one thing that I noticed a long time ago in VotDT: in the part with the sea serpent, the sea serpent's teeth are loose - they wiggle when he grunts and it makes me laugh

lol!

I have to go back and catch that! That's funny. Another one that makes me laugh in BBC's VDT is the storm scene, it's the same series of shots that they show. My favorite part in the VDT would have to be the Magician's Island.

^^ yeah, they repeat the same part of the storm twice!

Well, I've put off telling my story long enough, so here it is:

I've had a rather negative view of the BBC version since childhood. The videos were at my local library, and when looking through the children's video section I'd occasionally pass by this title, look at the cover, decide it looked silly (perhaps on par with the WeeSing videos), put it down again and move on. (In fact the BBC video was probably in part responsible for keeping me away from the Narnia books.)

When we first got satellite I watched about five minutes of PCatVotDT before deciding I had no idea what was going on and the whole thing seemed really weird. (As luck would have it I was watching the Dark Island scene when everyone is screaming and in hysterics. Not exactly the best introduction to Narnia. )

I can't remember when my first actual viewing of the videos was, but it was years later after I had read all the books, and after listening to the FotF Radio Dramas. (In fact, now I can't even remember if it was before or after the Walden movie came out.) I do remember that I saw SC first, which is great because it is in my opinion the best of the series, probably due to the long periods in the film without costumed people trying to be animals.

My appreciation of SC then lead me to watch the other two.

My reactions are mixed. Yes I do appreciate the word-perfect dialogue, even if they do cut out huge sections for the sake of time. I like several of the actors (Big Mick and Warwick Davis come to mind); I even like some of the over-actors (the lady who played Jadis for instance), but generally I found that acting ability was overall hampered by clumsy costuming and make-up. I'm not a big fan of dressing up humans as beavers, or owls. I suppose I also find the juxtaposition of humans, humans in costume, humans spliced with horse legs, puppets and animation far too jarring. Nothing seems to mesh. If they had gone with one technique or the other I could have gotten used to it, but since they use it all, and do a rather poor job of it as well, I am constantly reminded that this is a fake made-for-TV reenactment of a children's novel.

Nevertheless, I do make an annual trip to the library to borrow all 3 "movies" to watch at home. There are several reasons why I do so. First, I like to make fun of it. But secondly, there are moments in the show when I do see a glimpse of something from my imagination coming to life on screen. Third, I enjoy seeing the story from a different artistic perspective. And last, VDT and SC haven't come out yet so this is the only way I can see these stories dramatized.

I could probably go on to write a pretty lengthy essay on these adaptations, but I'll stop here by saying that overall I have a love/hate relationship with the BBC version. I love to hate it, and I hate to love it, but sometimes I do anyway.

Kate: I totally agree! I like how they're close to the books but the costumed actors as creatures and the acting and animation is so horrible! It's just ridiculous and I like to watch them when I'm not in a good mood so I can laugh .

I am curious, to those of you who hated the puppet Aslan and beavers and whatnot... how would you have done it with the technology available back then?

^I would have not made the movies. Sorry but if you can't do it well, don't do it at all. For the same reason, I never go see Narnia plays. Whenever Aslan comes on stage, it's everything I can do not to laugh.

Thing is Glenstorm, those were made in the days where blending stuff into the scene via computer wasn't anywhere near as successful as it is now. A lot of cgi blendings looked a bit like "you would expect Bugs Bunny to run through at any minute." (a quote from a movie screening I attended) So when you knock down the budget to a T.V. serial, there isn't a lot of room for for fancy stuff.

So for a low budget, made for TV serial they did the best they could and they did a good job for the budget they had as the story is intact as well as the themes. I'm glad they were made because it is better than not having anything and I thought it was well done.

Sorry but if you can't do it well, don't do it at all.

Can't do it well? And the visual effects are the only thing that defines whether or not a movie is "done well" ? What about adaptation? I think the vast majority of people here would agree that the BBC adaptation of the movies was vastly superior to the recent movies. So since that wasn't "done well" should the Walden versions of the movies never have been made?

You will never hear me suggest such a thing. Because even though there were certainly things I didn't like and really disagreed with, at the end of the day, I have a vague idea of the amount of blood, sweat and tears that were poured into making those movies by THOUSANDS of people. And to suggest that they didn't "do it well" and shouldn't have bothered making the movie is very insulting because there were a lot of things that they did do very well.

The same thing can be said for the BBC movies and the same thing can be said for theater productions. You don't have to like them, but do keep in mind that a lot of them have visited this site and continue to visit this site and may not necessarily appreciate you suggesting they wasted their time.

Can't do it well? And the visual effects are the only thing that defines whether or not a movie is "done well" ?

No. But if the costumes, acting, visual effects, etc are bad, and the adaption is the only good thing, well, then it wasn't done well.

So since that wasn't "done well" should the Walden versions of the movies never have been made?

actually yes. LWW was good but I wish PC had never been made. It just ruined the Narnia franchise.

You will never hear me suggest such a thing. Because even though there were certainly things I didn't like and really disagreed with, at the end of the day, I have a vague idea of the amount of blood, sweat and tears that were poured into making those movies by THOUSANDS of people. And to suggest that they didn't "do it well" and shouldn't have bothered making the movie is very insulting because there were a lot of things that they did do very well.

well yes people did work hard. And sorry if it is insulting, but that's my opinion. I don't mean to be rude, but I would rather have my imagination of the stories intact rather than have it ruined by a not-so-good movie adaption. Which is what movies do. If doesn't enhance your imagery of the story, it just tears it down, and you can never imagine the story how you did before. So I would rather have no movie than a movie I didn't like. They may have enjoyed making the movies, but I wish I never saw them.

I'm sort of inbetween GtG's and FK's opinions While I think the adaption aspect of the BBC movies WAS amazing (they included everything important, the lines were right from the book, etc!), I find I can't really enjoy them because of the costumes, props, and visual effect stuff looking rather halloween-costume-ish, and, well "cheap". If only someone could combine the script/adaption of the BBC films with the wonderful art-y-ness of the new ones!

if the costumes, acting, visual effects, etc are bad, and the adaption is the only good thing, well, then it wasn't done well.

I'm glad the BBC movies were made, because not only did I love them when I was younger but they were what first introduced me to the CoN.
However,I agree that they were "not done well". Yes, they might have been VERY much like the book but that doesn't mean that the movies were extremely well made. They had a very low budget, and it shows. I remember a few years back we were watching LWW, and my Dad walked in the room and started laughing and thought we were watching somebody's home video.

And the visual effects are the only thing that defines whether or not a movie is "done well" ?

For me, what makes a movie "done well" is: Good acting, good script, well-made and realistic looking props, costumes, etc. Excellent cinematography, art direction, etc. To me, the top priority of any movie should be quality, because if it's not good quality filmmaking...well.
THEN they can add in the important book-based storylines, etc. Obviously every movie isn't going to have this, but it's important for me, and the one way I was able to enjoy the new PC film--no, it wasn't like the book, but it was a decent movie on it's own.

For me, what makes a movie "done well" is: Good acting, good script, well-made and realistic looking props, costumes, etc. Excellent cinematography, art direction, etc. To me, the top priority of any movie should be quality, because if it's not good quality filmmaking...well.
THEN they can add in the important book-based storylines, etc. Obviously every movie isn't going to have this, but it's important for me, and the one way I was able to enjoy the new PC film--no, it wasn't like the book, but it was a decent movie on it's own.

I'm sorta different with well done movies. To me and the only thing that makes a "Well done movie" is how the director tells a story. To me the best out of the BBC Series is The Silver Chair, for one, the acting was a lot better, two, we are drawn in to the new character of Jill Pole more then Eustace, three, It shows that Jill is the new hero, four, they changed it up a little bit but not drastically. These are qualities I look for in a "Well done Movie" a new hero and a well written adaptation.

I just try to ignore the toy snake Rilian was attacking.

I just try to ignore the toy snake Rilian was attacking.

lol! yeah, it was made of card board or something

I agree with GTG. if you can't make it right, don't make it at all. the best part of any of them was Puddleglum. he was the only one I think they did right.

I thought the BBC version was okay, but nothing great. I remember really enjoying them as a child though.

One area that I think they could have done a lot better in, (even though they did have a small budget), was the acting. For the most part the acting was pretty atrocious. So although I can forgive the poor VFX, I just can't get completely passed the acting. Not to mention the cinematography wasn't all that great, even for a TV series.

^^ ditto! the acting gets on my nerves the most! Caspian in VotDT was annoying becuase he's a bit wimpy instead of being bold and strong like the king he's supposed to be.

the best part of any of them was Puddleglum. he was the only one I think they did right.

yes Puddleglum was very good. Except his hands were gross .

One area that I think they could have done a lot better in, (even though they did have a small budget), was the acting. For the most part the acting was pretty atrocious. So although I can forgive the poor VFX, I just can't get completely passed the acting

exactly. I can let the horrible animation pass if I must but it doesn't cost a ton of money to get decent actors.