I don't think this would be a good idea - "Narnia: Boy" just doesn't sound like a good movie title - I understand what you were going for, but no...doesn't sound right. "Narnia: Chair"????

Hi

It doesn't sound right, i agree, if you don't know anything about it. But everyone at this point has some idea of what Narnia means, everyone who has read the books will know what Chair relates to, for more casual fans who havn't done the books it is more a mystery for them - Hmmm, i know what Narnia is, why is a 'chair' so important to that place?

plus is short & snappy to read n remember

If they drop the Chronicles Of Narnia from the title, people will be even less interested. It's what everyone know. They know the brand Narnia and the title of the first book, but afterward? Most people haven't read beyond The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Wouldn't it be strange if those Harry Potter films had dropped Harry Potter and were just called Goblet of Fire or Chamber of Secrets?

Interesting Point.
I honestly don't know how much people will go to something that is familiar to them, versus something they think is "new".
Sadly, because of the last film, I think the current Narnia "brand" is probably more of a turn off then anything right now.
In Narnia's case, I can't help but think that people would be more interested in the next film if they thought it was something "new", rather than another sequel to a series that has sort of just fizzled out.

Harry Potter is a different scenario from Narnia. HP is modern and it's much more popular right now. If you dropped the "Harry Potter" from the title, most people would probably still recognize it to be HP.

I voted for 'stand alone' if only for the statistical data that allowing at least one film to live or die on its own merits as a story would produce.

I agree with that. Well said.
Too often we compare the latest sequel to the previous film.
This could also make the film makers take greater effort to make a good film, rather than just trying to pump out another movie with a popular brand name stamped on it.

Although I know it's very unlikely, I would still love to see the Narnia series continue on. I don't really know how this would happen, but I would dearly love and really want the 'Chronicles of Narnia' series to keep on going as they have, in the same style

I loved all three of the films (yes even VDT)! I have dreamed of them going at least to the Silver Chair. I think that if they still kept Neeson as Aslan and Ben Barnes as Caspian, kept as much of the other cast as possible, and kept most of the continuity the same, yet took it from the angle that this was sort of a relaunch of the series, and that it is, almost, a new Narnia for a new generation so that you don't have to have seen the other movies to watch this one. I also wouldn't mind if they did The Magician's Nephew next (if they felt they must), that could be really good. However, making The Last Battle would be awesome and conclude the series and get more money than the Silver Chair would, and I've always wanted to see the Horse and His Boy in film too. Personally I just want to see another Narnia movie, though I would like it to be either The Silver Chair or Magician's Nephew.

I think "The Silver Chair" is a great book, and has potential to be a great film. Also, like most of the Narnia books, it works pretty well as a stand alone story.

I think they should make SC next and not worry about continuity too much. I might not even put Chronicles of Narnia in the title. Just call it The Silver Chair.

So...in a sense, I guess I am saying reboot with SC, haha. If SC is a good film and good adaptation, I don't think I will be grumbling about continuity.

Because I am hoping beyond hope that if they will have Georgie, Will, Anna, and Skandar play the Pevensies in the Horse and His Boy, I think they should continue ''The Chronicles of Narnia.''

Edit:
But if that were not an issue at all, maybe they could do Silver Chair as a stand alone movie. I wouldn't mind it have nothing to do with the Green mist and in fact, I would love for it to not really connect to the random plot of the seven swords and green mist in VODT.

I think that if they still kept Neeson as Aslan and Ben Barnes as Caspian, kept as much of the other cast as possible, and kept most of the continuity the same,

Well let's analyze that approach piece by piece. There are 6 characters in SC that were introduced in earlier films.

Aslan: I definitely feel they should bring back Liam Neeson. Not because of continuity, but because his voice is perfect for the part.

Drinian: Old age make-up just makes characters look weird and interferes with expression. Drinian is supposed to be a very old man in SC, so I think they should hire an old man to play him, rather than putting old age make-up on Gary Sweet. They hire different actors to play older versions of characters all the time in movies. It's not considered a continuity gaff.

Liliandil: Same objection.

Caspian: Again, Barnes is too young to play the part. They might bring him back for the revival scene in Aslan's Country, but I personally wouldn't object to their cutting that part out. In the context of a movie that would be a time-consuming aside (I feel the same way about the Bism sequence).

Trumpkin: Now I would actually love for Peter Dinklage to return for SC. Again, this is because of his talents, not because of continuity. They don't have to put as much makeup on him because you could always say that fantasy-dwarves don't age as dramatically (why not?).

Eustace: This is the biggest problem. The character of Eustace in SC is clearly pre-adolescent. The actor who plays him should be able to pass for 12, or maybe 13 at the oldest, though that's pushing it. Will Poulter is now too old to pass for a child younger than 15. I just don't see any way around having to recast the part of Eustace.

As for plot continuity, there is no plot carry over between any of the previous books and SC. There shouldn't be any carry over between the movies either. If they attempt to do that, they run a very high risk of mangling the story. And SC has a story that, I believe, could translate beautifully to film with just a bit of trimming.

All in all, I think their focus in making SC should be on producing a good quality movie, with all of the key elements from the book, rather than keeping continuity with a series that is already fading from the public consciousness. Nowadays, the only Narnia film most people remember is LWW.

Honestly, I think they should all be made and marketed as standalone films. I'm pretty sure that people will know that the movies are connected with Narnia if they see the trailer, since Aslan will very likely make an appearance. The books were written in a largely unplanned way, and this resulted in seven books that stand up very well on their own as singular stories. You can't turn CoN into some sort of "Harry Potter and..." or "The Lord of the Rings" kind of series. I think it's best to embrace what makes all of the books different and make them into solid, standalone films.

While stand alone films are intriguing, I think it's best to stick to keeping "CON" as a franchise. The Narnia name has recognition. And stand alone films may depress popularity even more. A previous poster alluded to an excellent example with Harry Potter. Naming a film "The Half Blood Prince" (or whatever it's called) wouldn't have attracted the same crowds without adding Harry Potter in front of it. The Narnia name has the same brand recognition, just to a slightly lesser extent.

A previous poster alluded to an excellent example with Harry Potter. Naming a film "The Half Blood Prince" (or whatever it's called) wouldn't have attracted the same crowds without adding Harry Potter in front of it. The Narnia name has the same brand recognition, just to a slightly lesser extent.

That's true, but Harry Potter is also an extremely popular franchise. Narnia, on the other hand, might be at a point where seeing the familiar logo could incite a "Oh, it's another one of those Narnia films; they keep beating a dead horse, don't they?" kind of reaction from some potential moviegoers who aren't fans of the book series. While the brand recognition might sell some tickets, I think it's quite possible that it could deter some ticket sales as well. I can't say I know enough about the market to make any judgment on which is the more profitable side of this seesaw, though.

The other problem with brand recognition is that people will often have certain expectations when coming to the movie theaters. "This is that series with the four kids saving the magical country with the talking animals and Tilda Swinton, right?" You can get away with this with the first three films because all of them have at least some of the Pevensies, but once The Silver Chair comes along, Aslan and Eustace (and Caspian's cameo) are really the only connections to the previous films... the brand recognition doesn't give you all that much to recognize anymore.

I think if the filmmakers had done a better job of selling the universe of Narnia and the character of Aslan to moviegoers, rather than the action and the other characters, it would be easier to draw crowds by flashing "The Chronicles of Narnia" on a screen. People would want to see the movie just to go back to Narnia and see Aslan again, if for nothing else. As it stands, it almost seems misleading. I think they really need to sell The Silver Chair on its own merits and not try to ride on the coattails of what remains of the previous films' popularity.

Those are just my general feelings on the matter, though. I think it's possible that the filmmakers could do a lot of rebranding and distance themselves somewhat from the original films (if they think that's best from a monetary standpoint) while still having "The Chronicles of Narnia" precede the titles. We'll see.

That's true, but Harry Potter is also an extremely popular franchise. Narnia, on the other hand, might be at a point where seeing the familiar logo could incite a "Oh, it's another one of those Narnia films; they keep beating a dead horse, don't they?" kind of reaction from some potential moviegoers who aren't fans of the book series.

But why hide the facts anyway? If they love Narnia they will come to see the film, and if they don't love Narnia they won't come. The rest may just want a new entertainment. Simple. Besides I am still convinced that whatever the merits of the film - and I sincerely hope there are considerable merits - there are some people with a vested interest in decrying anything to do with Narnia, maybe because of literary snobbishness and also political reasons.

At some point there won't be any more excuses for not filming the remaining 4 books, if only because every other worthwhile fantasy will have already been done. I'd rather watch a fresh SC, HHB, MN or LB than yet another remake of Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, Snow White, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, King Arthur, some Greek mythical story or some other overused fairy tale.

But why hide the facts anyway? If they love Narnia they will come to see the film, and if they don't love Narnia they won't come. The rest may just want a new entertainment. Simple.

Indeed.

I'm not arguing for totally removing the Narnia name from the title or subtitle; but I would like to see the film made with the mindset that you can go see it without prior knowledge of any of the previous stories and still follow the plot and characters. Familiarity with the story should enhance your experience, not drive you bananas because it wasn't that way in the book. I especially don't want characters who don't even appear in the film dragged in to the marketing.

But why hide the facts anyway? If they love Narnia they will come to see the film, and if they don't love Narnia they won't come. The rest may just want a new entertainment. Simple.

I agree with that on some level. I don't want them to hide the fact that it's a Narnia film. I'd want them to reference Narnia in the trailer in some capacity, I'd want Aslan to appear and be named, et cetera. I'm more wary of seeing the familiar branding pop up, which might indicate more of the same, or some kind of stereotypical continuity between films. I also worry that branding it as a series makes the filmmakers more inclined to try to force the Chronicles into the same formula as most other fantasy-action film series.

There's also the fact that there's a difference between Narnia and Narnia as its presented in the movies. If you have someone who's never read the books but went to see VDT, then they may have very little interest in shelling out the cash to see a fourth film. Having the old branding might give would-be moviegoers a sense that Hollywood is trying to milk tired ideas for cash solely because of brand recognition. It could compete with the idea that this is a really good film that's worth going to see on its own merits.

Again, though, I'm not an expert on the trends of this particular market. I'm sure there are plenty of people that study it all the time as their job and they might disagree with these concerns.

One other interesting observation: as far as I can tell, the Chronicles of Narnia didn't have that series title on them when the books were first published. It was simply The Magician's Nephew, The Horse and His Boy, et cetera.

A previous poster alluded to an excellent example with Harry Potter. Naming a film "The Half Blood Prince" (or whatever it's called) wouldn't have attracted the same crowds without adding Harry Potter in front of it. The Narnia name has the same brand recognition, just to a slightly lesser extent.

That's true, but Harry Potter is also an extremely popular franchise. Narnia, on the other hand, might be at a point where seeing the familiar logo could incite a "Oh, it's another one of those Narnia films; they keep beating a dead horse, don't they?" kind of reaction from some potential moviegoers who aren't fans of the book series. While the brand recognition might sell some tickets, I think it's quite possible that it could deter some ticket sales as well. I can't say I know enough about the market to make any judgment on which is the more profitable side of this seesaw, though.

Now, I know that I'm probably living in a fantasy world here, but... do you think it's possible to find a "happy medium" here? At this point, I think the "brand recognition" associated with the title "The Chronicles of Narnia" goes one of two ways: either people think of the movies (and if they saw the last two, it probably leaves a bad taste in their mouth), or they're familiar primarily with The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe (maybe the next 2 or 3 stories after that), but not necessarily all 7 books. Is it possible to use the title "The Chronicles of Narnia" to just appeal to the latter group, by avoiding the kind of marketing that the Walden movies got?

Basically, what if the next movies aren't marketed as blockbusters and/or action films? What if it goes back to marketing it along the lines of "an adaptation of classic books"? Frankly, I'm convinced that that's the main aspect that got audiences to attend the first three movies; I don't really know anyone who saw it to see an action movie. Especially since there is another The Silver Chair adaptation out there that people might remember, I think that if the marketing focuses a lot more on the story and world of Narnia, it'll be easier for audiences to remember those aspects of the series--especially if that's what attracted them to the movies in the first place. (Then again, personally, I'm actually hoping that the other movies won't be made with the intent of drawing in huge crowds or being blockbusters. As I've mentioned in another thread around here, I'd be very happy with a somewhat lower budget movie which uses word of mouth as much as marketing.)

I do want them to retain the "The Chronicles of Narnia" title, since that should be associated with the stories, not with the movie series. I have no problem with them connecting the next 4 books to a "new" Narnia series, which is why I ended up voting for option 4. However, beyond that, I think they should cut all ties to the original series and work on the new movies as they are. This does mean that I won't be upset if they decide to completely recast, even actors like Liam Neeson who haven't aged out of their roles. So yeah... I guess, to some degree, what I want is a reboot of the series, just starting with The Silver Chair so that we have a chance of ever seeing the last three books adapted to film.

Is it possible to use the title "The Chronicles of Narnia" to just appeal to the latter group, by avoiding the kind of marketing that the Walden movies got?

It definitely seems possible! I think your idea of keeping the title while focusing on making movies and trailers that feel very different from the previous films is a good one. I would be extremely happy if they didn't market them as blockbusters or action films.

Alongside that thought, I think it's also possible to connect the "Chronicles of Narnia" phrase to the film without it actually being in the title/the logo/et cetera.

I can imagine a trailer that ends with the narrator saying something like "Based on the classic story by C.S. Lewis... a new Chronicle of Narnia begins now..." before The Silver Chair flashes on the screen. That way, the viewer is left with a logo that's fresh and exciting and mysterious instead of an old one that might evoke negative feelings and opinions associated with the previous films.

Does that seem like a decent compromise, or do you guys think that it's still not quite enough to draw the crowds?