AfterDawn: News

Disney drops third 'Narnia' movie

Disney has announced that they have dropped the third Chronicles of Narnia film after deciding that co-producing and distributing the film, entitled "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader," would prove too costly given the economic downturn.

The decision will leave the production company Walden Media on its own looking for a new partner to release the third film.



The new movie would have had a budget of over $200 million USD but its box office return was uncertain given the current climate and the diminished returns of the second movie in the franchise. The first film, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," grossed $745 million USD worldwide but its sequel, "Prince Caspian" only made $418 million worldwide.

For the time being, it is being reported that 20th Century Fox is a possibility to back the new movie, however they will require a tighter budget.

For a good opinion piece on why Disney is making a terrible mistake, read here: A 'Chronicles of Narnia' voyage Disney should take

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 3 Jan 2009 19:38

• Previous article

• CD sales fell 20 percent in 2008

• Next article

• PlayStation 2 still the most played console

• 20 comments

• Leningrad

  not necessarily a mistake, if its sequel failed to succeed its predecessors that may be a smart move. Think of battlefield earth.

  3.1.2009 19:49 #1

• bryston

  Originally posted by Leningrad: not necessarily a mistake, if its sequel failed to succeed its predecessors that may be a smart move. Think of battlefield earth.Off topic, but "Battlefield Earth" was a horrible movie !
  
  
  Jo
  

  Life is Grand !
  
  

  3.1.2009 19:57 #2

• Leningrad

  Quote:Originally posted by Leningrad: not necessarily a mistake, if its sequel failed to succeed its predecessors that may be a smart move. Think of battlefield earth.Off topic, but "Battlefield Earth" was a horrible movie !
  
  
  Jo
  thats the whole point, BE was shit, though the guy that directed it wanted it to cover half of the book of which it was based on. The sequal would cover the other, half though the first one was a box office flop. With a budget of 70,000,000 and a gross revenue around 30 million, it would be a terrible idea to make a sequal. I think disney may take the same road with 'narnia'.

  3.1.2009 20:42 #3

• Leningrad

  sry about the above post, was thinking about anothe rmovie ironically.

  3.1.2009 20:46 #4

• SProdigy

  No, the real difference between BE and Narnia is that Narnia DID make money, and didn't lose.
  
  We also don't see all of the money generated from ridiculous tie-ins Disney would have, which would include everything from video games to backpacks. And on the same thought, I don't recall any major hyping of a Narnia sequel; how many people knew that Caspian was the sequel? There weren't Happy Meals out there to brainwash the kiddies! Call it "Narnia 2" and the sheep flock to it like other sequels Disney has made, like Peter Pan 2; not exactly the same caliber of the Narnia series IMHO.
  
  I would think there has to be an ulterior motive behind this move. Afterall, who at Disney thought that Beverly Hills Chihuahua was going to make money?

  3.1.2009 23:50 #5

• david89

  well 2nd Narnia movie wasn't as good as first one so what do you expect $418 million not that bad could be alot worse and could of did as bad as Babylon AD where it only made worldwide gross of $56,343,505 LOL!!!

  4.1.2009 01:25 #6

• cyprusrom

  As well, I liked the first movie, but I wasn't impressed with the second installment of Narnia.

  4.1.2009 02:02 #7

• cart0181

  Unfortunately, IMHO, the Narnia movies were geared too much towards children. I had high hopes for the new series, but after the first disaster of a movie, I ignored the second. They just don't do justice to CS Lewis' masterpiece. The metaphors are toned down and most of the intended meaning is lost. Also, the battle sequences are ridiculous. Too many movies keep trying to reproduce epic "Braveheart" battle scenes, but this one is laughable. This type of scene should not be attempted in a children's movie. "Final battles" without the blood is like sex without the ejaculation. Just my opinion.

  4.1.2009 02:59 #8

• jetyi83

  the first movie sucked but i was able to sit through it and watch, the second i couldnt even watch for more than 10 minutes. it was awful. good move backing out, it would be hard to follow that movie.

  4.1.2009 04:33 #9

• ZippyDSM

  Good story and charatcers will be good no matter the target audiance of the flick, I think Narnia is ok the old TV series is a a bit better..less PC/zero thought, golden compass was decent..it could rail on the church more...
  
  Besides is not Pirates of the carrbien Disney?
  So can;t they do a PG13 Narnia thats not so gimped?

  4.1.2009 12:40 #10

• Globe08

  Originally posted by jetyi83: the first movie sucked but i was able to sit through it and watch, the second i couldnt even watch for more than 10 minutes. it was awful. good move backing out, it would be hard to follow that movie.if you thought the 1st one sucked then why go see the second?esoecially with the length of these films...

  4.1.2009 13:50 #11

• Samsunged

  Narnia 2 was a product of it's release date. It got crunched between Iron Man and Indiana Jones. Why not wait until late fall (like the 1st movie) is beyond me. Having said that, I watched it on Blu Ray and thought it was excellent.

  4.1.2009 15:01 #12

• NexGen76

  I like the second movie & thought the first one sucked.....

  4.1.2009 15:23 #13

• iamgq

  I too enjoyed the fisrt one and have watched a couple times with others, the 2nd ehh... A third? mhhh

  4.1.2009 15:24 #14

• Hopium

  Originally posted by cart0181: "Final battles" without the blood is like sex without the ejaculation. Just my opinion.ROFL

  4.1.2009 15:28 #15

• sssharp

  if you thought the 1st one sucked then why go see the second?esoecially with the length of these films...That was the same with me and harry (board out my mind) potter. I watched the first and it didnt fill my movie likes. All the hype and reviews etc. I attempted to watch the second, thinking something must be here, but after about 15 minutes said its time to change the channel.

  4.1.2009 18:17 #16

• ZippyDSM

  Originally posted by sssharp: if you thought the 1st one sucked then why go see the second?esoecially with the length of these films...That was the same with me and harry (board out my mind) potter. I watched the first and it didnt fill my movie likes. All the hype and reviews etc. I attempted to watch the second, thinking something must be here, but after about 15 minutes said its time to change the channel.Meh I like the Harry Potter flicks,love the whimsical style and setting, much better than brain dead T&A filled action flicks.....

  4.1.2009 18:21 #17

• damncrap

  Originally posted by Samsunged: Narnia 2 was a product of it's release date. It got crunched between Iron Man and Indiana Jones. Why not wait until late fall (like the 1st movie) is beyond me. Having said that, I watched it on Blu Ray and thought it was excellent.I agree with Samsunged, it was released with other more popular movies but you know what even with those more popular movies it still made 400 mill. I thought both 1 and 2 was good but it felt like part 1 was more magical and more special effects and 2 was less effects but a lil more serious. I just hope they get enough cash to make the 3rd how they want to make it and not have to cut back because of money issues. Perhaps with another company they could make it slightly more adult and less kiddish since Disney wont have them by the throat.
  
  Does that mean you wont be able to buy a box set with all movies together in the future because of the different companies? lol

  5.1.2009 19:07 #18

• salsa36

  Prince Caspian sucked!

  5.1.2009 19:36 #19

• Jemborg

  When I was a kid (years ago) I devoured the Narnia stories. However, they didn't age well for me. It was sort of my introduction to fantasy stories tho.
  
  Caspian was my least favorite book in the series. But the incessant Christian god-bothering in this series is a real pain to deal with. Lewis' supposition, "What if Jesus was to appear on another world?" (I am virtually quoting here) becomes turgid and laboured often and rather twee. Almost all the plot lines or ideas are directly derived from the bible. For those watching the films and not having read the stories- you could become rather shocked at this. And no, there is not much gore in what he himself labels "a story for children" on ALL the front covers.
  
  It's really strange, because Lewis and Tolkien were the absolute best of mates, but it's like chalk and cheese in my opinion. Later books in the series deal with "Islam" and not in a nice way (but interesting). The series doesn't really lend itself to a commercial movie series at all in a artistic sense because continuity or lack of it would confuse a public expecting such.
  
  Still, it's a pity. Perversely, I WAS looking forward to "The Voyage Of the Dawn Treader"... it was my favorite and the most fun. Would it have made a good movie? I don't know.
  
  Lewis DOES describe the Narnia world as flat in it- just like in the bible. Go the Flat-Earthers!! The only real TRUE bible literalists in existence. ROFL
  

  Its a lot easier being righteous than right.

  6.1.2009 10:09 #20