After seeing many versions of A Christmas Carol, my opinion is that the best adaptation is Disney's. Yes, one has to deal with the uncanny valley. Yes, Jim Carrey is not the first person to come to mind when thinking of Ebenezer Scrooge. Yes, the shrinking/chase scene was completely unnecessary and probably put in for the sole purpose of 3D cinematic tricks and physical comedy tomfoolery. But despite those objections, I think that this version best represents the book. It is genuinely spooky at points yet handles the redemption story well. Using the medium of animation helps bring to life the otherworldly nature of the spirits in a way that live-action has not. (If you read Dickens, you'll find a very imaginative description of the Ghost of Christmas Past.) But to me, the best way to watch this film is in 3D, for those who go in for that sort of thing. This is one of the few films I've seen where 3D is not just a gimmick (although, it obviously is a gimmick in at least one part of the film) but is actually used in a way that enhances the film itself. In 2D, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is basically a shadow in most scenes, taking shape only along the walls and floor, as a shadow would. In 3D, the figure can project itself out of the wall and exist within space. Closing one eye, you see a mere shadow. Opening both eyes, you see a presence. This was an excellent use of technology to communicate the supernatural nature of this being.

In addition, this version brings out passages from the book that others gloss over, which is a good adaptation choice to make this film distinctive.

Although many good adaptations of A Christmas Carol exist in this world, and more are made regularly, I think it will be a while before any top the masterpiece that is Disney's.

(And as a side note, who knew that modern Disney could actually make a movie that was this faithful to its source material?)

I think I agree with you there, @risto. I saw the Disney version when it came out — unfortunately not in 3D, as our local cinema couldn't handle that — and I also felt the wild chase scene was unnecessary and just put in for the ooh-wow-look-at-this effect, but the rest of the film was actually really, really well done and very faithful to the book. I'd love to watch it in 3D some day, if I can, and see those effects you're talking about with the ghosts. (Totally agree that Dickens' own description of the Ghost of Christmas Past, in particular, is very creative and quite hard to imagine in one's own head, let alone on film!)

I have seen the Alistair Sims film and thought it was OK, but it fell a bit flat for me somehow — I think I felt he was playing the character of Scrooge almost a bit too much for laughs, which didn't suit the otherwise creepy tone of the film. Like others here, though, I must also put in a very good word for the Muppets version!! Brilliant.

Albert Finney’s 1970 musical Scrooge was quite enjoyable except for one thing— the brief scene where Scrooge goes down into hell.  Of course he imagines the place and is not actually there. This scene was usually cut from television broadcasts and did not add to the film at all.  As Dickens intended, Scrooge faces his own death in the original story, which the film faithfully includes.  I would still recommend this movie as fine entertainment.  Surprisingly, A Christmas Carol is no longer often made into musical films, although it may still be performed as live theater with music. It does have much appeal when performed as a play. My favorite Dickens musical is Oliver! , the much acclaimed 1968 film. The songs are unforgettable.   🙂

I guess this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't get why so many people consider the Alistair Sim adaptation the Ultimate Christmas Carol. I mean I can see it being A great adaptation of A Christmas Carol. It does have a really strong script and, for the most part, a very strong cast. But I feel like a lot of Christmas Carol movies have those things. I'm not sure what stands out to people about this one. (But I'd love for anyone in this thread who has expressed a preference for it to enlighten me.) Maybe people like the expanded backstory for Scrooge. It is very well written, though it kind of makes the Christmas Past section hog the movie. 

One of the reasons it isn't my personal favorite is that I'm not a big fan of Sim's casting. I think he gives a great performance but-I hope this doesn't sound insulting-I feel like he has kind of a comical looking face. It's a bit hard for me to take him serious in the dramatic role. On an adaptation level, I don't really like the way this movie has Scrooge protest to the spirits that he's too old and it's too late for him to change. It makes him seem kind of pathetic, which doesn't fit into my conception of the character at all. And I really feel like Tiny Tim should look less healthy than he does here. But I will say that the scene towards the end of this one, with Scrooge and Mrs. Dilber-you'll know it when you see it-is hilarious, one of the best written scenes in a Dickens movie that wasn't written by Dickens. If I were to grant the movie the title of The Great Christmas Carol Movie, it would be on the basis of that one scene.

I've come to realize though, that for me there is no The Great Christmas Carol Movie. Instead there are a lot of great Christmas Carol movies, none of which is the ultimate one. But if I were to pick a favorite....

It'd probably be the George C. Scott movie, which is interesting because it's not necessarily the closest to the book and I love the book. But even when it's different from the book, I can imagine the same person writing the book and the movie. Scott, I think, gives my favorite Scrooge portrayal (though I feel like he's too cheerful at the beginning of the movie.) He has such awesome facial expressions and packs so much subtext into the tiniest bits of dialogue. This movie also has my favorite actors for the ghosts, though the Ghost of Christmas Present does have an annoying laugh. The Cratchits are also great and Tiny Tim actually looks like he could be slowly dying. 

The most notable difference between this version and the book is that it portrays Scrooge as being defiant towards the spirits, and refusing to admit any wrongdoing on his part, almost to the end of the movie. This could have been disastrous, making it come across that Scrooge repented simply out of fear of mortality. (The book makes it clear that the reason Scrooge is upset by the visions of his future is that during the last few "staves" he has become resolved to change people's opinions of him. After all, Scrooge is going to die someday, whether he reforms or not. I actually think it'd be a really interesting way to end an adaptation to show people mourning for the dead Scrooge in the future, including an adult Tiny Tim.) But Scott's performance really makes it work because whenever the script does have Scrooge showing regret or decency, even just a little bit, he really makes the most of it. And what really ties the whole thing together for me is the extended scene of Scrooge reconciling with his nephew and niece-in-law, the best written scene in a Dickens movie that's not written by Charles Dickens. It's really powerful to see Scrooge, after refusing to do so throughout the film, finally admit he was wrong. Seriously. Check it out if you haven't. 

A Christmas Carol that I have mixed feelings about is the Patrick Stewart one. Stewart gives probably my second favorite Scrooge performance. And the script is really good. It includes a number of scenes and details that get left out of adaptations a lot. The soundtrack is my second favorite for Christmas Carol score. It's a beautiful movie...but I feel like it's too beautiful in a weird way. Even the scenes depicting poverty look sort of like Christmas cards. When we see the wandering spirits through Scrooge's window, we're not thinking, "wow, how terrible for them!" We're thinking, "wow, what a beautiful haunting image!" And Ignorance and Want are downright cute looking. 

I also feel like the scenes of people celebrating Christmas together, like the Cratchit family and Fred's guests, lack a certain gusto. No one interrupts each other or talks with their mouth full or anything. (They don't do that in the other movies I've mentioned either but they edit it so that you don't notice.) Their revelry feels, for the lack of a better word, staged. But on the other hand, the montage of people all over singing Silent Night is one of the most powerful bits in any adaptation. 

Posted by: @risto

After seeing many versions of A Christmas Carol, my opinion is that the best adaptation is Disney's. Yes (insert lots of criticisms here). But despite those objections, I think that this version best represents the book.

Really? I mean I'm not a hater of this version. It has my favorite soundtrack for a Christmas Carol movie. I love the opening credits montage, showing the world of the story. (Though it's weird that they establish the setting seven years before the main events. Isn't that like starting a movie about 1995 with a montage of 1988? Come to think of it, the Patrick Stewart movie does the same thing.) The Jacob Marley scene is awesome (except for....you know the bit.) The wandering spirts are definitely better than the last ones I mentioned. Robin Wright Penn gives probably the best performance as Belle. (I'm tempted to say I enjoyed Lucy Fraser's performance better, but for her movie they changed the dialogue a bit, making it less of an acting challenge.) And it's cool that this version shows the Ghost of Christmas Past's face morphing into that of each of the people from Scrooge's past that he has just scene. That's a cinematic detail that usually doesn't appear in movies.

But I feel like a lot of the important scenes are too fast paced. But I feel like a lot of important scenes were way too fast paced. These include young Scrooge's reunion with his sister, the Cratchits' dinner and Fred's party. You really don't feel like Scrooge is bonding with any of these characters as he observes them. I think part of this because the movie wanted to add as little original dialogue as possible. You might assume that I'd like that because I'm such a fan of the book and Dickens generally. But the book has a lot of long scenes, especially in Stave III, where a lot of the dialogue is paraphrased. I feel like to truly capture the spirit, you have to add dialogue because without bits like the Cratchits' enjoying their modest feast or the invisible Scrooge entering into the spirit of Fred's party, the story just doesn't work.

Posted by: @risto

Using the medium of animation helps bring to life the otherworldly nature of the spirits in a way that live-action has not. (If you read Dickens, you'll find a very imaginative description of the Ghost of Christmas Past.)

The animated short directed by Richard Williams (featuring the voice of Alistair Sim as Scrooge!) actually has an even more faithful visual depiction of the Ghost of Christmas Past. Watching it...I can kind of understand why they usually aren't that faithful. The flamelike flickering is kind of hard on the eyes.  

@col-klink

Scrooge was supposed to be jolly at the end of the story, and Alastair Sim was very good at portraying the repentant Scrooge.  I liked the way that Sim showed the regret that Scrooge had for his terrible past and his treatment of his sister Fran while she was dying. “Forgive me Fran, forgive me!”.  In some ways he probably could have been more cruel (Patrick Stewart was perhaps somewhat better about showing the mean Scrooge).  But we still get the most miserly and unbelieving Scrooge with the appearance of Jacob Marley and Sim was really good in showing Scrooge’s nastiness in that scene. “ If the poor are going to die they had better do it and decrease the surface population”, as Scrooge said.  Here Alastair Sim was very good at being the heartless Scrooge.  I think Sim’s movie was the best and most moving about showing the transformation of the sinner into someone good. It’s the redemption that is most important.  For me that is the reason why the 1951 film is the best and the closest to Dickens’ original novel.

I read this book every year. Just finished it last night actually. I think I have liked every version I have seen except for Scrooged. Everyone has had some parts that really speak. The kid in me says Mickey's Christmas Carol or Muppets!! 

I was introduced to "A Christmas Carol" with the Mickey Mouse cartoon. Then there was the Muppets, then the one with George C. Scott. I think it's been adapted so many times. It's a really popular book for Christmas.

How much fun it is to watch the Christmas movies like A Christmas Carol again!  I don’t ever get tired of them even though I have seen them so many times. There is also Miracle on 34th Street, The Homecoming, and It’s A Wonderful Life. But I can’t say which is the best since I enjoy them all during the holiday season. It’s A Wonderful Life even had a Scrooge of its own. I usually will like the older original versions better —especially with The Homecoming and Miracle on 34th Street.  When they remake the story such as the recent version of The Walton’s Homecoming it often isn’t quite as good as  the original story. I don’t think there has been a really good remake of A Christmas Carol in recent years.

There's so many versions to choose from. There's also one called An All Dogs Christmas Carol, which is a Christmas special for All Dogs Go To Heaven franchise. And Hallmark had done some modern takes on it. There's also one with Barbie, which I think young girls can appreciate.

I think most kids would be introduced to the classic story with the Mickey Mouse version. That's how I was introduced to it. That might be true of other classic stories that Mickey Mouse was in- The Prince and the Pauper, Jack and the Beanstalk, The Gift of the Magi, and The Three Musketeers.

I kind of have the musical number "Marley and Marley" from the Muppets version stuck in my head (I don't know why they gave Jacob Marley a brother). Anyhow, it's a song that's too impossible to get out of your head.

There's also a Broadway musical version. I think the TV-movie version had Kelsey Grammar as Scrooge. So the musical version might be worth checking out.

Posted by: @jasminetarkheena

kind of have the musical number "Marley and Marley" from the Muppets version stuck in my head (I don't know why they gave Jacob Marley a brother).

I've always assumed it was so they could use both Statler and Waldorf as characters, neither of whom would be as funny on their own without the other one to banter with. They of course started out in The Muppet Show as the two elderly hecklers who would respond with snide comments and put-downs after just about every act, so they sort of come as a pair and I guess the producers of The Muppets' Christmas Carol figured they had to invent an extra character just to have those two guys on together!

@jasminetarkheena that reminds me that in the past TV series writers thought it was a good idea to do a Christmas special retelling this story using the characters of their show.. (Scrooge role played by the grumpy boss, etc).  It got boring in the end!

I recently saw a recent TV movie in which we see Christmas the following year... all introduced by a translucent Marley who has a sense of humour.  No idea of the message or even the plot, but perhaps it showed the difference Scrooge had made in his life? EDIT: I also watched half of Mr Scrooge To See You, which has Scrooge transported to the present time, a year after his experiences. Perhaps I am thinking of this, so I'll try watching it again.

Imagine if there was a Narnia edition of A Christmas Carol. Different Narnia characters would be a different character. 

I can almost see Uncle Andrew or Governor Gumpas as Scrooge. Mr. Beaver or Reepicheep or Trufflehunter or Puddleglum as the Ghost of Christmas Past; Coriakin or the Hermit of the Southern March or Ramandu or Trumpkin or Poggin as the Ghost of Christmas Present; Prince Rabadash or the Tisroc or King Miraz or Rishda Tarkaan as the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come.

@jasmine_tarkheena haha, the group of animals feasting after Father Christmas visited, which the White Witch turned to stone, as the Cratchit family, and that smallest squirrel as Tiny Tim 'Aslan bless us every one - he has he has he has!'

@coracle I could see the family of Squirrels as the Crachit family.

So I guess there's an idea if Netflix were to do a Narnia Christmas special.

Not really, I am sure it would not be allowed. But it's fun to think of it.