Disney Pulls Out of Next 'Narnia' Movie

Walt Disney Co. said it won't be involved in a third "Chronicles of Narnia" movie, pulling out of a longstanding partnership with co-producer Walden Media to finance the children's franchise that once represented one of the most promising film properties in the Disney stable.

Disney cited "budgetary considerations and other logistics" as reasons for not financing the film. But the studio's decision comes in the midst of a sharp downward turn for the franchise, based on the popular fantasy books by C.S. Lewis. The series' first film, "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," grossed $745 million world-wide in 2005, and Disney made plans to participate in a fleet of sequels.

However, the second film in the series, "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian," brought in just $419 million world-wide when it was released earlier this year. Reports at the time of the film's May release estimated that it cost as much as $200 million to produce, not counting marketing costs.

Disney's move comes in the wake of a series of major cutbacks at the Hollywood studios, as financing deals dry up with the credit crisis on Wall Street. Overall budgets are tighter, forcing studios to trim the number of films they are releasing each year, especially movies that have a poor prognosis in the marketplace.

Some of Walden Media's recent films, such as "Nim's Island" and "Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium," have also stumbled at the box office, though its 3-D film "Journey to the Center of the Earth" performed well this summer. A spokesman for Walden Media, owned by Phil Anschutz, said the company remains committed to the "Narnia" franchise.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123015478901833495.html

That was my favorite book in the series as a kid...

for the new age.

Millions of people world wide don't think that the films that my UNION MEMBER friends and I made were "junk". I've got my piece of a Golden Globe award saying that at least one of those films wasn't "junk", but hey, to each his own.

I thought they really screwed up the first film, and I just totally skipped the second film.

They wanted to focus too much on HUGE set pieces and CGI for days, and I thought the plot lost something in the telling. For example, in the scene where Aslan is being sacrificed on the stone table, they decided to go hog wild with all the creatures there, and they didn't really give the viewer time to reflect on Aslan's death.

I think "Voyage" is the film to go hog wild on, but knowing when a creature will look better with CGI and when it will look better with paper mache and rubber models is a judgment call that I don't think a lot of film people have learned to make yet. Also, knowing when to turn, say, an existing church into a palace and knowing when to make a new CGI space is also a judgement call.

Original Star Wars and Harry Potter would be two examples of this. All the aliens in the original appeared to occupy a real space, they didn't look "fake." Similarly, Harry Potter was filmed inside a real college, so the stone architecture for the most part doesn't look fake. When both franchises use CGI, it's wierdly obvious, and very disruptive to the viewing experience.

could be screwn with excess technology. Perhaps it's better that the movie be made by someone with a smaller budget and better sense of artistry. (Also, perhaps by a company with less of an eye towards video game and fast food toy tie-ins.)

I can't quit being an optimist when I hear that a book I love is being made into a movie, despite the large number of disappointments (you'd think I'd have learned from Starship Troopers, at least...)

I have an Aussie friend who has been working on it. I'll ask him.

If that trend continues, a third movie would be a really risky investment.

More and more remakes galore - that's safe; sequels deemed too risky.

The production, however, continued.

I'm willing to bet there there are two or three people who've read any of the other books in the series.

Me, I can't get past Lewis' transparent and heavy-handed Christian apologetics nominally disguised as a children's fantasy.

put aside your dislike for "Christian apologetics". :eyes:

Suspending disbelief has nothing to do with it. When Lewis puts his liar/lunatic/Lord argument front and center in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, he has spit in the face of anyone who wanted to read the damn thing as a pure fantasy. Sorry--they're just not worth the trouble. There are better and more engaging works to be read.

Most fantasy has a very visible christian overtone to it As does a whole lot of mainstream fiction. I've seen people on this board wax lyrical over Stephen King's The Stand, a book I enjoy myself but which is very obviously christian allegory. So what? It makes a good story, it drives the action, it gives a reason for the actions of the characters.

It doesn't mean you have to believe the underlying christian message, or that by reading it you are somehow buying into something you don't believe. It just means that a straightforward good and evil story makes for satisfying fiction.

Not the only reason, mind you. It's one of of many.

If you read a piece of fiction by Richard Dawkins in which every page contained a "There Is No God" message, I'm confident that you wouldn't find it so endearing.


See you in church!

And you shouldn't be so confident in your assumptions about people you know absolutely nothing about. It's a very silly practice.

And if you're comfortable with setting aside the essential and foregrounded theme of a work in order to enjoy that work, then best of luck to you.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...in which every page contained a "There Is No God" message, I'm confident that you wouldn't find it so endearing."

Ah, yes...The Ayn Rand Effect-when a writer bluntly shoehorns their personal philosophy into a story with craptacular results.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Also let's not for get It was J.R.R Tolkein who helped convert Lewis to Christianity.

And it's true that Tolkien brought Lewis into the fold, but in this context I'm not sure that I see how it's relevant. At least, not in terms of Tolkien's signature fictional works.

It kinda gets more and more blatant as the series progresses.

Given the production and marketing costs, the general disinterest in the series beyond LWW, and the declining economy, this is a rather prudent move on Disney's behalf. (Not to mention, I think the general movie going public is going to be "fantasied-out" for a few more years.)

but I'm also not in the general-movie-going-public demographic ;)

I hope someone makes all the films. I don't care about how good or bad the CGI is or isn't for sets, so long as the centaurs look good :D

DU, where trashing a thread is no longer rare.

:hug:

Unfortunately, Fundies come from all directions.

:hug:

:hug:

Caspian. The movie of Prince Caspian did not follow the actual story and had so much unnecessary violence. I still loved the mythical animals and other creatures.

I loved these stories as a child and love sharing them with my daughter. But I hope that the next movie, if it is ever made follows the story and does not stray into typical hollywood unnecessary violence.

:rofl:

but I really saw NO advertising for the second movie. Not even on the internet. I don't even know when it came out. I wonder if that has more to do with the low numbers than anything else. :shrug:

Unfortunately for PC, they released it just after Iron Man came out, Indiana Jones IV right around the corner, and The Dark Knight not far over the horizon.

PC was originally intended for a XMas '07 release, but it was moved in favor of letting The Water Horse (another Walden property) getting that release slot. The Water Horse proceeded to gross a mere $40 million at the theaters domestically. Suffice to say, that decision ended up being a colossal mistake.

and considers this a bad thing? Fuck Disney. They are evil.

Demi Moore was slammed for "ruining her career" by starring in Striptease. Granted, it was an awful, awful film, but if someone offered me the chance to "ruin" my career for $20M, I'd jump at it.

It doesn't include marketing and distribution, licensing, legal costs, and a bunch of miscellania that arises after production, like translation into other languages and continued editing for other markets.

Then there's the secondary market. Disney, like every other filmmaker, expects merchandising income, DVD income, licensing for spinoff products, etc. The expenses and income on a film continue after it has faded from the theaters, employing thousands at all levels of income, ultimately. Each movie of that size is an industry in itself, affecting the jobs of theater employees, toymakers, book makers, theaters, and anything else you can think of that is touched by a Disney product. If Disney releases a major film with weak returns, that affects small businesses like theaters, who may devote two or three screens to the film instead of to another one, as well as Disney.

So if Disney, or any large filmmaker, has several products and has to choose which to pursue, they will weigh all of the factors involved, plus future trends, and go with the ones that are the best use for their investment. Even Disney has limited investment funds, and making one film prevents another from being made. Narnia was trending downward, and in a bad economy, they decided to invest in more certain projects. If the initial receipts-to-production profits are $200 million, but they can get $250 million from another project, and expect better merchandising and future sequel/spinoff income, they will go that way. And they should--it means more jobs in the long run.

I got a thousand on Aslan. :hide:

Must learn to proofread. Must learn too proferead. Publishers?

i read those books at least 10times over
they are awesome

my favorite part is the end........

when everyone comes to join them.......:hi:

got me interested in Narnia and I thank you for it!

:hug:

its been a while since i read the books, i still have all of them somewhere

You recommended the movie, and I agree 100%!

:)

Folks will fight over anything, I swear.

I was there and I have a hard time believing it. :eyes:

I found them to be interesting subthreads because it was exactly the sort of debate that would break out in my college theology courses. That said, such debates tend to be of a level well beyond flame-war as what you're really discussing-by-proxy are the core of the debaters' most-deeply-held beliefs.

Sort of like when your long-lost friend from high school calls you out of the blue, and then ten minutes into the conversation tries to sell you on Amway.

I'm a card-carrying, unapologetic atheist who happens to enjoy the Narnia books and has no problem with the underlying christian message. My entry into the fray was simply based on my opinion that the person to whom I responded wasn't making a whole lot of sense. :P

If the particulars escaped you, well...

:) (Hey, I didn't start the religion thing on your thread!)

What's interesting to me is what this says about the market. "The Golden Compass" sequel was axed by New Line for the same reason. Publishers are cutting back on new authors, major studios are cutting back on new artists. The whole entertainment industry is being hit by the recession, since people have less money, and since people can stay home and play PS3 games or watch cable or already-purchased DVDs.

An interesting result could be that the super-publishers and super-studios yield a little more to smaller, even regional, productions, given how much easier it is for a small company to make a film these days, or how much easier it is to publish and distribute a book regionally--even digitally, over the Internet.

Interesting times, is our curse.

I know that the Golden Compass bombed, but was curious to see how they would handle the rest of the trilogy. Have to admit, the movie didn't really do that great a job laying out the story.

That's an inescapably fatal flaw in today's market. In particular, when the monkey and the cat were scuffling in the parlour, it looked like a demo of a video game from ten years ago. And the ferret was no more convincing.

Not that bad CGI means that the underlying story isn't good, but it seriously damages the credibility of a major-market release.


Sure, we can "suspend disbelief," but if we had two versions of a film, one with great and one with crappy CGI, even the most bestest disbelief suspender would opt for the former.

it was flat in the US, but sold well in the rest of the world, where they weren't concerned about our silly religious arguments. It wasn't a major blockbuster, but it was successful. They were hesitant about a sequel at first, then announced over the summer that they were doing one, then recently announced that they had canned the project.