Fox seems to have made more "family-friendly" movies than Disney;they also seem to have better moral values...and I also agree w/ your reasons listed above.
I had not thought how Fox stepping in would influence the rest of the series but now that I read this I'm so glad they did step in!!!!!

Fox on the other hand has had less movies that are as successful at the box-office, so Fox’s expectations may be less and they may be more willing to go with a lower amount of cash at the box-office

Although i can generally see where you are coming from with the rest of your post, its worth pointing out that 20th Century Fox have far more films at the top of the all-time box-office list than Walt Disney do (and not just from the Star Wars films) and of course they still hold that all important number 1 spot with Titanic, and stand a good chance at taking the number 2 spot with Avatar this Christmas.

Though the point i would agree with is that unlike Walt Disney, Fox don't have so much of an "agenda" with their movie release schedule. Walt Disney have a very strong corporate image and persona which they like to stick to, and from many of the rumours that circulated around during the bust-up between Disney and Walden, i got the impression that Disney were having a hard time trying to integrate Narnia into their overal brand portfolio, particuarly with regard to Merchandising and Theme Parks etc, and that PCs boxoffice was to a certain extent the final straw. I can imagine that if it had been one of their own properties for which they had access to the whole range of revenue streams for, it would of been a different story.

3. This is more of a guess, With Harry Potter coming to an end soon, I think many movie studios are looking to fill Harry Potters spot in the movie industry. With that being said, I’m wondering if Fox will be more willing to stick to the Narnian movies in the long run.

I would definitely agree with that - having franchises at the moment is a very big deal, and whilst Disney are much more keen on developing their own properties (HSM, Cars, Pirates) most of the other studios will pretty much take whatever they can get, so much so that alot of the major studios are pretty much scraping the barrell of their back catalogues looking for potential franchises to milk a bit further when many of their present series have run dry (Columbia and Universal are currently trying to ressurect the Men in Black and Chronicles of Riddick franchises respectively for that very purpose :S)

Fox will be an improvment!

foe one thing, as much as Diseny does a good job with movies, they always do everybodys movies, it seems! it will be good to not have Diseny behind VotDT!

A_Narnian_Ship: I agree about Fox being more family friendly! I have observed this with many other movies Fox has put out! Fox also put out Michael Apted's movie "Amazing Grace"!

As a fan, I'm really glad Fox picked up the series and somebody IS financing the movie.

But I disagree about Fox being overall more family friendly or more "values-oriented" than Disney though. Just take a look at some of their action flicks or their TV shows (Family Guy, American Dad, 24, Prison Break) and you'll realize they're not 100% on the "family" bandwagon - or any other bandwagon for that matter. They produce all sorts of films with all sorts of values, both good and bad - just like any other major studio. But they have produced or funded some cool family films over the years. And since Walden is making the film and not Fox - and we all know we can trust Walden - I don't think that'll be a factor. Narnia is family-friendly by itself, anyway...

One reason I think Fox could be good for Narnia's marketing at this point is exactly because it's more or less a "no-namer" studio and the brand of the studio won't get in the way of the brand of the franchise. Everybody knows when a movie comes from Disney and know exactly what to expect from a Disney movie. But can you remember which movies last year came from Fox just by naming them? When you think of a Fox movie, what comes to mind? Can you name a single style of movie that is characteristic of Fox and Fox alone?

For a franchise that is changing studios like Narnia, having a studio that doesn't have a particular style could be a very good thing. Maybe most of the people watching VTD won't even notice Narnia changed studios - as oppossed to "look, big shiny Warner Bros decided to have a go at the Narnia franchise Disney didn't want to keep... I wonder how they might have changed it... will it be as good as what Disney would have done?" The less people ask themselves THOSE questions and focus on the movie - which I'm sure is going to be great - the better.

The less people notice the studio change and the more they focus on the Narnia brand itself, the better for the movie, in my opinion.

Farsight1 said:
For a franchise that is changing studios like Narnia, having a studio that doesn't have a particular style could be a very good thing. Maybe most of the people watching VTD won't even notice Narnia changed studios - as oppossed to "look, big shiny Warner Bros decided to have a go at the Narnia franchise Disney didn't want to keep... I wonder how they might have changed it... will it be as good as what Disney would have done?" The less people ask themselves THOSE questions and focus on the movie - which I'm sure is going to be great - the better.

this is very true! Fox's logo is seen in lots of movies!

a friend of mine just found out that the Narnia franchise switched hands and she was like, "They did?" Farsight1 is right! it's not as noticable!

Yeah, it's kind of funny how 'the switch' really wasn't publicized very much. So, if it wasn't for news sites like this one all of us would have been very surprised to see the Fox logo instead of Disney. That's how subtle and hushed hushed 'the switch' was. As it is, I think that some people will still be surprised when they see the Fox logo instead of Disney.

I'm content that Fox has taken over the franchise, if only for the reason that they did take it over. For awhile there it looked like Narnia was up in the air and nobody was waiting to catch it. A BIG thanks to Fox for 'the catch'!

Well whenever I think of Fox I think the animated Anistasia film which is just wonderful so I'm not worried. Plus Fox can rate beyound PG.(for Last Battle if it is hopefully made).

Down side is that it isn't as big as Disney, but I'm still not that worried for It's big enough.

lostin1800, I agree Fox isn't as big as Disney, but bigger is not always better But that's just my opinion though I do like that the switch from Disney to Fox was very quiet Oh and one more benefit of Fox taking over. With Disney they banned smoking in their films but now that Fox is doing Narnia when SC comes out(God Willing) we can see Puddleglum's pipe! I was really disappointed when I thought we would never see that on screen.

Is Fox good or bad for Narnia? I don't know. I really want to know people's thoughts on this New Year's Eve article by a newswriter for the Washington Times [DC]. It's called "'Narnia' Drifts from its Vision." You can read it here.

220crisTian, that was a pretty interesting article you found, I will say this, I'm not really worried about what they said about Perry Moore, because he had the same position in the other two films and LWW stuck to the religious concept fairly well. I agree with what it said about PC straying, but that could also be interpreted that there was supposed to be some straying. Afterall Aslan as been gone since before the Pevensies, and even in the book Trumpkin didn't believe in him. A part of me wishes that they included the scene in the book when each of the Children see him at a different moment, because it says something about faith, but at the same time I'm glad they didn't because I don't think it would have let Narnia seem "real."

As for the benefits of Fox, I believe it will have a positive impact, simply because it is a change, and changes can be good. In fact it only proves how big Narnia is, the more people you have working on a film, or in this case a series, the wider a range of views that will be expressed when that series comes to life since everyone has an impact. This will make it more detailed, which is a good thing, and it will also appeal to more people. Secondly the fact that Fox did pick it up implies that the franchise is big enough to stand on its own (in other words its more likely that we will see every movie come out, SC, MN, HHB, and LB) I hope this all made sense.

I find it ironic that, although Fox is not as big as some of the other companies, it seems to get no shabby amount of high rollers. It is almost like it isn't a high roller most of the time, but when it does roll high, it rolls really high (i.e. Titanic and now Avatar). I would also like to point out Fox's attempt at animation was not that bad with all the "Ice Ages", the last one being the funniest of them, in my opinion. It is true that Fox has made some flops in there time. Apparently, they are no good at making superhero films at all. However, I think that Fox is kind of like a dark horse in some ways. It doesn't parade the same way the other companies do. Instead, it is quietly successful, subtly grinning at the others. That is just the way that Fox strikes me and I have no grounds of proof whatsoever. However, I ponder how wonderful it would be to have a dark horse company bring a dark horse franchise to the forefront. That would be just so awesome!

Narnia's not exactly a dark horse though. Everyone knows about it by now. It's really important that it appeals to everyone on the first viewing, because word-of-mouth is a huge factor with most movies.

If Fox's handling of Percy Jackson is any indicator of how it will market Narnia, VDT may have less publicity than PC did.

Percy Jackson should do fine since it has a loyal fanbase, but I haven't seen any ads for it yet (other than the ones I dug up online) and February is next month already!

I hope it's not the same way with VDT.

People tend to forget that 20th Century Fox is not an independent company; it is owned by News Corporation - a very large company indeed. News Corp. owns the largest American daily newspaper (The Wall Street Journal), highest-rated cable news network (Fox News), publisher HarperCollins, and of course the Fox movie studio and television network.

Fox did Avatar. I'm wondering if Fox tends to be less actively involved in its movies than other corporations, and more willing to let producers/directors/etc. do their own thing. Avatar has a lot of nontraditional aspects-- it's almost three hours, the heroes are blue, and it's 3D-- things some companies probably would be very hesitant to risk.

But while Fox has some great boundary pushing movies like Avatar, it also has some real flops. Like Eragon. So I'm thinking Disney is probably stricter, setting standards that ensure that most of their movies are at least decent, but sometimes prevent movies from reaching their potential. Fox on the other hand (I would guess) is less involved, which means movies go whichever way they're going to go-- maybe really good, maybe really bad.

Just speculation...