The anticipation for the Walden movies was a large part of the fun back in the day - heck, I still remember the release date of the PC trailer off the top of my head (December 4, 2007), where I was when I saw it etc. {ym}:giggle: - so I hope there's still some news trickling in while we wait.

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/04/10/the-movie-marketing-blog-how-netflix-does-or-doesn-t-market-its-original-movies

https://movieweb.com/netflix-movies-shows-marketing-problem/

That said, we do have Netflix's "Geeked Week" coming up soon, so maybe that's their chance to do something different.

...

In terms of Netflix's problems with making movies in general, there are an even greater tonne of articles and video essays online about that. Mostly because it's self-evident to anyone who's ever had to sit through Netflix Original Movies like "Red Notice", "The Grey Man" or "Extraction 2" that they really struggle to stick the landing when it comes to the cinematic format. 

Though, to be fair, I think all of the streaming services struggle when it comes to making original movies. They've all nailed the art of perfecting the 10-part miniseries format, but for some reason when it comes to movies, they all struggle. Sure, some of them have had the odd award winner here or there, but those are the exception, not the rule.

I think that's partly why the only thing that really gives me much confidence in the Narnia Netflix project at the moment is Greta Gerwig's involvement, since it at least offers up the potential that Narnia ends up in that "exception" category when it comes to being a good streaming movie.

https://collider.com/netflix-movies-bad/

https://www.wildaboutfilm.io/p/why-most-netflix-movies-are-so-bad

https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/why-are-netflixs-top-movies-so-bad

https://nofilmschool.com/netflix-creating-a-cinematic-hell-we-cant-escape

https://screenrant.com/netflix-original-movies-content-good-bad-not-matter/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-netflix-sucks-at-making-hits-that-last

https://www.techradar.com/streaming/netflix/netflix-finally-admits-its-made-too-many-bad-movies-we-made-a-lot-of-things-that-werent-ready

https://www.vg247.com/netflix-new-head-of-film-doesnt-think-past-output-is-very-good

https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/does-netflix-have-a-quantity-vs-quality-problem/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/08/30/netflixs-quality-control-problem-is-getting-worse-not-better/

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/netflixs-cant-keep-throwing-everything-against-the-wall

It's such a long and depressing string of the same old story, but it's far from undeserved. Their two recent flagship "Rebel Moon" movies by Zach Snyder might just be two of the most egregiously bad movies I've ever seen.... and I actually like a lot of Zach Snyder's other films.

There is just something about the Netflix studio production process which seems engineered to produce duds.... Maybe it's too much interference, maybe it's too little direction or control. Maybe it's both.

Either way, nothing about the erratic stop-start nature of the last 6 years surprises me.

It's getting to be a bit of a bore, honestly, especially when it's already been so many years since Netflix originally announced they were going to do a Narnia series. I mean — I don't know much at all about how film and TV productions work, but is it actually normal for there to be this level of secrecy about a new movie or series, for this long? Couldn't they at least tell us which book(s) Gerwig is planning to adapt, or hint at even a vague timeline?

To some.extent, this is very typical of Netflix for two reasons:

1. Netflix has a very chaotic and dysfunctional approach to movie development. Most of the articles and quotes I sourced in this article for NarniaWeb are still highly relevant:

https://www.narniaweb.com/2022/11/opinion-netflix-has-changed-since-obtaining-the-rights-to-narnia/

There's a reason why Netflix still struggles to out-do the traditional film studios when it comes to making blockbuster and award winning movies - and it's not because they don't hire the right talent in terms of acting or directing - in my opinion it's because they don't know how to produce. The value that the producer brings to a film project often goes unheralded, but they are vital to ensuring a high quality output.

Anyway, all that is a long way of saying that one of the main reasons we are probably not hearing a lot is because not a lot is probably happening. They are a very inefficient beast.

2. Netflix doesn't like to promote it's work ahead of time. The traditional film studio model is to aggressively promote your film ahead of time, because you are tying to get people to book time out of their calendar years in advance to go see the movie in theatres on opening weekend.

By comparison Netflix considers all that to be wasted effort, because they aren't reliant on "appointment viewing". They want you to hear about a film,.go search for it on Netflix, and watch it instantaneously. Anything less than that is deemed to damage the brand. As such, that's why they tend to rely on viral marketing in the week of release, and generating buzz in social media and some traditional media channels.

Netflix rarely does more than one trailer, hardly (if ever) does traditional film posters, and doesn't tend to engage with the big Comic-Com style events either.

As such, if there is anything going on with the Narnia project behind closed doors, Netflix probably perceive that they have no financial incentive to tell anyone right now.

(For what it's worth, I think Netflix's approach is wrong in both regards, but that's where they are currently at, as far as I'm aware)

I don't know much at all about how film and TV productions work, but is it actually normal for there to be this level of secrecy about a new movie or series, for this long? Couldn't they at least tell us which book(s) Gerwig is planning to adapt, or hint at even a vague timeline?

An idea has occurred to me as to why Netflix hasn't listed a title yet, but I don't want it to be true, so I haven't shared it out of an irrational fear doing so will make it so. {ym}:giggle: The idea is that they might combine the stories of (at least) two Narnia books into one movie. In that case, they might not be sure what the title would be. FWIW, Greta Gerwig's Little Women, as well as every other cinematic adaptation, sort of did this though not intentionally. You see, originally, the first half of the book, in which the titular characters are kids and teens, was one book and the second half was a sequel titled Good Wives. I don't remember when or why they started being published as a single story titled Little Women, but they did. (I suspect it was because the sequel wasn't as fun as the original and it wouldn't sell as many copies otherwise. {ym}:wink: )

What Gerwig's adaptation did that the publishers didn't was intersperse the second half of Little Women, formerly known as Good Wives, with scenes from the first half. It occurred to me that she could do something similar with Narnia. (Prince Caspian interspersed with flashbacks of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe interspersed with flashbacks of The Magician's Nephew.) I don't particularly think she will do that just because she did it with one movie though. If anything, that might motivate her not to do it since that would lead to accusations of repeating herself. (And, as I said, it was the publisher's idea to combine two books, not any moviemaker's.) But it would be a reason for Netflix to be so cagy about the first movie's title and it would explain why they've talked about carefully planning the structure of their series. 

I think the psychology of some people is that they think that if they can promote their fan casting as being real, it will somehow manifest itself into actuality.

A few year back I would have just called.that wishful thinking from over-eager fans, but given that studios have started to lean into internet memes for their fan service moments in big movies recently (like giving John Krasinski a cameo in Doctor Strange 2 off the back of a long-running internet fan casting) maybe these people suddenly feel more emboldened to try their luck?

Riiiiight. So you mean, if enough of us NarniaWebbers get together, agree on our dream cast for the new series, and start posting claims all over the Web that this is what's going to happen, it might just...??? {ym}:grin: {ym}:giggle: {ym}:wink:  

(Only joking. I do not actually advocate doing this, partly because it's not exactly honest and partly because it's not exactly likely to work.)

@icarus Ah, I didn't see the original IMDB posting, so that explains it. Still a bit strange that someone would post that online in the first place when there was never any actual evidence for any of it, but people do odd things.

I think the psychology of some people is that they think that if they can promote their fan casting as being real, it will somehow manifest itself into actuality.

A few year back I would have just called.that wishful thinking from over-eager fans, but given that studios have started to lean into internet memes for their fan service moments in big movies recently (like giving John Krasinski a cameo in Doctor Strange 2 off the back of a long-running internet fan casting) maybe these people suddenly feel more emboldened to try their luck?

That’s true, they do. That’s why you shouldn’t take everything that’s posted online as fact, because it may not be. 

Having been around since before the World Wide Web existed, I did know that. {ym}:giggle:   But as I said, it does show how desperate everyone is for news about Netflix's Narnia, that these total furphies come up and get circulated. I'm guessing we'll see more of them unless and until we get some reliable information, unfortunately.

Though they’ll probably end up having Caspian portrayed by two or even three actors- when he’s a child in PC, when he’s a young man in VDT and when he’s old in SC. But that’s right: not mature and not romantically involved with Susan. 

They could probably get away with using the same actor for him in both PC and VDT, since he only ages three years in between those two stories — of course the Walden movies used Ben Barnes (already too old for the part) for both, whereas the BBC version used two different actors, who bore no resemblance to each other apart from both having curly hair. Obviously they do need someone elderly to play him in SC, since he needs to be unrecognisable even to Eustace!

Still a bit strange that someone would post that online in the first place when there was never any actual evidence for any of it, but people do odd things.

That’s true, they do. That’s why you shouldn’t take everything that’s posted online as fact, because it may not be. 

Posted by: @courtenay

I do hope the next version of Prince Caspian, whoever it's made by, won't age Caspian up again. He's meant to be "only a kid", in his words, who has to step up and find his way in the adventure — and the war — he's thrust into. Definitely not a mature guy and a love interest for Susan... {ym}:eyebrow:  

Yes. Though they’ll probably end up having Caspian portrayed by two or even three actors- when he’s a child in PC, when he’s a young man in VDT and when he’s old in SC. But that’s right: not mature and not romantically involved with Susan. 

I do hope the next version of Prince Caspian, whoever it's made by, won't age Caspian up again. He's meant to be "only a kid", in his words, who has to step up and find his way in the adventure — and the war — he's thrust into. Definitely not a mature guy and a love interest for Susan... {ym}:eyebrow: