I blame Disney for this series failure. They should have filmed TLWW and PC back to back so they could have released them in consecutive years.

That wouldn't have been possible. The kids wouldn't have aged and the story has completely new settings and characters, not to mention more than a thousand year timeline difference.

So far, based upon pacing alone, I prefer Disney. Fox (or Walden) didn't give VDT enough breathing room and the film's emotional impact really suffered because of that. But what I do appreciate about VDT is that it had fewer cheesy attempts at humor. It was still there but definitely not to the amount we saw in the last two films. Whoever was responsible for that change, I'd like to say "thank you".

I agree with you that the pacing was so much better in the first 2 movies. However I'm not sure who to blame for it which is why my decision is so close. It could even be the Apted's fault. I'm not sure. It would be interesting to see and extended cut, if they make one. However, I disagree that the age is really that much of an issue. The stories took place I believe a year apart. So really the kid's were only supposed to look 1 year older. They could easily have made this happen with movie magic. Also, since they were planning to film VDT and SC back to back I don't think that different settings and characters are that much of an issue. It might not have been easy, but it definitely was very doable.

I can't decide. Disney is definitely better in the marketing...look at the zero promotion this last film got but Disney also have the tendency to make all movies feel disney-ish, like they did with PC (Suspian anyone?).

Zero promotion? Seriously? Disney marketed LWW and PC much better but Fox promoted VDT, just not to the same level of commitment.

I blame Disney for this series failure. They should have filmed TLWW and PC back to back so they could have released them in consecutive years.

That's too much of a requirement. No movie studio would ever invest $400 million in a franchise before the first movie in it was even released. Even the Lord of the Rings films didn't cost that much.

Hmm... How is it that the whole of Lord of the Rings was done for US$285 million and yet PC alone cost US$200 million?

A little off-topic, but Lord of the Rings had several advantages to decrease the budget. The same recurring characters throughout, many settings, stages, sets and props that could be reused for each installment making it easier to film back-to-back, production remaining exclusively in New Zealand (and not in several countries as in PC), etc. But the highest contributing factor perhaps is that the dollar went further in 1999-2000 than it did in 2007.

Even so, I think we can all agree that the price tag for PC was out of control, and more like $220 million based on several sources.

That's very true. I forgot about inflation and the other reasons. Still, I think LotR budget was better spent than the Narnia movies. Fox didn't have the budget to do heaps of marketing for VDT but maybe they could've approached it differently.

I blame Disney for this series failure. They should have filmed TLWW and PC back to back so they could have released them in consecutive years.

That's too much of a requirement. No movie studio would ever invest $400 million in a franchise before the first movie in it was even released. Even the Lord of the Rings films didn't cost that much.

I actually don't think that is to much of a requirement. The first movie was a given to do well. It is one of the most popular books of children's literature worldwide. Disney threw 180 million at it in budget. They new it was a good investment. Honestly there were no guarantees that LOTR was going to be a huge success. Yet they put there necks out for 3 movies. It honestly is all about faith in the movie franchise. Sometimes you have to take a big risk to make more money. Also the budgets wouldn't have been so out of control because they would have pry filmed in closer locations. For Prince Caspian they filmed in 4 different locations at least. It made for great visuals but blew the budget way out of proportion. If they had released the movie sooner, and during winter, Prince Caspian would have done much better. Still not reach TLWW numbers, though. Oh, one more thing. The reason the LOTR was so cheap is because it was actually one big movie. They filmed it literally as one. Not even back to back. It was really filmed as one movie then split up.

That's very true. I forgot about inflation and the other reasons. Still, I think LotR budget was better spent than the Narnia movies. Fox didn't have the budget to do heaps of marketing for VDT but maybe they could've approached it differently.

Too right Fox could have approached the marketing differently. They started off well, by having the Dawn Treader on show at MovieWorld from Boxing Day 2009 to Australia Day 2010. Interested people did come to see it in that timeframe, myself included. But apart from Warner Brother products and artifacts, or people dressed up like Shrek or Spiderman, etc, MovieWorld doesn't really have much more to offer than rides unsuitable for oldies.

But now there is virtually nothing, unless you can read the small print of the movie timetables comfortably. There aren't any advertisements for the film in the most read daily newspapers, unlike Gulliver's Travels (budget n/a), Tron or the Little Fockers.

Though it is curious that Gulliver's travels, Fox's main Boxing Day offering, which continues to be well-advertised, isn't doing nearly as well as VDT has done, publicity or not.