For me, this is a question that I can't answer without examples. You see, my gut instinct, as a fan of the books, is to say no changes are acceptable. But in practice, I've enjoyed adaptations that made additions to the story. If someone suggests a possible bit of artistic license, I can say whether it sounds good or bad to me. But I can't think of good or bad ones unprompted because...I don't know. I love the stories, so it doesn't occur to me to change them.  

I should clarify that you can’t really change the books. Though there are scenes in the books that wouldn’t work as well on screen. So it would require some changes. 

Then of course, filmmakers would have to use some creative license. Now I’m sure we could come up with different ideas that would make a good additions to the Narnia stories, that could work well. 

As a book purist who watches a lot of literary adaptations I think some changes are acceptable if they convey something in the story that would be almost impossible to communicate in the way the book did. Case in point, Edmund's meeting with Mr Tumnus in the dungeons of the White Witch's castle in the Walden Media film, we are shown that Edmund is starting to regret his decision to side with the White Witch and to see how truly evil she is plus that he is starting to side with the Narnians against her. Since most of this is in his head in the book I think this scene (which is one of my favorites) was an acceptable addition. 

I can't predict what will or will not work in any future Narnian adaptations but I hope the writers honor the books in any additional scenes they do write.

@narnian-in-the-north 

Interesting you've brought that up, I thought that the Walden having Edmund in the dungeon was a good way of presenting on realizing he made a wrong choice. In the book, as he's walking to the White Witch's castle, he's feeling conflicted... because he knows he's making a wrong choice. A monologue is not easy to do on screen, so there's creative license to do it visually. In a way, it even brought out his character arc. What CS Lewis wrote in the book is great, but how can you present it visually? I would actually be interested in how the new adaptation of LWW is going to present Edmund's conflict as he's walking to the White Witch's castle.

I can't predict what would work or what would not work either (I don't think there's any reason to, anyways). Though it's sure fun to have these discussions. It kind of shows what you are hoping for and what you might be concerned about.

I really liked the reminders of the WWII context in the Walden film and honestly wouldn't mind if we saw more emphasis and additional context in the Netflix LWW. I love historical details in general, but I think it's particularly important for LWW, especially as we get further and further from WWII. Lewis didn't have to elaborate on horror of the air raids because he was writing for children who had just lived through them. He also didn't have to explain why Edmund would initially be tempted so much by Turkish delight because rationing of sugar was still ongoing when the book was published in 1950. The loss of historical context can make these elements of the story either less impactful to modern readers or leads to less-than-helpful interpretations (e.g. "Edmund is just incredibly stupid and irredeemable because he betrayed his family for something that doesn't even taste good"). So I think that adding some more scenes showing how the air raids affected the children, put strain on their family dynamics, or helping the audience to be more grounded in that time period might be beneficial. 

@wanderer I understand where you're coming from, but respectfully, I disagree. A few reminders of WW2 at the start, like the Walden film put in, are good for establishing the setting and giving some context to why the four children are separated from their family at this time — and, as you say, why Edmund might have such cravings for an overly sweet treat in particular. (One thing none of the adaptations have managed to do — as far as I remember — is to establish clearly that the Witch's Turkish Delight is in fact enchanted, and that's a big part of what draws Edmund in and keeps him under her control. He's not just greedy for sugar; he's suffering from a magical addiction that, for a good while, keeps overriding his better judgment.)

But — and this is a topic I remember being covered in a discussion here a few years ago — the thing is, the WW2 setting is not actually essential to the plot of LWW. For whatever reasons, Lewis simply uses it as a device to put his child characters where he needs them to be for the story, in a mysterious house in the country without their parents or any other older relatives. He never brings it up again beyond that second sentence of the first chapter, and he gives absolutely no indication of what impact the war might be having on the four siblings' emotional state, their relationships with each other, or whatever. (Even Edmund's going "wrong" is blamed ultimately on the horrible school he was attending, not on the trauma of living through a war, experiencing air raids, being afraid for any family members in the armed forces, etc.)

Putting in some more of the "war factor" in a screen adaptation could add extra depth to the story, but my main concern is that it could also easily take it off track and make it too unlike the book. I've heard it suggested a few times — and made explicit in one stage adaptation of LWW I once saw, which played up the wartime setting hugely in both the England scenes and the Narnia ones — that there are somehow meant to be parallels between the children's experiences in wartime England and their experiences in Narnia under the White Witch's rule, that they've essentially been taken out of one war in order to help fight another one in a different world. But there's no evidence in the book that Lewis was trying to draw any such connections, or that they even occurred to him. (It's a similarly worthless exercise to try finding parallels between The Lord of the Rings and WW2, which Tolkien explicitly denied was his intention.) And for me at least, the problem is that once an adaptation of LWW starts doing that, it's no longer telling the story that the author intended to tell.

There's the added danger in all this, too, of implying that Narnia isn't truly an independent world in its own right, but somehow a "projection" of the children's own wartime experiences and fears and struggles, made manifest somehow in a fantasy adventure. (The classic example of this is, of course, the 1939 movie version of The Wizard of Oz, which changes Oz from a real magical land — as it unquestionably is in the original books — to a dream that Dorothy has after being knocked unconscious during the cyclone, in which most of the characters she meets are fantasy versions of people she knows in real life, and the adventures she has reflect her own deepest longings and fears.) To me, that really cheapens Narnia and is definitely the opposite of what Lewis was intending — especially as, by the end of the series, we have Susan herself rejecting Narnia as nothing but "all those funny games we used to play when we were little". If anything in a Narnia screen adaptation leads the audience to assume Narnia is even partly created by or shaped by the Pevensies' own imaginations and personal experiences, then that ruins the deeper point of the whole story.

The very act of translating a work from page to screen, is by it's very definition a change, therefore the entire question is somewhat moot - it's all a sliding scale from that point onwards.

And as @col-klink has said, you can't really then discuss the fundamental nature of change independently of specific examples, which are themselves probably better discussed in more focussed topics, therefore there's not really a lot to be said about the topic of change in general.

@courtenay 
I couldn’t agree more. While Narnia does have some battle scenes (with the Battle of Stable Hill in LB probably being the biggest), it should impact more on emotion. Even when changes or additions are made, it could have a moving impact. 

Posted by: @icarus

And as @col-klink has said, you can't really then discuss the fundamental nature of change independently of specific examples, which are themselves probably better discussed in more focussed topics, therefore there's not really a lot to be said about the topic of change in general.

Well, I'm gonna take a stab at it. But this is based on my own observations over time in what I love or hate about movies. 

First thing I almost always let slide are changes to the timeline. This is something that often has to happen when translating a book to a movie. A good example is in LotR:FotR when Frodo leaves the Shire with the ring relatively quickly in the movie, whereas in the book it's like....10-20 years later??? Can't remember exactly, but it's a change that makes a lot of sense. 

DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTER!!!! I don't mind a gender switch. For example, I liked that Trufflehunter was a female in the BBC version of Prince Caspian. It made a lot of sense. And that would work for me for a handful of the side characters. But again, it just depends on which ones. If Aslan ends up being switched to a female, I'm out. 

Sometimes when the movies do a deep dive into the background of characters, it works, and I'm all for it.  So if they'd like to flesh out some back stories to explain why certain characters do what they do, that's okay. 

On the flip side though, the change(s) I find the most unforgiveable when adapting a book to a movie are changes to a character's character. I was willing to forgive just about all of the other big changes in Prince Caspian, but I just could not get past High King Peter behaving like an absolute entitled jerk and the direction the storyline took as a result. It literally ruined the movie for me. 

Second thing that drives me crazy about the Narnia adaptations in particular (and if you've been around the forum for any number of years, this has become my number one rant and number one plea for the future) and that's that the filmmakers feel the need to suck any happiness and joy out of the movies so they can be dark and brooding like every other single thing that's coming out of Hollywood these days. Blegh. I don't need any more of that. Make Narnia unique! The way the books are intended to be. 

Posted by: @fantasia

First thing I almost always let slide are changes to the timeline. This is something that often has to happen when translating a book to a movie. A good example is in LotR:FotR when Frodo leaves the Shire with the ring relatively quickly in the movie, whereas in the book it's like....10-20 years later??? Can't remember exactly, but it's a change that makes a lot of sense. 

It's 17 years in the book, I believe.  

DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTER!!!! I don't mind a gender switch. For example, I liked that Trufflehunter was a female in the BBC version of Prince Caspian. It made a lot of sense.

I remember being a bit surprised by that as a young viewer, but as it didn't have any impact on the story, I didn't mind it. Actually, I have a vague feeling that Trufflehunter was still referred to as "he" by the other characters despite clearly having a feminine voice, but I may just be misremembering! 

Another gender switch I saw once — not of the actual characters, but of the roles they play — was in a stage version of LWW, in which it was Mrs Beaver who met the children in the woods and led them back to the Beavers' home, where her husband was waiting. I definitely don't have a problem with changes like that, where they give female characters a slightly more active role but in ways that don't substantially alter the plot. (I wouldn't agree to a female Aslan, either. Or a male Jadis, for that matter!) 

Second thing that drives me crazy about the Narnia adaptations in particular (and if you've been around the forum for any number of years, this has become my number one rant and number one plea for the future) and that's that the filmmakers feel the need to suck any happiness and joy out of the movies so they can be dark and brooding like every other single thing that's coming out of Hollywood these days. Blegh. I don't need any more of that. Make Narnia unique! The way the books are intended to be. 

Oh, definitely. One of the first things Lewis establishes about Narnia, in the first book he wrote, is that it's meant to be a land full of joy — that, when everything's as it's meant to be and there are no tyrannical rulers or other troubles, it's a place that can "give itself up to jollification for weeks on end" (according to Mr Tumnus in LWW), just for the sheer delight of living. And even just before the end of (the mortal) Narnia, Jewel in LB paints that eloquent word-picture of "whole centuries in which all Narnia was so happy that notable dances and feasts, or at most tournaments, were the only things that could be remembered, and every day and week had been better than the last." It's meant to be a world that, while not absolutely perfect, is overall far less tainted with evil than ours, and in which a huge diversity of sentient beings live side by side in peace and happiness with little or no trouble most of the time. (Except when something goes wrong, and those are the times when children from our world are magically called in to help put things right.) Narnia, for the most part, shouldn't be dark and gritty — it should be a place that makes us think "I wish I could live in a world like that!!" 

To be fair, a female Aslan would cause the screenwriters all sorts of plot holes to resolve, given that female Lions don't have manes.

Therefore i think we're probably fine in that regard - i also can't see a director wanting to rob themselves of one of their single most prominent pieces of visual imagery in the series by denying themselves the rich golden mane of Aslan.

Posted by: @fantasia

I was willing to forgive just about all of the other big changes in Prince Caspian, but I just could not get past High King Peter behaving like an absolute entitled jerk and the direction the storyline took as a result. It literally ruined the movie for me. 

I'd like to share this quote from a blog post I wrote about Prince Caspian this year. It's not an attempt to change anyone's mind. It's just a view that doesn't get much representation on Narniaweb so I thought I might as well share it. 

For many fans, this one change to this one character is enough to ruin the adaptation for them. I can understand that if King Peter was a huge role model for you growing up. But while I consider Peter in the book to be admirable and well written, he’s not a particular favorite of mine and while there’s a lot I dislike about the execution of this character arc for him, as well as with William Moseley’s performance, which feels like he’s playing a different character from the likeable one in the last film, there’s also a lot that appeals to me about it conceptually. In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Peter’s journey was all about him learning to have more confidence. I like that this sequel gives him the opposite arc rather than rehashing what we’ve already seen. Also, I don’t really get why so many kids’ movies, like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, feel that the main thing they need to teach their young viewers is to be more confident. Doubtless, there are some children who need to learn that but aren’t there also many-possibly even more-who suffer from overconfidence? Having the protagonist in a mainstream kids’ movie learn to be humble is an interesting and refreshing move if you ask me and one more in line with the broad themes of the Narnia books.

Posted by: @fantasia

Second thing that drives me crazy about the Narnia adaptations in particular (and if you've been around the forum for any number of years, this has become my number one rant and number one plea for the future) and that's that the filmmakers feel the need to suck any happiness and joy out of the movies so they can be dark and brooding like every other single thing that's coming out of Hollywood these days. Blegh.

Have you ever given any specific examples of this from the movies (or any other adaptations?) I can think of one, maybe two, examples but I really don't get this overwhelming sense of gloom you get from the Narnia movies. I find them plenty joyful. (I don't think this is me liking the films and you disliking the films since it sounds like their sadder scenes have a power for you that they don't have for me and their happier scenes have a power for me they don't have for you.) 

P.S.

Since most of this post was relatively confrontational, I thought I'd mention I didn't have a problem with Trufflehunter being female in the BBC Prince Caspian either.

Another I would point out is character personality. While their physical description don't have to necessarily match a 100% how they're described in the books (the BBC depicted Susan as a blond and Lucy with dark hair, switching them from how they are described in the books, with Susan being described as having black hair and Lucy with golden hair or a blond), their personality traits being done right will still count for something!

One of the problems I had with the Walden's PC was that Susan was depicted as a warrior-queen. It's not fitting for her character, given her title as "Queen Susan the Gentle". So even if they made Susan a dark burnette, as long as she depicted as she is supposed to be personality wise, it should be fine.

Posted by: @col-klink

It's not an attempt to change anyone's mind. It's just a view that doesn't get much representation on Narniaweb so I thought I might as well share it. 

Ironically, in my mind, when PC first came out, most people agreed with you and liked the change. I just couldn't handle it. I suppose it's one of those "life imitates art" kind of things. If you want teens to be better teens, give them some real role models. This opinion of mine has been exacerbated by the fact that I now work with some amazing teenagers at our local homeschool co-op. THESE kind of kids behave the way I expect kings and queens of Narnia to behave.

Posted by: @col-klink

Have you ever given any specific examples of this from the movies (or any other adaptations?)

Sure!
They actually filmed a big dance scene at the end of LWW after the Pevensies coronation that was cut. I can't remember if they put it back in the extended edition or not. 
The much bigger one was the ENTIRE rescue of the Telmarine people by Aslan, Lucy, Susan, and the greek gods in PC. I just read that chapter to my kids two days ago and it's such fun. I remember one of the screenwriters specifically saying that they left it out because when they read it, their reaction was "Why are they having a dance?" during Peter's battle with Miraz. Never mind all of the townspeople being freed from oppression!!! It was just a dance to them. 
I can't really talk about VDT. The book is a blast. And the movie? All I remember is the green mist. 

For the record, I do not mind darkness. Heaven knows there are some incredibly dark parts in Narnia that are very poignant. But I'm looking for the lightness to contrast.

Posted by: @courtenay

— it should be a place that makes us think "I wish I could live in a world like that!!" 

Exactly!!