You have to consider, right now Harry Potter is so popular that people will go see it more than Narnia, and like the movie(s) even if they were poorly made. Also, it's harder to adapt Narnia, because the books are old, (though timeless). The dialogue as well as attitudes and behaviors are from the 1950's, and they have to modernize everything, which is what is probably causing the films to seem poorly adapted.
Harry Potter is modern, it's hip and cool and easier to turn into film. (Note: I haven't read Harry Potter, but I assume that the books don't use old English. ) Harry Potter is what's "in" right now, so people will respect the material more. The movie studios are willing to put more into these films. Narnia is kind of older and not as well known.
BTW, Michael Bay's films are action and horror movies, they're not meant to be anything better than mediocre. lol Seriously, those kinds of movie audiences relish, cause it's mindless eye candy for teen to young adult men to go and stare at for 2 and 1/2 hours. No thinking required.
You are right, these movies NEED to be character driven, but for some reason, Hollywood just doesn't get it! What made and braked the Spider-man series for me was the fact that it was character driven the first two films. For third, it was, well... a mess. Not so character driven as was action driven and trying to pack in more villains and junk.

- Twinimage

right you are twinimage, HP is hip but it is of a different level than a lot of other fantasy movies/novels. Narnia, LOTR, and HP are the only three that have stood so far the test of time (even though it hasn't been long), look at other fantasy books taht have been made into movies suchas Eragon and the Golden Compass, those have all fallen away,some people saw them in the theatre and then after maybe half a year it was forgotten.
i wouldn't exactly say Narnia uses old English, when i think of old English I think of Chaucer and Spenser and Milton and Shakespeare. Harry Potter is not old English but i wouldn't say Narnia is either, and i also am in complete agreement with you on Michael Bay. Character driven is the key, small things don't matter as much. people were so mad about the kiss because it changes who Susan was (as did WarriorSusan), by adding more drama the made Peter a jerk and by adding Romance they made Susan look desperate (a bit harsh but i have no better word for it.

Well, I haven't read HP either, but I do think that Narnia is written in an older style than HP probably is. While it may not be "old english" it's not exactly what we'd run around yapping.

I do agree with twinimage about HP being easier to adapt. My uncle pointed out that any time you have talking animals, it is difficult to make a movie. He's not a fan of the books and still thought it was a good film. It made me stop and think about the new level of complexness (is that even a word? ) that the animals add.

About Eragon and the Golden Compass: I don't think any of them have had any new books out lately (although I haven't read any of them either), which, in my mind anyway, also accounts for their lower popularity. HP hasn't been around too long; definitely not long enough for things to die down (fans are still excited because they're making movies, etc.) so things are still going strong, if you understand what I mean .

thre was in fact a new Eragon book last year or the year befor that. and in way of the HP movies they have been around since 2001. and i see where your Uncle is coming from. HP has a bit of that too, there is the Hippogriff, and there are centaurs, and the phoenix...so i would say the narnia and potter films are very alike in compexity.

I disagree with you, I thought Prince Caspian was a fantastic movie, though very far from the book. Sure, there were things that did nothing for the movie (the kiss, Peter's awful attitude) but I think things like the Night Raid added to the story. I enjoyed watching it, and I still enjoy watching it.

But I do completely agree that a balance needs to be found - between sticking to the book and changes that add to the story and make it more cinematic. And I don't think it will be too difficult to do so with VDT.

I thought Prince Caspian was a fantastic movie, though very far from the book. Sure, there were things that did nothing for the movie (the kiss, Peter's awful attitude) but I think things like the Night Raid added to the story. I enjoyed watching it, and I still enjoy watching it.

But I do completely agree that a balance needs to be found - between sticking to the book and changes that add to the story and make it more cinematic

I agree with you that Prince Caspian was an excellent movie. I also agree that the kiss didn't add anything to the movie, however "Peter's awful attitude" I feel added so much to the story.

Seeing him be prideful, due to where he was and where he is now,
trying to succeed on his own merits.

*the night raid* gave a tremendous lesson, (after all it can be placed, to a degree, under Peter's attitude- hence Susan "who are you doing this for...? and Lucy "or did you forget who really defeated the white witch" just prior to it. His remark "I think we've waited for Aslan long enough").

His attitude, and behavior allowed for Edmund to shine in the White Witch scene. It was followed by his humility and that was a turning point, at which he started once again to believe Aslan and did things in His name now.

I've read the Harry Potter books and seen some of the movies (not the most recent yet). I think that they are a lot more faithful to the books than PC was. I haven't noticed any extra romances or changes to major characters. Its been my hope that the financial success of the HP movies will encourage the makers of CoN to stay more faithful to the book. I felt like in LWW, there were some cheesy lines but the overall thrust of the movie was much more faithful to the book than I was expecting. Especially in Lucy's meeting with Tumnus, and the ward-robe unveiling with that cloth, and Edmund's meeting with the white witch with the turkish delight. Then somehow they lost sight of that with PC to some extent. It seemed to me more like it was trying to be like LoTR than HP, especially in the scene when the trees joined in the battle. Caspian and Susan to me seemed like some kind of sad attempt at an Arwin/Aragorn jr.

thre was in fact a new Eragon book last year or the year befor that.

It came out September 2008, called Brisingr, and there's gonna be a fourth one. The books are amazing (especially Brisingr), I never saw the movie cause I heard it was bad.

The books are amazing (especially Brisingr), I never saw the movie cause I heard it was bad.

I've only seen the movie of Eragon. I didn't like it much. I'm sure the books are much better. Now if only I could get the time to read them...

i just thought PC was fake. LWW had life to it. but i am being very critical of PC, it wasn't terrible, i thought the Night raid was a good addition but it could have been better. i can live with susan in that battle but i would have preferred her not to have been in the final battle. PC was full of ups and downs, Reepicheep was great, but Susan was played well by Anna but the character was written horridlly.
Oh and you should see the new HP movie, it's great. Best special effects i've seen since...i don't know what, and it stayed pretty close to the book.

I think PC had really good ideas; well the romance didn't add anything, but I liked it anyway But the majority of other changes were good, they just didn't come across very well all the time. They could have worked, but just didn't imo.

I've never read the HP books, actually. But the movies were still well done and interesting. That's all I'm hoping for from VDT: just look and feel good lol

The difference between Harry Potter and Narnia seem to be almost a genre style. Sure they are both fantasy movies, but a different subcategory. From what I have heard Harry Potter is considered contemporary fantasy, that is, it takes place in a modern time and setting. Theoretically, under the right circumstances, one could get to Hogwarts (or whatever that place is called) through this world. Narnia is considered high fantasy, which does not take place place in a modern time and setting. One cannot get there through this world at all. The scope is more epic, and also Narnia feels old-world with a setting similar to the middle-ages. While timeless, it does not have much pop-culture references which makes it unable to connect to teens/tweens in the same way that Harry Potter does. It doesnt make one better than the other, it just makes them different. Narnia is more similar to Lord of the Rings than Harry Potter in many ways.. hense the comparisions between Narnia/LOTR.. and Harry Potter being compared to Twilight instead of Narnia in some instances.

I think that PC was a little off. But, it was still a good movie just like LWW, and Harry Potter.
I have to admite it could have been done better, and they could have left out things like the kiss, and the battle at Miraz's castle.
But, right now, I think we should cross are fingures and hope that VTD will be just as good as the book!

I've read the Harry Potter books, and they're not all that "hip". Just plain, normal English.

And, I'm sorry to say this, but any HP movie is better than PC. LWW matches them in quality.
And HP fans aren't as easily pleased as you might think. My HP fan friends bemoan the fact that tiny, tiny details were left out of, much less than the changes made to Narnia. Some HP fans will boycott if they don't like the next trailer, but it won't make a difference. HP just has a massive fanbase. In a recent poll asking what the best fantasy was, Hp garnered 70% and Narnia only got 3%.

The key to Narnia's success is its family-friendliness. It tried to please both worlds (teen and family) with PC and failed. I think VDT is returning to LWW in terms of being family oriented, but it's going to be vastly different as a movie.

I'm not expecting LWW over again. I'm hoping for something better.