When SC was announced everyone was saying how the budget will be slashed and I've been wondering too just how much people think it will be made for.

I think the 60-80 million ballpark would be a realistic and reasonable budget. And of course this is a dramatic drop when comparing it to the previous films but SC doesn't have any huge battles (At least there shouldn't be ) and not a lot of talking animals so in a way it doesn't need 180 Mil to make it a great looking film.

Plus if they make it on a lower budget they'll be able to make a MUCH bigger profit which means more Narnia films!

I'm hoping for at least 100 million. But I don't think we'll be seeing another 225 million dollar Narnia film any time soon.

I was thinking the somewhere in the 40-70 million range senses who know how much the MGC and the CS Lewis estate can spend.

I'm hoping for at least 100 million. But I don't think we'll be seeing another 225 million dollar Narnia film any time soon.

I thought that both LWW and PC were very well done. It seems to me that it's just the vibe/story of Narnia that people can't fall in love with. It's sad, but when people give a "meh" reaction to the Narnia films, yet they enjoyed other blockbusters that I found pretty "meh" in comparison, I feel as though there's nothing anyone can do to make them palatable to most people. On the other hand, I really can't see them without my "rabid Narnia fan" eyes.

I truly hope I can be proven wrong with The Silver Chair, but I didn't think the Harry Potter films were anything to write home about, yet people raved MADLY about them. Frankly, I don't understand, and the apathy people have towards the Narnia films seems to indicate an apathy toward the stories themselves, or perhaps that they simply do not work on screen unless you are already craving to see the books adapted.

Maybe I just have low standards, but when obsessed Narnia fans also have this "meh, it was all right" reaction towards the films, I have to wonder what a director could do to make a film adaptation that would be good enough for people. It's making me feel trepidant about having another Narnia film. I obviously want it made VERY badly, but I'm worried, because it seems as though people are very difficult to impress when it comes to Narnia, but gobble up pretty pedestrian, predictable films otherwise.

I know I didn't directly address budget, but I hear people say over and over that the Narnia films didn't do well enough to justify their budget, people were lukewarm in their reactions to the first three (VDT was admittedly just lackluster), I'm like, okay, so what's the plan, here, making The Silver Chair on a cheap budget on the off-chance that people like it? It certainly seems that way. Why is it that Narnia films have SUCH a hard time pleasing people when the book series is so popular?

To summarise in response to the budget question, people apparently will not accept Narnia the way they accepted Twilight, Harry Potter, etc., so I don't expect any type of large budget whatsoever. I unfortunately expect a "Let's make it with a safe amount of money, because people seem to not be into Narnia." I feel like Narnia films, before they're even made, are made to seem like crappy and inferior versions of LotR, HP, etc. In my opinion Narnia has so much more character, depth, flavour, and emotion than what people make it out to be. I felt the need to voice this rather confounding notion that pops into my gut every time the budget matter is discussed.

Actually the majority of people on this site were big fans of LWW. Was it nitpicked? Sure. But on the whole people were very pleased with it.
PC was mixed. I think it could be summed up that it was a good movie, but not the best adaptation and a number of people couldn't get past the changes.
VDT was generally disliked as a whole. There were a few here and there that liked it, but lets just say when Walden and Fox left the project, there weren't a lot of tears shed.
Sadly since VDT is most recent, that's what people remember most, hence, the loss of interest in the film series.

To bring the above on topic, I think that large budgets can be a curse. More money often means more special effects, and more special effects often means less story. I felt PC suffered from this the most as more of the story was cut and replaced with battles, but then again, VDT was mostly eye candy and the story was... yeah.
I would like to see SC receive a low to modest budget. It does not need a lot of special effects. Certainly not to the level that the previous Narnia movies had.

I feel like Narnia films, before they're even made, are made to seem like crappy and inferior versions of LotR, HP, etc. In my opinion Narnia has so much more character, depth, flavour, and emotion than what people make it out to be.

Amen to that! Let Narnia be Narnia.

PhelanVelvel, I meant to write to you earlier. I am optimistic about the next Narnia. TLWAW was very well received and one of the most famous films in British history. PC did well to, as FantasiaKitty said that it was really Vdt that people didn't like as much. I personally like it however, and know a lot of people that like it, even if it is less approved than the previous two. There are host of Narnia fans out there. Hundreds of millions of people have read the chronicles of Narnia, and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, continues to be the most famous children's book in poles. So don't get discouraged Narnia fans. There are plenty of loyal fans to this series out there. Narnia web is in business because of them. Because of us. I expect the next Narnia to do very pleasing at the box office, and to be well received.

I expect the next Narnia to do very pleasing at the box office, and to be well received.

I sure hope so! I just get discouraged when I ask people if they liked the Narnia films and they say "I remember seeing the first one. It was okay." This has happened to me many times. It seems like only the die-hard fans could even be entertained by LWW, let alone impressed. It's just discouraging. I don't know what we're encountering here, a difficulty with making this particular sort of fantasy both appealing to older audiences, while appropriate for younger ones?

To bring the above on topic, I think that large budgets can be a curse. More money often means more special effects, and more special effects often means less story. I felt PC suffered from this the most as more of the story was cut and replaced with battles, but then again, VDT was mostly eye candy and the story was... yeah.
I would like to see SC receive a low to modest budget. It does not need a lot of special effects. Certainly not to the level that the previous Narnia movies had.

I agree with you, for sure. I don't think they need to put a bajillion dollars into a film to make it great. I do want enough money to lend proper CGI to the characters who need it, especially Aslan and Puddleglum (because I feel he will need partial CGI), but it doesn't need to be bloated with special effects. I just want it to have enough money to do what it needs to do. Not so much money that the creators get silly with the visuals while ignoring the story, but enough to keep people from saying "It looked pretty good for the budget it had." Yeesh, that's not what Narnia needs either!

At the end of the day, I think it will have been long enough since VDT (and so many people don't even know that VDT happened) that people will be interested in it if it seems cool enough, regardless of whether the trailer is filled with eye-candy.

I am guessing we're talking only about production budget? Not marketing or advertising costs and the like?

If a movie studio can scrape up 90 million for a sequel to Percy Jackson, which in my opinion didn't warrant a sequel, another studio should have enough confidence to at least give the same to Silver Chair.

Not only are they working with much better source material, it's a Narnia movie, which has greater brand recognition. Granted, that brand has been tarnished with VDT, so advertising and marketing won't do them a whole lot of good unless the movie develops some strong word of mouth. And a primary way of gaining that positive buzz is to make it a solid movie that stands out from the rest. And if they embrace the themes and flavor of the book, that's more than possible.

The Silver Chair won't be as CGI heavy as previous films (although that depends on how they do Puddleglum and the Underland people), so I'd say a $70-100 million budget would suffice.

I think the budget should be around 100 million. Considering the fact, that Prince Caspian had so many battles. I don't think it's budget should be that high.

I feel like Narnia films, before they're even made, are made to seem like crappy and inferior versions of LotR, HP, etc. In my opinion Narnia has so much more character, depth, flavour, and emotion than what people make it out to be.

I really have to "DITTO!" this. Personally, though, I think one of the reasons why people don't see this coming through in the movies, even though the stories are (mostly (*coughVDTcough*)) the same has a lot to do with the execution. There's a saying about "Ideas are nothing without execution", and I think that applies here. The writers of the movies took the basic concepts of the book, but then they added Hollywood spins to it which, in my opinion, made it seem no different than any other movie out there. The first movie was the best about reminding you that Narnia was its own world and one with plenty of room to explore; the other ones focused too much on "Okay, this is a fantasy world, and fantasy world = battle to save it".

Buuut, this thread is about the budget, so....

To bring the above on topic, I think that large budgets can be a curse. More money often means more special effects, and more special effects often means less story. I felt PC suffered from this the most as more of the story was cut and replaced with battles, but then again, VDT was mostly eye candy and the story was... yeah.

I tend to agree. I think one of the reasons that the BBC versions worked was because it scaled back on the effects, letting you fill in the details with your imagination, and just stayed true to the story. (Actually, I saw a play version of the Hobbit before the first movie came out, and I enjoyed that play a lot better than the movie!) I'm hoping that, if the movie has a high enough budget for CGI, they'll focus more on effects for their landscapes/sets/etc, and the creatures we'll see. For me, the key thing that draws me into the books--aside from the characters and story--is the idea of this world to explore, in terms of places, creatures, and history. Please, put your budget into enriching that--not into slow-motion action scenes!

Also, I've heard that, in Hollywood, the bigger budget a movie has, the fewer chances anyone's willing to make. I believe I've mentioned this before in another thread, but I've actually heard a quote from a screenwriter say that, essentially, says once your budget reaches a certain point, the plot must somehow revolve around saving the world, because otherwise the stakes just don't seem big enough. I think the same thing applies to a lot of the other blockbuster conventions we see--making sure to have lots of action, the same kinds of character arcs (including romances) over and over, etc. I think the Narnia movies fell into this trap, too, which is why instead of going with the classic stories which were fresh and original, we ended up with Voyage of the Dawn Treader having very little to do with the voyage itself, except as the means to a "save the world" quest.

So, honestly, I'm actually hoping that The Silver Chair does not have a huge budget. If it meant getting a movie which focused more on the story and atmosphere of the original book, I'd happily take a movie which relied on word-of-mouth over trailers, more limited special effects, and fewer big-name actors.

I believe I've mentioned this before in another thread, but I've actually heard a quote from a screenwriter say that, essentially, says once your budget reaches a certain point, the plot must somehow revolve around saving the world, because otherwise the stakes just don't seem big enough. I think the same thing applies to a lot of the other blockbuster conventions we see--making sure to have lots of action, the same kinds of character arcs (including romances) over and over, etc. I think the Narnia movies fell into this trap, too, which is why instead of going with the classic stories which were fresh and original, we ended up with Voyage of the Dawn Treader having very little to do with the voyage itself, except as the means to a "save the world" quest.

Narnia definitely fell into a trap, partly because it was trying to compete with LotR and Harry Potter, and partly because it got stuck in a mold that it wasn't able to get out of. VDT was the least expensive of the three films to make, but it was the least popular of the entire series.

On the subject of big budgets, depending on what list you look at, Prince Caspian is in either the top ten or top twenty most expensive films Hollywood has ever made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-expensive-movies-2014-6?op=1

https://www.mint.com/blog/trends/the-top-ten-most-expensive-movies-ever-made-0313/

Looking at those lists, the vast majority are fantasy and sequels. And PC did not earn as much as most of the other movies on the lists. Although I would like Narnia to be able to compete with these other big-name, big-money franchises, I just don't see it happening.

I think a large budget would hurt more than help SC, but having a smaller budget will only work if the story content vastly improves over VDT. I'm no expert, but I'm hoping the budget is somewhere in the 100 million range.