Walden is capable of producing very good films, but it will always depend on the producer, director etc. Oh yes, and the script writers!

I'll just say everytime I watch LWW and VDT I feel comfortable with what I am watching. If I see PC or feel like watching it I get the nervous/bad butterflies in my stomach. It's a movie I'm not comfortable watching and yes I believe that it was PC why the films went downhill.

Agreed, glumPuddle. The problem everyone has is the fear to get out of the "norm", the accepted kind of movie. But, on the other hand, you can understand why Walden and Fox were afraid--PC was a bit of an experiment in that they basically gave Andrew Adamson the liberty to adapt the book as he saw fit. I respect Andrew Adamson, but I don't agree with his interpretation and adaption of PC. Consequently, the movie strayed from the book, and the popularity dropped to such an extent that Disney threw in the can. When Fox picked it up, they realized they had made a mistake in the PC adaption, and they were afraid for VDT. Now they were on the right train of thought...but it led to the wrong conclusion. Because PC had been a failure, they were afraid of experimenting with VDT, and decided to make it as conventional as possible and use the "old tricks" that had proven themselves with time. They knew they had to stay close to the book, but the threat of VDT's failure wa so great that the "conventional", generic, proven formulas were greater in importance than discovering the meaning of the book. That's why VDT is so controversial--on one hand, it uses techniques we all know and Hollywood knows, so we're used to it and we like to movie. On the other hand, we'rebored of those tricks and formulas, and we need newness and variety!! Besides, the books have so much to offer, it's pitiful when the producers and directors stoop to using the "old ways" to save a movie. It's a shame, but on the other hand, you really can't blame them.

I watch LWW like this "Wow!! Hey, that's so cool!! Wow, that's just like int eh book!"
PC like this--"Yes, that was cool...ooh, that was bad....hmm, shouldn't have done that...no, no, no, that was extra...etc."

While I enjoyed PC on a purely popcorn level, there is one thing which I really hated about it: how they changed Peter. To me, "the Narnian experience" was supposed to be enriching and ennobling. The characters could bear the struggles of daily life with grace, because they knew, deep down that they were a King or Queen of Narnia.

Adamson turned the Narnia experience into a curse and a fuel for adolescent angst.

I agree with both of your statements Narnian_Archer and Anhun! That's exactly why I get very uncomfortable with PC.

No movie adaptation could possibly be as bad as the one of Ella Enchanted (one of my favorite books).

I truly don't understand why filmmakers feel the need to change good stories.

"Ella Enchanted" the movie was an good film; "Ella Enchanted" the book was an excellent piece of literature. The disappointment of Ella Enchanted lay primarily in that it was so NOT like the book.
So, Ella Enchanted, good film, bad adaptation
VDT, bad film, horrible adaptation.
At the same time, I can understand wanting to change a couple of things to make them easier to translate to screen; like with Ella Enchanted, they can't show her inner turmoil at the climax the way Levine did in the book, so they showed flashbacks through mirrors. That was a good job, but they changed the whole plot and most of the characters completely. VDT just completely dumped Rheep's intense desire for Aslan's country for a green mist. A green mist that is supposed to be menacing but isn't really. There is a great deal of fun, beautiful stuff in VDT, I freely admit, but there is too much dumb stuff that takes the quality down from good.