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.

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with pointing out how filmmaking has advanced, how the technology was limited, etc. This issue comes in when we fault a 1967 TV special for not beeing a twenty-first century blockbuster film.

Well I've been pretty well geeking out over these since they appeared last night. And I have all of the character profiles updated to include the new pictures

I must say though, that I've always found it so interesting how quick people announce that "well, these movies are terrible because they weren't made up to today's standards.. .they shouldn't have bothered." To me, that's like saying that if you aren't the best singer in the world, you shouldn't sing at all; if you aren't the best drawer in the world, you shouldn't draw at all; if you aren't the greatest avatar and signature maker in the world, then you shouldn't make them at all... because anything less than the best is an affront to the people of this world.

At any rate, I very much enjoyed these. A couple thoughts, I loved Elizabeth Wallace as the White Witch. Appearance-wise, she looked like she walked straight off of Pauline Baynes' drawing. And she wasn't completely over the top like Barbara Kellerman in the BBC version. (No offense to those that like Barbara, but I have never been able to take her seriously).

I liked Aslan's voice quite a lot, but um, I think they might have taken "he's not safe" a bit too far. They forgot the second half of the line "but he is good."

The Pevensies... couldn't see or hear enough of them to form any kind of an opinion one way or another. But the Walden castings will forever be hard to beat for me.

Mrs. Beaver looked and acted remarkably like the BBC Beavers. And no Mr. Beaver?

The Professor was cast wonderfully, but I did NOT like the amount of narration he did. When you start saying the lines the characters are supposed to be saying, that's too much. I want to SEE the characters act it out, not have it spoken to me. I can read the book for that.

The um, rock walking towards the tree cracked me up.

Loved the Witch's Dwarf! Might be my favorite iteration of that character.

This is the theater bit of me coming out, but I loved the costumes of the Narnian creatures. Especially the leopard.

And finally, there is a scene in both the BBC version and the Walden version that drives me crazy (it might be in the animated version too, but I've forgotten it) and this '67 version finally did it right. When Aslan and the girls are walking to the Stone Table, he's always like "Whatever happens, do not let yourselves be seen. So I'm gonna drop you off here, two yards away from the stone table and I'll distract them for you while you get away." Yeah. Anyways, for once, Aslan makes them stop following at a proper safe distance.

So, I'm crossing my fingers that the surviving first episode will appear on YouTube someday as well and Mr. Tumnus will be in that one.

Agreed, fantasia_kitty, with everything you said.

What I noticed most was the emotional climaxes. Alsan looked and felt properly sad, as he should be, when trudging towards the stone table. The White Witch had the proper sneer on her face as she triumphed over him. Even though it was really cheesy, the importance of the Emperor's Magic was "shouted" ( ) home! So, all in all, those two segments were excellent as far as adaption goes. But, when everything else is considered -- acting, costumes, special effects, cinematography, and directing -- the series has much of which is to be desired. (I too, for example, found that the professor talked way too much. The whole purpose of a movie is to show, not tell. However, I understand that they were probably on time schedule and had only so much which they could show.) At any rate, overall, considering that the series was made in the sixties, I give these segments a BIG thumbs up!

That was a wonderful write-up, fantasia ... in fact, I couldn't have said it better myself, chief!

The rock and tree had me tittering, too. I'll have to watch it again; I didn't really pay attention to the Witch's dwarf the first time around. And I, too, hope Episode 1 appears sometime soon ... then we'd have seen most of the major characters, and would probably have a better idea of the children's acting, too. (Especially Lucy's.)

Like many of you, I didn't even know this version existed until that story appeared on the homepage last night. Despite the bad technology, I really love it! There's something about old movies...they're so much, well simpler than today's movies, and I like that. And I'm also a history nerd, so the fact that this was just discovered after all these years of being lost just makes me so happy.

Question - anyone know where part one of this can be found? Is it on YouTube as well?

And how was this one discovered? Was it on one of the original film reels, or was it a home movie someone made, or what?

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.

I guess I might have liked it under those circumstances. I watched it a second time, and actually enjoyed it more. My main issue was that the creatures didn't look anything like creatures. It was all a bunch of people in limited costumes walking upright. I've never been able to buy into Aslans that walk upright and have the same body structure of an overweight human. :/

It annoys me that people automatically think B&W = low production values.

Yeah, low production values might have been the wrong way to say it. I wasn't trying to say the two were equal, I was just saying that these were made in a time when televisions weren't even equipped with color, so a mere tv series obviously wouldn't be very advanced from a technical standpoint. I know that some technically impressive films were made in that time period, like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

MinotaurforAslan, I can see where you are coming from. Aslan, for instance -- I found it hard to get past the fact that he was wearing glorified long underwear! And Mrs. Beaver -- you can see her human mouth move through the costume. Not to mention, all the four legged animals walk on two legs. However, like I mentioned in my last post, if you take the story, and only the story, into consideration, these two segments aren't too shabbily done.

I'm not really bothered by the Mrs. Beaver costume and Aslan costume because I know that's exactly what they are - costumes. I'm a theater person, so I'm used to seeing costumes that don't necessarily look exactly how they'd be in real life. This version of LWW reminds me a bit of a stage-play. If you look at it that way instead of a literal movie/television production, you'll probably enjoy it a lot more.

I was laughing so much at the costumes for the animals. lol

I actually was thrilled to find out that some of the 1967 LWW footage had resurfaced. I had heard about this version years ago, but was always curious to know more about it or to actual see it (since there wasn't a whole lot of information given about it or any sort of visuals). Yes, there are some parts that are hokey, but when you take the production for what it is, it works very nicely (at least it does being a Narnia fan, I'm not sure about the rest of the crowd out there). The White Witch, as others have mentioned, is portrayed really well (both in acting and look, in relation to the book). I also like the personality that is portrayed in Mrs. Beaver's character (did I miss Mr. Beaver in there somewhere?). It would be nice to be able to see the whole production, but I am glad to have seen just a small snippet.

I'm not really bothered by the Mrs. Beaver costume and Aslan costume because I know that's exactly what they are - costumes. I'm a theater person, so I'm used to seeing costumes that don't necessarily look exactly how they'd be in real life.

Exactly. The costumes are meant to be representational, not realistic, something our technology-saturated generation can't seem to get their minds around. As long as one doesn't have special effects or an especially large budget to work with, that's probably the best way to approach the animal characters, actually. When I first saw LWW on stage Aslan was treated somewhat like he is here -- standing on his hind legs, obviously played by a human actor, etc.; he even wore a gold cape! But the costume was good, his voice was beautiful, and his manner decidedly regal, so it worked. In fact, in certain ways the character came across better for me than in the Walden films. (No rotten vegetables, please! ) When I saw a stage version again about a decade later, the design team was obviously trying to create a character that looked more like a real lion, and so they had an acrobat play him on all fours to a prerecorded voice track. It just didn't work. Of course, it didn't help either that the voice actor sounded uncannily like William Shatner, and when his mane was shorn you could see the Velcro ripping!

Anyway, just some prospective on representational vs. realistic costumery ^^

It annoys me that people automatically think B&W = low production values.

Yeah, low production values might have been the wrong way to say it. I wasn't trying to say the two were equal, I was just saying that these were made in a time when televisions weren't even equipped with color, so a mere tv series obviously wouldn't be very advanced from a technical standpoint.

TVs WERE equipped with color in 1967 Britain. But mostly it was used for newscasts and popular television shows. TV back then were able to watch both color and black and white shows. So the 1967 LWW didn't have a good enough budget to afford color cameras.

It annoys me that people automatically think B&W = low production values.

Yeah, low production values might have been the wrong way to say it. I wasn't trying to say the two were equal, I was just saying that these were made in a time when televisions weren't even equipped with color, so a mere tv series obviously wouldn't be very advanced from a technical standpoint.

TVs WERE equipped with color in 1967 Britain. But mostly it was used for newscasts and popular television shows. TVs back then were able to watch both color and black and white shows. So the 1967 LWW didn't have a good enough budget to afford color cameras.

So the 1967 LWW didn't have a good enough budget to afford color cameras.

All right, so then the black and whiteness in this case did mean low production values!

Sure.... just like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 means low production values because it's not in 3D.....