I'll say it again, that statement is false.
"Loyal to a fault, the Lewis estate respected and appreciated our early interest in the books."

Let me put it this way: If LotR or HP had not come out, Walden would still be trying to get LWW made. The reason they were ultimately green-lit was because of the opportunity to cash-in. It was not a coincidence that LWW was released two years after RotK. I think there was also a clear creative influence.

But either way, it was a similar situation with Walden, a company that actively goes around looking for popular books to adapt. You can't force genuine inspiration (unless you're Dominic Cobb). I think they decided they wanted to make LWW long before they had any ideas what they would do with it.

(Sidenote: I would also take everything the Movie Companion says with a grain of salt since it's just a piece of marketing)

I doubt seriously that the Harry Potter franchise ending will impact Narnia in any way, shape, or form. At this point, we're talking two different age groups. Narnia has done nothing to shake off the "it's for little kids" rep which VDT only strengthened. Maybe if MN is made and is actually a superior piece of cinema the franchise could get some interest from Potter fans looking for a new series to be interested in.

Let me put it this way: If LotR or HP had not come out, Walden would still be trying to get LWW made. The reason they were ultimately green-lit was because of the opportunity to cash-in. It was not a coincidence that LWW was released two years after RotK. I think there was also a clear creative influence.

HP and LOTR first came out at the end of 2001, the year of 9/11. Much of LOTR had already been filmed even then, and the new techniques in special effects did impress Doug Gresham so much that filming LWW seemed feasible. However, HP and the Sorcerer's stone competed quite well with LOTR, despite Andy Serkis and the fantastic gollum suit he wore in filming.

HP was a phenomenon that has dominated the last decade since then. The first two movies had done well, but were by no means the ground-breaking effort of LOTR. Like in the Narnia stories the HP filmmakers were still using knobs on sticks as CGI character standins. Readers on this site look back and say how pedestrian the first two movies were, especially 2002's Chamber of Secrets, by far the longest movie. By the time LOTR finished so magnificently in Dec 2003, JKR had published Order of the Phoenix, the fifth book in a hitherto stalled series, and the next book, Prisoner of Azkaban was being produced.

When this movie came out in 2004 it probably was the least successful movie of the series, earning less than $800,000,000. LWW did well at the end of 2005, but still earned a good $50,000,000 less than did Prisoner of Azkaban. Furthermore, by that time HBP had been published, Goblet of Fire had been filmed, and the fantasy momentum created by LOTR seemed to have vanished, according to critics of the time.

Golden Compass did badly in Dec 2006, just a year later, other fantasy series having also suffered similar fates. However, Golden Compass, the definitively anti-Narnia film, was subjected to just the same sort of scrutiny as did Harry Potter, by Christian groups who disapproved of the anti-religious sentiments portrayed in that series. Only this time the critics were the more deadly for being better informed, better read, and less coercive.

Harry Potter reached its zenith in July 2007, when not only DH was released but also the OotP film. If the Hobbit had been started then, I doubt that even it would have done so well against the HP fever of the time. 2008 saw the epic-style Prince Caspian released in May-June, which did badly pitted against Dark Knight and also Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. PC made just half the earnings that Half-blood Prince raked in at the end of 2008, and even it lagged behind other HP films such as OotP and Sorcerer's Stone.

By the time VDT finally was released, no matter how good it was I doubt that you would have got a better result than what happened, with HPDH part 1 just out, and everyone wanting to see it. Even the theatre and the outside muffin and coffee stand were set up for HPDH1 rather than for VDT when I first went to see the latter film. The theatre attendants simply could not see beyond HP. And I am sure that now the HP series has finished, there is a better chance to do the remaining Narnia films.

A thing I've noticed, especially at school, is whenever I'm reading one of the Narnia books, somebody comes up, and asks, "Aren't these books for little kids?"(Take note of my age.) While feeling insulted and explaining that there are older people I know that would be very offended by that, at the same time I note that these people are often fans of Harry Potter or LotR or some other young adult series. They have come to believe that Narnia is just for little kids.

I would be offended also. Because these are books that have stayed with me my whole life for one reason or another, even if younger children are able to read them also. I've also noted the same attitude to Narnia from HP fans, including one essay-writer who referred to 'Holy Narnia' which couldn't do anything wrong. But I have also noticed that the most frequent VDT viewers were people of the 30-40 years old demographic, one of whom told me that Narnia was the series people enjoyed before HP was written. And even on HP sites there is the occasional Narnia fan, betrayed by monikers like 'Roonwit', for instance.

I am so glad Harry Potter is over, but i don't think it will effect the interest in the Narnia films. The films just aren't good enough. If they had continued where PC had started even with it's major issues and made VotDT a more adult and darker film then i think they could have gotten something good. Though it would have helped if the duel in PC was good. I just don't see it.

Who is this 'Harry Potter' bloke you all are on about?

As a 47-year old who has recently finished my first reading of all seven books, none of which I had even heard of before the first movie came out, I can tell you for certain that Narnia is for all ages but most of the other stuff is for kids/teens/etc. and I can't see the point in any of it. (exception, LOTR which is definitely for adults)

As C.S. Lewis once said (paraphrased) a children's story that you outgrow is simply a bad children's story. I have not outgrown Narnia and don't think I ever will.

I hope now that HP is all done, Narnia can get some more exposure. And I hope they do it right.

The films just aren't good enough. If they had continued where PC had started even with it's major issues and made VotDT a more adult and darker film then i think they could have gotten something good. Though it would have helped if the duel in PC was good.

Maybe the films could have been better. Suspian was a mistake, and the green mist bothered people. But as Aslan said, nobody knows what would have happened. PC couldn't compete to Walt Disney's satisfaction against equally dark movies, like Dark Knight or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, in mid 2008. Would it really have done any better against the highly similar Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince, later in the year?

And if VDT had been darker and more adult, it may have been marginally more popular in America and Australia. But the penultimate Harry Potter film, which came out a fortnight earlier, with a tagline of The journey continues, was on a roll and I expect that it would have left VDT marooned in the Deathly Shallows just the same. Furthermore, what's the chances people would have complained that a darker VDT was a ripoff of Harry Potter? The critics panned Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 as the weakest of the series so far. Yet they also conceded that the series had gone too far for that weakness to have made much difference to its success and its huge fan base.

That bodes ill for other films which might be released just now, regardless of how good or how bad they are, such as The Eagle, allegedly released this week. If there is anguish over VDT which still did better overall compared to the better marketed Tron and other movies released at the same time, how much more anguish would lesser known films experience if they are released at the same time as the current HP movie? I'm referring to The Eagle, another book adaptation which was released this week in Australia, to considerably less fanfare than even VDT got. If it wasn't for a historical feature article in the Daily Telegraph mentioning it, I wouldn't have even known it had arrived.

A thing I've noticed, especially at school, is whenever I'm reading one of the Narnia books, somebody comes up, and asks, "Aren't these books for little kids?"...They have come to believe that Narnia is just for little kids.
That could present a problem.

Good point there, Louloudi. I think that is the perception of a lot of people who haven't read Narnia; including and especially teenagers. I thought the same myself until I started reading the books after LWW came out.

I realized then that they were definitely not just for little kids but for all ages. Target stores always had them in the young adult book section.

But perception and misconceptions matter a great deal, unfortunately. If that could be changed, the next Narnia movie should do better and not suffer the "little kiddie" affect that may have hurt VDT before it even opened.

Sequels to hit originals usually open big whether good or bad. VDT didn't even open big and probably the perception of Narnia's being for little kids had permeated the audience's thinking by the time of VDT's release.

Let's hope the next Narnia flick can overcome that.
(Maybe if more Harry Potter fans who have never read Narnia books started doing so? That would be a big plus and boost. )

......
But perception and misconceptions matter a great deal, unfortunately. If that could be changed, the next Narnia movie should do better and not suffer the "little kiddie" affect that may have hurt VDT before it even opened.

Sequels to hit originals usually open big whether good or bad. VDT didn't even open big and probably the perception of Narnia's being for little kids had permeated the audience's thinking by the time of VDT's release.
.....

Agreed. The poor Narnia franchise is now stigmatized as a kiddie movie series/kiddie book series to the mainstream public. Probably a really poor analogy to make, but something along the lines of how some won't watch black and white movies because they're filmed in black and white instead of color. Harry Potter is the colourful appealing option and Narnia is now the black and white option that rarely anyone will touch in droves.

Sequels to hit originals usually open big whether good or bad. VDT didn't even open big and probably the perception of Narnia's being for little kids had permeated the audience's thinking by the time of VDT's release.

First of all, VDT was not a sequel to a hit. PC was a moderate success, in terms of income (profit is another story). It started pretty strong, though not as well as anticipated, and the legs quickly fell out from under it.

Secondly, I don't see why you think kiddy stigma hurt VDT. What do you hypothesize caused this stigma? LWW's strong opening suggests that the books weren't stigmatized. LWW's strong legs and huge DVD sales suggest that the movie itself wasn't stigmatized. PC's week legs and VDT's poor opening would lend credence to the theory that PC stigmatized the franchise, but, kiddie stigma? PC was a very teen-centric reworking of Narnia, to the point that it turned off a lot of family audiences. Basically, Walden saw that they had a good thing going with their family-friendly fantasy, but they got greedy and decided to throw all of their creative efforts into wooing the teen audiences as well. The attempt blew up in their faces.

I'm going to let GlimGlum speak for himself for his own post, but to piggyback-clarify my previous post in response to his...in my personal view I think VDT actually starts the 'kiddie stigma' for future movies being appreciated. I don't think LWW or PC created 'kiddie stigma'...maybe it's more appropriate to just call it Narnia stigma.

I was mostly thinking (with my previous response to GlimGlum..and I realize I probably didn't read that post very carefully) about 'kiddie stigma' caused by people completely unfamiliar with the books who totally avoid watching Narnia films at all because of the preconception/prejudice/ignorance-what-have-you that they're just children's books. I hope I make some recycled sense.

I thought the kiss and the green mist were both epic fails. The mist was one of the silliest things i have seen in a film in a long time. Also when i talk about darker and more adult i wasn't necessarily talking about battling. I actually think the last HP film did a pretty bad job of having reasonable amounts of battling and really i liked the amount of battling in PC even though the duel could have just been done so much better. Epic fail for me on the duel.

What i mean by darker and more adult is mostly in the dialogue. I think that they did a terrible job with making the last film interesting at all. And it had no cohesive momentum and i agree with the people who said that the dialogue was a lot of play by play of what they were doing. Oh look there are names crossed out. Stuff like that. I just think that the target audience was a five year old with no consideration for the parents. And i agree with the previous poster who said that a great children's story is one that you never grow out of and the books certainly are and i wish that some of what is so interesting to the adults in the books was present in VotDT the film. And i am very forgiving of changes.

And honestly with the things i dislike about PC, even though in light of VotDT it doesn't seem so bad, i still consider it a fail and then VotDT was just terrible in my opinion and i don't see how they recover from that one. And i love Narnia and in some way i hope they do recover, but if they are going to make bad films i would rather they stopped.

Great! Haven't had a strong response to anything of mine in a long time.

First of all, VDT was not a sequel to a hit.

I was thinking in terms of LWW's being the original movie and PC and VDT being derived from it as sequels; PC being the first and VDT the second. Just my way looking at it.

Secondly, I don't see why you think kiddy stigma hurt VDT. What do you hypothesize caused this stigma?

In my post I refered to this statement by Louloudi the Centaur from his post.

A thing I've noticed, especially at school, is whenever I'm reading one of the Narnia books, somebody comes up, and asks, "Aren't these books for little kids?"...They have come to believe that Narnia is just for little kids.
That could present a problem.

Good point there, Louloudi. I think that is the perception of a lot of people who haven't read Narnia; including and especially teenagers. I thought the same myself until I started reading the books after LWW came out.

So part of my hypothesis is based on his more recent experience and my own after LWW came out. Also, when I was growing up, a G-rated movie was looked down on by a lot of teens as being for little kids. Now I think many of them look at a PG rating the same way.

LWW's strong opening suggests that the books weren't stigmatized. LWW's strong legs and huge DVD sales suggest that the movie itself wasn't stigmatized

.
LWW had the advantage of being a well known classic. The famliarity factor and the curiosity factor would be highest for it. So it did do well as stated but who knows? After viewing it, maybe a lot of teens decided it was for younger children Just speculating.

PC's week legs and VDT's poor opening would lend credence to the theory that PC stigmatized the franchise, but, kiddie stigma? PC was a very teen-centric reworking of Narnia, to the point that it turned off a lot of family audiences. Basically, Walden saw that they had a good thing going with their family-friendly fantasy, but they got greedy and decided to throw all of their creative efforts into wooing the teen audiences as well. The attempt blew up in their faces.

I pretty much agree with that. They turned off families who went to see it but failed to attract the big boost in teenagers they were seeking. Definitely didn't help VDT.

So I think that VDT's poor opening was a combination of PC and unfamilarity with the books after LWW along with the perception that the books are for small children, and the PG rating for teenagers. Also, after LWW, perhaps there was just a drop in interest in Narnia itself for general audiences. Narnia is older and not contemporary like Harry Potter; therefore less cool?

Just supposition on my part based on my life experience and that of some other NarniaWebbers. It would be nice to know and understand these things in an absolute and concrete way; but I think only all-knowing being would be capable of that.

I agree the whole "kiddie books" view is hurting the series (and unjustly as well.) My friends younger sister refused to watch the movies because of this reason.

I also agree with GlimGlum in LWW's success due to familiararity. Lots of kids read it in school- My second grade class did, but I never found out there were 6 others until sixth grade... 2005. A lot of people will see a movie based on a book they have read... which is LWW's advantage over the others.

I also agree however that marketing PC strictly for teens was a mistake, but so was marketing VDT strictly for toddlers.

I also agree however that marketing PC strictly for teens was a mistake, but so was marketing VDT strictly for toddlers.

The VDT movie was made for toddlers. So the fact that it was often marketed that way doesn't bother me. Maybe that was one of the few things in the marketing that wasn't extremely misleading.

The PC movie also really was geared more towards teens than LWW.

The VDT movie was made for toddlers? I consider it to have the most scary action of any of the others, by far far far. So whether or not it was marketed towards toddlers, I don't think a single one could have stayed in the theatre throughout the movie.