Well with number four, I wonder if he means the films are mediocre. I mean, they are interesting and I love them. However to the casual viewer and even Narnia fans who view the film critically would say that from a technical stand point, the films are neither perfect nor horrible. They are just ok.

If the writer means the stories are uninteresting, then I disagree.

My opinions....
1. Too long between installments.

Slightly agree with this as momentum should have been continued after the success of the first film. But on the other hand, if the movies were written and made well length of time between installments really shouldn't factor in that much, especially if marketing is done well enough before a film's released. With VDT the length in time was due to Disney pulling out. Possibly VDT probably would have been better if Disney had the faith to try them for a third movie.

2.The books are too different from each other.

They're not supposed to be exactly the same, who would watch the same thing/story over and over? The similarity should really be in the emotional investment with the audience and the characters in the story, that's the core similarity all the Narnia movies should have even if the books are different.

3. Nobody read past the first book.

Okay, I might give some credence to this point as I know some people who only read the first book and either didn't know more about the other books or weren't interested in finding out about the other books. But not reading past the first book doesn't/shouldn't affect a movie's success because the movie's a different medium. The movie shouldn't have to rely on people having read the book, but on having a good script, acting, production, direction--the full package of a good movie. I would gather a fair number of people who watched LWW never read the book until after they saw the movie.

4. The movies are just not that interesting.

The movies are of interest to those who are inclined to watch the style and type of movie the Narnia films are/represent. When they say something isn't interesting, they probably mean the movies aren't the type of genre/story that fits with their tastes/ideas about what they consider entertaining. Finding something "interesting" is pretty subjective.

I guess I agree with stateofgreen. Also that any film made of any of the Narnia series is of most concern to the fans of that series.

Well with number four, I wonder if he means the films are mediocre. I mean, they are interesting and I love them. However to the casual viewer and even Narnia fans who view the film critically would say that from a technical stand point, the films are neither perfect nor horrible. They are just ok.

If the writer means the stories are uninteresting, then I disagree.

No, I don't think the movies, in particular VDT, are mediocre at all. I think that a lot of people might like to think so because of their own inadequacies. After all, VDT does present some Christian truths, and some of these Christian truths are a little uncomfortable to those they might apply to, don't you think?

3. Nobody read past the first book:I agree with this to an extent. Most people read only the first book IN SCHOOLS, but if you're reading at home for pleasure, you will definitely read the entire series. The author's argument is that one won't want to read past the first book unless they like fantasy novels, and to him I say, if people don't like Harry Potter, they certainly won't read past the first book.

Now there is the rub in the argument. LWW the movie might be fantastic, but LWW has had several versions before it, whereas the other books have been either ignored altogether, or else they have been panned as sequels, even when that is not necessarily the case. If filmmakers are marketing to schools they have the game sewn up, since there will be a demand for extra copies shown at class level. At least if the copies are based on LWW. So far, this scenario hasn't happened to the Narnia cruew.

I agree with one and three and to an extent two, but the number one reason, is because the films fail to keep a consistent audience. LWW was a family film. PC left out the younger audience. VDT left out the older audience. If they were better at keeping a similar audience, it would have an easier time at the Box Office.

Yes, I agree with you, wolfloversk. What seems to be lacking in audiences is teenagers, especially the more moneyed ones. Of course in Australia in early December many would still be busy with the final papers of the HSC, the results of which only came out late last week, or else University and TAFE exams. And now Christmas shopping is taking up a lot of time for most people as well.

But you do raise an important point which probably deserves its own thread. What is the best rating for Narnia films? In other words, to PG or not to PG? PC was rated PG 13+, or M in Australia, because of battles, the birth scene, supernatural themes and even that kiss. The same is true of the latest Harry Potter film, because of frightening scenes, supernatural themes, some scenes of nudity, one definitely suggestive, and two significant kisses. Oh and lets not forget the blood bespattering not only George Weasley but Hermione as well.

The idea of VDT being rated PG was for everyone in the family to come to the film. I know that on this board the overwhelming majority of Narnia fans are teenagers. But very often teenagers in general relate better to their peers, and often don't want to consort with their oldies, or their younger siblings either. The adults might feel embarrassed at going to a kiddie film to enjoy it, without kiddies in attendance. Whilst some of the themes in VDT are directed at a slightly older age group than the sort of little kids who have to have adults with them all the time.

Whilst I certainly do not agree with the reason given on this thread that VDT is uninteresting or dull, I can see a cursory look at the rating leading film reviewers to that conclusion. To make a film 'interesting' it seems there must be battles, lots of them, even if regular fans don't like it, and there must also be lots of romance, which is where VDT was a bit of a letdown. I wonder if many viewers would have forgiven much if there was just one wedding in the film at the end. And I wonder if film makers were a bit less afraid of showing un - PG blood on hands, supernatural themes and even nitty grittier undragoning scenes whether VDT would have been more 'interesting'?

And I wonder about two other reasons why VDT might not have been as popular as it could be. One is concerned with Walt Disney dropping any Narnia movie after PC, whilst the other is Harry Potter as ongoing competition. The current Harry Potter movie is just too similar to VDT in themes and genre. And though it is classified M, when I saw it there were a considerable number of children who really were younger than 13 years of age. Unaccompanied except by other kids many of them were, too.

Take that fight between Caspian and Edmund. How similar is that to the fight between Ron and Harry? In both films either Lucy or Hermione separates the combatants. Take Reepicheep, who says in both PC and VDT, 'I'm a mouse'. And yes, there was Dobby saying. 'Of couse sir, I'm an elf'. Which got one of the biggest laughs of the current HP. And how similar is that 'green mist' to Voldemort, also known pre GOF as Vapourmort?

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.

I wanted to see that moment so badly!

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.

Thank you. In general I agree with all your comments, especially the one about how de-dragoning Eustace earlier in the movie would have been a great set up for him becoming a protagonist in SC.

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.

It is almost ridiculous how much of the actual book continuity was sacrificed in order to replace with a video-game inspired movie continuity that wasn't even thought through well enough: green mist? Seven swords?

But please, no White Witch in THHB. There are enough villains between the Tisroc and Rabadash and Ahosta, and even Anradin, for that.

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.

I agree with this.