I think i put in the other thread on Aslan's depiction that I would definitely be open to having his visual design be a tiny bit more stylised than usual, such that he can look more "other worldly" and majestic compared to a regular lion, however the problem with going full-on anthropomorphic and allowing him to walk around on his hind legs like he does in that Pauline Baynes illustration, is that I'm not sure it gains you anything on terms of narrative or characterisation, but potentially loses you a lot in terms of making him more cartoony, and less fearsome.

Even if you could find a way to work around those concerns, I'm just not sure there is a compelling reason to go to such effort in the first place.

I think his face could be a tiny bit more human-like and expressive. Note: I said TINY. I'm also open to seeing his mane a darker color.

As for standing or doing human things with his hands, he doesn't need to, he just wills things, and they happen.

I think Lewis did have a slightly anthropomorphic concept of Aslan in his head when he wrote LWW — there are references in that book to Aslan clapping his paws together, rising from his throne when he roars at the Witch (we weren't told he was seated on a throne in the first place, and it isn't shown in the illustrations), and of course taking Peter's sword and striking him on the shoulders with it to knight him after the battle with Maugrim. And yes, there's that notorious and absurd illustration of him standing on his hind legs with his hands behind his back as he talks with the Witch. That's Pauline Baynes' interpretation, but Lewis obviously approved of it at the time, so...

In the later books, though, there aren't any references (as far as I can remember!) that make it sound like Aslan is anthropomorphised at all, apart from the fact that he can talk, of course. I would guess Lewis's own concept of the character grew as he continued writing the series and he avoided anything further that might suggest that Aslan is a cartoonish figure, or anything other than "a true Beast", as he describes himself to doubting Bree in HHB. 

I hope the next film version of Aslan won't make him anthropomorphic either. He does definitely need to look "more 'other worldly' and majestic than a regular lion", as @icarus puts it — in fact, there was another thread here recently (I forget which one) where we discussed several scenes from the books that indicate that Aslan's size varies depending on the circumstances and on who is seeing him, and there are times when he's described as having light coming from him. But making him walk on his hind legs, or use his front paws as if they were hands, would just break that magic for me. None of those few instances in LWW where he seems slightly anthropomorphic are essential to the plot, except for him knighting Peter, and that can conceivably be done without him holding and using the sword. (I can't remember that incident from the Walden version, but in the BBC adaptation, Peter kneels and Aslan simply stoops and touches Peter's shoulders with his chin. Which was about the most that version of Aslan could possibly do, given that he was portrayed by two people in a lion costume!! But it works well enough for that scene.)

I do know Lewis himself stated at some point that he didn't want Aslan to be portrayed on stage or on screen by a man in a furry suit, although that's what happened in the very first (1960s) TV adaptation of LWW, which was made after Lewis's death. I have seen a stage adaptation myself where Aslan was played by a guy in a big fur coat, without even a mask or anything to disguise his human face, while a sort of giant flying lion puppet (with empty but glowing eyes) hovered over his head, and that REALLY didn't work.

Whatever Netflix (or any other future adaptation!) does with Aslan, he has to be believable as THE most awesome and magnificent being — "both good and terrible at the same time", as Lewis famously puts it. He does need to look like more than just a lion who happens to be able to talk, but I'm pretty sure any degree of making him human-like would detract from that awesomeness as well.

I'm not a big fan of the Pauline Baynes illustrution of Aslan on his hind legs (despite being a huge fan of her illustrations generally). Like @Courtenay I think that illustration, along with some anthropomorphized descriptions in LWW, are a result of Lewis still working out what Narnia was, and it was something he (I think) wisely moved away from in the rest of the series.

One of the things I like about the Talking Beasts in Narnia is that they really behave like animals rather than humans in animal skin. It contributes to the wildness of Narnia and the idea that humans are strangers to that land - an idea that was really hammered home in the next book PC e.g. Dr. Cornelius tells Caspian that Narnia "is not the land of Men" and Trufflehunter says that Narnia is "not Man's country [...] but it's a country for a man to be King of".

Plus I think a lion walking on his hind legs would look silly.  

Something I think is worth pointing out is that we usually think of super anthropomorphic animal characters, like Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse, as being comedic and we don't want Aslan to be comedic. Of course, there are talking beasts in Narnia who stand on their hind legs and wear some clothing, like the beavers and Reepicheep, who are also dramatic characters. But I think there's an argument to be made that we start out thinking of them as funny and grow to see them as dramatic as the stories proceed. We can't have viewers laughing at Aslan the very first time they see him.

I sympathize though with the urge to make Aslan stand out visually. While meeting an uncaged lion would certainly be terrifying in real life, it's not that scary seeing him onscreen for the first time in the context of the story where we know he's a good guy. That's especially true with all the other talking animals in the background. It seems like there's something besides the fact that he's a lion that intimidates people. (Eustace says that even when he was a dragon, he was scared of Aslan. "I wasn't afraid of it eating me, I was just afraid of it — if you can understand.") And that's hard, even impossible, to convey in a mere visual presentation.

Posted by: @col-klink

And that's hard, even impossible, to convey in a mere visual presentation.

A fair point, though I do think there are plenty of ways for a skilled director to convey those sorts of emotions and sentiments that go well beyond the design of the character itself. It's probably just that Narnia has never really had a skilled director at the helm before.

Take the way Steven Spielberg introduces the T-Rex in Jurrasic Park for example. Throughout the entire first half of that movie, the T-Rex is alluded to, but never seen on screen. However the film still manages to build-up the tremendous ferociousness of the character from a far without ever showing it.

Later then, during the second half of the movie, when the T-Rex is finally revealed, and we've had all this build-up, the use of visual imagery in the scene, such as the vibrating water in a glass and the swinging chain where the goat once stood, all serve to build up the ominous tension. The quiet eerieness of the sound design, and the way the scene is lit all add to that, and that's still before we've even seen a glimpse of the T-Rex itself.

Granted Aslan is not to be feared in the same way as the T-Rex, but I guess that's all just to say that cinematography and competent direction can achieve so much in the right hands.

Compare and contrast the masterful way Spielberg reveals the T-Rex in Jurrasic Park, to the rather pedestrian manner in which Aslan is revealed in LWW, with it's incredibly flat and uninteresting cinematography - it's night and day (both literally and figuratively!)

Posted by: @icarus

Compare and contrast the masterful way Spielberg reveals the T-Rex in Jurrasic Park, to the rather pedestrian manner in which Aslan is revealed in LWW, with it's incredibly flat and uninteresting cinematography - it's night and day (both literally and figuratively!)

 

Well, from what I remember, you'd like them to reveal Aslan just like in the book where he's just sitting around surrounded a bunch of other creatures, some of them technically more fantastic than himself. I don't get how that's better than a big moment of him entering and everyone bowing to him.  

EDIT: If I were doing a movie or TV version of LWW, I'd have voiceover narration throughout and when Aslan appeared for the first time, my narrator would say, " People who have not been in Narnia sometimes think that a thing cannot be good and terrible at the same time. If the children had ever thought so, they were cured of it now." That wouldn't actually make the viewers feel what the characters are feeling but it would at least they would know what they're supposed to be feeling.

I know though that there's a school of thought that dislikes voiceover narration and you could argue that the viewer knowing they're supposed to feel something and not feeling it is worse than them not knowing it. (In that case, they don't necessarily feel like the movie or episode is failing at anything.) FWIW, I believe Greta Gerwig uses voiceover narration in her most recent movie but it's a comedy and she uses the narration to comedic effect so it's likely as not she wouldn't want narration in one of her serious movies. Still, it'd be great if she did want to use narration for a Narnia movie since it might mean including some of the narrator's lines from the book. I love those lines. 

Posted by: @col-klink

 

Well, from what I remember, you'd like them to reveal Aslan just like in the book where he's just sitting around surrounded a bunch of other creatures, some of them technically more fantastic than himself. I don't get how that's better than a big moment of him entering and everyone bowing to him.    

Lewis wanted his talking animals to remain animals, and Aslan was no exception. He put so much realism in them that there was no doubt that they were still animals.  But of course they could easily communicate with humans and with each other. There wasn’t a lot of anthropomorphic behavior except perhaps in Reepicheep, who sometimes acted like an overly brave rash human being. Most of the Lewis’ animals would not be animals in human clothing so he avoided dressing them up like the characters in Kenneth Graham’s The Wind in the Willows. Although I enjoyed reading The Wind in the Willows I think Lewis’ talking animals are better and more realistic and definitely more believable. Narnia was always a more like a real place even though it is fantasy. 🙂

I think that the way Walden adapted Aslan was perfect. The beavers were somewhat humanized since they lived in a dam similar to a human house and used a sewing machine and exhibited other human behavior. Some of the other animals remained similar to the way animals are in real life. Pauline Baynes does depict Aslan as standing on two feet in her illustration about Aslan discussing Edmund's fate with the witch. I don't know how good that would look on a screen though.

Posted by: @courtenay

None of those few instances in LWW where he seems slightly anthropomorphic are essential to the plot, except for him knighting Peter, and that can conceivably be done without him holding and using the sword. (I can't remember that incident from the Walden version, but in the BBC adaptation, Peter kneels and Aslan simply stoops and touches Peter's shoulders with his chin. 

Walden does the same thing, just having Aslan use his paw instead of his chin.

As others have said, I do not think he should be too anthropomorphised. I also agree that Aslan does need something more to him, though, to get across his great presence. I think he could have been more impactful in the Walden films – something that bit more than an 'ordinary' lion. 

But back to the anthropomorphised subject: anything too major would look very wrong. Aslan's anatomy would be so odd if they wanted him to stand as a quadrupedal lion, yet suddenly rise to bipedal, such as in the previously mentioned illustration. They could show a small element of anthropomorphism, again to show that he is no ordinary lion, with the gestures of his front paws capable of a little more expression? I'm not sure if Aslan knighting Peter with his paws could ever look quite right? !

That illustration of Aslan on his hind legs has always bothered me. I think the key to make him more anthropomorphic (MUCH easier said than done) would be simply in his facial features. This would require an extremely talented visual animator. I did not watch the "live action" version of the Lion King back in 2019, but the clips that I saw looked like real lions, but not like characters, if that makes any sense.

I'm wondering if it would look strange at all if instead of standing on his hind legs, Aslan could possibly sit on his haunches and either knight Peter or clap his paws together? I'm not sure if that could work, but it would be much better than standing on his hind feet. 

By the way, I just found the earlier discussion where, among other things, we were talking about details like Aslan's (apparently varying) size and other aspects of his appearance — here it is for reference: What should Aslan look like in Netflix's adaptation?

On the topic of what his face should look like, which came up earlier here, the first post in that other thread has several photos (and a video) showing different subspecies of lions and just how much variety there is in their faces in real life. I'd say Aslan's face definitely needs to be more expressive than what we would see on a non-talking lion in our world, which could be thought of as "anthropomorphising" just a bit. But not to the point where it makes him look comical. Aslan has got to be believable above all else, and for that I think they've somehow got to find that right balance between him looking realistic AND being utterly awe-inspiring — definitely more than "just" an otherwise naturalistic-looking lion who happens to be able to talk, but also not so over-the-top that we can't take him seriously!