Since Narnia appeared yesterday, maybe it's time to write something about movie adaptation. It has been more than a decade since the first film premiere. And for the promised adaptations of the "Silver Chair" we have to wait another year. And Narnia series is a very interesting case.
It would seem that Narnia is one of those book cycles that are doomed to success. The book is considered internationally to be one of the most liked and valuable novels for children. For this it has several volumes and although the further it is worse, however, it is enough material to entertain viewers for a good couple of years. For what is the ideal solution for filmmakers, the characters in the books grow up and change, which makes it possible to shoot the entire film without having to stick to one cast - which came with Potter but you can not really be sure that you can always keep the same cast, besides, it gives the series some dynamics. The first movie from the series debuted in the absolutely perfect moment. Harry Potter was just reaching his fourth film and began to be a series of films for teenagers, not for children, besides it was already known that the experiment went well and the magical stories for younger (and older viewers) hides a huge marketing potential. At the same time, the idea of adapting English classics with fantasy elements could have attracted to the cinema some hungry admirers of the genre who were only two years earlier orphaned by Tolkien when the Return of the King was over. Of course, I can be wrong but it seems that battle scenes have not been included in the movie trailers for no reason.
Theoretically, it would seem that everything must go perfectly. Especially since Disney really took care of all the mandatory details that have so far guaranteed this type of films a success. In addition to the premiere set for the holidays (as we all know is the best premiere of the year in the case of films planned for the cycle - not only because people have time to go to the cinema but also because they have a good mood and good memories of holidays mix with those of film), production using a whole lot of special effects and in addition - an extremely important point since Harry Potter - the British cast - cheaper than American but at the same time definitely attracting viewers and showing that the creators have a lot of respect for the original, which also is British. In addition, photos shot in Eastern Europe (including in the Czech Republic and Poland) that was cheaper and a handful of special effects. Everything that Narnia needed and deserved. Especially if we take into account that until now the only version of Narnia with which viewers met was the TV version of the BBC. I love her personally - because I remembered how my mother bought me the whole thing on VHS tapes, but that Aslan really reminded me of the stuffed Lion, and the whole thing was very much from the 80's and very TV.
From the point of view of financial results, no mistake was made. The movie earned over 700 million dollars and became one of the most profitable films of 2005, and in general one of the best-earning films based on children's literature. The production budget was returned (180 million) and it was possible to say without any doubt that Disney hit both the release of the film and the subject. It is hardly surprising - everything was in place. The viewers longing for the Lord of the Rings got a big battle scene which truthfully said it did not fit for children's movie very well, those who went with slightly younger kids could show them talking and wonderful animated animals. The young actors chosen for the roles were decent and still everyone left the cinema convinced that Tilda Swinton stole the attention from all the positive characters from the film. If we add to this the fact that we managed to quite cover the very strong Christian message of the book - so that the film fits viewers regardless of the religious issues - we can say that we are dealing with a full victory.
Only here is the problem. Narnia was a pleasant film and in its own way perfect for one December session, but the film itself worked best as a single story. In contrast to many film cycles, it hardly left any open door to the next part. Of course, the viewers were well aware that there will be other films related to the book cycle, but actually the production itself did not create an open world. While the first Potter films are also a much more closed whole than later films, they were still mainly based on non-recognition. The evil was stopped only for a moment, and the young wizard himself had to return to the magical world in a very definite time. Meanwhile, the first Narnia - although of course we know that it does not end history - it works perfectly as a single movie. Evil is defeated, order restored and our heroes live for quite a long time as kings before they return to our world. From the point of view of the book, it does not matter - especially that the reader can immediately reach for the next volume, but from the viewer's point of view - which must be attracted to the cinema, such a closed whole is unprofitable. For the cinema does not attract the viewer because the need to know what is next only the desire to return to the world in which he once was. Apparently, both motivations may be equally strong, but one in the cinema always worked a little better. Film Narnia did not demand continuation.
Another thing is the fact that it has not succeeded - as in the case of youth films usually acts as the best lure - to create a Narnia movie fandom. Production suspended somewhere between films for young people and productions for children did not trigger the need - or rather such a strong need - to identify with heroes, write fan fiction or buy gadgets. Apart from the film itself, the fact that Narnia had previously her devotees who loved the book contributed to it. On the other hand - the Lord of the Rings showed that calmly next to die-hard novels can create a second group of movie lovers. Why did not Narnia work? At least, it did not work on such a scale as can be expected? Certainly, a specific problem was the fact that fandoms are formed around the position rather directed to the youth, while Narnia - maybe outside the battle scenes or the victim of Aslan was - at least in the character creation, production very much for children. At the same time, the main characters - they were quite clearly from another era, which makes it more difficult, so important when identifying fandomes to identify with the heroes. In this aspect, Narnia turned out to be a beloved classic whose biggest problem was the fact that it is a classic. At the same time what is important - it is not that the film did not have and there are no die-hard devotees, no less hard to talk about a base strong enough that without any thought suffered every next (even scenario or plot worse) part.
After the success of the first Narnia, it was certain that the next film will be made. And this - a bit like in the case of Harry Potter had to rise quickly so that the actors would not grow old too much - especially that it should only be a year since their last adventures. However, filming took a while and it appeared in cinemas in 2008. What in the world of waiting for the next films means that while Narnia was only about to have her second film, Potter's fans were waiting for the sixth. The creators who were successful with winter production for children, full of talking animals, beautiful landscapes and an impassibly Christian message decided on something else. Prince Caspian is a movie that definitely bows to the audience who has already left the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, rather than the younger viewer. Because the viewers of the Lord of the Rings were more orphaned - because the Hobbit somehow did not want to start (remember those times when Jackson was not supposed to direct the movie?) Production was moved to New Zealand, so that you could even look at the same views. At the same time, the winter premiere was abandoned and instead, May and June were chosen (depending on which premieres we consider the main), ie the months when the competition is smaller but also the profits not so obvious.
The move itself did not seem so stupid. Since the series of children's films pass into a series of films for young people, and the youth turns out to be the best and most faithful viewers, why not make a movie for them. Especially that the novel itself was perfect for something more serious, considering that the heroes are returning to the world in which they have lived for thousands of years, instead of magical speaking animals, we have royal games between the legitimate heir to the throne and the usurper. The darker tone begs itself, especially if some of the magical heroes are hiding in the woods, anxiously watching the actions of human invaders. Unfortunately, although the concept is quite good, the creators have managed to make the film a bit to anyone. When you look at Prince Caspian, it's not hard to see that the creators dream is to reproduce the most beloved and impressive scenes from the first part - the great battle at the end of the film and the return of Aslan which ultimately settles the conflict. Unfortunately, this is one of the biggest problems of the movie, because eventually the viewer gets the same story in slightly different decorations. The second thing - again, it had Narnia's classic narrative. Our heroes, nobly speaking with a British accent, meet with the "bad" people who speak with a fairly distinct Spanish accent. Although it does not move anyone, one can guess that there are several places in the world where viewers do not necessarily have to be satisfied with such a division. At the same time, the dilemma of the characters - it is difficult for the average young viewer to identify with Peter and his problem - that he was once a king and an adult and now he is a teenager again. This is one of the rarer life problems of young people. It is also impossible not to pause for a moment about the fact that the filmmakers felt obliged to add a romantic thread between Susan and Prince Caspian to the story, as if they could not resist to have a nice boy and a beautiful girl on the screen and somehow not pair them. On the other hand - in order not to judge writers so much - the romance theme or potential romance is great for propelling the audience with series - especially for teenagers. It certainly works better than its lack.
At the same time Prince Caspian is not a bad movie. In fact, it's not as bad a movie as many viewers came to remember. You watch the whole without pain and you can not underestimate the very good roles - especially Peter Dinklage and Ben Barnes. Anyway, poor Ben Barnes, who, in order to play in the movie, abandoned the theater in which he just played in History Boys and almost was sued for breaking the contract. If Narnia turned out to be a hit, he could be sure that he acted rightly and that he can only be proud that the film did not stop his nicely developing career. Well, the best testimony that something went wrong is the fact that Prince Caspian with a budget of 225 million, earned them just 419. Hardly sounds ridiculous as it is combined with millions, but for a film with such a budget is not much. What's interesting when you look at Prince Caspian, a man would swear that it was a movie cheaper than the original Narnia. At least it makes such an impression. However, it is so low (in the case of such productions, not exceeding 500 million revenues is a little bit of a bit) revenues from Prince Caspian were not entirely the fault of the film itself. The problem lay in the aforementioned closed whole which was the first edition of Narnia. The viewers had no need to appear in the cinema on the next part because nothing such a need arose. What's more, Prince Caspian once again closed himself in such a way that the viewer could calmly afford to keep watching - there was no reason why one should look for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
No wonder that Disney withdrew from production (also due to copyright) and after many problems * The Voyage of the Dawn Treader * took care of 20t Century Fox. The film was released in cinemas in 2010, when Potter reached the first part of the Deathly Hallows. Theoretically, we were going to get something completely different than in the previous two parts, mainly due to the simple fact that apart from the change of heroes we also had a change of scenery - this time the movie acted on the sea, which of course meant that we could not go back to a worked out formula where at the end we have a great battle and Aslan. I mean, it was possible because the Voyage of the Dawn Treader ends more or less in that way. At the same time, the creators had to deal not only with the unusual episodic structure of the story, but also with the casting problem, which was quite unusual for children's or youth films. It can be assumed that if it depended on the creators of the film series and not from the author of the book, all major roles (in the leading roles) would return in the third film, but because the protagonists must grow from Narnia, the younger of the four siblings were the main heroes. Which created a problem that can be seen on the screen. Well, playing Caspian Ben Berns had 29 years at the time of the film's creation, while Georgie Henley, who played Lucy, was 15. And unfortunately, although Prince Caspian seemed to be watching the adventures of several young people, here we have a completely grown-up guy experiencing adventures with kids . What makes it difficult to even clearly identify who is our hero. Especially that the film trying to create the dilemmas of our characters goes into quite simple schemes - which rather make us look at film heroes as some archetypes than living people. And this in turn always plays against the disadvantage of every movie directed to young people. It is also difficult to be indifferent to the fact that the film is quite cruel for the character of Eustace, who - at least from today's perspective - does not seem like a nightmarish kid like when we were reading Narnia for the first time. Anyway, sometimes reading about something and watching it in movies leaves a completely different impression, and instead of the intention of the book wait for the transformation of Eustace into a nice person we are a bit irritated by how everyone treats him (forgetting as if it is just an ordinary English kid who it does not necessarily feel good in a magical world).
Interestingly - although * The Voyage of the Dawn Treader * was a rather unsuccessful movie, it's hard to talk about a defeat. The budget was definitely cut (in comparison with Prince Caspian) and with limited expectations, the result of 415 million with 155 million budget allowed to conclude that it could have been worse. However, it turned out again that the series of books which was supposed to be a gold mine can not in any way create a wider and more devoted audience than the one that simply appears in cinemas whenever we encounter a bigger and more advertised premiere. What's more - by looking at three films it is impossible to feel that we are dealing with a film cycle. Both aesthetically and in terms of shape and mood, all three films are completely independent productions. The viewer could easily not see Prince Caspian and appear on The Voyage of the Dawn Treader with the feeling that he had lost a little. In turn those who became attached to the vision of the world presented in Prince Caspian did not find much of it in the next part. Even a very nice to watch Ben Barnes does not really remember himself from the previous part. No wonder that when the film did not succeed once again and the rights to the first three parts was used, no one was in a hurry to return to the subject. To this it is worth adding that with each subsequent part of the story the films departed from the story of the books losing on the occasion of the most obvious audience - admirers of C.S. Lewis.
Well, it's been a long time, and here we see that after the definitive ending of Potter and the success of other films for young people, the filmmakers again started pulling to Narnia. Time is good because we really have a certain emptiness and again another orphans after Tolkien - this time after Hobbit. Nothing easier than to grab this waiting crowd. Where's the problem? There are several of them. First of all, in order to reboot a series of films, it would be necessary to shoot the first three from the beginning. This will not happen because it is difficult to make films again so recently except and I've already proved the first movie in the series is quite good and popular. It is difficult to make another two without moving the first one. So there is a The Silver Chair which, however, connects to the already made films, from which every year we are more distance. Eustace should appear in it too, or (albeit old) Prince Caspian. Theoretically, they could be made completely unrelated to the previous parts, but it is difficult to imagine how to do it exactly. Thus, most likely we will have cast changes. At the same time, the Silver Chair is not the part of the cycle that is best suited for the start of a new series of films, especially if the further it is the more difficult it will be to sign new films for the traditional children's adventure with an obligatory good ending. It is hard to expect that it would turn the tide of Narnia as a cinematic cycle.
What's interesting is that the failure of Narnia is due, among other things, to the fact that it never really failed. Yes, this is a paradox. If the first film was completely unsuccessful then it would probably be at the very beginning to decide on a different approach to the film cycle. But the first movie went well. The second was less successful but it was not a terrible defeat. Rather, a bit of a disappointment in the fact that the viewers did not produce as much credit as the first part. The third was average, but it earned well. At least it's good enough that it has not gone down in history as a total flop. However, all the time the next two companies could not convert this nice series into something really good and loved. The financial results were good, the acting and the cast were impeccable, even the special effects somehow did not grow old. And yet - because the film competed as a competition or substitute product of such films as Tolkien's or Potter's screenings - it was a disappointment from the beginning. The movies were not bad but they were not good enough. Nobody really fell in love with them, nobody raised pressure. Even the controversial, rather secular Hollywood, strong religious message did not make the film stand out. Mainly because they tried to not expose it too much. So a series of films was created that aroused the greatest emotions by the fact, not arousing emotions. And this may be the biggest problem with Narnia - it seems that in the case of this filming we have to deal with some marketing calculation to reach for the book, not because it is worth the filming (Narnia is the most worthy of filming but I do not think it was in it the immediate reason for making the decision to make the film) but because it can take over the viewers of other films. What - should it work in theory - rarely happens in the world of films. For example, because the film has changed the viewer's group. They once dreamed of children's, and sometimes they were young people, and others - whoever would go to a fantasy film. In other words - there was no magic. Although again - these are not bad movies like some would like to say. It even looks nice. But the feeling of disappointment is striking.
I will go and see *The Silver Chair with pleasure, a bit because I love Narnia and a bit because my daughter is a fan of films (she is 9 years old). I also understand why this movie is called the reboot series. The creators have nothing to do but to cut themselves off from their previous films, their cast and aesthetics. This is the only way to make something new and different using the content and fame of books. Although, of course, this means that the fourth film from the world of Narnia will again change the direction of the screening of the book cycle. Will it work? Hard to say. Waiting with hope. However, it does not change the fact that I will always watch the film cycle as a perfect example that you can fail and still earn some cash.
