the last time I watched the BBC version of VDT was so long ago I cant remember! but the other BBC movies are okay. there's some things that they could have done better, like Maugrim (I don't know if I spelled that right ) *shutters* but even if they could have done better on him I think he is scary enough !!!!
but they did get a GREAT Jill!
like D-T said, they just didn't have that kind of technology then.
so no, I don't think that's a fair fight.

~Andriel

I grew up with the BBC Narnia series. I loved it as a child. However, that love faded as I got older and started to notice the flaws.

When it comes to special effects, it's certainly not a fair fight. But special effects is not what makes a show good. For example, I love Classic Doctor Who. And anyone who's seen the bubble wrap monsters on it (Ark in Space, anyone?) knows how bad the effects are. And Classic Doctor Who is still brilliant.

What really made the BBC adaptations bad, in my opinion, (and yes, I know I'm going to get tomatoes thrown at me for this) is that I thought the acting was very bad quality. The script did follow the books almost to the letter. But those scripts were delivered either so robotically or so melodramatically, that either the lines fell flat or just couldn't be taken seriously. It's the heart and soul of the books that matter; not just making sure all the dialogue is there word for word. And if the heart and soul isn't there, word-for-word dialogue matters very little.

Many of the actors on the BBC Narnia adaptations are amazing actors. Tom Baker for one, who plays my favorite Doctor on Doctor Who, is probably my favorite actor of all time, from any show or movie. Yet even his performance fell flat to me. That's why I think what really made the BBC adaptations sub-par was the directing. BBC, even during that time, with their limited special effects, could make marvelous shows. I prefer the Doctor Who serials they did back in the 1970s far more than the modern Doctor Who episodes; and those are even older, with even more limited special effects, than the Narnia adaptations are.

For this adaptation, they had a great script, great actors. So, the fact that it wasn't better than it was shows that it really was just a fail on the director's part. If they had gotten someone else at the BBC to do it, there's a good chance it would not be mocked by people the way it is today.

So while I think some things, such as special effects, can't be compared; other things - the things that really count - can be compared.

I don't like the two later Walden Narnia movies; I dislike them just as much as the BBC versions, albeit for different reasons. But when it comes to comparing Walden LWW with BBC LWW, the BBC one has a more accurate script. But the Walden one has better quality directing, acting, and therefore captures the heart and soul of the book much better than the BBC adaptation.

~Riella

It depends on what you mean by a fair fight. For example, if you're going to compare the BBC's technological aspects (the costumes, effects, camera work, etc) to today's standard, then of course it isn't fair. If you were to compare it to the standards of that time period, see how it matches up, and then look at how well Walden's matches up with the CGI of its time, then it'd be fine.

Like Ithie, I grew up with the show and enjoyed it, but can't seem to enjoy it as much any more. I have no issue with the special effects in BBC's Narnia--as, like Ithie again, I enjoy Classic Who. The problem with BBC's Narnia is the casting (...eurgh), and even worse, the acting; which runs the gamut from painfully stiff (any 'royal sounding' speeches) to melodramatic (the sea serpent battle. oh word, Lucy's screaming...). Also, the copy/paste script job--novels and films are a completely different medium, and the producers for BBC seemed to forget this. You can change the way the dialogue is arranged without changing the feel of the conversation (...I'm looking at you, Walden).

So, I'd say that whether or not it's a fair fight would depend on which aspect you're comparing.

No, it isn't a fair fight. But let's compare them anyway, because this is NarniaWeb and that's what we do.

As previously stated, one is a film and the other is a serial, so the comparison is in many ways unfair. Broader acting can be tolerated to some extent on the small screen but not so much on the big screen. The script can take its time in a serial, but must hurry through for a movie (for example, compare the recent serial and film adaptations of Pride & Prejudice).

Still, it would be fair to point out the parts we liked about each adaptation.

I prefer the realism and authority that Tilda Swinton brought to her role, but I think Barbara Kellerman brought more power to the role. Tilda played a dictator. Barbara played a tyrant.

I liked the BBC's Peter and Trumpkin better, but I think the casting for the Walden films were better overall. (It is a shame that we aren't able to compare BBC's Silver Chair with a big screen counterpart. The BBC's casting of Jill, Puddleglum, and the giants, were all great. I also think most would a agree that Barbara Kellerman's portrayal of The Lady of the Green Kirtle was much more subdued and believable than her portrayal of the White Witch.)

I guess what I like about the BBC's Narnia is that it seems the production team took the time to find out what the story was about and then set out to film that using the resources available. Some of their choices didn't quite stand the test of time (I think there would be much less mocking today if they had opted for puppets instead of costumed actors) but it was a good attempt given the time and budget constraints.

Film is primarily a visual medium, so I think it comes as no surprise to anyone to hear me say that the images and scope of the Walden films was much better. Undeniably, a large part of the magic of Narnia is, well, Narnia itself. -And that means that Adamson's efforts to collect beautiful images from around the world were well spent. LWW and VDT were a teeny bit on the fantastic side, but I'd rather that than a bit too drab like in the BBC. The locations in PC were almost exactly like I'd imagined them. In Walden's movies the casting was better, the score was better, the overall immersion in the world and culture of Narnia was better. But in the script: I feel that Walden falters. Some of the characters were misunderstood or radically changed for the sake of a story arch. The dialogue seemed too modern, as did some character traits. Story changes in LWW led to a few illogical character choices. Story changes in PC led to huge plot holes. Story changes in VDT led to a terrible film. Obviously there is a matter of degrees. I would argue that the less faithful Walden was, the worse the movie was. I think that an ideal Narnia movie script would be somewhere between the BBC's faithfulness and Walden's creative license.

So, all in all, I think the world needs both the serials and the movies, alongside the radio dramas, video games and play adaptations. Each new take brings out something about Narnia that I haven't felt or thought of before, but which complements Lewis' Narnia beautifully.

But the books are better.

No, it isn't a fair fight. But let's compare them anyway, because this is NarniaWeb and that's what we do.

I think there are certain areas where it is fair to compare them (acting, adaptation) and others where it isn't (special effects, pacing, costumes) but I agree that it is NarniaWeb and we must compare them.

Overall, I think the BBC was far better adaptation wise. They were truer to the books. In LWW, Aslan was given the proper credit and strength (except for the way we killed the Witch but that was a technology issue.) Lucy had to be scolded by Aslan because she wasn't going to help the other wounded people until she knew Edmund was okay.

PC was short but most of the parts it did have were straight out of the book. The only problem that I have with the BBC's PC was that Edmund did not side with Lucy when she saw Aslan.

The BBC's VDT is definitely a closer adaptation.

But in the script: I feel that Walden falters. Some of the characters were misunderstood or radically changed for the sake of a story arch. The dialogue seemed too modern, as did some character traits. Story changes in LWW led to a few illogical character choices. Story changes in PC led to huge plot holes. Story changes in VDT led to a terrible film.

Exactly, Walden's script seems to be a lot of almost but not quite. There are so many places that they could have used Lewis's dialogue but didn't. Why reinvent the wheel? I plan to go into characters in the appropriate Cast and Character Discussion thread. That is an essay in of its self. Georgie was an awesome Lucy (the script was lacking at times so Lucy's character wasn't always right). Skandar was a good Edmund (first two movies at least).

Walden had a bigger budget and more technology available so effects, settings, costumes are better. But those things do not make a movie. Walden had the technology available to have Eustace swing Reep by the tail and to show Aslan physically tear the scales off of Eustace but they didn't do it. Those were two of the things that I was really looking forward to.
I think a lot of people's views on this depends on what they are used to. I'm not a big movie watcher and I grew up on the BBC's CoN so I don't look for great special effects, excellent landscapes / sets, etc. I love watching the serial forms Pride & Prejudice and Mansfield Park. I'd much rather have a good long adaptation than a short blockbuster type film. That's why overall I think the BBC's are better.

I don't quite agree with your main point. Sure, Walden could do things that BBC couldn't. But that hardly means BBC was powerless to make a good adaptation. The cheesy talking animals and effects didn't help the BBC versions... but those weren't the main problems. It was primarily the acting and writing. Story-wise, they were just generally clunky.

Besides, I think the BBC version of VDT is significantly better than Walden's. Which is to say it isn't a total disaster.

It is worth considering that BBC did not exactly have the budget to get the best actors, costumes, or props and the visual effects weren't exactly available at the time. But there are times when I watch like a Christmas cartoon movie and I think, "Really? Adults put this movie together and thought that looked good?" and that's basically what happens with BBC movies. I could like them as a kid because I obviously didn't have the higher standards that I do now, but I can't imagine that adults put those movies together and liked them. Surely they could have put more effort into it. As a big Doctor Who fan, I know that they had a small budget and limited visual effects, especially in the earlier years of the 2005 version. However, they made the cheapness work. It didn't look completely real, but you could believe it for the duration of the episode and it wasn't all that bad. The Narnia movies could have used some Steven Moffat at the time.

Okay, so a while ago I gave my two cents on the topic, but recently watched the entire new VDT with another Narnia fan (who has also seen BBC VDT) And before we get further, I have a cold and my head feels like it has a balloon inside. So pardon me if I don't seem as succinct/complete as I try to be
Honestly, if I just wanted a fun/interesting movie to watch, I'd choose the new one. However, if I wanted the closest to the book, I'd choose BBC. Here's how I think the new one was better:
Special affects. But that isn't fair.
Costumes. I always thought that most of BBC Caspian's clothing looked ridiculous.
Acting. Overall, I think the new one has better acting. But that could partly be unfair, as Georgie and Skander are older than the children actors in BBC. However, I thought that Drinian and possibly Eustace did a better job in BBC.
Age. In BBC, it seemed like Caspian was this grown up with two (or three) kiddos tagging along like the kid siblings he never had. In the new one, it seemed closer to the book in that while Caspian was older, he was still growing up and the Pevensies were less "childlike" and more mature - like I pictured them.
Target Audience. Again, this might not be fair. BBC seemed like it was trying to be a children's movie. Nothing more and nothing less. The new one has a far broader audience, and so was funner for a young adult to watch. With BBC, I always feel like I'm watching a kiddie movie (not that that's bad... there are worse things to watch.) but with the new one it seemed funner/etc.
Lucy and the Beauty thing. I loved how they brought this out more... but that's probably because it hit close to home.
Eustace's journal. They managed to put that in, and I thought they did a good job of it.
The Stateroom on the Dawn Treader. Seriously, I'd love to step into that scene

Okay, now for some of how I liked BBC better.
Closeness to the book. Need I say more? They are almost quoting from it in places, and even in parts like Eustace's journal (where there were few direct quotes written) they took his version of it and made it like it would "really" have happened. And all while keeping Eustace the brat.
Also, there were tons of little things like that. For example, in BBC it shows Caspian giving Lucy his room, while in the new one it doesn't show that scene. Those who read the book understand that he did (it shows her in the nice room, and Caspian, Edmund, and Eustace in the bare room with hammocks) but it would have been nice to have more clarity.
Less foofed-up excitement. I thought the book was exciting enough, without adding things like green mists, human sacrifice, etc. BBC seemed to go with the book-excitement, and also didn't add minor characters that seemed a bit confusing. (i.e. Gael and Rhince.) They also kept in scenes like Gumpas, etc. which added lots of depth/etc. to the characters and plot. I still don't know why Walden added all the extras to the Lone Islands.
Well, there's a slice of what I thought... hope I didn't ramble too much.
It's good to be back on NarniaWeb after several months off
Edited: I said BBC at one point when I meant Walden. Thank goodness the cold is almost over

I haven't yet seen all of the BBC Narnia adaptations, but from what I have seen so far, I really don't think they're nearly as bad as people make them out to be. The cheesiness and campy-ness are not uncommon in older films/shows...especially from the 70's and 80's. >__> I'm generally not surprised when I see that coming from that time period. Putting that stuff aside, I think that they often did the best with what they had. Yeah, there was overacting, but I got the feeling they were dead-set on being faithful to the books. If only we could get that level of dedication with today's technology. TV isn't such a bad format for Narnia...breaking them down into episodes allows for way more content and less rushing.

Yes, I would rather they weren't so drab, and I would like for the acting to be better, but they also didn't feel the need to rewrite the entire book in order to make it "commercial". Yes. I would honestly rather the dialogue be quoted from the book directly rather than it come off sounding as modern as it does. And of course they have to make it sound modern, or what if all the tweens it the audience don't get it? Disaster, right? *rolls eyes* One aspect of the story is that, yes, it's not taking place today. Why does the dialogue need to sound like it's from today if we're to believe it took place in 1940? I don't get it.

I would actually enjoy a scene by scene recreation of the books, which is kind of what the BBC did. I know that's not possible for a Hollywood movie, but they really could take some quotes from the books and try and capture more of their charm. I feel that charm in the BBC versions, I don't know why. I didn't even grow up with them. There are points in the Walden ones where I just feel like I'm watching Ice Age 5 or something. Funny talking animals and no one is ever actually in any danger. When I read the books, I really feel it when the characters are frightened or being threatened. The BBC ones come off as a little more creepy in those parts, which I like. The BBC was like "Okay, in the book, this scene comes next." And then they did that scene. I don't care if the special effects were terrible, the acting was cheesy, etc. The fact that there is all that wrong with them and we can still find things BBC did better thirty years ago says something about the state of film-making today.