.

If you think about it, shouldn't VDT have been the longer film in the first place? Going of the book, (and heaven forbid someone could do that when making a moive) VDT is a longer story what with all the travling between islands (which I wouldn't have minded being shortend) the moive could have easily hit 2 and half hours.

You know a moive is rushed when Eustace doesn't have time to be heal till the climax!

More time... although I nearly picked a larger budget, but the pacing was the first issue.

Now that it's been over a year, and I've had time to grow and think about things, I've gotta stick with my original decision, but the choice isn't as hard to make anymore. With some creativity you could make a great story on a small budget, but it still needs the time to flow. I wouldn't blame the director so much anymore either (especially after the recent Gresham interview), since making a movie is a group project and it feels like there was a lot pressure going into this one from an external force, I'm not sure if it's Fox, Walden or something else, but it feels like they were trying to make it to please someone else rather than just telling a story, had that been taken out of the picture, I'm sure the script would have been better, and there would have been more time for the audience to absorb the plot and Narnia. Though advertising would have helped in the box office.

wolfloversk and Boy Scout, agreed. Voted for more time months ago, and will stick with that decision, almost more so, today. They could have put much more into a lot of those scenes. But as always, it could have been much worse. And there are parts in TDT that I think are extremely well done (although perhaps unfaithful to the book).