Hmm, interesting. Basically what you are saying is most companies "Play it safe". Fox, on the other hand, tends to brake the unwritten rules. Some times this can be bad because the result is just so weird or distorted that people refuse to like it. Every once in awhile though, they come up with something that is so unique and cool that people want to go see it and it becomes a big hit. It seems to me that, that is a plausible theory at any rate. I speculate that it probably isn't totally one way or the other, but that Fox does from time to time release movies that are a little out of the norm.

Re-- Dark Horse: I see now that Fox is by no means a Dark Horse. However, I still believe that Narnia is somewhat of a Dark Horse. If you asked the average person who is not a Narnia fan what great franchises are out there, I would suspect that Narnia wouldn't be at the top of the list. He/She would probably reply with Harry Potter or Twilight before they would say Narnia. Personally I think that although Narnia is known, it doesn't have its permanent place as a franchise yet.

I'm definitely loving that Fox took over the movies. For one thing, publicity-wise, having Fox on the label will make people view it as a more serious and thrilling movie, whereas, when people think of Disney they think of more geared-towards-children (No offense to them of couse . That being said... Fox has more versatality in terms of how they can create the film, when Disney had lots of boundaries that couldn't be crossed and perhaps kept the last two from becoming what they were really capable of becoming. VDT has a great chance of earning great reviews and creating new Narnia fans with Fox leading, if some of what was said in the Washington Times article turns out not to be true.