Firstly, DawnTreader07, I love your signature! That is one of my favorite quotes from the entire series.
Secondly, that roar was pretty weak. I haven't seen all of the BBC films, but I have seen all of BBC's Voyage of The Dawn Treader (affordable at Amazon) and I loved how closely they stuck to the book. I wanted to see the story coming alive, and for that purpose, BBC's VDT was good. They wandered a little, but still, pretty good.
I've seen clips of the new VDT, and while I liked some, was glad I chose the BBC VDT.

I am of the opinion that the BBC versions are FAR superior to the Walden versions. A movie that comes from a book cannot be primarily judged on the effects, the cast, or any other cinematography aspects. It MUST be judged on how close it sticks to the book itself.

The BBC movies could have used the books as scripts they stick so close to the canon. They remain some of my favourite movies, and yes, while I find some of the costumes hideous, and some of the special effect absolutely laughable, I still think that as adaptations, they are FAR more appealing than the Walden movies.

Thing about the BBC series was it wasn't movies. It was a tv serial. It has it's good points. It has it's drawbacks, but as a tv serial and not a movie, it had a far smaller budget than the Walden movies.

I think the primary reasons that there are comparisons between the two are:

A) They both got further into the series than any other visual attempt
B) The BBC movies stayed MUCH closer to the books
C) They both capture some aspect of the books even though it is to a different extent.

If I had to compare each story side by side, I'd pick Walden's LWW just from the way the story was woven together. I'd go with the BBC versions over the others though because of how close they stuck to the books.

I haven't seen the BBC series since they were first transmitted on British television over 20 years ago. But my memory of them is that they were very uneven in length. The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe was made in 6 episodes, so it was nearly 3 hours airtime, longer than the Walden film. Consequently it was very slow. Prince Caspian and The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader were squashed together into a single 6-episode series, Prince Caspian only 2 episodes and VotDT 4 episodes. So Prince Caspian was way too short, and VotDT was a bit too short (the episodic nature of the book suited the format of a TV series). I think The Silver Chair was also 6 episodes but I never saw that.

My other memory of it was that it wasn't well cast. The Pevensie kids all seemed wrong, while the adult actors did what adult actors often do in children's programmes, over-act. I was glad that they didn't do what had been done in some stage productions and have Aslan played by a man in a lion costume, walking on two legs. But the animatronics didn't look at all convincing, and the effects generally weren't up to the standard of other BBC series of the time (such as '80s Doctor Who). The impression I got was that the BBC wasn't taking the Narnia stories seriously.

I didn't really watch the BBC movies when I was little because my mom knew they were such bad quality. I think it is good to have movies stick to the books, but it is ok the deviate a bit from the books, assuming it enhances the story. I think that, even taking the technology of the time into consideration, they could have done a much better job with the BBC versions. They could have had better actors, better sets, and better props. It seemed...cheap. I really wish the Walden movies had been closer adaptations, but they are much more enjoyable and appealing because they are more professionally done.

Even though they didn't have the technology we do now, I think it is okay to compare the two to some degree, like the acting, the costumes, the casting, the sets, the directing, and I'm sure there's tons more.

Narnia movies, especially the first 2, are better than the BBC series. Better acting, visuals. The intro of the BCC series is great however.

It's the same for Lord Of The Rings, the animated film from 1978 looks a bit cheap and very dated, Jackson's Trilogy looks amazing.

I think it Depends how you look at it, while the movies may have better special effects and such, it is in my opinion, not the bells and whistles in a movie or tv show that make it good.
It is the story.
I can't really recall how faithful the BBC Narnia's were to the books, it has been a number of years since I have seen them.
But I think it applies to all movies.
A lot of remakes I don't think are as great as the originals because they loose track of the heart of the story.
*Realizes she really needs to re-watch the BBC Narnia Movies*

I rewatched the BBC LWW a couple of years ago, and although I enjoyed it, I prefer the Walden LWW. I haven't rewatched the others, so I don't remember them that well.

From the technical point of view, the BBC version is at a disadvantage. The technology is so much better now - no need to have the Beavers as people in funny costumes! Technically, it's not a fair fight.

Judging them as adaptations is different. Choosing scenes, writing a script, to some extent directing, is comparable even though the technology is different. I enjoyed Walden's LWW as an adaptation, and thus the technology became a stronger factor.

I'm less sure about the adaptations of the other books. I only remember that BBC's PC was rather rushed, everything squeezed into two episodes - but there was no arrogant Peter in it.

I agree that the that the BBC version did have budgetary disadvantages compared to the Walden version, but that still doesn't mean that they are good films by any stretch of the imagination. Just about every actor and actress is terrible as is the script. And the plot though they follow the book better then the newer ones are incredibly boring. Add to that the the awful special effects and costumes(Which I will blame partially on the budget) you get a bad film

No offense to those who like them though.

The reason I don't like the BBC adaptations too much, mostly the earlier ones, is because of the script being too close to the book. Strange as this sounds, this can be just as bad as straying too far from the source of material.

Being too much like the book can be utterly boring, and can be almost painful to watch, in my opinion.

Another reason I didn't really like the earlier ones especially was because of the acting of the children. Some of it was just atrocious, and hard to listen to.

Unfortunately I haven't really seen the entire BBC series all the way through. I have seen seperate scenes from it, though - a few clips from each part that came out. Honeslty, from what I've seen, I do think it is a fair fight when it comes to things like acting, script, and casting. Again, I can't say for sure because I haven't seen the BBC version all the way through, but I do think there are some things that can be compared, taking into consideration the advancement of CGI and effects.

There are elements in both versions which on their own look pretty weak, but together would be very powerful - for example, the White Witch. I disliked the look she had in the BBC series - she looked a little too black for a White Witch. But she had an amazing presence and power emanating from her - all she was missing was an epic filming style and music, and a better look. I think she would have been perfect if given the image and costume of Tilda Swinton, who looked amazing in the part, but was a little weak in her portrayal of the character in comparison to the BBC Witch. It would be great, really, to combine elements in both movies so they could balance out the weaknesses and strengths each possesses. That's my opinion, at least.

Ironically, one of the things that endears the BBC to its fans - the fidelity to the books - seems tied to one big thing its detractors criticize: the often-slow pacing.

Part of this is because strict adherence to the written word may not translate well to a visual medium like TV or movies.

Yet I think part of this is due to the way the two versions were intended to be watched. The Walden productions are big-screen movies, made to be watched in the cinema, all in one sitting. This leads to quicker pacing, and leaving out more of the source material.

The BBC, on the other hand, were made-for-TV serials totaling several hours in length; they were made to be watched in half-hour or hour-long segments. This allowed them to include more of the source material, and the slow pacing may not be such an issue if we watch them a little bit at a time rather than all at once. (Incidentally, this had some interesting results when the BBC versions were put on DVD. For example, several minutes of the storm in VDT are repeated, perhaps because originally it was part of a 'previously on' recap reminding viewers of what happened in the previous episode).

Other issues, like the poor special effects, are a result both of budget constraints for the BBC and the fact that CGI and the like have advanced significantly in recent years.

Still, I think Barbara Kellerman's portrayal of the White Witch was over the top (almost humorously so), and seems to get a few comments whenever a group of us watch the BBC version.

So is it a fair fight? It's like apples and oranges; the two versions are almost different media (TV vs big screen movie). The BBC is truer to the text of the book but often seems to drag. The Waldens are more exciting to watch but sometimes take liberties with the text. So I imagine Narnia fans will be discussing this for some time to come.

Still, I think Barbara Kellerman's portrayal of the White Witch was over the top (almost humorously so), and seems to get a few comments whenever a group of us watch the BBC version.

Definitely over the top, and I agree about humorously so.
And I think that was the point - to make her more funny and less scary, and thus more family-friendly. So I think it was intentional in the direction.

Tilda Swinton's White Witch is scarier, because she seems nice until you realize how cold and unpredictable she is. Not someone to laugh at and dismiss.