My sister and I had this debate late in December when we were still unsure if VDT was going to make it to 100M.
Basically her argument for why the VDT film was so unfaithful to its source was that they had a limited two-hours of time proscribed by the studio.
My argument was that the BBC version of VDT, which was actually a direct continuation of BBC's PC, was a mere 1hr 45mins long, and managed to get every island in AND stay 90% faithful to the book.
So...I think we are forced to re-evaluate here whether or not the limited running time had anything to do with source burn-, er, re-construction .
"Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed."- CS Lewis
In theory you can make Narnia with the time frame that we have.. But let's remember that we already have our footage for the movie.. And due to the extension of some scenes (like final dark island/sea serpent scene) we were left with the cutting of some crucial pace slowing scenes like in the Lone Islands and Coriakins Island.
your fellow Telmarine
I'm not sure it is a fallacy. The BBC mini-series included much of the book's main content and all of the islands but it was rather fast-paced and each moment was seriously underdeveloped with just enough of the book details to make us think it was better developed.
Currently watching:
Doctor Who - Season 11
I felt that BBC's VDT had all the artistic merit of a stick-figure drawing. It basically transliterated the actions and dialogue from the book without any sort of development. There was little of C.S. Lewis' humour and none of his quiet passion.
The book couched the action of the book in beautiful narration. In order to remain faithful to the spirit of the books, not just the letter, it is necessary to explore the characters, their feelings, and their struggles. If the BBC version "said" anything, it was: Lucy did this, then Eustace did that, then Caspian did that . . .