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.

That's kind of what I'm saying...

I suspect the new trilogy is SC, LB, MN. SC will end on a cliffhanger that will lead into LB. Then...somehow we connect to MN. Not sure how. If that trilogy does well, they'll do HHB as a Rogue One style side story. Hopefully they won't get cute and call it "The Horse and His Boy: A Narnia Story."

So I guess I was the only one who immediately thought of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? It's a trilogy, so naturally, it has five books. Although that's not the right number either. Perhaps Madeline L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time series is a better example of a trilogy not necessarily meaning three. It has been labelled a trilogy in the past, but there are actually four or five books depending on which ones you count.

Honestly, I think it's far too soon to take this super seriously. The first three weren't really a "trilogy" either. I thought he was just emphasizing that they're not going to let the previous films have a big influence on the rest of the series. Also, if I was going to pick a book to skip, it would be LB. I just can't think of a good way to make the third act work well on film.

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.

That's a great point and it did cross my mind last night... all of the remaining stories except LB are relatively easy to adapt. Aside from the fact that LB is probably the most difficult of all the Chronicles to turn into film, it's also probably going to be more controversial. (More theologically heavy, the fate of beloved characters, et cetera.) That said, it's really hard for me to think that they wouldn't plan to make this film when it's the only other book that Jill and Eustace are in. Especially if The Silver Chair is a success.

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.

I'm pretty sure that they still intend on making all of the books into film, if they are financially able. I think that what they will probably do, however, is group three of them as a "trilogy" and leave one of them to release after The Last Battle. Probably MN. And then they can theoretically reboot LWW, PC and VDT after that to make more money... following the HarperCollins order, sort of. *eyetwitch* (I can live with that if we finally get the VDT film that Narnia fans deserve, though.)

A similar thought about a full reboot of CoN actually crossed my mind back when the Mark Gordon comments surfaced... but it seemed like such a crazy idea back then. Not so sure anymore!

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?

Gah, I muddled what I was trying to say. What I was trying to convey was that we made a mistake in not taking Mark Gordon's comments at face value, so it seems like it could be a mistake to not take Johnston's comments at face value here.

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

I'm not sure about that, but I do know that his connection to MN is deeply personal because of losing his mother at a young age (as well as her previous, miraculous remission that bought her a few more years of life with her loved ones). Is it possible that Gresham, precisely because MN is so important to him, is planning on having MN made following a SC-HHB-LB trilogy? Perhaps even independently and giving him more control over it, making it less commercial? If he could only pick one movie to fully "protect" from Hollywood, it would probably be MN.

I suspect the new trilogy is SC, LB, MN. SC will end on a cliffhanger that will lead into LB. Then...somehow we connect to MN. Not sure how. If that trilogy does well, they'll do HHB as a Rogue One style side story. Hopefully they won't get cute and call it "The Horse and His Boy: A Narnia Story."

Well, one thing we can do here is compare to the Walden trilogy. It's definitely considered a trilogy, and there is no cliffhanger in LWW other than the hint that they may be going back to Narnia someday. Same thing in PC, except with only Edmund and Lucy. The stories are largely unconnected aside from that, but it's still a trilogy. What threads them together is the recurring characters. So I think it's probably more of a question of how Eustace and Jill will fit into MN or HHB.

(What a question to wrestle with! )

It's certainly possible that by "trilogy," Johnston just meant there are currently 3 films in development.

Well, one thing we can do here is compare to the Walden trilogy. It's definitely considered a trilogy

Walden's Narnia became a trilogy by accident; they were unable to finish the series. This is different. Here, they seem to be conceiving the next few films as a trilogy from the beginning.

Also, the Walden franchise failed. The last thing they will want to do is repeat the same mistake. They will want to take a different approach.

Also, if I was going to pick a book to skip, it would be LB. I just can't think of a good way to make the third act work well on film.

They could easily just change the ending of LB to something more manageable. I think if a book has to be skipped, HHB is the easiest target.

Walden's Narnia became a trilogy by accident; they were unable to finish the series. This is different. Here, they seem to be conceiving the next few films as a trilogy from the beginning.

It's true that it became a trilogy by accident, although I think I've always kind of mentally grouped it as a trilogy within the series because they're the books that involve the Pevensies. Would they have changed anything, though, if Lewis had stopped with VDT? Would they have overhauled the three stories to make one overarching narrative? (Well no, I wouldn't put it past Hollywood, but I guess it would depend on the filmmaker and the involvement of the Estate.)

Some trilogies are about building a story to a conclusion over the course of three films (like Star Wars), but others seem to introduce new characters and villains and adventures with each film that's released. Aren't most superhero movies like that these days? (It makes me sound like a hipster, but I haven't seen enough of them to know. ) And some of those turn into trilogies (Captain America, for one)... but I don't know how many of those properties began with the intent to make a film trilogy. Still, it seems to me that the idea of making a series of films that are primarily linked by characters rather than building an overarching plot isn't dead.

The worst part is, either perspective is a total can of worms! I prefer finding a way to include Jill or Eustace in HHB or MN to a huge overhaul of three books because it seems to be the least invasive option, but it's still very concerning and mindboggling. I want the presence of Aslan to carry the series and link the films together; I want audiences to want to go see the movie just because they see Aslan appear in the trailer. I guess Jill and Eustace being involved in a third story wouldn't necessarily mean that Aslan wouldn't be that kind of character, but still. This whole "balance between achieving the essence of the story and making a commercial film" is going to be an... interesting tug-of-war. I'm missing the days when we were thinking this was going to be a lower budget film.

Sigh. I hope you're right, Dot. It's hard not to go into speculation overdrive after being starved for news for so long, though.

I think that until additional evidence surfaces, we should take this with a grain of salt. We actually have more reason to believe that there won't be an overarching theme and that Silver Chair will be a stand-alone film.

"My job is to bring SC to life, not add in themes from other books."

"Not even thinking about the Last Battle yet. Only Silver Chair."

"I am writing Silver Chair, nothing decided about future films yet."

"We're still at the start of making Silver Chair. I have no idea what will happen on "The Horse and His Boy."

I have a very hard time believing something this significant wouldn't even be mentioned to David Magee.

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.

Could Joe Johnston have signed on to direct 3 Narnia films? Is he referring to 'his' trilogy'? Seems like a bit of a stretch...

^"Good for you, Impending Doom! You're the only one of us with any sense, I do believe."

Seriously, those tweets are heartening to read after going down some rabbit holes into the Underlandish realm of wild speculation. That does seem to quell concerns about altering The Silver Chair to make it the beginning of a three-part story. However... it's possible they could still include Jill and Eustace in MN or HHB without changing SC at all. The thoughts I had about how they might alter HHB would still "work" even if SC itself is an extremely faithful adaptation (so long as they don't include the blind poet's story, of course).

Jumping on the speculation train may be a bit premature, but it is so strange that he chose to use the word trilogy if there was no reason for it... it would have been so easy to say a brand new Narnia series or brand new set of Narnia films. He seemed to be choosing his words carefully in the video, too.

My guess is if they are taking trilogy to mean three literally, they are talking SC, HHB, and MN.

In other words it may be as simple as they're not planning to do LB yet... which makes sense cuz it would be a few years in the future.

I'm not too concerned about them trying to connect the plots... I think they just plan to release 3 related movies in relative quick succession... and not have a seven year gap in between. "Trilogy" can be a loose term when it comes to plot-connected-ness... On one hand you have something like Star Wars, where it's a single story arc following the same main characters, on the other you have Jurassic Park where it's a set of three connected, but separate, stories that don't always follow the same characters or take place in the same location.

Furthermore, they may be building it as a new trilogy since that seems to be the current big thing in Hollywood, especially with Hollywood reboots (The Hobbit, Star Wars, and Jurassic World are all prime examples) and especially in the Fantasy and Scifi genres. It's not enough to make just one blockbuster movie these days... they gotta make a threesome

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.

Well, what about tying them together like this:
1. Jadis in MN (naturally).
2. The Lady of the green Kirtle turns out to actually be Jadis in TSC.
3. Tash is replaced by Jadis in LB.

And there you have it, a super-connected trilogy

Well, what about tying them together like this:
1. Jadis in MN (naturally).
2. The Lady of the green Kirtle turns out to actually be Jadis in TSC.
3. Tash is replaced by Jadis in LB.

And there you have it, a super-connected trilogy

Nooo!!!

The good news is that Joe Johnston seems to confirm that the Lady of the Green Kirtle is NOT Jadis.

I asked David Magee about all of this on Twitter. This was his response

The plan is simply to continue making the remaining Narnia books into films.

Wow, it is amazing how one little word can cause so much discussion. Here are the places he said the word "trilogy."

Everything is new. This is the beginning of a brand new trilogy. We will make reference to characters and events in the other films as the book does, but think of this as the beginning of an all-new trilogy.

I don’t think so. For … really, the main reason is that that cast, those main characters, have aged more than would be natural to be playing these characters. And even though this is a different cast with Jill and Eustace, even though Eustace was in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Will Poulter, who is a very good actor but he’s too old to play Eustace now. But beyond that, I want to set this apart from the other trilogy and so I’m going to start with an all-new cast and I don’t think anyone will say “Hey, how come that person’s not in the movie?” It wouldn’t be appropriate.

I'm going -- I'm going to oversee the design of all this stuff but I believe in leaving this kind of to the professional. I have a wonderful production designer who will, ah, have a team of illustrators and designers to help bring that vision to the screen. And I think that -- I think that you're going to love it. I know I will. And you're going to see that it is set apart from the films in the other trilogy. Or in the original trilogy.

Trilogy is one of those words that is trick to define and often misused. Simply put, it is three works that are connected in some way but each is complete in itself. This does not mean that it has to have same characters - just being a Narnia Story would be enough of a connection. Narnia (meaning both the country and the world) and Aslan are the connection between the 7 books.
ex. The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and the Return of the King is NOT a trilogy.

So Eustace and Jill would not have to be in the 3 movies for the 3 movies to be considered a trilogy.

It seems like asking what he means by trilogy would be a good question to submit for Q & A part 2

I think we are reading too much into the trilogy word. IMO trilogy just may refer to SC, HHB and LB. BOTH SC and HHB involve plots or characters that will be vital to LB, so that's why I'm thinking it's being referred to as a trilogy. Considering the pushback that was received by the plot changes with Prince Caspian and DT, I don't anticipate them adding Jill or Eustace to HHB or MN, although I appreciate the openness to having a film adaptation that isn't 100% faiithful to the book. I'm thinking that it's MN that was left off the hypothetical trilogy, if only because it's a prequel to the entire series. You can always come back and market a prequel to a series of films, especially if they are financially successful.

I am inclined to see it as meaning "a short series of films" rather than a mathematical statement!
(I know someone who for years said "a couple" to mean three)

A group of films tends to be three, so a trilogy of films can be accepted as a group. If Joe was saying this in a bit of a hurry, off-the-cuff, he probably couldn't think of the word for four at the time!
(it's 'tetralogy' if you want to know - I just Searched for it)

If Joe was saying this in a bit of a hurry, off-the-cuff, he probably couldn't think of the word for four at the time!
(it's 'tetralogy' if you want to know - I just Searched for it)

I was thinking the word might be "quadrilogy", in which case I would kind of forgive calling it a trilogy even if there are four.

Perhaps this is because I'm being blindly optimistic at this point, but I'm firmly in the camp that he misspoke. From what I can see from the transcript, he only referred to the new movies as a "trilogy" once - all other times he used that word, he was referring to the Walden films. Also, when he referred to it being an "all-new trilogy", it was in direct comparison to the previous trilogy. I think he just repeated the word to make a contrast - and given that this was an unscripted video, I think we might be reading in too much into the use of the word "trilogy" in this one particular case.

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.

^This as well. I have a hard time believing that, if they were talking about only making 3 of the remaining books this early in the process, that Douglas Gresham wouldn't be putting his foot down. Also, as Impending Doom and narnia fan 7's pointed out, Dave Magee has said more than once that he's only working on TSC and they're planning to "continue making the remaining Narnia books into films". Unless they're both either un- or misinformed about the plans, or keeping it to themselves/lying on Twitter (I find the former considerably more likely than the latter), this doesn't seem consistent with having already decided to focus on making three books into a trilogy instead of making all four books into movies (assuming, of course, TSC does well enough to justify it financially).