I got to thinking about the “special effects” and costuming in the BBC’s version. Really, they didn’t do anything that hadn’t been done before. Disney movies have combined animation and people (Mary Poppins). About the time I was watching the CoN or maybe a little before, I was watching the following shows:
Zoobilee Zoo

Notice some similarities in costuming and depiction of animals. All three of those shows were from the eighties which is also when the Chronicles were being made.

4. I can much more easily watch them and not be critical of the effects than I can the new ones. The movies are supposed to outstanding in effects, but there are couple of times where the green screen is just too obvious and Aslan in PC looks like a stuffed toy. At least the lion in the BBC is a stuffed toy, so saying it looks like one is okay.

Exactly! I notice it so much when the effects aren’t quite right in the Walden ones than in the BBC ones.

I still don’t understand why people don’t like the acting in CoN. I’ve never noticed any major problems. Lucy does perhaps seem a little whinny at times, but I think some of that has to do with the accent.

Ah, Pooh's Corner. I remember those! I remember watching them with my younger siblings one time and all of a sudden realizing that Eeyore walked just like Aslan.

I still don’t understand why people don’t like the acting in CoN. I’ve never noticed any major problems. Lucy does perhaps seem a little whinny at times, but I think some of that has to do with the accent.

I haven't really noticed anything either, except for the White Witch. She's a bit over the top. I don't think Lucy was the best, but her acting wasn't horrible. I have seen worse, much worse.

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?

That is an interesting question, and I can't say that I wasn't anticipating it.
First of all, I didn't hate the puppet Aslan. In fact, I think the puppet was rather good. The puppeteering was awful. The mouth only opened and closed once per sentence! (I will concede the puppeteering was better by the time SC rolled around.) Although I'm not 100% sure it was the puppeteer's fault, as it may have been the way the puppet was constructed, I will say this much: As a director, my first priority in making CoN would be to get Aslan right. For Adamson this meant a photorealistic CG lion. If I were directing the BBC version in the 80's, this would mean a puppet that could open and close its mouth on cue.

The beavers and all of the talking animals I would make puppets. Having actors play the animals may (and does) work onstage, but it doesn't work on screen. Puppets do work on screen. I think The Muppets have proven that very well (and Kermit isn't even a complicated puppet).

I have no problem with the fauns, and although it isn't exactly the sort of costumes I would have chosen, I guess I can accept the tree spirits.

The Centaur was a really good attempt and by the time SC rolled around they had perfected it, so I don't mind this one.

All of the other creatures I would have made a puppet or a costume, depending on how humanoid the creature was. I'm fine with the hags being women in makeup. I'm less crazy about the animated flying skulls.

Disney movies have combined animation and people (Mary Poppins).

Yes, but Mary Poppins actually did it well. There were more frames per second drawn with that film. And to be fair, the main characters in that film were in a chalk drawing, so it made sense within the plot.

Pete's Dragon also combined animation with real people, but aside from having more frames per second, I think the reason that film worked was because Elliot was introduced in all his animated glory at the beginning of the film. Audiences were ready to accept the cinematic convention because the filmmakers showed us this was the way the story would be told from the start.

In BBC's LWW, they surprise us with hand-drawn creatures well over halfway into the show. The audience isn't prepared for that since nothing was hand-drawn up to that point. It is just a bit jarring, that's all.

I'm not against the technique, I just think that the juxtaposition between the "real" costumed animals and the hand-drawn animated creatures was too much.

To sum up, I think I would have made a lot more of the Narnians puppets.

*Edit
After looking and Pattertwig's Pal's latest post I think I've hit on what is at the heart of what bothers me about the BBC version of CoN. Their target audience was pretty low on the age scale (as was Pooh's corner and Dumbo's Circus). What is thrilling about the Narnia books is that they aren't just for children. Lewis makes them plausible enough that they could happen. Narnia feels like it could be real. Everything about the BBC version feels very unreal. I wonder if this isn't because they were trying to make a "kid show" rather than a realistic adaptation. I hope this next statement doesn't offend anyone, but it seems like the only people that could actually watch the BBC version and believe it as real are kindergarteners. I just can't lose myself in the story with the BBC version.

I've never seen the BBC version, and I don't really plan to.

The beavers and all of the talking animals I would make puppets. Having actors play the animals may (and does) work onstage, but it doesn't work on screen. Puppets do work on screen. I think The Muppets have proven that very well (and Kermit isn't even a complicated puppet).

I can see that it would work to have the talking animals be puppets. If they had done it that way I wouldn't complain. (Of course I'm not complaining now either). I suppose if I think about it the size of the beavers doesn't make a lot of sense.

I have no problem with the fauns, and although it isn't exactly the sort of costumes I would have chosen, I guess I can accept the tree spirits.

I think the tree people in the BBC's version are far superior to the ones in Walden. As a child I wanted to dress up like one of them for Holloween but my mom wasn't sure how to make that work. Out of curiosity what kind of costume would you have chosen?

Yes, but Mary Poppins actually did it well. There were more frames per second drawn with that film. And to be fair, the main characters in that film were in a chalk drawing, so it made sense within the plot.

Like you mentioned earlier there are other examples. Mary Poppins was just the first one that came to mind. There was one with Bugs Bunny too. I've never seen that so I can't comment on if it was significant to the plot that it was a mixture (i.e. chalk drawings) or not.

*Edit
After looking and Pattertwig's Pal's latest post I think I've hit on what is at the heart of what bothers me about the BBC version of CoN. Their target audience was pretty low on the age scale (as was Pooh's corner and Dumbo's Circus). What is thrilling about the Narnia books is that they aren't just for children. Lewis makes them plausible enough that they could happen. Narnia feels like it could be real. Everything about the BBC version feels very unreal. I wonder if this isn't because they were trying to make a "kid show" rather than a realistic adaptation.

Yes, the target age on those shows was younger. I posted them to show that the techniques that were used was similar to things that were being done at the time and to show what I personally was used to when I first feel in love with the BBC version. I could be wrong but I think the target for the CoN was "family" not just "kids."

I hope this next statement doesn't offend anyone, but it seems like the only people that could actually watch the BBC version and believe it as real are kindergarteners. I just can't lose myself in the story with the BBC version.

* sticks tongue out at Movie Aristotle and says in true kindergarten fashion "You can't be my friend if you don't like the BBC's Narnia like I do." *
(I'm just joking around).
Now it depends on what you mean by "real." If by real you mean, that if people saw the Aslan puppet on the street, they would shout Aslan and expect him to respond believing he had his own mind and isn't control by others. (Similar to kids who thinks the Mickey Mouse they see at Disney World is really Mickey and not a person in a Mickey costume) Then, I would say yes it would have to be a fairly young child to do that. (I'm not sure as a kindergartener I would have even done that.) If by "real" you mean more along the lines of a willing suspense of disbelieve - similar to watching the Lion King on stage, then either your age is group is off, I'm convincing myself of something that isn't true (i.e. I'm not as into them as I think), or I'm a kindergartener. Kindergarten is the grade I most want to teach...

I think the tree people in the BBC's version are far superior to the ones in Walden. As a child I wanted to dress up like one of them for Holloween but my mom wasn't sure how to make that work. Out of curiosity what kind of costume would you have chosen?

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't have put the men in camoflauge tights!

* sticks tongue out at Movie Aristotle and says in true kindergarten fashion "You can't be my friend if you don't like the BBC's Narnia like I do." *

Oh yeah... well...um... How am I suppose to answer that?

If by "real" you mean more along the lines of a willing suspense of disbelieve - similar to watching the Lion King on stage, then either your age is group is off, I'm convincing myself of something that isn't true (i.e. I'm not as into them as I think), or I'm a kindergartener. Kindergarten is the grade I most want to teach...

Yes, a willing suspension of disbelief is what I'm talking about. In college we were told that the suspension of disbelief is a contract between the production and the audience. We as an audience are willing to accept that the events transpiring in front of us are true, as long as the production doesn't do anything that seriously hinders our doing so.

For instance: I'm willing to accept that the man in the costume is Fenris Ulf, or I'm also willing to accept that the real wolf is Fenris Ulf, but when the real wolf turns into the fake man in a costume, they are seriously hampering my efforts to believe in the reality of this character. Stick with one or the other and I can play along. Keep jumping back and forth and it feels like you're constantly changing the rules of the game. Nobody likes to play pretend if the rules keep changing.

I've never seen the BBC version, and I don't really plan to.

oh! you're lucky to not have seen them! be glad you don't have a pre-Walden version view of Narnia!

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't have put the men in camoflauge tights!

Now that you mention it, I could have done without the tights.

* sticks tongue out at Movie Aristotle and says in true kindergarten fashion "You can't be my friend if you don't like the BBC's Narnia like I do." *

Oh yeah... well...um... How am I suppose to answer that?

You answered just fine. Or if you want to answer like a kindergartener would, you could stick your tongue out at me or tattle to one of the mods. The word "kindergartener" reminded me of work (I just subbed in a classroom of PK-K kids) and the constant bickering and "you aren't / can't be my friend talk." It seemed to fit ... (Of course I didn't mean a word of the section between the *s. It was a preview of the last statement.)

Yes, a willing suspension of disbelief is what I'm talking about. In college we were told that the suspension of disbelief is a contract between the production and the audience. We as an audience are willing to accept that the events transpiring in front of us are true, as long as the production doesn't do anything that seriously hinders our doing so.

I kind of figured that was what you meant. I think I'm more willing than most people to suspend my disbelief. It does help that I was fairly young when I first saw the Chronicles and I kept watching them as I grew up.

For instance: I'm willing to accept that the man in the costume is Fenris Ulf, or I'm also willing to accept that the real wolf is Fenris Ulf, but when the real wolf turns into the fake man in a costume, they are seriously hampering my efforts to believe in the reality of this character. Stick with one or the other and I can play along. Keep jumping back and forth and it feels like you're constantly changing the rules of the game. Nobody likes to play pretend if the rules keep changing.

I think I always assumed that he had a bit of werewolf in him and that was why he changed like that (if I thought about it at all). That change is a bit odd now that I think about it. It probably would have been better if they had stuck with one or the other.
As you can see, I'm great at rationalizing / explaining things especially when it involves the BBC's CoN and to some extent Walden's (I can't rationalize the kiss though).

Edit: I really should stop trying to be funny / joking around because then I start worrying about if people a) think it is funny b) realize I'm joking and c) understand what I'm getting at. I meant that whole sticking the tongue out thing as a joke and got the idea partially based on what I said above and partially from the statement about not wanting to offend anyone. I thought it might be fun to pretend to be offended and in a kindergartenish way. I really wasn't offended. Interestingly, my sister (22) and me were told today that we blend in with our students (kindergarteners) . We were sitting on the floor.

Edit: I really should stop trying to be funny / joking around because then I start worrying about if people a) think it is funny b) realize I'm joking and c) understand what I'm getting at. I meant that whole sticking the tongue out thing as a joke and got the idea partially based on what I said above and partially from the statement about not wanting to offend anyone.

Oh my goodness YES. I have a tongue-in-cheek sarcastic humor, especially when writing, that gets misinterpreted all the time. Especially in writing, as the tone of voice doesn't translate unto the page!

I picked I don't like them, as most of you who were active on here about a year ago would know I know they were a low budget production, and they abide by the letter of the books, but I would never turn them on and watch them. That's what the books are for, to see exactly how CS Lewis wrote them.

I watched them when I was older (therefore have no "nostalgic" memories of them), and aesthetically they just don't impress me. When I watch a movie, I want it to look and "feel" real. No cheesy, cliche lines, obvious backgrounds, and horrendous acting. *coughprinceofpersiacough* (not saying BBC:CON are like that, I'm talking about movies in general) So no, I do not like them.

I meant that whole sticking the tongue out thing as a joke and got the idea partially based on what I said above and partially from the statement about not wanting to offend anyone. I thought it might be fun to pretend to be offended and in a kindergartenish way.

I got the sarcasm. It was funny. 'nuff said.

I've often wondered if BBC would consider finishing the CoN. It probably wouldn't be until well after the Walden movies are completed, but it is a thought...

They were okay.... I guess that it was better than nothing. But I could on ly think one thing when watching them, "Epic Fail!"

I've often wondered if BBC would consider finishing the CoN. It probably wouldn't be until well after the Walden movies are completed, but it is a thought...

Interesting...I don't know if I'd ever considered that. If they were to finish their Narnia movies, do you think that they would maybe start over?

I think I like the BBC-CON for the same reason that other people do...for memories of being a really young child. The last time I watched them, my siblings and I simply got a great laugh out of them. I think my favorite part of them was the music and the panning over the map that they did before the beginning of every one. That brings just a lovely feeling of excitement...

I am too young to have seen them on television. But i recently looked at some episodes. I like the intro and music, and they stayed pretty close to the books. But the effects are very dated. I mean you can clearly see that people are dressed as beavers, wolfs or mice. But if you can ignore that it's a pretty enjoyable tv series. Overall they're okay. I think however that the current Walden Media movies will survive the ravages of time and will continue to look amazing over 20 years, unlike the BBC series.

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?

For one thing I would have made Aslan's fur darker, and changed the design of his face, so even if he didn't look real, he'd look kind. Secondly, I would have used puppets for reindeer, or at the very least give them the right number of antlers. The humans in costume don't bother me as much, especially given the time period, but if they were able to resize the giants in SC, couldn't they have used the same tecnique on the animals?

Reepicheep (Warwick Davis) had a fairly extensive role in VDT. I don't think they could do more than what they did with him. Though, I thought the mouse costume shouldn't have had such a fat bottom. The face part was okay. I liked the Dawn Treader in BBC, but thought the Walden Dawn Treader looked better. What did you think of the BBC dragons?

The DVD of BBC VDT combines VDT & PC on the one disc. You can get to either story using the menu, but VDT starts at the end of PC. If you go to the VDT section the viewer misses the lead up to Eustace, Lucy and Edmund going through the picture frame. It seems like I can't get to watch VDT properly without watching the BBC PC version as well. I feel annoyed with this arrangement, because when it was on video cassette I could choose what I wanted to see.