Compared to Iron Man and Indy, the OW for PC was very disappointing. Summer films are front-loaded compared to Christmas films. Christmas legs are what saved VDT from being a complete dud domestically. Sequels to a beloved film usually open very large, so the $55M was not a good opening whatsoever. Even if it had opened with $90M, it would have ended with a result far short of LWW.

So I don't think that PC didn't do well because people didn't like it; I think it didn't do well because people didn't know the story as well. LWW is iconic, but the only thing that people know about PC is that it's the not-as-good sequel to LWW.

I disagree completely. I think PC is a great book. It didn't do well because they didn't advertise it as Narnia 2. Anyone who wasn't paying attention would have had no idea that it was coming out and that it even had the same characters from the first film. They kept talking about Prince Caspian instead of coming back to Narnia.

^That's interesting, because I've always thought the opposite for VDT... They focused what little advertising they had on the fact that it was a Narnia movie and not enough on the story. PC had been given a bad rap, so they should have reassured the audience that the story was worth it, not that it was a sequel.

Compared to Iron Man and Indy, the OW for PC was very disappointing.

Iron Man and Indy are not by any stretch of the imagination representative of most movies. Iron man was a major hit and Indy was a mega-hit. If you look at most movies that came out, even back in the summer of 2008, PC did quite respectably. In fact, if PC had been made on VDT's budget, a larger than average budget as it is, it would have been commercially successful. Not baffo, mind you, but successful. That's why I said that PC only underperformed compared to expectations.

^That's interesting, because I've always thought the opposite for VDT... They focused what little advertising they had on the fact that it was a Narnia movie and not enough on the story. PC had been given a bad rap, so they should have reassured the audience that the story was worth it, not that it was a sequel.

I agree with you wolfloversk, and with decarus. PC should have been made and marketed with more continuity with LWW, in order to capitalize on LWW's success. At the same time, given that PC turned off a significant chunk of Narnia's fanbase, VDT should have been marketed to give people some clue as to what it was about, so that people might be interested in seeing it for its own sake.

I'd have been happier if VDT had been marketed at all. I expected something a bit more positive than what I saw. I couldn't book seats ahead of the release, the girl at the theatre thought I meant I wanted to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, and whilst the Royal Premier caused a bit of news buzz on Internet, there was very little advertised for VDT in the newspapers to indicate that it was about to show.

Maybe I should have realised that VDT's advertising would not be as intense as the HP circus, which even had the coffee and muffins kiosk outside the theatre advertising its wares for muggle refreshment, or the rack of t-shirts for sale from the previous Twilight showing. But apart from those kaleidoscopes (I still have one), and a double Coca Cola deal, there was practically nothing.

I did get one each of the Hungry Jack figurines, even though I am not all that fond of Hungry Jack burgers, and rarely go there. But this marketing promo seems only to have been in Australia, and surely cost the merest fraction of the $100,000,000 marketing budget. I only learned they were there from tracking back from NarniaWeb anyway.

Tron: legacy were also advertising cups along with theatre refreshments, good solid ones, too. They were mentioned far more often than VDT, both on TV and in the theatre trailers, there were regular advertisements in the paper, and when the DVD was finally released there were posters all over the place to advertise the fact, along with similar posters for Megamind, Yogi Bear and the rest. Except for VDT, which might not have been out at all, as far as I could see.

Recently a small-budget local production costing $8.5 million to make, was released here. This film, which seems to have the local press on-side, on a marketing budget that would be absolute peanuts compared to VDT's costs, still managed to be noticed and brought to the attention of the general public much better than was the case than with VDT, almost doubling its production costs, and outstripping the Australian box office takings of most of the Christmas showings, including VDT.

I agree that Dark Knight as well as Indy were formidable rivals for PC, but at least we knew it was coming, a group could be booked in ahead of its release, and the film was well advertised in newspapers etc. Whilst the PC DVD release coming at Christmas was a real masterstroke.

I believe that a lot of people had misconceptions about the PC, also. I have heard numbers of people complaining about the lack of magic in the movie; I end up telling them: 'That's the point of the movie!'. The Pevensies are in Narnia because Miraz and the other Telmarines are taking the magic out of Narnia.
waggawerewolf27, I completely agree with you on the VDT marketing. My sister (Gildor Inglorion) and I were commenting on that before the movie even had come out.

I began to really notice the lack of VDT marketing when I couldn't get a Narnia calendar for this year, especially as there were past LWW and PC calendars for sale on the merchandising forum here, on NarniaWeb, and especially as on and off I have been able to get Narnia calendars even before the movies came out, so popular are the books.

Each year from the first Harry Potter movie I have bought a HP calendar for the year, even if I didn't buy any other sorts of HP merchandise. Same with LOTR merchandise. Calendars are obvious gifts to and from relatives, and have a year-long utilitarian use well beyond their souvenir value. We always need at least one current calendar each, and one for the kitchen to write up appointments etc in our family. How better to promote a much-anticipated Christmas-tide movie than with an appropriate Christmas-time calendar? And it wasn't as if there weren't some really good scenic shots in that movie.

How about these pictures? The Dawn Treader, itself, in more than one picturesque setting, Goldwater Island, the Aslan poster, the weird-looking garden on Magician's Island, Lucy in the snow, the three sleepers on Ramandu's Island, the setting of Aslan's table, itself, with the characters grouped around it, and the strand at the end of the movie 'where sky and water meet', where the travellers meet Aslan.

Let us not forget some of the scenes with Eustace, both as a dragon and beforehand, when, along with Lucy and Edmund, he was sucked into the picture. Or finding the dragon's treasure trove on Goldwater Island? Or in any shot where Eustace is accompanied by Reepicheep. Or even that scene with Susan, Peter and Edmund?

I would have thought that since VDT was produced in Australia, that there would have been more fuss about it in the local papers also. Unfortunately, in what local advertising I did see, one of those flashing screens down at the local shopping centre, VDT was promoted along with Gulliver's Travels, its Fox stablemate, and a few other movies.

Even Gulliver's travels, with its Kung Fu Panda leading star, Jack Black, tended to be promoted moreso than VDT. I haven't seen more than a couple of VDT movies to be onsold at the local Video shop, but the Gulliver's travels DVD's still keep on keeping on. I hope that if another Narnia movie is ever made again it doesn't get the sort of lacklustre treatment dished out to VDT.

My take on the success of each movie is that people loved LWW. It wasn't perfect, but it was really a good script that was pretty faithful to the book and where it deviated from the book, it still kept the spirit of it. So people went to see, loved it and went to see it again.

PC was a bad script that was hard to follow. If I had not read the book, I think I would have been even more lost that I was - and I've talked to people who haven't read the book and they've complained that the movie was hard to follow and they left the theater confused (that tells me that it wasn't just me and my disappointment that it was so far removed from the book - and I've read it recently and watched the movie again - still hate the movie, still confused with the script, still absolutely despise what they did to Peter's character, can't stand how snotty Susan comes across and irrated that Lucy has to go look for Aslan like He's lost or something). So, a lot of people didn't want to go see it again which resulted in lower box office numbers.

VDT was an okay script - not a great one. They tried to be a little closer to the spirit of the book than PC was. They mistakenly thought that they needed AN EVIL for the kids to battle against and so we got the green mist. They also mistakenly think that Tilda is a big box office draw and so she showed up in PC and VDT - she shouldn't have been in either one. Although if they had stuck to the book Dark Island - I could see her appearing as Edmund's nightmare - but instead she was supposed to be a temptation to him. But, too many people had been disappointed in PC so, they didn't go see VDT. A lot of those that did didn't like the green mist or the swords (I wasn't thrilled with those things, but it didn't stop me from enjoying the movie overall). But, even though people might have liked the movie, they didn't love it and therefore weren't going to go and see it again - especially at 3D prices and especailly when the 3D effects were that spectacular.

That's my take anyway.

The problem with the VDT book, is that there are no real badguys or anything...sure they meet up with slave traders, sure they have to worry about the water people, but there was no PURPOSE. In each book/movie they're brought into Narnia to help save it; but in the books, what do they save?

And when I saw PC I hadn't read the book since I was 7. It was my least favorite book, but movie-wise I liked it better than LWW. I didn't find it at all hard to follow....hm.
I don't really see movies in 3D. There are too many of us in my family for my family to afford it.

Peter-wise I think a lot different from most people..I don't know why. He overreacted about leaving, and I still somehow feel bad for him....I know he made mistakes, but that just showed that the kid was human. Lucy in the books peeved me because of how perfect she was. The only thing she ever did wrong was she wanted to stay with Edmund instead of running around healing people; and in the movie she didn't even do that. Peter is my favorite character, and somehow he was still really likeable to me in PC.

The problem with the VDT book, is that there are no real badguys or anything...sure they meet up with slave traders, sure they have to worry about the water people, but there was no PURPOSE. In each book/movie they're brought into Narnia to help save it; but in the books, what do they save?

That is what makes VDT special. There is no actual villain in the book. Instead, the characters have to overcome internal conflicts with Aslan to guide them.

Instead of keeping the internal conflicts the main problem in VDT, the filmmakers chose to add a subplot villain, making VDT seem like any other fantasy film.

I wonder if no subplot had been added, maybe the film would have done better? Not only would it had made more fans happy, but maybe something with an original take would draw a larger audience?

Lucy in the books peeved me because of how perfect she was.

I hear you. I consider Lucy Pevensie one of the most annoying characters in fiction. I still can't stand Peter's change in character, though. They made it so that his Narnian experience turned him into a bitter, raging misfit. That flies in the face of everything that the Narnian journey is about. The children are meant to return to their world with a new found source of emotional strength, the secret knowledge that they are kings and queens of Narnia.

That is a really good point Anhun. Peter's behavior does fly in the face of the purpose behind their visit to Narnia. So that by knowing Aslan in Narnia they can learn to know him in their world. It is supposed to be a source of strength and not a negative.

Lucy in the books peeved me because of how perfect she was.

I hear you. I consider Lucy Pevensie one of the most annoying characters in fiction.

I expect that Lucy would have been annoying to you. Youngest sisters can be irritating, not because they are perfect, but because they are more babyish, even today, when entire families are not being evacuated, as in LWW. But we also see the story of LWW, PC, even VDT, from Lucy's point of view at least partially, so we are meant to identify with her. This is easy if one has been the youngest of a group of children, who might feel put-upon at having to make too many allowances for lack of years and physical development.

But what if all three stories had been written from Edmund's point of view? Or Peter's? Or Susan's? What difference would that have made to what happened in LWW? I think Peter, Susan and Edmund would have got on fine without Lucy, and all three knew it. Lucy possibly did, also, a thought that inspired that 'Lucy becomes Susan' cameo in VDT the film, and why I think it was so good. They loved her as a family member, but in the LWW circumstances they were in, they had been made so responsible for her. They had to "mind" her.

Yes, Peter considered her as more truthful than Edmund, but that is not a really good recommendation from an older brother or sister. Truthful youngest sisters tend to give the game away. They 'blab'. They are 'dobbers'. And Lucy had a tendency to burst into tears whenever she was overruled, something Jill tried not to be, when other people were around. It seems if Lucy's sudden Narnia discovery spoiled an otherwise perfectly enjoyable game of hide and seek. Furthermore, in PC, when none of the others could see Aslan, she cried again.

Lucy was also too impulsive to go rushing out to tell her siblings anything at all, however amazing, even though this time she was in the right. Truthful as she might have been, older siblings aren't going to believe her, however tremendous the secret, if it can't be proven. And it was entirely possible that Susan would have agreed with Edmund, that Lucy was merely looking for attention, or else was not quite herself.

The only thing she ever did wrong was she wanted to stay with Edmund instead of running around healing people; and in the movie she didn't even do that.

I can't agree with this statement, either. Yes Lucy was expected to do a bit more than hover over Edmund, and it was wrong of her to linger as if Edmund was the only one needing attention at that time. Probably this is such a minor point the filmmakers omitted it. Over the series, Lucy did plenty that was wrong, in the books, at least, whether or not it was shown in the films.

In PC she really should have done the first time what she eventually did, which was to follow Aslan, and not wait around whilst the other three and Trumpkin haggled about which was the right way. What she wasn't supposed to do was to break into tears and think she had to follow the others no matter what.

And then Lucy later on when she met Aslan, was slanging the others, blaming them for her own inability to stand on her own feet. On the trek from Cair Paravel she had already showed she could bicker with the best of them, something she also demonstrated in VDT, at Deathwater Island, even though Lucy's opinion of boys wasn't shown in VDT the film. If I really had a quarrel with Walden PC, it is the slightly self-righteous way Lucy was portrayed elsewhere in the film, and that the film didn't show the others gradually seeing Aslan on the way to Aslan's How.

Ah yes, those VDT spells. 'Perfect' Lucy was tempted to try the beauty spell in the book, and in the BBC version of VDT, Aslan asks Lucy how long she has been jealous of her older sister, an entirely reasonable question, especially if Lucy routinely wore her older sister's hand-me-downs. 'Perfect' Lucy also spied on her own friends to find out what they thought of her, not recognising that eavesdropping using magic is still eavesdropping, and that eavesdroppers hear no good of themselves.

Peter is my favorite character, and somehow he was still really likeable to me in PC...I know he made mistakes, but that just showed that the kid was human.

Judging by Peter's behaviour to Edmund in LWW, it seems that when Edmund went to boarding school for the first time, Peter left him to his own devices, rather than do anything to supervise Edmund. How is it that Peter could be okay and not Edmund if they went to the same school? And yes, the kid was human, as you say. Anything less would make Peter something of a cardboard cutout character.

I suppose you're right on Lucy. I shouldn't judge her by this too, but the craziness some people have over her (to the point of making her a role model) really gets to me.
In a way, with Peter, it was actually a good thing that they changed it. In parts of the book, they would sound like what they were: Characters, rather than people. They were stiff, unemotional, and so trusting it seemed unrealistic. Peter having a rough spot makes you feel more like he's not just a king, but a boy.
When I previously said Lucy made no mistakes, I was saying I was glad because she had made (or almost made) one in VDT. But, as you kindly pointed out, she made more than I previously had thought; they were just more hidden.

Peter's absence from Narnia, I believe helped with the fact that he was in a way 'unlearning' what had been the point. But, in Narnia, he was brought back to it, and his lesson was fully learned.

I suppose you're right on Lucy. I shouldn't judge her by this too, but the craziness some people have over her (to the point of making her a role model) really gets to me.
In a way, with Peter, it was actually a good thing that they changed it. In parts of the book, they would sound like what they were: Characters, rather than people. They were stiff, unemotional, and so trusting it seemed unrealistic. Peter having a rough spot makes you feel more like he's not just a king, but a boy.

I do agree, but I also disagree, if that makes sense. When making films of books, actors (and actresses) do have to flesh out characters from books, to make them at all believable, and to engage the interest of their audience. And I am sure that Adamson, in particular, did discuss at length what their characters were to be like, and the dilemmas they faced, not only with Georgie Henley, but also Skandar Keynes, and the two actors who played Susan and Peter.

After all, on film they have to show the characters, what they do and what they say, without the benefit of C.S.Lewis' own narration as in the books, as well as much of Trumpkin's Cair Paravel information. Where you are also right is to suggest the characters, without this fleshing out, would seem emotionless, stilted and unrealistically trusting. But I think this perception, as with all authors, is also part of C.S.Lewis' own personal values, which show in what he was trying to convey through the Narnia stories, and are also a distinct product of his own nationality, background and upbringing. Most importantly, some of these values he portrays were essentially British values cherished at the time of WW2. Let me explain.

I wouldn't say that Book Lucy was emotionless, or that her faults were hidden. It only appears that way because she is the main heroine of all three books filmed so far, and because Edmund's bad behaviour is obvious in LWW. Lucy cries quite a lot in LWW when disbelieved over her discovery of Narnia. This is understandable, since she is only eight. She is in a strange place, her parents are away and her siblings are suggesting she is lying, a very serious charge. And crying is also understandable in other parts of the series when Aslan dies, when Eustace perceives that his friend King Caspian has died or when Digory grieves for his dying mother.

But as in just about every other British children's novel written before President Kennedy's assassination on November 22nd, 1963, there is this very real British disapproval of people crying too much, even quite small children. We used to be chastised if we cried unnecessarily - to give us something to cry about. Or we'd be called cry-babies.

Thus, Digory, and Jill in SC are defensive when caught crying, even if the reasons are valid. Eustace crying as a dragon is downright funny. And even Lucy, crying again in PC, when her siblings don't see Aslan as she has done, doesn't look good at all. This is Queen Lucy who was called 'the Valiant' in LWW. The lady who helped Edmund lead the Anvard relief in HHB, who told Father Christmas she might be brave enough to fight in battle, and who ministered to the wounded at the end of LWW. And only a couple of days previously had been on her way to boarding school for the first time.

The way Peter is described in the Narnia books also reflects this understated way of thinking prior to 1963. There has been much change since then, and a different historical period tends to satirize the sort of stereotypical World War Two pre-adolescent British schoolboy which 14 or 15 year old Peter seems to represent. I think it would have been a mistake for Walden not to flesh out Peter's character the way it did. Otherwise it would have been too closely aligned to what one critic described as stereotypical English toffs having a good time.

As a supporting character, book Peter seems to be the noble, genial and admirable eldest brother, whose decisions are final, and who is generally protective of Lucy. But that doesn't mean he can't lead wrong, that he can't be held accountable for his anger at Edmund, for his failure to supervise his younger siblings better or for listening to Susan, rather than Lucy, in PC. I appreciated the uncertainty film Peter showed in LWW. After all he was still a boy, himself, and even in PC, when this uncertainty had vanished, adolescent film Peter still showed he had much to learn about self control and fighting the right battles.

As I understand in PC, Adamson said that Peter might have real issues about returning back to England, where he would be treated as just another cocky 14 year old boy, unlike the deference he received in Narnia as High King, and where Dr Cornelius had urged Prince Caspian to be a king like Peter and not like his uncle Miraz.

I know I have written too long a post. But the trusting nature of the children is also one of the themes of the entire series, not just LWW. Whom should the Narnia characters trust? A passing faun whose intentions might not be as hospitable as appears? A White Witch taking a Narnian Sunday drive in her sled? Or Aslan, who is prepared to die, himself, to protect Edmund? Should Peter trust his own judgement, or Susan or Trumpkin's cousel? Or Lucy's recognition that Aslan is nigh? Should Miraz trust his counsellors?

Peter's behavior does fly in the face of the purpose behind their visit to Narnia. So that by knowing Aslan in Narnia they can learn to know him in their world. It is supposed to be a source of strength and not a negative.

What do you think the purpose is of the children's visits to Narnia, in the books? Why did those particular children need to be in Narnia? Yes, I know it was to get to know Aslan better. But, apart from that, I don't think any of the children in the books were sent to Narnia just to play big heroes, rescue Narnia from the White Witch, Queen it in Tashbaan or set Prince Caspian on the throne.

And I never understood why Edmund and Lucy had to return to Narnia in VDT at all, let alone drag along Eustace, who most definitely did not want to be there. Prince Caspian, who was no doubt grateful for the assistance that Peter, in particular, had rendered him in PC, could have really managed to find all seven Lords without the dubious help of the Pevensies, let alone Eustace the Useless.

Realistically, though, would you find many 14 or 15 year old boys who aren't given to engaging in fights rather too often, who aren't headstrong, prickly about giving way to others, taking advice, or sisterly criticism, as well as obeying adult orders? How many boys, having led successfully, would cheerfully exalt as successor another 14 year old boy who seems even more gormless than themselves? Especially as Peter had already acquitted himself as a man, previously, in Narnia? Even C.S.Lewis pointed out at the end of HHB, that Corin and Cor fought as much as any other brothers, so why would Peter be an exception?