Hmm, my opinion of these points are...
1. Too long between installments.

So what? The movies have grown up with the fans! The Pevensies are growing up with the fans. Everyone is eagerly awaiting the next one, right? Build up the excitement? (I do understand, but then again...not to o sure if that is a valid point or if I just don't want to admit it. )

2.The books are too different from each other.

So, what you're saying is, they're not all The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe made over again? Yes, they're different; if you want to watch LWW, just pop the original into your dvd player!! (I understand myself about them being different, but I have to admit to myself; if it's LWW I want, I've got it. Be glad that they are different! Allows for different audiences, too. Maybe LWW is to 'childish' for some teens (not for me, of course!). So maybe teens will like PC...kids and adults into the original feel will like VotDT...? If they were so close, then everyone would be saying "C. S. Lewis tried to make 7 books out of one idea." But now they say "They are too different." ??? What's the problem here?

3. Nobody read past the first book.

Yes, well, this would be, just like the problem above, something saying that only LWW is interesting. It seems like everybody wanted PC to be like LWW, and VotDT too, but they ARE NOT THE SAME STORY!! I'm sure if everyone opened PC and read LWW #2, it would have been different, but where would the morals, the lessons, the ORIGINALITY be???

4. The movies are just not that interesting.

Excuse me? I thought so. Now, look at Lord of the Rings. Successful. With the basic "Dude, it's really hard to destroy evil but we will throw away the ring, fight, bleed, die trying and win." Okay, I loved them, but that is a pretty basic plot. And Harry Potter (which I have never seen and do not intent to, due to the adamant wizards-all-over story line), correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but isn't that series kinda simple too? Lewis' writings may be 'simple' with "oh, I never saw THAT coming...*cough* *cough* from the audience, but really...would you watch a movie where evil prevailed?? I wouldn't. And the stories are all individual and exciting in their own ways so...how are they not interesting but these other series are???

Excuse my ranting, I meant no harm and would be glad to listen to differing opinions.

LoN

I agree with the first reason to some extent, though I completely disagree with the rest.

I still stand by my idea that the studio is disregarding that these movies can stand on their own, and the main problem with their filmmaking and marketing is trying to tie every single book and story in the series together when it's just not needed.

I think the points were all pretty well argued, especially the one about LWW being the most-read and therefore the only recognizable one. A classmate of mine who LOVES The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe had no idea that there were six other books. I wished very much to be her that day...to make the amazing discovery for myself.

We also have to admit to ourselves that Narnia is not as popular as it once was . Times change. Narnia will always have its fan base and will make new fans, but a large part its decline in popularity has to do with built-up notions around the books over the years (preachiness, racism, sexism etc) which fans know to be untrue or exaggerated.

Also, Harry Potter is the dominant series right now. While I like Harry Potter a lot, I do not love it the same way I do Narnia. The Chronicles of Narnia are refreshing literature in so many ways. There's the simplicity of the books, for when you need literature that isn't too psychological; there's the moral groundwork of the books, which will make you cry and laugh with joy; there's the 'wildness' of Aslan, of the creatures, which WILL inspire that upwards "swoosh" in your stomach; there's the vividness of the images and descriptions, and the arresting strangeness of certain places, peoples, and things; there's the planetary symbolism that Michael Ward discovered, which, though we were unconcious of it, lent the books a certain unifying atmosphere that made each one unique.

Narnia has so much. CS Lewis accomplished all of the above in a little over the length of The Deathly Hallows. They were so influential on children's literature to come, even on Harry Potter. Yet they are maligned.

On my bookshelf, Narnia sits next to Tolkien, and all the great literature that influenced those two great men sits behind it: Malory, Chretien, Beowulf, Sir Gawain, Marie de France etc. They were the heirs of that tradition: the captivating romance that would transport you somewhere else, show you strange new wonders, and leave you with an undefinable aching for something great and beautiful, to seek your true home (as glumPuddle often says of VDT), and yet leaves you still with an appreciation or better understanding of the real world.

Lucy, on a surface level, yes, Lord of the Rings seems simple, but it's anything but. Harry Potter is reasonably complicated but Narnia seems to have more hidden depth. The Narnia stories themselves are generally fairly simple. It's what lurks beneath that's so fascinating.

Sadly, this seems to be the most level headed argument I have read so far regarding the decline of the Chronicles of Narnia film series. I so desperately want Narnia to be regarded right up there with the LOTR and Harry Potter franchises as standard-bearers in fantasy. And even after Prince Caspian, it seemed like Narnia looked like a lucrative franchise. But the debut weekend that VDT took really put a dent in that. I hope that it can recover at the box office. I still feel like the Chronicles are masterpieces in fantasy. And I would like for them to be regarded as such too. Not having any films after Silver Chair would hurt that.

I do agree about the extended period of time between films, however it has allowed the actors to age appropriately for their parts. In fact, I feel like the films are being released almost exactly according to the characters' ages. It would still be perfect to have HHB come out around 2016 so that the Pevensies can reprise their parts.

So, what you're saying is, they're not all The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe made over again? Yes, they're different; if you want to watch LWW, just pop the original into your dvd player!!

I don't think the original point was like that. What the article was saying is that the Narnia films are constantly changing the setting completely, changing the entire cast of characters, and changing the moral, message, quest, theme, tone, and overall feel. Some of these things are easy to change while still retaining the audience, but for someone who loved the first movie to have almost all of their favorite characters and locations gone and replaced by new ones, it's a little disappointing.

When you see the first LoTR movie, you come back for the second one and you get to see all your favorite characters again, and many of the same locations too. In Harry Potter, although the moods of the books may be different, all the same characters return year after year and the story always takes place in the same general location (except for book #7).

What would have worked well, from a franchise point of view, is if LWW had ended with the coronation scene and HHB had been the sequel. HHB features the return of the Pevensie children, Mr. Tumnus, and other memorable characters, and it also pleasantly introduces new characters and locations without abandoning the old ones. Narnia still appears, there is still an evil empire, there's a climactic battle at the end where good conquers evil, and Aslan appears to make a very powerful message.

And Harry Potter (which I have never seen and do not intent to, due to the adamant wizards-all-over story line), correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but isn't that series kinda simple too?

I'm not sure why you even bothered to say this when you're judging something you've never read/seen and never intend to. On top of that, you even include that you're sure somebody will correct you.

But to answer, no, the Harry Potter series is ANYTHING but simple. Books 5, 6, and 7 aren't 700 pages each for nothing. There are so many characters, subplots, internal conflicts, and developments that it's actually almost hard to keep track of it all.

I think the writers of this article missed one very important reason people didn't see Dawn Treader this weekend. -One that was quite obvious to most of us in the Midwest:

A HUGE BLIZZARD!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_winter_storm_midwest

I can't speak for everyone in the U.S., but I know that people in MN were pretty much stranded for the weekend. Some schools in Minneapolis will still be closed today and it might take a week to get everyone plowed out! My day was unexpectedly busy on Friday, so if I hadn't specifically made time to see VDT Friday night I wouldn't have been able to see it all weekend! (And it might have been wiser not to see Dawn Treader that night, since the snow was predicted to start falling around midnight, I believe. If that is true, then it is no wonder that no one ventured out Friday night. Besides, at that time the storm was already hitting the Dakotas I'm sure, prohibiting them from seeing the film.) Due to the weather, the Lion Party in the Twin Cities was canceled, which lost Fox at least $12. (The Lion Party is currently being rescheduled.) But seriously, there are about 3.5 million people who live around the Twin Cities. Assuming that less than 1/40 of the population were planning on seeing Dawn Treader, that means Fox lost half a million dollars on the Twin Cities alone. And the Twin Cities was not the only area affected. Generally speaking, where in America would you predict Dawn Treader to do the best? The Midwest. -And that is exactly the part of the country that was immobilized.

I'm not saying that Dawn Treader would have made $65 million if there hadn't been a snowstorm, but I am saying that if the weather stopped my plans of seeing the film this weekend, then you can be sure it stopped several other people's plans of seeing the film this weekend as well.

If my theory is correct, then I would expect to see Dawn Treader doing quite well during the week, as well as a low percentage drop in theaters next weekend.

I hope you are right, Movie_Aristotle. The previous two weeks in Australia there was flooding in much of inland New South Wales affecting some of the more populated places inland, including Wagga Wagga, Warren, Forbes, Goulburn and Queanbeyan. There has been flooding in Queensland as well. However, most people in both states live on the coast and are unaffected.

But about those reasons. Unfortunately there is some truth in the article.

1. Nobody reads past the first book.
That can be and often is true, even of the Narnia books. Sometimes people don't know there is more than one book in a series, even the CON, other times they dislike later books. I happen to agree that this argument does hold some water. Especially when the 'nobodies' are film makers looking for well-loved classics to make into film. Walt Disney is not the only large firm notorious for this approach. And I think that people have been put off by the ordinary financial performances of films like A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Golden Compass or Eragon.

LWW is relatively well known. It has been made into an animated film as well as the first of the BBC television series. I went to a performance of LWW on stage, but although that was well-attended there were never other CON books treated similarly. At least PC got filmed and did reasonably well.

2. Too long between installments.

And at the rate we are going it could be even longer before another installment. It isn't VDT's fault that Walt Disney ditched the movie. The publicity about their doing so might very well have harmed VDT's chances, but I also think the marketing program could have been better.

3. The movies are just not that interesting.

Well actually I disagree. I feel the movies have made the Narnia books more interesting, and bring a fresh perspective to what C.S.Lewis is saying. I thought that most movies insist on battles and romances to make them interesting, and LWW and PC both had battles at any rate.

I didn't think that VDT was boring. It moved too fast for that. However, I do agree that the Christian themes of the movies do put some people off, especially film critics ultra sensitive to being preached at, and especially when it is not LWW with Aslan dying on the Stone Table.

4.The books are too different from each other.
Now this is plain silly. To keep interest the books should be different from each other. Repetition is monotonous. There is a quest in all of the Narnia books of course, whether it is a lost Empire to be regained from the White Witch in LWW, a lost throne in PC to be regained, 7 Lost Lords in VDT, a Lost Prince in Silver Chair, and another Lost Prince returning from slavery in HHB. Also I think the Narnia books are far more accessible to people of all ages than is the case either with LOTR or HP.

The Harry Potter books are a modern day phenomenon, the filming of which is drawing to a close. Does anyone realise how much VDT, in particular, inspired these books? I still feel there is something of a parallel between VDT's seven lost lords and Harry Potter's seven DADA teachers, for example.

Yes the HP books are good, and the films made from them have made record amounts of money. But some of the later films I think are a bit too deep to allow unaccompanied children to see them, not unlike the Lord of the Rings, though I can think of worse PG or even G movies to take children to than either of these series. Also, I agree they are just as involved as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Filming these three books all at once was a master stroke for Peter Jackson, no doubt. But it would take a truckload of money to do that with the Narnia series.

Though I agree with some points made there are others I think need to be examined more carefully.

I want to start off by saying that you don't have to read this unless you need something to put you to sleep. Warning: its a dissertation. But it was therapeutic for me to write and I deeply appreciate having somewhere to put it. This is the one reason why I think VDT and PC before it did not measure up to the first movie.

I think the article had valid points:

LWW is the most well known. And two years is alot of time in between movies. Maybe not from a technical standpoint--but from a fan standpoint. It is hard to keep momentum going.

I would like to address the other two reasons because I think they are related. I've been thinking about it for a while. And while there are probably a multitude of reasons why LWW did better than the other two, I can understand why the article author feels the movies aren't interesting. I thought they were interesting but I'm already in love with the characters and the setting.
The first movie did a good job of investing the audience in the characters. I could feel Lucy's childlike faith, her fear and sadness at watching Aslan die. I could feel Edmund's remorse in the dungeon and Peter's concern for his brother after the battle. All that was great and I think making characters the audience could become invested in helped the movie's success.
But as far as continuity is concerned I think they should have shown a montage of scenes from the years of their reign. Make them look a few years older doing the things the book said they did then morph into the older actors doing the same. Maybe forshadow HHB. Then go to the White stag scene. The movies thus far have pretty much ignored the years of their reign other than to point out that it screwed up Peter. Lewis does a good job of telling the readers just enough. This is important for continuity and they missed it.

In the second movie, again, they miss it. Gone was the banter and bickering over lunch. Gone was the group decision making showing how close they were as siblings. Gone was the reminiscing of their reign that would remind the audience of who they are in this land. Gone was Lucy getting so furious at Trumpkin for suggesting that Aslan might have "gone wild" that Peter has to stop her from attacking him. Gone is resolute Queen Lucy the Valiant who, after getting her strength from Aslan, marches back and informs her siblings that they can follow her or be left behind. Where is Lucy's heart? Where is her hearfelt plea to the trees to remember her? And I don't mean two words in a dream. What they did show of Lucy's character was great but you could blink and miss it. Same with Edmund. He was great in the movie, but again, don't blink. Thank goodness they left in in the duel with Trumpkin and the challenge to Miraz or Edmund would have been little more than an extra. Gone was the fact that it is Edmund who first senses that what is happening to them is magic, and it is he who commands his siblings to hold hands for safety. Edmund knows Narnia by feel. Gone is the observation by Miraz's men that "that is no boy, but a king". Gone is Ed's moment with Aslan where he says "well done" and breathes on him. I mean, in light of what happened in the last movie, that should hold some emotional significance for the viewer. Sure--during the single combat, he looks kinda worried and they have sort of a brother moment (which is all performed very well) but where is Edmund biting his lip so hard it bleeds and feeling sick to his stomach? Where is Edmund breaking off his commentary to Caspian to yell "GO PETER! GO!" when Peter draws first blood. Or consulting with Peter on how the duel is going.
The conversation with Caspian during the duel is very important also because it sets up the relationship between the two in VDT. For continuity. So audiences will want to see the next movie without Peter and Susan. I still think they should have started VDT off with a scene between the four Pevensies explaining where they are all going. Audiences would have loved it. Continuity.

Speaking of Caspian, he does show a sense of duty toward the Narnians, but his intense longing for Old Narnia never shows through. As for his awe of his childhood heroes, well, we all know what happened to that.

Sure Peter was arrogant and as Adamson put it in the commentary, he was"trying to get back to his former glory". I did not like his character change. But what bothered me most about Peter was he didn't have a heart for Narnia. Yes he wanted to save them and he wasn't the first one out the door when the castle raid failed, but his paternal, kingly love for his subjects was never apparent. He rarely interacted with them at all. In the book, it was very obvious--from his acknowledgement of Trufflehunter to his knowlege of how to treat Reepicheep without hurting his honor, to his respect for the tradition of the bears to his concern for the giant's feelings to his immediate willingness to lay down his life. And how I longed in the end for the Narnians to rise up and cheer for their heroes as they left giving Peter and Susan the send off they deserved.
VDT did a better job of fleshing out the characters but they still missed it by just a little. Gone was Caspian being forced to leave his friends to who knows what fate at the hands of Pug. Gone was the utter dispicableness of Gumpas' indifference to the human lives he was playing with and the satisfaction of seeing him put in his place. Gone was Caspian rushing to the marketplace to frantically find his friends before they were sold and taken away.
Goldwater was good, but gone was the moment when Caspian comes to himself and realizes that he has just threatened to kill the only people he considers family. Gone was Caspian explaining to RD the story of Sleeping Beauty implying that he has a much deeper relationship with the Pevensies and Eustace than what we see. Gone is Eustace carrying Caspian's second best sword, also implying a deeper relationship than is shown. He wouldn't just give him a sword and say "good luck with that". He would teach him. Setting up a great moment in SC for Eustace to say to Rilian, "Your father taught me." Continuity. The end was great but too rushed. If they had spent a little more time on post dragon Eustace developing a relationship with Narnia, Will Poulter, in my opinion could lead audiences to see SC. He was brilliant.
As for continuity for HHB,that's easy--all four Pevensies back together again? Give Peter a cameo and all those who hated to say goodbye to them will come back to see a glimpse of their reigning years. And who wouldn't want to see the White Witch in a movie she actually belongs in? Imagine the trailers for that one.

But if they don't find the heart of Narnia and the heart of those who drop their lives and shed their blood at a moments notice when she calls, SC will fail too--if it gets made at all.

I can't blame the article author for thinking these movies aren't that interesting. But it has nothing to do with the books not being interesting. Epic battles and great special effects are wonderful, but its just the shell. The whole package has to be there. If the audience is not invested in the characters, its just another movie.

The first one I understand. I wish they had done them one year after the other like with Harry Potter.

The fourth one only applies to the Prince Caspian movie. But then, Prince Caspian is regarded as the weakest of the books by many people. It is my least favorite of the seven.

The other two I will have to disagree with. Many people have read past LWW. The other books check out at my library on a regular basis. And I make a point of booktalking The Horse and His Boy every year at the Great American Teach-In.

Books being too different from each other? They all take place in Narnia. They all have had the Pevensies so far, of the ones that have been filmed. They all have Christian themes. All of them are high fantasy. If they were too similar, people would also complain.

This "blame it on a snowstorm" business needs to stop. More populated areas of the Midwest, including where I live, didn't get any snow until Sunday night. (Repeat: Sunday night). That wouldn't have affected much of anything Friday or Saturday or even midnight Thursday showings. And it wouldn't have had any impact on the debut in Australia, which was also significantly below PC.

As for the rest of the reasons in that article, some make sense, but the notion that people don't read beyond LWW is foolish. Several people buy the Chronicles as a set, not individual books, and something tells me most of them don't just read one book and leave the rest on a shelf.

And I've always liked the fact that the books were different. The Harry Potter plot of the same three kids running from the same maniac got a little old by, oh, I dunno...book four. In that respect, Narnia has always been much fresher and diverse and, one would think, a much stronger basis for a movie franchise.

This "blame it on a snowstorm" business needs to stop. More populated areas of the Midwest, including where I live, didn't get any snow until Sunday night. (Repeat: Sunday night). That wouldn't have affected much of anything Friday or Saturday or even midnight Thursday showings. And it wouldn't have had any impact on the debut in Australia, which was also significantly below PC.

Agreed. It just seems a tad desperate that we're now blaming a snowstorm in the Midwest as one of the reason for VODT's weak box-office. If people really wanted to see it, no weather would stop them. First, we said it was the summer competition for PC (which was legit), now, after release date was changed, we're blaming the weather?

But, in regards to the article, I agree with most of his points

1. The franchise has been taking too long in between movies. Yes, some of us have mentioned that a longer development time is a good thing and it prevented the film from being rushed but I think it's obvious now that while more time can help, it's just not paying off as the Narnia franchise have dropped out of the radar for most casual movie-goers. If there was a need for a significant time gap in between films, there had to a narrative structure that sparks non-Narnian fans to look forward for the sequel.

2. The writer hits this point head on.

3. Sadly, this is true, most people have never read beyond LWW, which I admit is sad. I was asking around the other day at my church whether they were fans of Narnia and I found out less than 1/4 have ever read anything beyond LWW. Most only read it because of school assignment etc etc. Of course, a single church isn't everyone but if you asked around LWW is the usually the only book read and with no-connecting story arc, many were not intrigued enough to continue.

4. hmm, I disagree with him but I'm see his point. Compared to modern literary works, the characters in Narnia tend to be more of a caricature rather than complex human beings. While I actually think this is what makes Narnia enjoyable, the modern audience seems to love their conflicted, complex, charismatic heroes that are shaded by gray morality more than a black-and-white portrayal of good and evil. Sad but true.

Also, I'm not saying the series should been more serialized with a connected overall plotline, only that I understand how this might have deterred non-Narnian fans from finishing the series and difficulty to market it. Just throwing that out there.

I liked the movie a lot and it got me emotionally near the end, but the reason why it missed at the box office, is that there is so much time inbetween each movie. Two and a half years is too long, especially in a seven part series. There's no way to build on the momentum of the previous films.

These movies should be coming out a year to a year and a half between each one. At this rate it will be nearly twenty years before the whole series is completed which is ridiculous.

Harry Potter came out nearly every year or year and a half. Why is it taking so long for Narnia to come out? There are seven books in the series and at this rate it will take 20 years. There is no way to keep the momentum going since there is such a long wait.

They should be coming out every year. I think that would keep the cost down, since they could use some of the same sets and it would create more interest and the movies would do better. With such a long wait, people tend to forget about it.