I thought Oz sort of reminded me of Avatar with a mixture of Alice In Wonderland. However I did enjoy watching the trailer a lot and loved the transitions of Kansas to Oz like in the original 1939 movie. And yes I can't wait to see it, I hope it comes quickly.

To answer your question, what makes Narnia visually different from other movies is that Andrew Adamson really did a great and out of this world amazingly, outstanding job on The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. For a place really close to Heaven you have to make it out of this world gorgeous and beautiful and Adamson did a job well done. It is definitely a world unlike anything I've ever seen and for a lot of other people too I assume or at least I would hope so. It's a big possibility why it was the biggest grossing film then the others because people love to escape by watching all these fantastic landscapes pop out at them like in the trailer. It makes the audience wish they were in that world. Sort of like Avatar.

As for Prince Caspian, well a new age had begun so a bit of the majestic looks of the world was not there but I still thought Adamson did a fantastic job of the world.

As for Voyage, I loved the ship shots on water, as for the worlds I loved and really popped out was Ramandu's Island and Aslan's Country. Magician's Island was okay but it looked too fake. The green mist aka green smoke monster which my mom and I called it could have been done better or without. It looked like something from a lame syfy channel movie.

The last two in Prince Caspian and Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the world was either too disasterous looking in the trailers or too unconvincable in the other which is some of the reasons why I think they both bombed LWW's grossings.

The world in LWW stood out more. It was epic.

I'm not sure that Narnia has to have a completely unique look. Those looks in Alice in Wonderland and the Wizard of Oz work because they are supposed to be fantastical and dream-like. The audience is supposed to question whether or not it was all a dream. Narnia is supposed to feel real because it is a real place. It's based on this world, but does have fantastic elements to it, such as dryads and gods that are a part of nature. All in all, I think Lewis intended Narnia to have a unique feel, but I don't think he wanted that through crazy scenery.

Narnia as a fantasy world seems to be a lot closer to the real world than other fantasy worlds to me. Sure, there are talking animals, but that's not what I mean.

In LWW and PC, for example, the world definitely is magical, but has a very wild nature, seen in PC in particular. Vast landscapes of green and snowy castles is what I think of when I think of LWW. For PC, I think of stone castles and expanded forests.

In VDT, there are more fantasy elements than the previous two films. I'll admit that the Magician's Island was a bit too 2010 Alice in Wonderland, but other than that, I don't think it was too over the top visually. VDT seems to have a more "happy, care free" kind of setting. Shining waters, amazing sunsets make this happen, showing a happier side of Narnia.

On a side note, in any future Narnia films, I hope to still have Narnia visually portrayed as a raw, realistic world with just enough magical elements that don't go too over the top.

So while pondering the trailer for Oz the Great and Powerful I realized that Oz was quite distinct in look and feel from any other fantasy world we've seen on the screen thus far. It has its own distinctive style. If you look at a still, you know you are looking at Oz.

Funny you say that because when I watched the trailer all I could see was Alice in Wonderland. Maybe I'm just bitter as the trailer was clearly not canon to the books in any way so I lost interest in the movie entirely.

But on the subject of Narnia, I'm not sure there's necessarily a look to it that makes me think "Wow, that's just how I imagined Narnia!!" because like Andrew Adamson said, Narnia was a real place that wasn't necessarily fantastical in appearance. For me, Narnia is all about the creatures, particularly Aslan.

To this day, I don't think I've seen a CGI creature done as well as Aslan. Certainly not one created from scratch. And many of the other creatures were pretty amazing as well (the centaurs, the fauns, etc.).

So I would say that's what makes Narnia visually different from any other fantasy film. Any shot that shows the talking beasts and the mythical characters borrowed from Greek and Roman mythologies.

I'd say that for LWW especially, I picture a lot of snow. That's one landscape that, while not strikingly unique, still defines Narnia and always has.

When I think of Narnia, I think of the huge, green sweeping fields of Beruna. *swoon* Lots of color, lots of beauty. While it could be said that Narnia and Lord of the Rings have similar landscapes, they don't in my mind. Lord of the Rings to me had a darker feel for much of the film, whereas Narnia, while dark in its own right, had tons of jaw-dropping color and beauty and majesty.

It's also interesting to consider how the scenery and overall feel changed from movie to movie. I felt that in PC we got a glimpse of the darker side of Narnia, and rightly so. And in VDT, the scenery is still one of the things I appreciate about it. The vivid colors and the blue, oceanic landscapes were fantastic.