I assume he simply meant that they intend to make three new Narnia films, Silver Chair, then most likely Magician 's Nephew and Last Battle. Trilogy doesn't always mean one over-arching story told over three films, if it did you couldn't really call the first three a trilogy, a lot of times it just means three stories that go together.

From me the most interesting thing about this is that it would seem to imply that they will skip Horse and His Boy, assuming they make more after Silver Chair. I guess that would make sense of you thought you could only do three more films, but I think it would be a real shame mostly because Shasta is my favorite character in the series.

Odd! We were discussing something highly similar in another thread, Changing and rearranging SC, where Rose-tree Dryad was putting forth some useful ideas concerning "The Seven Friends of Narnia" and how they could be used to remind audiences of characters from other stories. Such as by using "Friends of Narnia" meetings.

At the end of SC Jill goes to a party where she wears her Narnian clothes. Someone suggested that Eustace escorts her to this party - or meeting - saying "there are some people I'd like you to meet". I've also my own ideas about how this party might play into how the rest of the films could be done and who might be present.

The remaining films, whichever are chosen, might be described as the Eustace and Jill show for SC, the Polly and Digory show for MN, and maybe the Aravis and Shasta show, if it is done at all. A side story in LB is how the Seven Friends of Narnia plotted to go back to Narnia, using the rings Polly and Digory planted in London in 1900. Either in the credits at the beginning, or better still at the end, a short scene where Eustace at such a meeting asks questions to the Professor, Peter, Edmund and Lucy, such as "Who was the White Witch everyone talks about"?, would be useful, perhaps. There are already references leading up to HHB in SC, the book, such as at the banquet Eustace and Jill attended, and the tune Prince Rilian was whistling, as he returned to Narnia, after he was disenchanted. And Professor Kirk, as an adult, is the one whose story leads into LWW, and the Pevensie story which includes HHB.

A trilogy sounds a bit better than talking about sequels and prequels since the Chronicles of Narnia are Narnia's story, and the human individuals whose stories are told aren't necessarily related to each other. They aren't even of similar ages and Polly and the Professor would have seen two World Wars by the time the series finished. Shasta and Aravis don't even get into the real world, leaving Edmund with Lucy's help to tell their tale if any questions arise. Lucy, after all, was a friend of Aravis. The first three books published were the Pevensie trilogy, but SC is the final book of the Caspian trilogy. The remaining 3 books are just miscellaneous. Unless one groups together VDT, SC and LB and calls these three books the Eustace trilogy.

My gut feeling is that this doesn't bode ill for adapting HHB. (Or MN, eventually, following the conclusion of this new trilogy.) On the contrary, I think that this likely means they are planning a trilogy of SC, HHB and LB. The primary reason being that HHB introduces the Calormenes, ushering in an important conflict that rises to a fever pitch in LB. It is a natural predecessor to that story. So the question isn't how they're going to involve Jill and Eustace in MN... it's how they are going to involve them in HHB, in lieu of the Pevensies.

I actually thought of the possibility that the filmmakers might rearrange HHB's place in the Narnian timeline a long time ago. (2010, I think.) At the time I was simply wondering if Hollywood would look for a way to shoehorn Shasta and Aravis into The Last Battle because audiences are likely to get attached to them. Now that there's talk of a new trilogy, though, this thought resurfaced in my brain.

So, here's how I would anticipate that they might do it: HHB is no longer set during the Pevensies' reign. It is instead set sometime after Rilian's rule. The Pevensies are not involved. Instead of Susan being in Tashbaan, it is another Narnian princess. (I would guess Swanwhite from Narnian legend.) The audience is not told this explicitly, but Jill and Eustace have presumably been called back into Narnia to help rescue another Narnian royal from a controlling suitor. They somehow team up with Corin and fulfill the role that Edmund and Tumnus play in Tashbaan. Shasta and Aravis and the Talking Horses, of course, are still the focus of the story. I would think that Jill and Eustace would be more like side characters: present at times and you get a sense of their involvement, but without directing the attention away from Shasta, Bree, Aravis and Hwin. They would have no scenes with Aslan and their entrance to and exit from Narnia would be brief, if present at all.

...

Can anyone think of a reason why they couldn't do this? (As opposed to reasons why they shouldn't, although I wouldn't mind hearing those either. ) It's late and maybe I'm missing something, but the feasibility of this idea is unsettling.

Well, if Joe Johnston didn't misspeak (which was what I assumed) then I suspect he'll make three movies and Doug Gresham will find another studio and director to do whichever other movie that's left out.

I did wonder if that means Joe Johnston is planning on doing at least three movies total? I guess I assumed from this point on they'd do one at a time with each being greenlit as the previous one exits the theaters.

If Johnston is saying what I think he's saying... It's this kind of thinking that gave us the green mist. The idea that the series must tell an overarching story and all the dots must connect.

I did wonder if that means Joe Johnston is planning on doing at least three movies total?

For what it's worth: In one of Joe's YouTube videos he said he would never want to direct a sequel. That was a few years ago of course, so who knows.

I don't think we must assume that "trilogy" means that the films be connected other than that they are located in the same world and involve Aslan. If there were only three Narnia books in total I could see people calling it the Narnia trilogy, even if the stories aren't closely related.

I highly doubt they will make the Silver Chair Act I, The Magician's Nephew Act II, and The Last Battle Act III. (Or some similar breakdown.)

I really don't think Douglas Gresham would approve of any changes on the scale of The Green Mist. He seems to be disappointed with some of the things that happened with the VDT movie, and I don't see him letting it happen again.

After sleeping on it, I think we're probably reading too much into this.

I don't know what Joe meant by a "new trilogy" maybe he did mean they are planning a connected three movie arc(which I think is unlikely) or that they might skip a book, or maybe he just meant Silver Chair is the start of a new series of Narnia films like Mark Gordon implied a while back. At this point I'm inclined too think the later, and either way I doubt that they have a concrete plan for after Silver Chair at this stage.

I really don't think Douglas Gresham would approve of any changes on the scale of The Green Mist. He seems to be disappointed with some of the things that happened with the VDT movie, and I don't see him letting it happen again.

I thought of that too. I've been under the impression that things like the green mist is why he stop working the Walden Media, though I could be wrong about that.

After sleeping on it, I think we're probably reading too much into this.

We thought the same thing about Mark Gordon's reboot comments, though...

Maybe I'm inferring too much too soon, but I really think they are planning (at least at this point) to try to thread together three of the remaining stories in some way that is different from canon. Why else would they be talking about a trilogy at this stage? From a business perspective, it wouldn't make sense to be emphatically talking up a new collection of three films when there is the potential for four money-making films. I feel like this must indicate some kind of shift and a "comprehensive plan" in the works. This phrasing has to be rooted in something.

My mind is going back to what Johnston said about wanting to stick as close to the book as he can while making the most commercial film that he can. For instance, if SC is successful, then finding a way to include Jill and Eustace in HHB would be a commercial move. (Remember how all four Pevensies showed up in the VDT trailer?) If they make changes similar to what I was (reluctantly) theorizing above, it would likely be argued that those changes would not affect the essence of the story since they are replacing side characters with little screen-time. Yes, it's a massive change from the source material, but it's not the same thing as introducing a Green Mist-style villain or altering the core of the story.

Then again... is it possible he just misspoke when he used the word trilogy? (And yet we were wondering the same thing about Mark Gordon.)

On the one hand, it's good to hear that the filmmakers sound committed to making multiple Narnia films, but this raises so many questions and concerns.

Yeah, and how in the world would you tie the remaining books together, especially if The Silver Chair is the 1st Act. You would think the Act I would be The Magician's Nephew.

And what would be the thread that ties the stories together? Here's some ideas. (Note to any filmmakers that might be reading this: I DO NOT want these things to happen).

1. Eustace in The Magician's Nephew
2. The Lady of the Green Kirtle in the Magician's Nephew somehow. Maybe the White Witch meets her when she flees into the Western Wilds. (But even so I'm not sure how she fits into the Last Battle.)
3. Introduce the Calormens into The Silver Chair. Perhaps they work with The Lady of the Green Kirtle somehow. Films 2 and 3 would be HHB and TLB.
4. Tie Father Time into the remaining stories. He's already in TSC and TLB.

My gut feeling is that this doesn't bode ill for adapting HHB. (Or MN, eventually, following the conclusion of this new trilogy.) On the contrary, I think that this likely means they are planning a trilogy of SC, HHB and LB.

I first thought that SC, MN, LB would be the new trilogy, but now I'm not so sure. My pessimism is still saying that, but I think it smarter from their angle to do SC, MN, and HHB. LB is a great book, but parts of it would be tricky to adapt without seeming odd. LB also has the issue that we are supposed to be very familiar with the Pevinsies. It relies heavily on nostalgia and positivity about the preceding books. For LB to be really effective, we have to care about these people and Narnia being conquered. MN does not require us to have any pre-knowledge about Narnia, and in HHB we don't actually have to know who the Pevinsies are other than the rulers of Narnia. Both are much better stand-alones than LB. They have very different feels and styles. The studio gets three shots at making a widely successful movie. It would make sense to hold off plans for LB till they see how successful the others are and if an ending and closure for Narnia are necessary.

Well, if Joe Johnston didn't misspeak (which was what I assumed) then I suspect he'll make three movies and Doug Gresham will find another studio and director to do whichever other movie that's left out.

I at first assumed this too. He referred to the original trilogy, and I thought his reference to a new trilogy was just an accident. Later he did clearly reference that they were making three movies, so I have to believe that is the plan at present.

For the record, I think it's just as likely, if not more so, that IF a three movie set is in the works, that set could refer to SC, HHB, and LB. I don't think for a minute you can have LB without HHB. I think it's required to introduce the Calormen race. Digory and Polly are not integral to the story of LB and can be left out.

That aside, I'm most definitely on the "you're reading too much into this" boat. It makes NO sense to me whatsoever that a studio would have already decided they'd just do three out of the four remaining books when there's that much potential $$$ to be had. I know Doug Greshem is bound and determined to have all of the books made into movies. Is he going to settle on a studio that isn't going to do that? I suppose it's possible if this is his only option, but still... the deciding factor is going to be the success of each movie, not an up front decision. That's just business sense.

In one of Joe's YouTube videos he said he would never want to direct a sequel. That was a few years ago of course, so who knows.

Technically, he's directing a sequel. But if that's the case, that he's not doing any further films after SC, then his comments outside of SC hold no weight for me as he's not making the decisions.

After sleeping on it, I think we're probably reading too much into this.

We thought the same thing about Mark Gordon's reboot comments, though...

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about Rose. How did we read too much into the reboot comments? That some people thought we were starting over from scratch or what?

Didn't Gresham say at one point that TMN was the story he most wanted to see adapted, or was that something I just dreamed up?

To clarify my theory: I think the next three films will be connected by some kind of over-arching story, forming a trilogy. Here's my fear... The Silver Chair will end on some kind of cliffhanger that will lead into the next film, The Last Battle. Not sure how they connect to The Magician's Nephew next. Maybe certain things will be intentionally left a mystery (Digory having created the wardrobe for example) that can be explained with a prequel.

But hopefully Johnston just meant they are currently developing three projects. I wonder if any other scripts exist.

It makes NO sense to me whatsoever that a studio would have already decided they'd just do three out of the four remaining books when there's that much potential $$$ to be had.

Of course. Obviously if this new trilogy does well, they will make another movie. That's common sense.

Technically, he's directing a sequel.

Based on what he said, he's not directing a sequel. He's directing the first movie in a trilogy. Pretending the other movies never happened.

But if that's the case, that he's not doing any further films after SC, then his comments outside of SC hold no weight for me as he's not making the decisions.

JJ Abrams made The Force Awakens knowing full well that 1) He was making the first movie in a new trilogy, 2) He would not be directing anymore, and 3) If that trilogy did well, they would continue to make more.

What's your theory, FK? Did Johnston simply misspeak? Did he forget there are four books remaining? Does he not know the meaning of the word "trilogy"? I can't think of any other explanations.

We thought the same thing about Mark Gordon's reboot comments, though...

Yeah, it looks like I was totally wrong on that one. They are indeed completely throwing away the other movies.

@Gp, you deleted the part of your post I as going to quote. You mentioned what else JJ could have meant by "trilogy?"

Later he did clearly reference that they were making three movies, so I have to believe that is the plan at present.

If it wasn't for the fact that it just makes no sense to me either via continuity or financially, maybe I could be convinced. But until other evidence surfaces, I still think he either misspoke or is mistaken.
It has certainly happened before. I remember a big interview with Perry Moore who was a producer for LWW, and he gave several pieces of misinformation. I don't know why? If he was no longer involved, or if the production changed their minds, or what? At any rate, it was proof to me that even the higher-ups can make mistakes.

JJ Abrams made The Force Awakens knowing full well that 1) He was making the first movie in a new trilogy, 2) He would not be directing anymore, and 3) If that trilogy did well, they would continue to make more.

Fair enough, but that's a trilogy that leaves you hanging at the end rather than a story that has a nice neat ending and stands alone. That's why that one had to be planned in advance.

BUT, to use Star Wars as an example, perhaps I could see something more like 'The Force Awakens,' 'Rogue One,' and the 'The Last Jedi' as an active, in-the-works "trilogy" similar to what's going on here (I'll just say SC, HHB, and LB for example), with more spin-off movies being planned further down the road (go, go MN!) should those three do well . THAT I could see.