Disney dumps Narnia!

[hectorberlioz]

Linked here

This means there won't be a Voyage of Dawn Treader for a while more.

Disney is such a wimp. First of all, they released Prince Caspian too early. You don't mess with the Indiana Jones competition. And Iron Man pulled in big too, unexpectedly. So that was their first problem. Secondly, Prince Caspian is the least familiar Narnia book, and most people don't have it at the top of their lists.

Oh well. My brother tells me that 20th Century Fox might pick it up. If so, they are probably better suited to co-produce. Though I see Fox as less friendly to the idea of making art, as opposed to profit.

[Midge]

I think you just ruined my Christmas, Hector!

*stomps around and mutters bad things about Disney*

[inked]

I suppose they want the equivalent of the Harry Potter draws?! THEN STICK TO THE BOOK (shouting intended)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem with the box office take is due solely to the re-make of PRINCE CASPIAN in modern political/teenage angst terms. They did NOT produce CS Lewis' work. Someone in the production, perhaps Douglas Gresham, wagged that they had "out-martialed Jack" - meaning that that they emphasized only martial aspects in the military sense of the term (see PLANET NARNIA by Michael Ward for more information on Mars and its donegality) - and "wrote a better story than Jack." Bah. Humbug.

I would suggest that the poor box office showing strongly suggests that parents did not think it a product of the Narnian and therefore would not take their children to see it. NO parents, no money. Lost opportunity due to squandered resource, in my opinion. And apparently in a lot of other people's opinions as expressed in their wallet survey.

I saw it precisely once in the theatre and was so disappointed that I didn't return for the paid-for-ten-times-in-theatre experience that was LWW. Perhaps Walden Media can learn a lesson if Disney cannot? STICK TO THE STORY AND DON'T CHANGE IT TO SUIT YOUR PATHETIC OPINION OF WHAT WOULD SELL. The books haven't suffered from that sort of hubris, have they? GET A CLUE, producers.

Better they not be done than the pathetic be done. BBC was better!

(That from a 35+ year reader of the books, mind you!)

[Tessar]

Could also be that people are getting a bit tired of fantasy stories with nothing but epic battles being released one right after the other .

[hectorberlioz]

Maybe. But I don't think they're much in the mood for more Gangster movies, overwrought dramas involving abortion, child rape or incest. Some of the so-called comedies are just as bad. You can't walk into a comedy without hearing most of the cursewords in the mythical Curseword Wardrobe.

Fantasy movies are all we have left.

Do I seem pessimistic? I have a toothache.

[Midge]

It just felt like there were certain things in both movies that could have been there, should have been there and weren't. Like when Lucy meets Mr. Tumnus for the first time, in the books, he drops his parcels and says, "Goodness gracious me!" [/chapter].

I sat there in the theater and waited and waited and waited for him to say it. Instead he runs like a pansy and hides behind a tree and doesn't say the line. That was one major disappointment. Such a little thing to put in, and adds so much integrity to the story. Kind of like PJ's sticking in "A shortcut to what?" "Mushrooms!" Shows that the people makin' the movie are actually reading the books to see what comes next.

Could be that people are getting tired of watching fantasy stories with nothing but epic battles which aren't even supposed to be there!

Plus they changed the dynamics of all the characters. Horrible movie-maker, that Adamson guy or whoever he is. I almost hope that this ruined his career but not really because that's a horrible thing to hope.

Hey, Merry Christmas!

[Varnafindë]

Perhaps people would have come back to watch again a movie with the noble High King Peter of the books, who "hasn't come here to take your place, you know, but to put you into it". Rather than the arrogant brat they made him into.

Still, it's very sad, and I still hope they get somebody else to finance it - perhaps somebody who will have learnt from Disney's mistakes.

I haven't been on NarniaWeb yet this morning - I wonder whet uproar there will be over there ...

[Alcuin]

Since Disney stripped out the heart of the story to be politically correct, perhaps they are not a good fit. Tolkien didn’t want his stories “Disneyfied”. Letter 13, 13 May 1937:

It might be advisable … to let the Americans do what seems good to them – as long as it was possible … to veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing).

He also denigrates Disney in Letter 202 written in 1957 and Letter 234 written in 1961: his dislike was not a passing fancy.

I personally like some of corporate Disney’s work; I think nothing ill of old Walt himself; but the company has certainly sacrificed itself to the avant-garde. But Lewis, I think, would have been horrified that his central, Christian allegory had been gutted from his work by a bunch of “soulless minions of orthodoxy”.

[Mari]

But... but... !
I want the rest of the films! *whines*
I wanna see 'The Last Battle' desperately. >_<

[GrayMouser]

While the whole rivalry between Caspian and Peter was ridiculous, I'm not sure how big a draw for the family audience it would have been to make the center of the plot the kids walking the wrong way through the trees, then turning around and walking back again, all the while arguing about whether they could or could not see Aslan.

As I said before it came out, a big problem is that Prince Caspian was always the weakest of the series- it's basically TLTW&TW redone with the Magic of the White Witch replaced by dull political wrangling, and the treason of Edmund by the skepticism of Susan.

Hoping that they come through with the wonders of the Dawn Treader....to boldly go where no man has etc.

[hectorberlioz]

I think GM is right. Prince Caspian was too much like LWW. Tough not even the very faithful BBC production included Aslan's run that takes place at the end of the book. That would have been unique and special. The movie is following too many general movie cliches, and not enough uniqueness from the books.

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Hoping that they come through with the wonders of the Dawn Treader....to boldly go where no man has etc.

Hoping that they get somebody to finance it at all. I really would like to see Dawn Treader - especially if they dare to explore its wonders.

[hectorberlioz]

Yeah Dawn Treader is the one I would like to see most, and then HAHB and TMN.

[inked]

Well, having received the film on DVD for Christmas, I finally watched the BEHIND THE SCENES thingies.

From the mouth of the director himself comes two stunning statements that enable a realization of why the movie did so poorly domestically. The first is that Adamson connected on the emotional growth of the characters as the story line. The second is that he felt he had to outdo the first film, LWW, because that was what everyone expected.

First, Adamson missed the story for his conception of emotional growth. If you see the omitted scenes sections, you can be thankful they were omitted because they veer from the story arc of Lewis in predictable Hollywood manners and would have only corroded the presentation further. This substitution of the director's story arc for the actual story is the basic problem with the storyline. It is the foundational error which made all the other deviations plausible. Adherence to the text story with much less "seizing the opportunity" to EXPAND the DIRECTOR's misconceptions would have produced a more coherent movie. Watch the extras and Adamson's remarks about the deleted scenes to get a good grasp of these strategic errors.

Secondly, Adamson was far too focused on attempting to outdo LWW in terms of "movie magic" and hence the driven need for excess of martiality in the strictly military sense. The warlike additions of the raid on Miraz's castle are specially telling, I think.

Thus, the huge budget was spent in a vaunting pride attempt to outdo himself on the big screen, plain and simple. That attempt cost large amounts of money, altered the story, and failed. Hopefully the next folks working with Adamson will get him to return to the storyline of whatever project it is. For, if he is like most directors, he will attempt to cover this "failure" with a splashier next effort. If his conception of whatever is as MISconceived as this effort, they'll certainly "lose" money too.

Perhaps I'm a bit simple, but frankly if you make more than it took to do the film, I believe that is called profit. If you happen to make 2 to 1 returns, that's a one hundred percent profit in my books. Of course, if you think you have to make an 8 to 1 return, try the stockmarket before the bubble burst... or has Hollywood lined up for a bailout because it can only make 2 to 1 returns?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by inked

Perhaps I'm a bit simple, but frankly if you make more than it took to do the film, I believe that is called profit. If you happen to make 2 to 1 returns, that's a one hundred percent profit in my books. Of course, if you think you have to make an 8 to 1 return, try the stockmarket before the bubble burst... or has Hollywood lined up for a bailout because it can only make 2 to 1 returns?

Yes, apparently all those Hollywood actors have fallen on hard times . Have to eat rice and beans now. No more caviar for Gwyneth Paltrow, no sirreee!

[Mari]

If he was trying to outdo the first as you say Inked, I think that's kinda silly. They were making a new film based on a book. Rather than making sure it stays linked to the first film, he ought to have made sure it resembled the book enough so people could make that connection for themselves.
And there is of course a big difference between characterdevelopment and characterrewriting...

I is not pleased.

[inked]

Those are his words. Rent or buy or borrow the DVD and watch the extras sections. I am not making this up. The whole concern was to try to be epic and more-over-the-top than before. Just the sections on choosing locations will give you the sense. All the portrayals are, of course, positive. What else would his employees say? But one gets the sense of the overwhelming need to outdo LWW rather than tell the story. No doubt character development occurs in PC, but to make that the primary focus of the movie totally distorted the actual story by trying to tell it in contemporary Hollywood idioms of excess. The results speak for themselves...and very loudly, I might note.

Did no one have the gonads to tell Adamson that he had totally missed the boat on the story and the need to exceed?

We have the answer before out eyes, don't we?

[Tessar]

Inked, I would imagine that the investors put a great deal of pressure on the studios, and they're trying to get those 8/1 returns rather than settling for a 2/1 return.

[Midge]

Ugh. I LOVE Prince Caspian. It is one of my favorite books ever, and they totally had to ruin the movie. I do not think I will EVER tire of talking about how badly they stunk it up.

I am sincerely thinking about emailing Walden media and offering my expertise as a book-lover to make sure the movie follows the book. I understand why some things have to change about book-to-film type of things, but there was SO much that didn't need it in PC.

[cee2lee2]

We just watched the movie last night (bought the DVD without all the extras). It was an OK movie, but it was not Prince Caspian. Then I reread the book this morning and was so disappointed thinking about the movie it could have been if the book had been followed more closely.

I hope the rest of the books get made into movies but if this is an example, I'd rather not go further. I"ll stick with my BBC videotapes.