Posted by: @col-klink

Re: Aslan being a real lion in the hypothetical BBC Horse and his Boy. I'm not sure how they could have done him pouncing on Aravis that way. It'd have to be a really well-trained lion. Then again, I'm not sure how they'd do that with the puppet either. Maybe there's a way it could work. 

Just to clarify, when I talked about the hypothetical scenario of the BBC taking up the Narnia series again a few years later when digital animation of real animals' mouths became possible, I wasn't meaning to suggest that they should use a real lion for Aslan. Far too dangerous under any circumstances, let alone when tearing at Aravis's back!!

My comment about fixing the animatronic Aslan's inability to lip-sync was intended to mean simply what it says — that they could have gone on using the same puppet, but digitally animated his mouth after filming his scenes so that it would at last move in time with his voice. The Aslan puppet used in the BBC version was pretty iconic (at least to fans!) by the time they'd filmed the four stories that they did, so changing him visually — let alone replacing him with a real lion — just would have spoilt the continuity and familiarity and made it feel like a different show altogether.

It's true that it would have been impossible for the BBC's Aslan to leap at Aravis, or indeed at anyone else — he was played by two people in a pantomime-horse-style costume, one standing up and holding the head and being the front legs, the other bending over and holding the first person's waist to form the back and hind legs. Hence why he's never shown doing any movements more complicated than a slow walk! To make him rear up would have involved some real acrobatics — I've seen Chinese lion dancers do this brilliantly, but the BBC's Aslan wasn't designed for anything like that! — and of course, because his front legs and forepaws were actually a human's legs and feet, there's no way they could have reached out and made a scratching / tearing motion as would be needed for the scene with Aravis. (That's also why in the BBC's LWW, contrary to the book, Aslan doesn't fling himself at the White Witch, but just stands and roars until the ground gives way underneath her.)

I'm really not sure how this hypothetical BBC version of HHB could do that scene at all; they might just have to leave it out. It's important for Aravis's character development, but it's not utterly essential to the plot as a whole. Also, I can imagine parents complaining about it being too scary and brutal for young viewers, so it's something the Beeb might have wanted to steer away from anyway.

The main thing I was thinking of with "what if the BBC had continued the series a few years later with Babe-style CGI?" was for the characters of Bree and Hwin specifically. The stories they did make were able to get away with costumed actors for the various Talking Beasts, hilarious though some of them were (the bottle-shaped Beavers in particular). But Bree and Hwin, as horses, need to have the two main human characters ride on them, AND it's crucial to the plot that they can easily pass for ordinary non-talking horses if they don't speak. So there would be nothing for it but to have them played by real horses. Which I would guess is one of the main reasons why the BBC didn't even consider tackling this story at the time, when they didn't yet have the technology to give them realistic mouth movements.

That was actually the factor that initially got me thinking, "Hmmm, the big challenge for the BBC filming HHB would have been with the horses needing to look like real horses but also needing to look like they're speaking... oh, hang on... when was it that they filmed Babe???" (I remember clearly how that film made a big splash when it came out, precisely because of the realistic talking animals, which had never been possible in a live-action film before that time. As it was made in Australia, we Aussies were overwhelmingly proud of it. )

But yes, Talking Beasts aside, there would still have been plenty of other technical challenges for the BBC if they had continued with the series from 1995 onwards. CGI back then was good enough to take a relatively small thing like an animal's mouth and make it move in a few different ways, but it was still a long way off being able to create whole animals photo-realistically, entirely through CGI, as can be done today (and as was done in the Walden version of Narnia). It's fun to imagine what the BBC might have done with the technology of the mid-1990s if they'd tried — at least, I find it fun — but I also realise it's probably for the better that they didn't!  

@courtenay OK, I gotcha. Your reference to Babe threw me off just a tad since I believe that movie uses real animals. Actually, that's not true. I believe it uses some trained animals and some puppets. That was probably a dumb misunderstanding on my part. 

You know, if Aslan, Bree and Hwin were all puppets, I'd actually like that better than all the other animals being costumed actors and Aslan being the only puppet. Then again, he is supposed to be a special character. 

@col-klink My point was that there would be no way they could get away with using puppets for Bree and Hwin, as they have to look like "normal" horses until they actually speak. If the Tarkaan Anradin rode in on a horse that was quite obviously a puppet, but neither Arsheesh nor Shasta found this remarkable, it would spoil the credibility of the story just a bit, to say the least... (Of course that would work fine in a theatre performance — I know there's been at least one very successful stage adaptation of HHB, by Logos Theatre — but a stage play has a completely different atmosphere from a TV show or movie.) 

Now I wish the whole world could see the Logos Theatre's stage production of HHB. Their horse puppets are outstanding, and most audience members very quickly accept them as real (talking) horses. Their mouths are not moving, but their heads move a bit when they are speaking.  

The puppetry department has also made a wonderful cat, a raven, and a scruffier lion for attacking Aravis, as well as the large Aslan puppet.

Animatronic mouth movements could be the next step.  The other animals are played by humans, as animally as possible (gesture, movement, makeup etc)

@coracle I wish they'd bring that production to the UK! Don't know how much chance there is of that happening, though, unless Logos Theatre has an affiliate company over here.

Back on topic, looking at the poll in this discussion, I'm intrigued to see that the most votes so far have gone to the three remaining BBC adaptations, which I wouldn't have expected to be a popular choice. Obviously there's more love out there for the old Beeb series than I thought!  

Meanwhile, here are my thoughts, briefly, on the other poll options...

The "Leaked Script" version of VDT: No, thanks. I assume the idea is that it could have been better than the Walden movie of VDT that was actually made, which is the least popular (and the least faithful to the original book) out of the Walden series. But as I didn't like Walden's adaptation of LWW and that put me off any further offerings from that studio, I just wouldn't be interested in even a somewhat improved version of one of their other films.

The Joe Johnston / David Magee version of SC: Again, not for me, for pretty much the same reason as above — not interested in a continuation of a series I already wasn't a fan of. Especially if it's true, as we've heard, that the ultimate reason this version of SC never got made was that they were planning to turn Jill into a girl-power-action heroine and the Lewis Estate objected.

The mid-1990s "Modern Day" adaptation of LWW: Like probably most of us here, I think it sounds utterly ghastly, on the face of it. But as @icarus said earlier in this discussion, there's the temptation to wonder if it might have been a "so bad it's good" sort of thing... Perhaps it could have worked if they'd changed the title and the names of the characters and so on, but acknowledged it was loosely based on LWW — similarly to how West Side Story is loosely based on Romeo and Juliet, and Clueless is loosely based on Jane Austen's Emma. Both of those adaptations work well as a film or play in their own right, without sticking ultra-rigidly to the original story — to the point where casual viewers may not even be aware that the basic plot comes from an older classic — but all the most important elements of the originals are in there, for those in the know. Could that have worked with LWW under another name? I guess we'll never know, unless someone else tries it some day...

The Matthew Aldrich Netflix adaptations: Overall, this would probably be my second choice out of what's offered here, simply because it would potentially have included all seven Chronicles, and it would be good to see that done. But we know so little about what was being planned — if anything — that as others have said here already, it's hard to get excited about it.

I would still say that my other choice, if it had been included here, would have to be the proposed early 1980s animation of The Magician's Nephew. I'm not sure it would really have done justice to that magnificent story, but for the magical and fantastical elements of it — especially the creation of Narnia — hand-drawn animation would probably have been able to do a more convincing job than live-action filming could have managed in those days before CGI was possible. I'm guessing it would have been like the 1979 animation of LWW — not "the" best adaptation of Narnia ever, but sweet and charming and still re-watchable years later, and hopefully faithful overall to the original book.

Posted by: @courtenay

But as I didn't like Walden's adaptation of LWW and that put me off any further offerings from that studio, I just wouldn't be interested in even a somewhat improved version of one of their other films.

Ironically, that's exactly why I'm not interested in continuing the BBC series. (Well, in my case, it wouldn't be about the corporation per se. I'm sure the BBC is capable of doing quality adaptations of The Horse and his Boy, The Magician's Nephew and The Last Battle. I'd just rather Marilyn Fox, Alan Seymour, Geoffrey Burgon and Ronald Pickup were not involved.) 

@col-klink I wouldn't say that's ironic, just totally fair, since we all have different tastes and preferences. I can completely understand why the BBC version of Narnia isn't to everyone's taste. I see a lot of flaws and drawbacks in it myself — as I always say for the sake of younger viewers who weren't around in the late 1980s and early '90s, trust me, it was ridiculously cheap-looking even by the standards of the time!! But I can't help loving it anyway, because I have such good memories of watching it (and laughing at it ) as a 7- and 8-year-old when it was first on TV, and it was the only screen adaptation we had of any of the Narnia books bar LWW at the time.

My disliking of the Walden series surprises even me, but I have tried re-watching their LWW multiple times and it still only ever makes me want to scream, so there it is. But I can also completely understand why lots of people like it, especially if it's the screen version of Narnia that they grew up with. There's nothing "wrong" with the Walden LWW as a film — it's very well done and a good piece of cinema in its own right. But to me, for whatever reasons, it is Just Not Narnia. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, or you right and me wrong, just different individuals with different tastes. (It remains to be seen how I may react to Greta Gerwig's take on things!! ) 

I always wondered why some people dislike the Dawn Treader Walden film.  The movie had a lot of flaws, but it has good things in it too. I liked the ship that they used and the acting was generally quite good (especially Will Poulter as Eustace). The special effects were quite beautiful. Aside from adding some things which should not have been there such as the Green Mist and Ramandu never appearing with his daughter it isn’t all that bad a film.  I think it probably could have been a much better movie if the story adaptation were closer to the book, but even as it was, it was worth my time watching it in a theater, and it was a good movie to purchase. 🙂

If the Netflix Narnia ever becomes a lost adaptation I hope someone else will make their own.  I would actually like it if someone else would make it even if Greta Gerwig makes the two books that were planned or if another film director would decide to make the rest of the series.  I’m kind of skeptical about Netflix actually funding and completing the project.  If they are making the series it is taking a long time. 

Great idea for a topic @icarus! 

The Joe Johnston / David Magee version of The Silver Chair has my vote, but in a "historic artifact" sort of way.

Millie Bobby Brown as Jill would be a concern of mine. Given her growing stardom at the time, I imagine that's why Sony felt pressure to turn Silver Chair into a "girl-power" action movie. Although, that was the assessment from Gresham (who was also the one who suggested the green mist) so it's hard to know to what extent this was built into the script.

But another big-budget adaptation with a talented writer and serviceable director could've still turned in a solid movie! Given Magee's interview with NarniaWeb and Johnston's comments about wanting to film on location as much as possible, I think it would've been great to see a return to a more grounded approach than Michael Apted's Dawn Treader.

If it dissapointed at the box-office, like Walden's PC & VDT, I think that would've been the final nail in the coffin for any production studio adapting a non-LWW Narnia again... at least not for a very long time.

Posted by: @impending-doom

 Although, that was the assessment from Gresham (who was also the one who suggested the green mist) 

Mr Gresham was not responsible for the green mist. He'd suggested something to indicate when a character faced temptation, like a sound. He was as horrified as we were. 

I suppose we’ll never know how those lost adaptations would have turned out. 

The BBC doing the remaining 3 books would have been something to see, though I can’t imagine how they would have been able to do those. 

Well, we finally know some broad facts about the Matthew Aldrich Narnia adaptation and why it fell through. I assume everyone here has read this. 

Matthew Aldrich Says Netflix Rejected His Vision to "Update" Narnia Series - NarniaWeb | Netflix's Narnia Movies

As I stated in this thread before, I really didn't feel that bad about the Aldrich thing being cancelled since we knew so little about it. And now that we do know more about it...I almost feel good.  

That feels really mean. Aldrich does sound like he was really frustrated and disappointed by the whole experience. I don't want to dance on his coffin. Except I kind of do want to dance on it. But keep these things in mind. 

• While Aldrich wanted to "update" Narnia, he also claims he wanted to be "respectful."
• Some of what he says "smells" suspicious to me. However, I have seen adaptations of books I loved which made changes to the stories and characters that might have made me want to boycott them if I'd heard about them in advance but which I didn't actually mind when I saw them. It's dangerous to judge without more specifics. 
• I haven't listened to the podcast episode the Narniaweb article quoted or read the entire discussion on Threads.net it quoted either. I wasn't interested in Aldrich's specific take on Narnia enough to do that. But that means I'm not getting the whole context.
• The Narniaweb article was written by Impending Doom who has gone on record as being really excited about Netflix's upcoming Narnia project that has replaced Aldrich. He could be cherry-picking quotes to subliminally influence fans into being glad about Aldrich's replacement. I'm not losing sleep over that possibility though since...well, I think even if that's the case, Aldrich (and Gerwig) gave Impending Doom great material from which to choose.  

I just don't get why readers like Aldrich or Tolkien find it so bothersome that Narnia has creatures from different mythologies. (I assume from the article that that's the wall Aldrich says he kept smashing his head against in the adaptation process. Like I said, that could be a misinterpretation.) I mean, I'd maybe get it if the Narnian versions of those characters and characters were exactly like the versions from the various mythologies that influenced the books. But they're not. They're Narnian versions. I feel like C. S. Lewis used the same writing style for all seven books, and they all belong to broadly the same genre. That's cohesion enough. 

The Narniaweb article actually made me feel better about the higherups at Netflix than I've ever felt. Before, I'd been cynically assuming that they preferred Gerwig over Aldrich because she was likelier to win an award. The fact that Aldrich specifically wanted to make Narnia more "cohesive", and that Netflix disagreed with the direction he was going whereas Greta Gerwig sees the (seeming) lack of cohesion as OK, even fun, and Netflix has been really supportive of her vision makes me think they wanted a writer who really wants to capture the feel of the books. Maybe they really are fans themselves. Maybe that's why they're apparently getting along so much better with Gerwig than with Aldrich. Or maybe I'm just deluding myself based on some brief, out-of-context quotes but let me have my happy delusions for a little while, OK?  

Posted by: @col-klink

As I stated in this thread before, I really didn't feel that bad about the Aldrich thing being cancelled since we knew so little about it. And now that we do know more about it...I almost feel good.  

Wow, yeah, me too, except I don't mind saying I do outright feel good about this — certainly relieved. As a few people have said in the comments under the article, we may just have dodged a bullet here.

Of course we don't know (and may never know) exactly what Aldrich was proposing to do with the Narnia books. But I'm really not comfortable with his comments about adapting the books "in a way that was both sort of respectful, but also not precious, you know, and try to sort of update them in some fun ways."

I mean — "sort of respectful" doesn't sound particularly respectful at all, and indeed, "respectful" could mean quite a range of things. And I'm definitely wincing at "try to sort of update them in some fun ways". I mean, "update them"? Update what about them, exactly, and why? Does that just mean changing or softening some of the bits that could be read as racist (we've had discussions in other threads on how that could be done without heavily altering the stories), or does it mean getting rid of those silly and totally unnecessary Christian elements, or...??

I just don't get why readers like Aldrich or Tolkien find it so bothersome that Narnia has creatures from different mythologies. (I assume from the article that that's the wall Aldrich says he kept smashing his head against in the adaptation process. Like I said, that could be a misinterpretation.) I mean, I'd maybe get it if the Narnian versions of those characters and characters were exactly like the versions from the various mythologies that influenced the books. But they're not. They're Narnian versions. I feel like C. S. Lewis used the same writing style for all seven books, and they all belong to broadly the same genre. That's cohesion enough. 

No, me neither. Narnia is a fantasy world for kids, much of which was made up by Lewis as he went along, with whatever worked for him at the time; it's not meant to be Middle-earth. I'm really delighted that Gerwig DOES seem to "get" Narnia's quirkiness and lack of internal consistency as all part of what makes it unique and fun, not something that has to be ironed out or over-explained. Why not "embrace the paradox", as she says in the quote in the article, and just let it be as it is? I find all of this very encouraging, although of course it remains to be seen what actually happens. But I'm hopeful and very glad to indulge in the same "happy delusions" (if that's all they are) myself.  

I think it should be said that the mid-1990s "Modern Day" version of LWW was never a serious consideration. 

Back when Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall were working on getting the movie greenlit, the studio they pitched it to requested a draft where the characters would be Americanised/modern. 

This was hastily written by Menno Meyjes (the screenwriter attached to the project at the time, who told me all this via Instagram messaging) in order to mollify the studio. Absolutely nobody liked the draft and it never went any further. 

This project spent almost all of its time as a non-Americanised/modern version that had John Boorman directing, along with the Jim Henson company/Neal Scanlan for the on-set effects. 

It never got greenlit, though, because of budget/effects problems. In the pre-Harry Potter/LOTR world, fantasy was not exactly something studios were eager to pour money into.