It would be horrible to film them simultaneousness. because they wouldn't be as good as if the directors just focus on one movie.One of the movies, say its SC and MN; SC would probably try to be better than MN,it would just ruin both movies.

I rather doubt they would have one director working on both. This wouldn't be a Lord of the Rings type scenario in which the three films were so tightly connected that it was essentially like filming one very long film. There's no question that they would hire different directors for each film and would mostly have separate crews fro each.

I know that my sister's personal favorite it SC, and I would like to see SC soon rather than later, when there is a possibility of recasting Eustace. It is huge shift for everyone to go from watch VDT to watching MN. I think they should do two films at the same time to get these movies done faster and to make everyone happy.

As much as I would love to see them make two movies at the same time or back to back, it just won't likely happen. Not with a global gross of $400 Million for VDT. I think it would take a $600 million or more for VDT for them to consider having enough reason to film two back to back. Disney had over $700 Million world wide gross of LWW and it didn't do the next two sequels back to back.

I am starting to get the feeling that FOX is pretty committed to making the narnia movies. Not sure what specifically is giving me that, but it just things like the fact that they aren't worried at all the VDT only made 103 million domesically.

There is not enough financial incentive to shoot MN and SC simultaneously.

With LotR, for example, it made sense because there is a lot of overlap. All three films used similar locations, actors, etc. So filming all three at once ultimatly saved them money.

There would be very little (if any) overlap with MN and SC.

As much as I would love to see them make two movies at the same time or back to back, it just won't likely happen. Not with a global gross of $400 Million for VDT. I think it would take a $600 million or more for VDT for them to consider having enough reason to film two back to back. Disney had over $700 Million world wide gross of LWW and it didn't do the next two sequels back to back.

Actually, they originally planned on filming PC and VDT back to back, based on the success of LWW, but they decided against it because they felt that would be inhumane treatment of the child stars.

I sometimes wonder what VDT would have been like if they had filmed in before PC fell so far short of expectations.

For one thing, they would have Will Poulter as Eustace earlier (maybe) and there would be no problem (maybe) in making SC right now, especially if VDT had been better than PC. I'm just horrible aren't I.

I say film both MN and SC at the same time, that way we can look forward to two more narnia movies coming out and Will Poulter wont age and everyone wins this way

I say film both MN and SC at the same time, that way we can look forward to two more narnia movies coming out and Will Poulter wont age and everyone wins this way

They just can't justify the expense. If MN tanks at the box office, it might not even be worth the expense to market and distribute SC, in which case the money spent on SC would be money down the drain.

Well maybe they will wait and see how the DVD's and bluray sales do. I don't know how all that works but I am crossing my fingers that a lot of people go out and buy this movie.

Actually, they originally planned on filming PC and VDT back to back, based on the success of LWW, but they decided against it because they felt that would be inhumane treatment of the child stars.

I thought they stopped that idea because Disney dropped it. They were working on VDT when they were filming PC.

No, they had only started pre-production when Disney pulled out. They didn't start filming until 2009. Originally, if I understand correctly, they were going to start filming in the winter of '07-08, shortly after wrapping up PC. Basically, Apted would have jumped in and immediately taken over the reigns from Adamson. They would have been wrapping up filming on VDT, or starting post-production around the time PC came out.

So, I'm guessing the editing and marketing would have had the same tone of desperation that we saw in the existing version of VDT, but the script-writing and the filming/direction would not. Also, Disney, having already invested so much in VDT, might have stuck with the project, backing out of SC instead. What if, what if . . .

I don't know how this kind of stuff works, with greenlighting two films at once. Would the films come out around 8 months apart from one another like the final two Harry Potter films?

If so, which one would come first: MN or SC?

I don't think they would come out 8 months apart (that would be a huge surprise). For HP it makes more sense because they're 2 parts of one long story. MN and SC aren't really linked that way. If they did out of some miracle make both, they would probably put out SC first to logically continue where VDT left off. Really don't know.

There is not enough financial incentive to shoot MN and SC simultaneously.

With LotR, for example, it made sense because there is a lot of overlap. All three films used similar locations, actors, etc. So filming all three at once ultimatly saved them money.

There would be very little (if any) overlap with MN and SC.

Whilst that may be true in that scenario, take a look at the way Fox has been developing the X-Men franchise over the last year or so as perhaps being a better example. 20th Century Fox currently have two different X-Men movies in production - Matthew Vaughn's "X-Men First Class" and Darren Aronofsky's "The Wolverine" - not just two completely separate stories, but two completely different artistic takes on the same universe - and that is pretty much how the remaining 4 Narnia stories look from here on out: standalone stories set in the same universe, each open to vastly different interpretations and tones of adaptation.

Producing two X-Men movies at the same time has nothing to do with saving money on each individual production, but rather because making an X-Men movie is a safe investment for Fox with a predictable known level of return. Narnia might not quite be at the same sort of commercial branding level as X-Men right now, but with the last two films both making around about 400m worldwide, the size of the market available to them should be fairly well known, and hopefully will be seen as a straightforward and safe investment on their part.