I wonder how much of a difference a good director could actually make. I almost wonder if, after Prince Caspian, Walden kept a tighter reign on creative freedom. The first two movies didn't even feel that much like a typical Walden movie but The Voyage of the Dawn Treader definitley did.

And I agree, Skilletdude. Michael Flaherty not admitting to any mistakes in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a bad sign.

I wonder how much of a difference a good director could actually make.

I think the difference is seen in the huge gap in quality between the Adamson-directed films and the Apted-directed film. (There were other factors too of course. But I think this is possibly the biggest one)

It isn't really Walden's job to be creative. They aren't the story-tellers. It's their job to get the money, put the team together, and get the film produced.

It's a director's job to be creative. The director is the story-teller. Andrew Adamson was clearly very passionate and enthusiastic about the films he worked on, and he's a pretty talented filmmaker. Apted really didn't even seem to like the book or care much about the film (compared to Adamson at least). Adamson had an inspired vision...Apted didn't.

VDT showed us what a Walden film looks like without an inspired, passionate director. Like....most of their other films.

(I'm not saying the two Adamson films are great. But you can tell they were made by people who really cared. VDT feels like it was made with complete apathy)

I really don't think the Narnia films began with a creative spark. They began with some business executives saying "LotR is a hit. The market wants fantasy!" From the beginning, the franchise was just licking up the crumbs of the LotR and HP franchises. Consequently, what we have seen so far is unique, special books being crammed into formulas.

um, in the LWW movie companion, Perry Moore states the reasons for making Narnia into movies. he found out that there was some group who wanted to make a modern version of Narnia set in California in modern day. he looked deeper and found that they had no rights to the Narnia characters and that was when he looked at it and said, "Why no make these books into movies?" so he want to the Lewis estate and in came Andrew Adamson - and the rest is history

um, in the LWW movie companion,

That companion book is a piece of marketing. Saying "we made it so we could cash in on LotR" would not be a good marketing move.

LWW was green-lit just weeks after the first LotR movie released. I find it impossible to believe that is just a coincidence.

After the first LotR movie came out and was a hit, I figured it was just a matter of time before someone wanted to make Narnia. So I started doing Google searches for "Narnia movie" every week or so. Sure enough, it wasn't long before it came out that LWW was in development. Surprising no one.

I wonder how much of a difference a good director could actually make.

I think the difference is seen in the huge gap in quality between the Adamson-directed films and the Apted-directed film. (There were other factors too of course. But I think this is possibly the biggest one)

It isn't really Walden's job to be creative. They aren't the story-tellers. It's their job to get the money, put the team together, and get the film produced.

It's a director's job to be creative. The director is the story-teller. Andrew Adamson was clearly very passionate and enthusiastic about the films he worked on, and he's a pretty talented filmmaker. Apted really didn't even seem to like the book or care much about the film (compared to Adamson at least). Adamson had an inspired vision...Apted didn't.

VDT showed us what a Walden film looks like without an inspired, passionate director. Like....most of their other films.

(I'm not saying the two Adamson films are great. But you can tell they were made by people who really cared. VDT feels like it was made with complete apathy)

This is very true. Initially I wanted to blame everything on Apted: he doesn't understand Narnia, he doesn't understand fantasy, he doesn't understand children's fiction, he has no passion etc. Given time though I've wondered if he's as much to blame as it seems. It's possible that either Walden gave him a tighter restriction on creative freedom or that Apted, inexperienced in the fantasy genre, was reliant on Walden. This is probably in left field but it just seems suspicious because the whole "return to magic" vibe in the film seems to come straight from Michael Flaherty. That's what Flaherty wanted out of the film, but with all the Apted interviews I've read I still don't know what he wanted out of the film. Just throwing that out there.

@glumPuddle: I agree with you about the money bit. Yet I don't think Walden Media is doing God’s math. They’re worldly-wise. You also pointed out that they don’t have any backbone either. Agreed! Walden doesn’t seem to know anything about sacrifice – its power and purpose. When you stand up for what’s right, and lose some money and fans in the process, God will bring it back to you – in money and fans. You lose the wrong people and gain the right ones. Walden isn’t making sacrifices or taking risks.

@glumPuddle/Reepicheep775: interesting discussion on Apted as a director. Amazing Grace (2007) also had Apted, Fox, Walden Media, and even David Arnold. But there's a huge difference in the quality of the two films. Why?

1. I don't think Apted understands fantasy as a genre, since he's done very little of it. He's better with real-life, historical stuff. This is why I think Adamson is a much better director. Who better to direct Narnia than the director of Shrek, a fantasy franchise for teens and adults?
2. I also think Flaherty, not Apted, was pushing the "return to magic" mantra of Dawn Treader. I don't know that Apted cares very much about magic. In one interview last December, he ridiculed talking animals. But Flaherty does care. Yet movie magic doesn't always equal box office magic. The magic was supposed to be gone in the PC movie. That's what the book was all about! PC's darkness wasn't too dark for me; it was just about right.

Walden: PC will always be my favorite Narnia film, LWW right behind it. BBC: Silver Chair is my favorite.

1. I don't think Apted understands fantasy as a genre, since he's done very little of it. He's better with real-life, historical stuff. This is why I think Adamson is a much better director. Who better to direct Narnia than the director of Shrek, a fantasy franchise for teens and adults?

Apted definitley does not understand fantasy- especially children's fantasy. I don't think Apted thinks that children's fantasy (or fantasy in general) deserves care or attention. The Chronicles of Narnia, The Chipmunks: The Squeakuel- what's the difference? He might be a fine director but don't give him The Chronicles of Narnia. His unpreparedness can be seen clearly in this interview:

I think I've changed my opinion/theory on what happened. Walden didn't crack down on creative freedom, not because he was obligated to do so, but Apted just didn't have creativity. At least not for this kind of movie.

I remember watching an extra feature on Toy Story how Pixar recieved notes of suggestion from Disney, Pixar followed the notes to the letter and created a terrible story. With the threat of Disney closing Pixar down, Pixar ditched the notes, did the story their way and made the Toy Story we know today.

I think something similar happened with The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I'm thinking Apted relied on people like Michael Flaherty becasue he really didn't know what he was doing. Hey, maybe a new director (or Andrew Adamson) really can turn things around!

why does everyone think Walden is only in it purely for money's sake? the fact is, if they don't make money on one movie, they can't make the next. that's how any franchise works.
and why is everyone so upset with Michael Apted? since when is everything his fault? he's not the one who wrote the script. and, IMHO, I think he did a great job but that aside, we shouldn't be always talking bad about Michael Apted or Michael Flaherty. if you don't like the movie, it's not all their fault for the stuff you didn't like.

just my two cents.....

Libby, I'm just expressing my opinion. I wanted to like The Voyage of the Dawn Treader like I did the other two but I just couldn't. I thought it failed as an adaptation and, while I thought it was fairly enjoyable as a standalone movie, I didn't think it was anything to write home about. That's just my opinion.

Why am I upset with Michael Apted? Because I don't feel like he took the time to understand the book and realize that it is special. I'm more upset at Walden than Apted though. I'm not sure why they hired him. In the interview I posted above, along with others, it seems clear Apted isn't a good choice for a fantasy movie. Michael Apted seems to be good at what he does (documentaries) and seems like a nice guy, but I just don't think he was the right choice for Narnia.

@Reepicheep775: Apted has made quite a few feature-length films, besides all those documentaries. His work on IMDb is rather impressive: Continental Divide (my mom's favorite movie), Nell, Amazing Grace, Gorillas in the Mist, The World is not Enough, Enigma, Coal Miner's Daughter. The problem is that Apted doesn't do fantasy. Dawn Treader is a first for him.

This fan-made Dawn Treader trailer with Disney clips is rather disturbing. It's so good it makes me wonder even more about the VDT script! The ones below are fan-made PC and LWW trailers - with Disney animation clips. The ingenuity is amazing but they don't bother me the way the VDT one did!

[VDT]

[PC]

[LWW]

It's worth noting that The World is Not Enough, a Bond film and his previous foray into franchise genre films, was similarly panned by critics and fans of the franchise. In fact, it's RT rating is only one point over VDT's.

why does everyone think Walden is only in it purely for money's sake? the fact is, if they don't make money on one movie, they can't make the next. that's how any franchise works.

Walden might not be in it 100% for money's sake, but money is by far the most important factor. The reason Walden is so dedicated to the Narnia movies is probably because the Narnia movies are the only thing they've ever made besides Journey to the Center of the Earth that's even come close to being a blockbuster at the box office.

and why is everyone so upset with Michael Apted? ...and, IMHO, I think he did a great job but that aside, we shouldn't be always talking bad about Michael Apted or Michael Flaherty. if you don't like the movie, it's not all their fault for the stuff you didn't like.

If you make a general claim that, then I can make a general counter-claim that Apted and Flaherty weren't responsible for all the things that you did like.

Money is a real issue, and we all get that. I think that we are all sensing though, that money is driving these more than a general love of the books. Yes, the motivation should be to make money to an extent, so that they will make films of quality with appeal. But the motivation from starting point should be, "Hey, let's make movies from these Lewis books we know and love" whereas it's seemed more like, "Hey, there's some potential fantasy fodder that could make big $$$ in the wake of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter."

^ That's how I feel about The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but not with the other two. Regardless of why the first two movies were made, they were made with a good level of care and artistry while VDT felt very much like a faceless money-making machine.

@Rilian and Reepicheep775: thank you, thank you, thank you! This is exactly what I've been trying to say on NW and elsewhere for over a week now. And no one seems to get it. But you two do. So thank you!

Obviously money is involved in making movies. But that shouldn't be the only motive or the top one. If it is, you won't get anywhere. Making a movie for artistic, moral, or other non-monetary reasons should be a priority. It should be a love for the story, the characters, the themes portrayed. LWW and PC were made for artistic reasons, to me anyway. The love of the subject matter, of Lewis's Narnia tales, was there. VDT felt like a money-only, money-first project.

@Bookwyrm: so maybe Apted isn't good with fantasy or franchises. I haven't seen The World is not enough because it's a Bond film. I haven't seen Enigma or Gorillas in the Mist either. And I didn't like Nell or Coal Miner's Daughter (which won some impressive awards). Yet what I have seen of Apted (and liked) - Continental Divide, Amazing Grace - convinces me he's an excellent director.