I don't think close to the book was the issue. Though i do think that it is a poor adaption. It is more that it is not a good film. It is disjointed with bad camera angles, bad dialogue, bad CGI. The film could have be exactly like the book and not be a good movie. It needed to be a good movie. Adapting the book into a good coherent film. At that they failed.

I don't know much about all that movie making stuff, but I do know what it's like trying to make a skit. alot of times you get so tense and stressed you just want it to be over and done with, maybe thats what happned with VDT.

VDT received more negative reviews than the last two Narnia films because of two main factors I've noticed in such bad reviews: Bad dialogue and supposed bad acting(I don't want to offend those who liked the performances).

I do think the final script did affect the decisions of fans to go see the movie, but the general audiences didn't go see it because of 1. awful marketing 2. mixed reviews.

If the movie had gotten better reviews (and a better marketing strategy), especially on account on a better script, I think the film would have performed better domestically, maybe not much more than Prince Caspian did, but I think it would have helped. Although fans did play a large role in the success of the film, the general audience played a much more critical role, especially the critics.

Then again, look at Disney's 2010 Alice in Wonderland. It got very mixed reviews, yet it grossed over $1 billion worldwide. However, I think it was marketing that got people to see this, which VDT hardly had in the states...

In short, it was not straying away from the book that caused VDT to under perform and cause the 3-4 year hiatus of the films, it was the general audience's mixed reviews and lack of marketing.

The problem is that the reason the film got bad reviews was because it wasn't a good film. It actually needed to be a better film and then the good reviews would have followed.

I don't think it would've mattered. People had already lost interest in the Narnia films domestically and some internationally. Though I wish that they did go with that script.

Though i actually know quite a few people who liked PC that aren't Narnia fans. I think a lot of people didn't know about it so they didn't see it. So there was a loss of interest after the second one and then the third one was just had major issues the biggest would be being too childish. I think it was the most childish of the three films.

^I thought VDT was more childish and PC was just dopey. I will say that my film professors don't like Narnia period. My friends and other friends that I make who don't read the books liked LWW and not PC and they didn't watch VDT. They all have the same opinion which is weird.

The problem is that the reason the film got bad reviews was because it wasn't a good film. It actually needed to be a better film and then the good reviews would have followed.

decarus, that is exactly what my post above was all about. If the script had been better written, the film would have gotten better reviews. What do you mean?

I just thought that you were saying that the film needed to get better reviews regardless of the fact that it just needed to be a different film. The reason that people didn't see the film was not that it got bad reviews. They didn't see it because it wasn't a good movie. Movies all the time get bad reviews and people see them anyways because the general audience may still enjoy a film that gets bad reviews. The reviews are not all that important, in my opinion.

I don't think close to the book was the issue. Though i do think that it is a poor adaption. It is more that it is not a good film. It is disjointed with bad camera angles, bad dialogue, bad CGI. The film could have be exactly like the book and not be a good movie. It needed to be a good movie. Adapting the book into a good coherent film. At that they failed.

I think it does have to do somewhat with the adaptation. It doesn't have to be verbatim, in fact it would be impossible to do well verbatim from the book. But it does have to be close enough to the book to capture the central themes. The themes give the book magic, which is partially why people are such fans. It does need to be a good film because the main point of any film is to entertain. In my opinion, it was not either. A big part of that was the plot holes and cheesy dialogue. If the film had a better adaptation and a better script, it probably would have been a lot better. Even if other people have lost interest in Narnia, us Narnia fans would undoubted try to watch it as much as possible if it was both a good film and adaptation. It would have done better. I can't really say it would have done as well as LWW, but it would have done better than it did.

I would actually disagree that a bad adaptation would prevent people from seeing a movie.

Look at How to Train Your Dragon. That was based off the first book in the series and it hardly even resembles the books, yet look at the critical claim and its well performance at the box office even though it was on inflation). And many people enjoyed it a lot.

And also Disney's 2010 Alice in Wonderland. It did not pay much resemblance to the books at all. It got mixed reviews from the critics, yet it was able to make $1 billion worldwide, again with inflation though.

Then again, I think what really caused the two films above to succeed and bring in the dough was something, or two somethings that VDT didn't have: 1. good marketing 2. big word of mouth

I remember over a year and a half ago, I would see non-stop advertisements on TV featuring dragons and a Mad Hatter. Not to mention in stores. Yes, I did see some TV spots last November with a dragon who was really a boy, but there was no sign of anything in stores except for the DVD release.

And also because of the little advertising, VDT opened up very small, unlike How to Train Your Dragon and Alice in Wonderland, and although there was some minor word of mouth, How to Train Your Dragon and Alice held up and performed very well. VDT, you could say, would have completely sank at the box office if not for inflation and 3D sales.

I really don't think it is that VDT was a bad adaptation that people didn't see, it was because of bad advertising, causing there to be little word of mouth.

I think it does have to do somewhat with the adaptation. It doesn't have to be verbatim, in fact it would be impossible to do well verbatim from the book. But it does have to be close enough to the book to capture the central themes. The themes give the book magic, which is partially why people are such fans. It does need to be a good film because the main point of any film is to entertain. In my opinion, it was not either. A big part of that was the plot holes and cheesy dialogue. If the film had a better adaptation and a better script, it probably would have been a lot better. Even if other people have lost interest in Narnia, us Narnia fans would undoubted try to watch it as much as possible if it was both a good film and adaptation. It would have done better. I can't really say it would have done as well as LWW, but it would have done better than it did.

I personally would have liked for VotDT to be a better adaption because i like the books. I just think that is not the most important thing. The most important thing is that it is a good film and i don't think it was. I mean i am a huge fan, saw LWW and PC multiple times in theater, but i only saw VotDT once. I think about the Lord of the Rings films which took huge liberties with the books, though i would agree that they did keep with the themes of the books, and they did very well. I assume that there are uber fans that were mad about how the Lord of the Rings films turned out. I just think that they are great films and did well because of that did well. If VotDT had been a better film, i think it would have done a lot better. That was it's main issue.

I do agree that there were other issues like advertising which there was not enough. I also think they were too heavy handed with the Christian aspect of the story. Talking about temptation and faith and all that. And while i do think that VotDT is the most heavy handed book, i still think that the film was almost more so then the book whereas they pulled back with that aspect in the other fans. And yet they still didn't treat Aslan like he was god which has been a problem throughout the series.

Regardless, i do think that the biggest issue for the film was that it had to be a good film. Then good reviews. Good word of mouth. All of that would have followed.

I don't think we can blame the VDT marketing entirely. Part of that problem stemmed from the fact that Prince Caspian had a very mediocre reputation. Then the quality of VDT let us down even more. I think you guys have already addressed the major problems of the film: bad cinematography, acting, editing, CGI, scoring, etc.

I know book purists don't make or break a film, but maybe the general audience actually wanted to see something more like The Odyssey than Harry Potter?

The problem with translating the book VDT to film is that each episode in the story is unique and has it's own narrative and character arc(s). In order for each episode to have the right emotional impact, the film makers have to take time to build up to and reflect on each episode. This would result in a movie that is maybe 5 hours long.

In making a film of VDT that is both a reasonable length and faithful on a literal level, they would have to rush through the events and dialogue without any moments of pause for anticipation or reflection. This would result in a movie that is basically a series of weird and pointless adventures, fundamentally unfaithful to the spirit of the book (like the dreadful BBC version). Apparently that was the Estate's objection to the original script, the inertia or pointlessness.

The movie that they ultimately made was mediocre kiddie fare that some people loved and some people hated. I think if they used the more literal script, it would have been a down right horrible movie that only a few die-hard book purists would have enjoyed.