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.

That's a very good point about him potentially just repeating the word to make a contrast. I certainly hope the idea that he just misspoke is correct. (Maybe that's why the video has been taken down!)

That said... I still feel very leery. The word "trilogy" on its own is one thing, but when combined with Johnston's stated desire to make a very commercial film and that TSC will be a big film where he can hire the best people... that paints a more particular kind of picture in my mind. Clearly people are investing in this property in hopes that it will bring in a lot of money over the course of multiple films, and it would not shock me if the "trilogy" mention is indicative of longer term plans to turn the remaining books into a more conventionally marketable set of movies. If we were still thinking that this was going to be a lower budget film, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned.

So I'll wait and see, but hope that the misspoke camp is right, or hope that at least when he says trilogy, he only means that the studio is thinking about about loosely grouping three films thematically and not planning to change them to create one narrative. *crosses fingers*

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)

Actually I think you are right. Because, offhand, I couldn't think of the word for a group of four books/movies/plays/or whatever. Groups of three are relatively common, and the word for three, in particular, seems to be the same in both Greek and Latin. After that, confusion reigns. A heptology would be a group of seven books etc (Harry Potter or CON), but I've vaguely heard such a group also called a septology, especially as a group of musicians is a septet. The Greek-derived prefix for seven in our vocabulary is Hept, as in Heptagon, whilst the Latin word for seven is Septem. And what do people mean when they say "several"?

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.

As I've never heard the word tetralogy used before, I, too, would be scratching around, wondering whether or not I meant quadrilogy, which would be coupling a Greek derived suffix (from logos) with a Latin prefix (quart). However, four musicians are called a quartet, whilst in maths, a square and a rectangle are both quadrilateral polygons. So I've learnt something new, and thank you, Coracle. Isn't semantics fun?

Anyway, at some point, if Joe Johnson expects that other Narnian movies might be made in the future, if he can, that is something to look forward to. For now, the main thing is to progress with SC.

One other thought I had, assuming that Johnston didn't misspeak... what if they are considering linking SC, HHB and LB together with the theme of longing for Narnia and Aslan?

I've been thinking about the fact that unlike LWW and PC, the bulk of the remaining stories don't actually take place in Narnia, the country. Even in VDT, they're sailing into unknown seas on a very Narnian-looking ship, so they are carrying a piece of Narnia with them. On the other hand, in MN, Digory and Polly spent a lot of time in London and Charn and the Wood Between the Worlds. In SC, Eustace and Jill have to head out pretty quickly into inhospitable country after enjoying the wonders and comforts of Cair Paravel, and then their time in Narnia when they return is also fairly brief. Shasta doesn't arrive in Narnia until the last quarter of HHB, and after that he's in Archenland for much of the time. We do spend at least two-thirds of LB in the country of Narnia, but very quickly things go wrong in a major way and it is not the peaceful, happy place it once was.

It seems to me that audiences (prior to the end of LB) might feel like they're only getting glimpses of the wonder and beauty of Narnia, never getting the chance to really drink it in. It's similar with Aslan as well: he comes and goes, never staying for long, although we do have a rather prolonged scenes with him in MN. (Hence why his reveal in LB may have more power if LB precedes MN.) And then imagine the dismay of the audience when, after the bright, tantalizing glimpses of Narnian life in SC and HHB, a typical Narnian day quickly turns to bloodshed and horror... and Aslan is nowhere to be seen as the situation grows worse and worse.

The audience aside, the characters are also longing for Narnia and Aslan as well. In MN, Digory's longing seems primarily rooted in saving his mother, but the main characters in the other three books seem to be longing for Somewhere and/or Someone Else. In SC, Jill and Eustace feel a longing for another place and the end of the term. In HHB, Shasta experiences a powerful longing for the North. In LB, Jill longs for the happy years in Narnia that Jewel tells her about, Tirian longs to see the face of Aslan, and Emeth longs for Aslan without knowing it. So then the pay-off for all of this longing of varying shades and characters is found in Aslan's Country at the end of LB, pulling the three stories together.

I would be perfectly content if they approached the trilogy idea in this way. Just sayin', filmmakers.

I would bet my last crescent that they won't change the movies in important ways just so that they fit together as one cohesive story. I see three possibilities. All of these have been suggested before in different forms, but I'm summing up:

1. Joe misspoke, saying "trilogy" when he meant "series." I'm not sufficiently familiar with his communication style to know, but that's definitely something some people would do.
2. Trilogy simply means three movies, no connection implied. My money's on HHB and MN for the other two. MN will be tricky to get right, but LB would have to be drastically overhauled to function as a half-way decent family film.
3. They are connecting the three movies through a narrative device, external to the original stories. Maybe Eustace takes Jill to meet Edmund at the beginning of HHB. She remembers that he was mentioned in the Tale of Cor and Aravis, and asks him to tell the whole story, since he knew the main characters well. Then, at the beginning of MN, Edmund introduces Eustace and Jill to Professor Kirke, who tells them his story.

I don't think that they would change the stories in major ways to create an overarching narrative either, Anhun. I do wonder if they might make small changes, though, to try to link disparate stories together while not affecting the core story. (Or so they will argue.) And so the speculation train keeps rolling along...

Supposing that he didn't misspeak and supposing that we are talking about a trilogy including MN and some sort of device linking it to the other stories... what if they try to include the LotGK? Some discussion over on The Magician's Nephew thread reminded me of an old thread in Talk About Narnia exploring the idea that the LotGK was Jadis's sister.

While that idea is certainly not without problems (er, the Deplorable Word is supposed to kill all living things aside from the one who speaks it ), I don't think that turning a minor character into the LotGK would be the end of the world. If she plays no larger a role than Jadis's sister already does in the book, it would be less invasive than some of the other wild ideas that have been floated, and it would shift MN from being a prequel to CoN as a whole but also prequel to SC in a particular way. So I can see them possibly considering doing something like that, if they intend to include MN in this theoretical trilogy.

I don't think that turning a minor character into the LotGK would be the end of the world. If she plays no larger a role than Jadis's sister already does in the book, it would be less invasive than some of the other wild ideas that have been floated, and it would shift MN from being a prequel to CoN as a whole but also prequel to SC in a particular way.

Was the thread you were discussing in Talking about Narnia, this one? The LotGK and the White Witch: What's the Difference?

Other than in MN, itself, I'm not in favour of having Jadis or her sister or anyone like her in any of planned future Narnian productions, especially SC. In MN it is Polly's and the Professor's experience of Jadis that is important, not Jadis' sister. And in MN, Jadis fratricidally killed her sister, which is why she was alive to leave Charn. The worst thing that can happen in this new movie of SC is that Jadis, killed earlier in LWW, would come up at all, or anyone related to her. There was enough problems with both Walden and the BBC productions for that reason.

The BBC cast the same actress (Barbara Kellerman) for both roles in the TV adaptations, which may have added to the perception that they were the same person or at least connected. This choice was due at least in part to the limited budget of the TV productions;[citation needed] several other actors were also cast in multiple roles to save money (Kellerman was also cast as a hag in Prince Caspian).

This Wikipedia quote, I noted from that Talking about Narnia thread explains just how some people started to think that Jadis and LOTK might be related in some way, but as is noted in my quoting it, BBC was running their productions on a limited budget, and tended to cast Barbara Kellerman as an all-purpose villain in the entire productions, not only Jadis and then LOTGK, but also the hag in PC. VDT was the only one of those four BBC TV productions not to feature Barbara Kellerman in any way whatsoever.

Interestingly, at the time, in 1992, if I remember correctly, there were suggestions then, that MN would be the next Narnia story to be done. One reason for the discontinuation of the BBC TV series seems to have been the unlikelihood that Barbara Kellerman could return to play Jadis convincingly in a TV production of MN after playing LOTGK in SC.

I strongly suspect that this very issue with who would play Jadis and who would play LOTGK also played some role in the difficulties concerning whether Walden would feature next MN or SC. Logically it should have been SC, as is now happening, to keep Eustace, or Will Poulter, within the Narnian framework. But what was not said by Walden, when it appeared to want to film MN next, in 2011, might well have been the chance to keep Tilda Swinton playing the main villain role of Jadis. Maybe that is why the Walden team preferred to film MN. Then the Walden series would have been all about Jadis and her legacy. Especially because of the cameos in PC and VDT involving Jadis, with Tilda Swinton.

I would bet my last crescent that they won't change the movies in important ways just so that they fit together as one cohesive story. I see three possibilities. All of these have been suggested before in different forms, but I'm summing up:

3. They are connecting the three movies through a narrative device, external to the original stories. Maybe Eustace takes Jill to meet Edmund at the beginning of HHB. She remembers that he was mentioned in the Tale of Cor and Aravis, and asks him to tell the whole story, since he knew the main characters well. Then, at the beginning of MN, Edmund introduces Eustace and Jill to Professor Kirke, who tells them his story.

I do agree that this third scenario you mention is by far the most likely connection between any three of the remaining four movies, if any connection is necessary at all. And it is already feasible in all of the books. All three movies - SC, MN and HHB - are necessary precursors before LB can possibly be made. Each story provides an ongoing explanation of that LB organisation, the Seven Friends of Narnia, and who should be in it. And whatever links these three movies have with each other is the strong likelihood in such an organisation that its members might not only want to hear each other's adventures but also to get explanations of various matters that puzzled them about Narnia that they hadn't noticed during their own adventures.

So far in the Pevensie trilogy reproductions, we have had the Professor and his guiding wisdom in LWW, when Susan and Peter consult him, being distressed over Lucy, before they all had that adventure with the Professor's mysterious Wardrobe. In the BBC audio dramas, as distinct from the BBC TV productions and the FotF audios, the professor was still hosting the Pevensies in other Narnia stories, chiefly PC, and, of course, LB, when he or Peter presided over any meetings the SFOV had. The Professor was hosting the Pevensies when the story of HHB happened, while the Pevensies were still on their wardrobe visit. In the beginning of VDT, both the books and the FotF and BBC audios, the Professor was coaching Peter through examinations, whilst Lucy and Edmund stayed with Eustace's family. And Eustace, himself, is the main connection between the earlier Pevensie trilogy and SC and LB. Whilst the Professor remains the only other true connection between all of the Narnian books, being the only other connection, besides Eustace, to the remainder of the stories.

At the end of SC there is this fancy dress party where Jill wears her Narnian clothes. What better way to start HHB, if it is included in this alleged trilogy, than such a party, itself, where Edmund and even the Professor, himself, are possible attendees? And what better opportunity is there, if MN is part of this "trilogy", to give the Professor an opportunity to explain about the Wardrobe, how he came by it, and how Lantern Waste got its name? Of course Eustace would want to know about this adventure, and much else besides, in both MN and HHB, and not only from Lucy and Edmund.