A second common criticism of the Narnia series which the production often cited during filming of Prince Caspian was that the series was fairly disjointed. That there wasn't much in the way of continuity in the characters or settings of the stories such as with Harry Potter and that they felt at a disadvantage as a result. ...
This didn't seem to have stopped Marvel, and i didn't once see them complaining about it. If anything they embraced the differences that make each character unique, enabling them to get to the 6th movie in a series without viewers feeling fatigued of seeing the same old thing yet again.

I completely agree with you 100% on this point. A common criticism of even LWW was that it tried to tread on LotR's epicness rather than embracing the simplicity of the books. (This was far more evident in PC imho.)
My hope is that any future filmmakers will embrace what makes Narnia different and standout from all of the other fantasy stories. Each book is a different story set in the same world, with different characters and a different feel. VDT is the result of trying to force Narnia into the mold of a standard fantasy movie series.

So why is it that The Avengers have so easily made it to 6 movies, whilst Narnia struggled so much to get to just 3?

At the end of the day, I don't think money had much to do with it, but rather disagreements among the production on how the movies should be made. Nothing was ever said publicly to that effect, but it's just the feeling I got with the continual rewrites of VDT and especially when discussions on MN fell apart. If you can't agree on how to make a movie, it's not going to be made (or it will be made and it will be really bad ).

They should've done Prince Caspian and Voyage of The Dawn Treader back to back. I mean they did it with Pirates Of the Carribean, and the Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe was about as succesfull as Curse Of The Black Pearl. It made 300 million + in dvd's and 745 million in theathres. That is phenomenal!

As many times said before Prince Caspian should've headed against Golden Compass in winter 2007.
Also if Harry Potter could spawn almost yearly a movie with child actors i don't get why it was such a problem for Narnia. They lost momentum.

Americans also read very little books, comic books on the other hand...
There are a lot more avid comic nerds than fans of Narnia. They will watch anything, reboot after reboot, sequel after sequel.
However none of the movies produced by Marvel Studios have reached the numbers of The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe. They should have promoted the Narnia books better. The more known and read a book is, the more people that will watch the film adaptation.

I also think the marvel movies are starting to run out of steam. Captain America, Thor, the last X-Men they made less money than expected, none made more than 450 million.

So why is it that The Avengers have so easily made it to 6 movies, whilst Narnia struggled so much to get to just 3?

At the end of the day, I don't think money had much to do with it, but rather disagreements among the production on how the movies should be made. Nothing was ever said publicly to that effect, but it's just the feeling I got...

That would be the impression i get too.

From looking at the way Marvel Studios has handled the Avengers series, it is clear from the boxoffice takings that its not a simple case of those characters being more popular than Narnia, but rather than Marvel had a clear focused plan for the series and a strong determination to see it done. I can't help but feel that if Narnia had that sort of drive and purpose behind it from the beginning, rather than the indecision and uncertainty that plagued the series from the beginning, then we wouldn't of ended up in this situation, regardless of relative box-office sizes.

Marvel didn't fret about whether the wacky fantastical elements of Thor would seem "gritty" or "realistic" enough for modern audiences, they didn't fret about whether Captain America would seem too pro-USA in the increasing global market place, and they didn't seem to care when Incredible Hulk under-performed boxoffice wise, but instead kept pushing on with multiple overlapping production schedules for subsequent films.

What we seemed to have got from Walden and Disney from day 1 was the complete opposite - they constantly seemed to be second-guessing what the audience wanted, making things "less dark" one moment, then "more gritty" the next. They were constantly hesitant about production on sequels, even after LWW was a big hit, adopting a wait-and-see attitude which just smacked of self-doubt. Overall the whole production of the Narnia series was exemplified by indecision and uncertainty at every turn. In that regard there is one other movie coming out this summer that is worth analysing - Disney's "John Carter". From the beginning Disney have seemed hesitant and uncertain with that project, changing the title several times, and never really seeming to know how to sell the movie to anyone. Everything from the ridiculously high budget to the confused and unfocused marketing campaign reminds me of Prince Caspian in just about every single way.

That is a very interesting comparison, Avengers and Narnia. And I agree with what has been said, especially that the producers tried to make Narnia another LotR hit and that they didn't seem to have a very clear/strong path to follow for the movies, nor were they really determined to make all seven. They kinda made the first one to see how it did and then did the second one and waited. Maybe they didn't take enough risk?

Nope, nothing to be learned from Avengers

Totally different type of film.

If wanting to learn lessons from Avengers, best to make Avengers type films i think

Oh John Carter is absolutely Fantastic film.

I recommend 3d, totally brilliant fantasy film fun.

There's one very important thing that can be learned from The Avengers: hire a good script writer.

Marvel movies in general may be popular, but none of the others received as many glowing reviews as The Avengers did. What made the Avengers really good was the fact that it was well-planned, well-plotted, and well-written. It had a perfect balance for every character's sub-plot, the humor was clever, and the plot was correctly carried out. That can't really be said for the cheesy dialogue, cliche humor, and stereotypical plot twists of VDT. Or either of the other two movies, for that matter.

~Riella

Basically, what Marvel had that Narnia doesn't is a driving force and someone to keep the producers in line.

If Marvel had messed up his characters, Stan Lee would have kicked their butts. I can't help but think that if Gresham had more control, we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead he seems to be kept out of the process.

Also, Marvel has real fans creating the movies people who eat sleep and bleed comics. Like, dress up like a superhero and go to comic-con type of fan, what we need is a production team who truly loves Narnia. People who will stick to the book even if it won't be popular and we also need a production company who will back them no matter what.

And Rilian, the Marvel movies won't run out of steam because the company behind it will just keep shoveling coal.

- Little Joe

If Marvel had messed up his characters, Stan Lee would have kicked their butts. I can't help but think that if Gresham had more control, we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead he seems to be kept out of the process.

To me, it sounded even worse. Didn't someone mention that he had to keep apologizing? It sounds more like Walden was attempting to keep him in line, rather than the other way around like it should be.

You make a good point. Something to be learned from the Avengers is that the owner of the material should be the head of the process.

~Riella

I think the Avengers appeal more to today's public then the Narnia does. The Avengers have a more modern setting/characters which makes the public more likely to enjoy it.

I think the Avengers appeal more to today's public then the Narnia does. The Avengers have a more modern setting/characters which makes the public more likely to enjoy it.

I don't think a movie being modern will make it more appealing to today's audience. The Hobbit movie coming out later this year is a fantasy movie just like Narnia, and isn't at all modern. And you can bet that people will be flocking to that.

I'm afraid the real difference between the two -- Avengers and Narnia -- is that one was handled well and the other handled badly.

~Riella

I agree with Ithy, people also enjoy the nostalgia of world they never knew. But Avenger's had a far superior script. It was comical when comedy was needed (and the jokes weren't cheesy) and it was serious when it needed to be serious. The character's had been well fleshed out... even if you hadn't seen all of the Marvel movies you could relate. For example I only saw part of the Incredible Hulk and none of Iron Man, but I still related with the characters. And the relationships between characters were realistic and intriguing.

Avengers also had a superior advertising campaign... they were hyping up this movie back when the other movies were being released.

These are the two things I think did the later Narnia movies in... Especially VDT- A weak script and poor advertising.

The other thing Avengers had working in it's favor that Narnia does not is that it drew from the different fan bases of each movie... Those who liked Captain America, joined together to watch with those who watch Thor, and those who liked Iron Man because they each wanted to see their favorite character. In fact the whole idea of bringing these different characters together was brilliant. It may be the one thing that works in the favor of LB, but otherwise it'd be hard for Narnia to pull off that.

One thing I'm wondering is how faithful the Avengers movies were to their source material. I know in the comics Thor was a "god" whereas in the movie he's a highly advanced alien. I don't know about the others, and it makes me wonder, could we also learn how to make changes in an adaptation from them? Anyone more familiar with the comics than I am?

I agree that stronger drive and commitment would have helped Narnia, as well as better marketing. It'd be interesting to see the films be as different as the Avenger ones were. Perhaps if they filmed them in some more or less random order (like LWW, MN, PC, HHB, VDT, etc.) It would help to keep the films independent of each other. Doing it chronologically might also have a similar effect. Then we could have the Avengers style sneak peeks in the credits.

One thing I'm wondering is how faithful the Avengers movies were to their source material. I know in the comics Thor was a "god" whereas in the movie he's a highly advanced alien. I don't know about the others, and it makes me wonder, could we also learn how to make changes in an adaptation from them? Anyone more familiar with the comics than I am?

Comics have years and years of canon to play with, including multiple reboots in some cases. As a result, things can be messed and played around with a lot before the fans start to get irate. Pepper Potts (Iron Man), for instance, was originally dating Happy, not Tony. They even got married and divorced (twice) before Tony became romantically involved. Oh, and Pepper had her own magnetic heart and suit and... well yeah. It's complicated. But despite the changes, Pepper has become the first love-interest in a film that I've liked in a long, long time. Maybe even one of my favourites overall. In terms of Thor, I'm fairly certain he's always been an alien with the term 'god' used just the same way as it is in the film. Hulk... I can't say, as I never liked his comics (sorry, green dude).

Narnia could definitely learn from The Avenger's humor, though. None of the jokes were cheap, generic jokes. They only worked because of the character using them--such as when Rogers (somewhat sarcastically) says, "It seems to run on some kind of electricity." The line in and of itself is not amusing; in reference to his character and the situation, however, it works. Same with the famous Hulk vs. y'know scene. That is pure Hulk tactics, and it's hilarious.

Dialogue is hugely important to a character. For example, I do enjoy reading Fanfiction, but I am particular to the extreme. You have exactly three lines of dialogue to sell me: if I spot anything OOC, I will leave. For specifics, today I came across an Avengers fic I thought might be interesting. In the second paragraph, Dr. Banner (Hulk) said "Eh, it's pretty good."

I immediately knew the writing and plotting wouldn't be good. Why? Think about it: can you see Dr. Banner (Ruffalo's) ever saying "eh" in that fashion? Can you hear him? No, I can't either. I thought I'd stick around for another 1K though, since it only takes about four minutes to read and I was in a good mood. ...A Mary Sue appeared within the next 500 words.

So, the point is, character is very nearly everything in a film. It's why The Avengers worked (the plot is fairly generic; the characters pull all the weight, and they do it well), and it's something Narnia Powers-that-Be should keep in mind.

So, the point is, character is very nearly everything in a film. It's why The Avengers worked (the plot is fairly generic; the characters pull all the weight, and they do it well), and it's something Narnia Powers-that-Be should keep in mind.

Yes, the future Narnia movie makers need to remember this, the narnian books really aren't all that different from each other as far as the main plot goes (with the exception being LB) and so the focus really is on the characters.