logo Sign In

The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe: 1979 Animated VS. 2005 Live-Action — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Wow, I have never heard of anyone disliking a book because a film version that came out some 55 years later. I was not too impressed with the Lord of the Rings films, but I didn't go chucking away my leather bound copy of the book. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe film wasn't half as bad as I thought it would be, still it wasn't that great. It was too CG and too Disney. I was impressed, being from Disney and all, that they made it as faithful to the book as they did. I have yet to see any book that has been adapted to film faithfully enough to appease long time fans of the book. TLTWatW was bound to disapoint many long time fans of the book. Come on, don't loose your fondness for the books just because Disney decided to use them to cach in on the Lord of the Rings hype, there are still plenty of copies of the books out there that don't have movie advertisments printed all over them. Also, is the Black Cauldron actually your favorite book of all time? the way you said "I will get around to reading it soon" makes it sound as if you have not yet read it. I am only vaguely familar with the Prydian Chronicles of which it is a member.
I still like the book. I think it's a great book. But since the 2005 movie version is the thing America's familiar with, I can't consider it my favorite book of all time anymore. People will flame me if I hate the movie and say the book is my favorite book of all time. That's why I picked the Black Cauldron. Because I liked it's movie, so people won't get mad at me about that.

The Animated version came out in 79, from what I remember of it as a kid it is very accurate to the book. It is my favorite adaption of the book by far. However, the animation has that 70s 80s animation feel to it so most people to day who watch it for the first time dismiss it merely for its poor (for todays standards) animation. I noticed that (for people in the US) Wal-Mart has it in their childrens DVD section for under $10 (I think it was $7.99).
That's the same issue with my brother and sister. They both love the movie version and hate the animated version because it's outdated. I try to get them to watch it but they won't. Guess I'll just have to bury their DVD copy. And if they're too ckicken to go look for it, they might finally give the animated version a chance.

The 1988-1990 BBC made for TV versions were also pretty good, extremely cheesy by todays special effects standards, as some of the monsters on the queens side are actually cartoons. And all the animals are people dressed up in animal costums. In fact it was even a bit cheesy for 1988 standards, typical budget of made for TV BBC features. They only made The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Price Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and The Silver Chair.

Yes, that's what I thought. Thanks for making that clear.

I didn't care too much for the BBC version. One of the main things that bothered me was the girl who played Lucy. Buck teeth, and quite often went about with her mouth hanging open. Mary Poppins would say: "We are not a codfish!"

In that case, I might skip it then. I absolutely hated Lucy from the movie version. She reminded me too much of one of my sister's friends.
Author
Time
Post link
Ooooh, I've always liked the animated one. Very hard to find. I've watched it maybe 4 times total my entire life. At this point I don't have or know exactly where to find a copy, but would be interested in finding one not too far down the road.


I came out on DVD recently to coincide with the Andrew Adamson/Mark Johnson picture.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mike O
Ooooh, I've always liked the animated one. Very hard to find. I've watched it maybe 4 times total my entire life. At this point I don't have or know exactly where to find a copy, but would be interested in finding one not too far down the road.


I came out on DVD recently to coincide with the Andrew Adamson/Mark Johnson picture.



I'll have to check out the BBC versions!! The movie was BRILLANT!!!! (for a movie that is)

Sure they do not tell the exact same story of the book; the director and the screenwriters filmed what was possible to flesh out (or animate) what they could but the honest truth is the books take place in our heads not on a tiny screen (a movie theater is still minuscule compared to our theater of the mind!), movies will NEVER replace books or their (the books) stories as we conceive them in our imaginations and I do not believe that any filmmaker can really create any film version of a book that will be exact but hey, I’d rather read the books then be criticizing the filmmakers interpretation of a very cerebral series of books.

(going to the library....)

“My skill are no longer as Mad as the once were” RiK

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Ingo Sucks - I still like the book. I think it's a great book. But since the 2005 movie version is the thing America's familiar with, I can't consider it my favorite book of all time anymore. People will flame me if I hate the movie and say the book is my favorite book of all time. That's why I picked the Black Cauldron. Because I liked it's movie, so people won't get mad at me about that.


People will "flame" you? "Flame" you?!

Like the book and hate the movie and everyone else can fuck off. It's a preference you've arrived at all on your own. You don't need to justify it to anyone.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Of course, but there was no need to make a thread just to complain about how 'inferior' the movie is to the animated version. It smacks of being arrogant and whiny, and we've had trouble with arrogant whiny people here in the past.

4

Author
Time
Post link
All I want from you Ingo, is a simple explanation of why/how the Narnia movie offends you at all, because I cannot see how it could be perceived in any way that is offensive. I didn't like the movie at all, but it had nothing to do with it being offensive.
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Post link
The movie over all remained a lot more faithful to the book than I thought it would. It didn't leave anything out (but sometimes they changed the way it happened a little), and they did add a little. It is very correct that there is no way the movie could compare to the cinema of our minds, and narnia was a book written purely with imagination in mind. I was reading a few of the negative reviews of the books on amazon one day, just for fun, and most people complained that the books were too simple and not nearly detailed enough. The way Lewis wrote them they are simple stories giving you only the most important details and your imagination is suppose to fill in the rest, unlike Tolkien who paints you a verbal painting of what a scene is suppose to be. I think in the 50 + years since the books were written we have become more and more robbed our the ability to use our imaginations.
For the ones who have read the book, it is natural for the movie not to match up to the one that was filmed in your mind when you read it.
I have enjoyed the books since I was very young, and I also enjoyed the movie for what it was, a movie. And a movie can never take the place of a book.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
The movie sucked. Possibly even more than TPM. Flame away.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab - Of course, but there was no need to make a thread just to complain about how 'inferior' the movie is to the animated version. It smacks of being arrogant and whiny, and we've had trouble with arrogant whiny people here in the past.


That's nonsense. A sizeable part of this forum is devoted to comparing the SE to the OOT. I see no reason why, in the 'Off Topic' area, we can't compare the animated LWW to the film, or the animated LOTR to the films, or Hitchcock's 'Psycho' to Van Sant's remake, or Burgess' novel 'A Clockwork Orange' to Kubrick's movie, etc.

Ingo Sucks has expressed his opinion on these different versions of the LWW story. If he deems the new film "offensive" and allows himself to be upset by it then that is his own affair. I have expressed my opinion. I think that the new film is a bad film. Darth Chaltab has expressed his opinion. He thinks that the new film is good. How we express that opinion is our own affair.

I do think that this forum is not an appropriate place to express opinions as to the character of other members. That, I think we should all keep to ourselves.

To me, "we've had trouble with arrogant, whiny people here in the past" comes across as the most arrogant statement so far.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: THX
The movie sucked. Possibly even more than TPM. Flame away.


Do you actually think so, or are you just attempting to make a point? Why do you think that the movie "sucked?" Just curious.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mike O
Originally posted by: THX
The movie sucked. Possibly even more than TPM. Flame away.


Do you actually think so, or are you just attempting to make a point? Why do you think that the movie "sucked?" Just curious.


Actually, yeah? There are a lot of people saying the movie sucked, but nobody has given any reasons why.

So I second Mike O's question. Why do we think the movie sucked?

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
The filmmakers were trying desperately to make a franchise that could repeat the success of LOTR. They thought to themselves: "Brilliant! This will appeal to the same audience, if we play our cards right, and there's 7 parts instead of 3! We can't lose!!"

They shot it in New Zealand, they had CGI monsters, they had "epic" battle scenes, they had "fraught" chases but none of it is entirely supported by the original material, because LOTR is like that but CON isn't.

If they had given CON enough credit to be able to stand on its own merits then they would have made a successful movie.

As it is, they made a bad version of LOTR.

It also suffered from using its child actors in the worst tradition of 70s, Disney, live-action cheese.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
I thought that they were aiming more for Harry Potter, to tell the truth. LOTR is such a dark and mature story, whereas HP and CON are much more deceptively kid-oriented. LOTR is dark and gloomy, whereas CON and the first part of HP deal with much lighter material. I thought that TLTWATW had the same sort of vibe as E.T. in that it tried to put childhood into the context of something fantastical. Disney's presence was surprisingly rather sparse in places as compared to their interference in other works. There are six more films for the franchise to find its voice, but I think that Adamson was aiming much for the charm of a Ray Harrhausen picture or The Thief of Bagdad than LOTR or HP.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Yes I actually think it sucked. Why? Because it was boring. Why? Because there was no emotional engagement with the characters. Why? I can only speculate that the director's attention and energy were going in the wrong places.
Author
Time
Post link
Fair enough. I guess that we must respectfully agree to disagree.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
However, the animation has that 70s 80s animation feel to it so most people to day who watch it for the first time dismiss it merely for its poor (for todays standards) animation. That's ridiculous. I recently watched Disney's Snow White, made in 1937, and was blown away by the animation. Animation made in the past, be it the 30s, 70s or 90s may look dated now, but that does not make it 'poor' in any way.

Originally posted by: C3PX
Oh, I almost forgot. The biggest inaccuracy of the 1979 animated film to the book, was that the animation left out the scene with Father Christmas and instead had Alslan give them their gifts when he first met them. That is one part of the book I have never been able to get over. Even when I read them when I was very young I thought it was weird and kind of lame having Santa Claus show up and give the kids weapons.
Yeah, very lame. I hate that bit too. I much prefer the idea of Aslan giving them their weapons.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
On the subject of parellels with LOTR, an extended version is due out soon.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Totally, man! I think it's pretty clear that they were trying for LOTR, not Harry Potter. Look at the big battle scenes and chase set-pieces. It's kiddy LOTR in day-glo!! FFS...
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link

I actually liked the film.  Granted, it wasn't an entirely faithful interpretation, but I thought it stuck with the story pretty closely and in many ways gave each child more depth.  In the books they largely melded together, with only Edmund standing out, and only for part of the time.  But the film does have its weaknesses, including its emphasis on the action that was not really even discussed in the book.  It was indeed trying to cash in on the LOTR hype.  But at the same time, would it have appealed to as many if they didn't reveal more of the battle?  Again, I liked it.

It seems that the movies have gotten further away with each subsequent release.  Prince Caspian changed a lot more of the story (though it's actually my favorite of the three films), and Voyage of the Dawn Treader really made a completely different tale with similar themes.  One thing not present in the books but that I enjoy about the films is that the White Witch continues to be a threat to Edmund's integrity and his errors in the first story continue to haunt him.

Those are my thoughts.  I just felt I needed a new topic that was meaningful to me, but also wanted to look for a thread to bump :)

Author
Time
Post link

I enjoyed the first film.  Second, not so much, probably because I was more annoyed at the changes from the book.  Haven't seen the third yet, but concerned because it's my favorite of the books.

 

I do love that they are making them in the correct order (published, not chronological).

Author
Time
Post link

I wonder how they're going to deal with "the horse and it's boy" considering it's one of the more controversial of the books.

 

The third film was actually pretty good.

<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>

Author
Time
Post link

greenpenguino said:

I wonder how they're going to deal with "the horse and it's boy" considering it's one of the more controversial of the books.

Well, hopefully they'll start by using the correct punctuation. :p

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

It is A Horse and His Boy, not "The Horse and Its Boy". I suppose by controversial, you mean the "Muslims"? I honestly don't think they'll have a problem, they'll mix them up just enough to break the obvious analogy to Muslims found in the book. Wouldn't be hard to do at all.

However, I highly doubt A Horse and His Boy will ever get made. Each new movie makes less than the last, Prince Caspian was pretty awful, it was downright amazing that Walden Media pressed through and made the third film after how poorly the second one did (Demestically it didn't even break even, it made some on international sales, but that is a volatile market and a risky business venture). Despite The Voyage of the Dawn Treader being my favorite of the books, I never bothered to see the film since I was warned that it doesn't even loosely follow the book's plot, apart from being on a ship.

It has been confirmed that the next Narnia film will be The Magicians Nephew instead of The Silver Chair. Why? Because they looked at book sales and realized that next to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the second highest selling book in the series is The Magician's Nephew.

When it comes to a series of books, I am not sure sales account for popularity (in fact, in this case I am certain they don't). Even though The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is my favorite book, I've never decided to just go out and buy a copy of it alone, or give a copy of it as a gift. I have given several sets of the series as gifts. If I have ever given just one book from the series as a gift, it has been The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Why? Because it is the first book in the series. The fact that they republished the series in chronological order after Lewis died made The Magician's Nephew (always my least favorite of the series) book one. Imagine someone recommends a book series to you, you think it sounds interesting so the next time you are in a bookstore you immediately look for the first part of the series. Of course The Magician's Nephew's is the best selling book; for the last few decades it has been the first book in the series. I wonder how many people bought it and never got around to reading it. Or bought it, read it or started reading it and decided it wasn't for them.

It is obvious they are getting desperate here by abandoning any logical order and now basing which one comes next on book sales. I have a feeling after The Magician's Nephew flops (and it will), we can fully expect it to be the last film in the series.

Author
Time
Post link

While I suspect you are right on many points, I hope you are wrong.  I want this series to succeed and be completed.  I actually really enjoyed The Silver Chair and wish they would press forward in the proper order, especially since the actor who played Eustace will be significantly older when (if) they do get around to it.

As for Prince Caspian, I again state that it was my favorite of the films.  I know it diverged from the book on many points, and the first time I saw it I was not that impressed.  However the most recent watching pleased me more than I expected and I decided that in many ways I liked it better than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.  There were some aspects I actually enjoyed about the film that were not in the book, particularly the competitive egos of Caspian and Peter. 

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe has an Alanis Morissette song in it, so by default it's a good movie.

Haven't seen either of the sequels yet, but I'll give 'em a try eventually (even though they don't have any Alanis songs in them).