Page 3 of 4

PostPosted: January 3rd, 2007, 4:32 am
by rusmeister

PostPosted: January 3rd, 2007, 12:28 pm
by Larry W.
I don't think animated versions are necessarily bad, but the 1979 cartoon didn't seem very authentic to me, with the appearance of the children not much like they are in the book, lack of beautiful backgound scenery (wihich the 1977 Hobbit film did quite artistically). How would people have liked a version done with marionette puppets (like Gerry Anderson's) or claymation? It doesn't matter what the medium is, just so it presents the story in a tasteful way close to what Lewis intended in his books.

Larry W.

PostPosted: January 4th, 2007, 7:11 am
by carol

PostPosted: January 4th, 2007, 10:33 am
by Larry W.
I wonder if seeing it would have changed Jack's mind about not having any dramatizations of his books. Some authors, such as L. Frank Baum in The Wizard of Oz were directly involved in the making of films based on their books.

Larry W.

PostPosted: January 4th, 2007, 7:58 pm
by ArdenZ

PostPosted: January 4th, 2007, 9:08 pm
by Sven

PostPosted: January 4th, 2007, 9:14 pm
by robsia

PostPosted: January 15th, 2007, 7:00 pm
by DavidL
Hi this is my first post on this forum so forgive me if I transgress any rule of etiquette.

The animated version does have it's faults, in particular the animation is too cartoonish, almost like Tom and Jerry at some points. And the Pevensies do not look the way I imagined them from the book.


But despite that I really prefer it over the recent Disney/Walden version (it's just my opinion, please don't kill me!) The recent movie strayed too far from the spirit of the book by diminishing the power and authority of Aslan. It made it seem as though Aslan and the Witch were on the same level so embracing a dualism that would have horrified Lewis. Whatever other faults the animated version has it cannot be accused of that.

PostPosted: January 15th, 2007, 7:48 pm
by Erekose
The Heretic Bids You Welcome

Well spoken.

The Film had very good imagery, but like you said tended to waver a bit from the spirit of the book.

I seem to recall seeing the animation years ago, and your description does seem to fit my recollection.


What we REALLY need is to work on this Revolution where we Wardrobians take over Pine/Holly Wood and start making these films as they SHOULD be done not as the producers THINK the viewers would like to see them done.

i.e. keep up the quality of imagery and dispense with dialogue alterations.. (inserted "flash-back" type cuts allowed for reason of plot developments which might be clearer in the writted version.

/me seems to recall the takeover of the film studios/companies was discussed in a place far far away in a time long long ago

PostPosted: January 15th, 2007, 10:46 pm
by Pete

PostPosted: January 15th, 2007, 11:52 pm
by DavidL

PostPosted: January 16th, 2007, 12:01 am
by Pete

PostPosted: January 18th, 2007, 12:08 pm
by Larry W.
I don't know if I would say the movie diminished the power of Aslan so much as it seemed to keep him more in the background than it should have. The Lion, as the true King of Beasts, dominates the scenes on the other versions, though I don't think he looks very majestic in the cartoon-- too much like the Saturday morning cartoons we used to watch when we were kids. Why have Aslan look like Bugs Bunny? I did like the puppet used in the BBC Narnia because at least it looked something like a real lion, although the only problem with it was that was the mouth movements didn't work very well with his speech. I liked the voice though (as much as I liked his voice in Adamson's movie)-- it made a good lion and was more pleasing to listen to than Focus on the Family's Aslan.

Larry W.

PostPosted: January 18th, 2007, 4:59 pm
by BeeLayne

PostPosted: April 30th, 2007, 11:00 pm
by Robert Klemic