@jasmine_tarkheena I think some changes are acceptable if necessary for an easier screen adaptation. For example, the battle is never truly described in the books. Lucy and Susan are with Aslan, and then we cut to them finding the aftermath. IN the LWW film (at least the Walden Media one), we see the actual battle. And it is EPIC. Also, if physical description isn't really described, then I don't mind the characters not exactly looking like their book counterparts. Also, most people imagine Lucy as a brunette. I had to point out that she's blonde. 

HOWEVER, if they change characters' personalities, then I have issues with that.  

@courtenay I love that!

Posted by: @carithewriter

Also, most people imagine Lucy as a brunette. I had to point out that she's blonde. 

Hooray, someone else who's noticed that!! (I'm blonde myself. ) Not that it actually makes any difference to the plot, but it is one of those little details that even Pauline Baynes, awesome illustrator though she was, didn't pick up...

HOWEVER, if they change characters' personalities, then I have issues with that.

Yes, me too.

@carithewriter @courtenay

Good points, though there are different shades of blond. I used to be a light blond when I was really little then it darkened when I got older. Lucy is a blond in the books, though it’s not explicitly stated which shade of blond (not that it’s any important).  Though it is mentioned at the end of LWW that during the Golden Age, she’s golden haired.

I can completely understand why anyone would object their favorite character being a depicted with a different hair color than described in the books. Even if they’re not described in details in the books, for instance, if Emeth is depicted as a blond (when he’s most likely dark haired, since he’s a Calormene), I would flip out!  

The BBC TV series switched the hair colors of Susan and Lucy than from the books (Susan as a blond and Lucy as dark haired where as in the books Susan is dark haired and Lucy is a blond). But even then, they don’t get that mixed up. 

I don't like it when Narnia adaptations change the characters but if I'm honest, the characters aren't really the reasons I love the books-or at least not the books that have been adapted into movies recently. Like, I think Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy are all very well written characters but none of them is a great literary character like Jean Valjean or Ebenezer Scrooge or Elizabeth Bennet. (Puddleglum from The Silver Chair on the other hand...)

The things I remember most from the Narnia books tend to be images (and asides from the narrator) so the things that tended to disappoint me from the Walden Media Narnia movies were images that got left out or greatly reduced. While it's true, as Carithewriter says, that they showed the climactic battle in more detail than the book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe did, they completely glossed over all the statues coming back to life. That was one of my favorite bits of descriptive writing in the series. Also, the main reason I'm interested in new movie adaptations is that they can bring images to life in the way stage plays or the BBC miniseries from the 80s couldn't.  

Right. Even change of tone would also depend on the scenario. For the most part, I didn't mind the tone in Walden's LWW (though I could have done without the melting river scene). But at times, there were that change of tone worked (like Edmund in the dungeon at the White Witch's castle and even seeing Mr. Tumnus one last time before he's turned to stone until Aslan restores him added emotional depth). But changing the tone really depends. For instance, if LB gets unnecessarily sugar coated, I'm totally out!

For the most part, a Narnia film should keep within the tone of the original books, but sometimes a change of tone can work well if done in the right place at the right time.

@jasmine_tarkheena Obviously. That would go with Aravis, too

@carithewriter 

Oh yes, you're absolutely right! Aravis should totally not be a blond!

Well, now that Netflix is updating MN from 1900 to 1955, I honestly don’t know if a change like that would be acceptable. But I suppose it will be fine as long it has the Victorian style lamppost (though I imagine it would have been updated by then), and (depending on how well it does, of course), if LWW is next and it’s set in say 1995, they keep the Turkish delight in and not do the cheeseburgers as was attempted in a 90’s adaptation.

As long as it’s not too distracting or too many changes, updating a time setting is fine every once in a while. 

I don’t really want to see a Narnia that is updated at least in its time setting. So I probably will pass on this one. The Walden films had some music which was a bit modern, but they for the most part retained the time setting of the books. Greta Gerwig wants a time that C.S. Lewis would probably not have approved of since Lewis was at least partially a medievalist like Tolkien.  It is true that the 1950’s time period is so far for only part of the film as we know, but I think for Narnia it is better to stay with the time settings of  the books. The Victorian time is essential for at least a portion of The Magician’s Nephew.  I also have reservations about supporting Netflix, although if it were a more faithful C. S. Lewis film I would be even be willing to subscribe to them. But that appears so far to not be the case.

Fair enough. Though there are some cases where not just changes, but additions that really add to the story that work quite well. I should also add that this doesn’t just apply to film or series but audio or radio dramas as well. Even in audio, like in the Focus on the Family radio dramas of Narnia, there were some additions that really added to the story while staying faithful to the spirit of the books.

For example, in The Last Battle, they actually added dialogue where Tirian and Jewel give themselves up to the Calormenes:

After the narrator said, “They turned and walked back together, shedding bitter tears”, Tirian said “Calormenes!” Rishda said, “It’s him! The murderer! Kill him!” And as the Calormenes came towards them with their weapons in hand, Tirian said, “Wait, wait, I surrender.” And the Calormenes are like, “What? It’s a trick!” Tirian said, “It’s no trick! See how I hold out my sword with hilt towards you? I who was King of Narnia and am now a dishonoured knight give myself up to the justice of Aslan. Bring me before him.” Jewel said, “I also give myself up.” Rishda said, “If that is true, then bind them: his hands and a rope around the unicorn’s neck! And I will have your sword, king! Now, what is that upon your head?” Tirian said, “A golden circlet!” Rishda said, “I will have that as well. Now come with us!”

Adding dialogue there actually really added to the story while staying faithful to the books. It made Tirian's surrender feel more immediate and tense—like you're right there in the moment with him. Then Jewel also giving himself up shows that loyalty and deep friendship between them even in despair. Then by having Rishda actually speak, in a way, it kind of adds to his character as greedy and power-hungry—taking Tirian's sword and circlet—which sets him up as a villain more clearly than in the book. I mean, what CS Lewis wrote in the book is great, but this adaptation adds a layer of immediacy and drama that really works for audio. It makes the scene feel more alive and less like narration.

It was a great addition to the audio drama, and I suppose it could also work for film. It will depend on the director's vision, of course. Well, if you don't have a narrator in film, you'd have to show it visually anyways.

I don’t think that it is really possible to have all of the actors look exactly as they are portrayed in the books.  To me having the hair a different color is a minor issue, but getting the personalities right is much more important.  The Walden films succeeded mostly in getting actors that were like the characters in the books. But I don’t know if Greta Gerwig will be as careful about doing it.  While the Pevensies in the Walden films don’t look exactly like the characters in the books they acted much like them, and you could instantly recognize them from the story the movie is based on.  With the BBC production the casting was less professional, but at least it was still acceptable.  They may not have been great actors, but they were good enough to encourage interest in the original stories.  There was no problem in identifying them from the original books, although the production was much more simple.  It all depends on having characters in films that are as believable as the stories they are based on.