I was just thinking how about 45 years has passed since this was made. Now days about anyone could use their home video camera and make a movie better than this one.

Is it possible that in the next 40 years that it will be possible for just about anyone to make a movie as good as the Walden Media versions? Sounds crazy, but who knows!

So, I had two reactions to this. The first was like I had stepped into the twilight zone or something because of this post I made earlier today...
viewtopic.php?p=123084#p123084
(Read the last paragraph)

The second is complete and total glee. I can add a whole ton more profile pictures to the NarniaWeb character profiles!!!
I actually had pics for Edmund, The White Witch, the Witch's Dwarf, and the Professor already, but only the professor's pic was even remotely decent, so this is pretty awesome.

Wow FK That is weird...

Have fun with the profiles

I wish we had all the episodes! This version is charming, in its own old-fashioned way. Just think of it as a filmed stage play and it's a lot easier to swallow. I love the narration (by the professor? -- a very good actor for the role, by the way), I love Aslan's voice, and I very much like the witch as well.

Good show.

Well, I'll tell you one thing, it made the BBC versions look darn impressive in comparison. (But seriously, I have a newfound respect for the BBC versions after watching...this.)

It's nice that they stuck to the book and all, but there comes a point where I really can't forgive them for having a low budget and limited technology. Trying to make LWW into a movie with the resources they had is silly. This did not feel at all like a Narnia movie to me, it felt like a stage play.

It's cute that they had people dress up in fur suits and act out LWW, but in terms of entertainment, if I was not a Narnia fan this would be nearly unwatchable. When I can't recognize what the creatures are supposed to be at all, there's a slight problem. Seriously, the beavers in this version make the BBC beavers look good.

But as a concluding note, I did enjoy watching this because I am a Narnia fan and it is cool to see yet another Narnia film. Of course the production values are going to be low, it's from the black and white era, for pete's sake. But still, it's pretty laughable.

*is now nostalgic for some black and white TV shows*

Finally got youtube to work, my only two complaints are that the kids' acting could have been a bit better, and that Aslan could have been less stern. I defititely prefer the costumed Aslan over the BBC animotronic one, except for their take on "not a tame lion" It would be nice if we could see the entire version...so where's episode one?

I wonder, was it filmed live? The general "feel" of it reminds me of the 1957 Rodgers and Hammerstein Cinderella. Something about the camera angles and the small sets.............Anyway, I like them. The White Witch looks and sounds like she stepped right out of the books. The kids could be a little better, but they were probably from a stage school. I know how hard it is to adjust acting styles from stage to film and the other way around. I think I would like this even if it wasn't Narnia. The quality is not what we have today, but that doesn't mean it's bad; it's just different.

Just think of it as a filmed stage play and it's a lot easier to swallow.

Compared to the actual stage play that was performed here a few years ago, anything is easy to swallow.

I thought it was absolutely ridiculous, and can see why at the time Lewis didn't want his beloved stories made into movies. If that's the only resources available, I, too, would want to save my stories from that awful medium. No wonder fantasy movies didn't become popular until Lotr came out.

but in terms of entertainment, if I was not a Narnia fan this would be nearly unwatchable.

It would be nearly unwatchable to YOU. NOW. You have to imagine yourself as a small child in the late sixties, watching it on television.

Of course the production values are going to be low, it's from the black and white era, for pete's sake. But still, it's pretty laughable.

It annoys me that people automatically think B&W = low production values. What don't they teach film history in school these days? This adaptation of Narnia was made for TV — it would NOT have been cutting edge. The top-notch theatrical films from this period did not look anything like this, believe me.

dotK, I don't think this could have been filmed 100% live, just because of the narration, and the cutting between the narrator/Professor and the rest of the action. But it looks like most of the takes were long ones, and that there weren't many of them. Sort of contributes to that stage play effect. (And I'm sorry the stage version you saw wasn't very good. I saw a FABULOUS one when I was young ... and then a very bad one much later on. )

I thought it was absolutely ridiculous, and can see why at the time Lewis didn't want his beloved stories made into movies. If that's the only resources available, I, too, would want to save my stories from that awful medium. No wonder fantasy movies didn't become popular until Lotr came out.

(1) Fantasy movies were popular a long long time before LotR came out. Ever heard of the 80s?

(2) Lewis just flat-out didn't LIKE the cinema; it wasn't an issue particularly related to the Narnia books, or the technology, or how difficult they could be to adapt. He would probably be just as horrified by the Walden films as this TV adaptation, if not more (considering how far the Walden films have veered away from his stories).

I would suggest that everyone, before they post in this thread, should read Lewis' definition of chronological snobbery. It seems to me quite pertinent to the discussion.

I was pleasantly surprised to see this on the NW home page, as I hadn't even heard of this version before. And I rather liked it! Jadis was done well, and the narrator was a clever idea. Aslan yelling at Lucy was... painful. Still, it stays reasonably close to the book (though why they used "holocaust" for "fire and water" is beyond me), and I wish I could've seen the whole thing.

I believe holocaust is another word for massive large scale destruction, especially by fire, so it made sense to me. We had it as a vocab word in tenth grade.

That bit tripped me up a little, but yes, the word is used correctly.

I was pleasantly surprised to see this on the NW home page, as I hadn't even heard of this version before. And I rather liked it! Jadis was done well, and the narrator was a clever idea. Aslan yelling at Lucy was... painful. Still, it stays reasonably close to the book (though why they used "holocaust" for "fire and water" is beyond me), and I wish I could've seen the whole thing.

So do I. And yes, Jadis did look fantastic at any rate. This particular production shows dramatically how times have changed. I hope I'm not guilty of chronological snobbery if I point out that we didn't have coloured TV until 1975, or that at that stage, computers hadn't advanced much beyond WW2's enigma.

However, in 1967, I remember there were quite good technical productions around, such as Rawhide or Bonanza, which catered more for the man of the house, sit-coms and soapies for the women and for children there were animated cartoons, some of the same ones we have today, such as Mickey Mouse, or Bugs Bunny. We also had the Brady Bunch, Leave it to Beaver and My three sons, with Fred McMurray also smoking a pipe in a fatherly if not professorial way. And it was usual to try to portray classic stories such as Treasure Island or Heidi. It is interesting to learn that LWW but not the other six Narnia books is included in this category.

In those days there wasn't the same association of the word, "Holocaust" with the Shoah, that is the case today. This was only five years after Eichmann had been sentenced to death, and much of the horror of those times had not yet fully sunk in.

I'd also point out that smoking and tobacco was widely advertised in those days, which would not be the case today, even in film productions. And whereas the man playing Aslan was only trying to depict a majestic lion, his yelling at Lucy does look too much like Dumbledore's interrogation of Harry Potter after his name was pulled out of the Goblet of Fire, clearly not acceptable PG acting these days.

I haven't watched all of it but I still wanted to comment. I think it's nice to see how film has evolved. Yes it's a little hard to accept the technology level they had in making this film, considering how spoiled we are now with fancy CGI and all. However it's charming to see anyways.

I also really like the witch. She looks and feels closer to the Witch in the book than any other adaption's version. The actress playing her has a beautiful yet dignified look to her.