Narnia books without the Pevensie kids. Too risky to film?

[Jetfire]

I am not sure what movie theater you are going to...but if you cannot afford to buy a DVD or at least rent it...then you sure as hell can't afford to go see a movie in a theater.

How do you figure that? DVDs and Blu-Rays typically run from 30 to 40 dollars. A movie ticket where I live is no more than $8.50.

You are buying REALLY expensive DVDs.

Knight and Day, which just came out, is listed on Amazon for 16.99.

That would be the same price as you and a date going to a movie.

This.

[edit] The cost to see a movie in my area is $9.50...I can go through Netflix and "For only $7.99 a month, instantly watch unlimited TV episodes & movies streaming over the Internet to your TV via an Xbox 360, PS3, Wii or any other device that streams from Netflix. You can also watch instantly on your PC or Mac too!

Plus, get unlimited DVDs by mail for just $2 more a month - exchange each DVD as often as you want!"
http://www.netflix.com/HowItWorks

According to Wiki, Netflix has 100,000 titles.

as posted by Professor Zoom.

And I have personally bought DVDs from Amazon way cheaper than the cost of a movie ticket or buying it from places like Wal-Mart, Best Buy & Target.

 

[Mr Light]

Movie tickets here are $7.50 in the day... then I buy the Blu Ray / DVD combo for $20, keep the DVD, sell the Blu Ray on Amazon for about $16-18... it's a pretty sweet deal

 

[Admiral_Young]

Getting back on topic though since this thread seems to be spiraling out of control unto another topic...has anyone seen "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" yet? I'm supposed to see it this weekend with my brother (probably on Sat) and have read that it's probably the least faithful to the books out of the three films and I think I read that it is more in line to match the film continuity now. I know that I'm eager to see how Edmund and Lucy along with Eustace handle being the leads of the film along with Prince Caspian. I take it that Jadis once more has a lingering presence in the movie?

 

[Christopher]

I'm sorry, but, you keep repeating your question OVER and OVER. And a bunch of us are giving you the answer as to WHY it is NOW. So, forgive us, but it seems like you are missing the obvious.

No, you're missing my intent. I'm not asking a question in order to fill a gap in my knowledge. I'm asking a question in order to challenge the accepted assumptions about the way things are, to query whether they really have to be that way. Call it a rhetorical question. "Can't there be another way?" is not a question asked out of ignorance. It's a challenge to seek an alternative.

But all I've gotten in response is condescension and kneejerk hostility toward the idea that the way things are is not the only way they could be. And the thread has been dragged far enough off-topic as it was. So let's just drop the whole thing.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Yet you've not postulated any alternatives of your own to whatever it was your were challenging in the first place. Simply asking the question in the first place is not enough. Others as Zoom pointed out have asked you to give your thoughts on how things should be different yet you keep on nattering about what your intent was.

 

[AviTrek]

I am not sure what movie theater you are going to...but if you cannot afford to buy a DVD or at least rent it...then you sure as hell can't afford to go see a movie in a theater.

How do you figure that? DVDs and Blu-Rays typically run from 30 to 40 dollars. A movie ticket where I live is no more than $8.50.

Besides, as I already said, not every movie is available for rental. Netflix or Blockbuster doesn't have every conceivable title available. Rental is not a perfectly reliable means of obtaining movies. It is naturally better if there are multiple non-ownership options available, because you can't assume that a limitation in one delivery system (e.g. theaters) will be inevitably and perfectly compensated for by another. Options are good to have.

Time is money. If a movie isn't bringing in money, and there are other movies ready to come in, or a movie that IS taking in movie, you can put it on another screen.

I don't understand this assumption that I need to have the obvious explained to me. It is possible to understand the way things work and yet have enough imagination to be able to simply wonder if there might be another way of doing things. The people who wonder, rather than just spouting glib bromides and settling for the way things are, are the only ones who ever change anything for the better.

How do you see that? I'm curious.

See above. It's good to have multiple options. Differences are good and should be cultivated. Different ways of delivering entertainment have different advantages and drawbacks, and appeal to different segments of the population. So everyone's better off if there are multiple options to choose from.

Nothing is going to replace going to a movie theater. Like going to see a play. Someone will always want to go.

And that's exactly my point. Someone will always prefer to see a movie in the theater, but a system that requires you to get to the theater really, really quickly or miss out altogether is unfair to people like me who like going to the theater but can't necessarily do it at a moment's notice. People who are on a limited budget and have to pace out their theater visits, people who are busy and only get occasional opportunities to go to a theater, people who prefer to wait until the crowds have thinned out, whatever. I've missed the chance to see a lot of movies in the theater because they just don't stay there long enough anymore.

Christopher,

Let me explain it to you this way. The theaters want to make money. They don't care if a movie is a success for the studio or not, just that their seats are full. Theaters have a limited number screens/showtimes.

A theater can decide to keep Narnia on a screen as long as it wants. If a month from now the room is half empty, while there is a new movie coming out that will fill the seats, which movie do you think the theater will chose to show? This has nothing to do with the studio only caring about opening weekend. It has to do with the fact that theaters can make more money showing something else.

If a movie can continue to sell seats it will stay in theaters(see Avatar), but if 3 weeks in Narnia is showing to an empty room it will be replaced by something else that will fill the room.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Getting back on topic though since this thread seems to be spiraling out of control unto another topic...has anyone seen "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" yet? I'm supposed to see it this weekend with my brother (probably on Sat) and have read that it's probably the least faithful to the books out of the three films and I think I read that it is more in line to match the film continuity now. I know that I'm eager to see how Edmund and Lucy along with Eustace handle being the leads of the film along with Prince Caspian. I take it that Jadis once more has a lingering presence in the movie?

Jadis is once again in the movie -- much like she was in Prince Caspian -- as a symbol of temptation for Edmund. And yes, VotDT works very well in terms of film continuity. It does indeed leave a window open for a fourth film, but it also works well to end the series as a trilogy if, in fact, a fourth film doesn't get made. VotDT isn't a fantastic, noteworthy, or innovative movie. But it's entertaining as an unabashed fantasy movie. Caspian handles the swashbuckling hero role fairly well. Eustace has his moments. Some are good, some are grating. Edmund and Lucy are better than in the previous films. But neither are quite exceptional. But I still think audiences can enjoy the film, provided they have moderate expectations to begin with.

 

[Admiral_Young]

My problem with having Jadis as a temptation for Edmund is that they already explored this aspect in the previous movie and i thought he passed the test. Oh well...always good to see Tilda!! Thanks for the thoughts, looking forward to seeing it.

 

[marillion]

All this discussion about theatres is missing one important element. The question has to be raised as to how much of said (average $10) ticket price does the theatre get to keep? Don't most big chain theatres make their money on concessions? So if they have a film that performs badly overall, their overall concession intake will be down. So the sooner they get in a film that packs the house, the more revenue from overpriced (but admittedly YUMMY) popcorn and sodas they get.

 

[CaptainCanada]

All this discussion about theatres is missing one important element. The question has to be raised as to how much of said (average $10) ticket price does the theatre get to keep? Don't most big chain theatres make their money on concessions? So if they have a film that performs badly overall, their overall concession intake will be down. So the sooner they get in a film that packs the house, the more revenue from overpriced (but admittedly YUMMY) popcorn and sodas they get.

Ticket shares are a sliding percentage: on the first week, the studio makes almost all the money, and it gradually whittles down. Past a certain point, the theatres are making most of the money.

That's why theatres love movies like Avatar and Inception that do draw big crowds for months - but most movies just don't do that. Theatres would love to be able to justify keeping films in for longer, but the audiences aren't there.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

has anyone seen "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" yet?

Not yet. I am going this weekend, though.

 

[Gaith]

My problem with having Jadis as a temptation for Edmund is that they already explored this aspect in the previous movie and i thought he passed the test.

Too bad they're too boring to portray her tempting him in... more mature fashion...

 

[MNM]

but if 3 weeks in Narnia is showing to an empty room it will be replaced by something else that will fill the room.

I saw it today with my sister. Now granted it was a 13:50 showing on a tuesday, but apart from us, there were 3 other people there...

As for the original question? Make another film without the Pevensie kids, they are much too annoying anyway. Especially Lucy.

 

[Saga]

My problem with having Jadis as a temptation for Edmund is that they already explored this aspect in the previous movie and i thought he passed the test.

Too bad they're too boring to portray her tempting him in... more mature fashion...

well, in Dawn Treader she did tell him she could make him a man.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^ Yep. And she also mentions making him her "King." The implications are certainly there, if one has a mind to, shall we say, consider the possibilities.

 

[Gaith]

Huh. Do they occupy the same space? Does she touch him?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

She's spectral ... once again ... and reaches out to touch him. She's actually rather sensual about it, in a strange sort of way. There's nothing explicit about it. And perhaps I'm reading too much into it. But I would say it's not unreasonable to interpret her offers as, at least partly, sexual.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Let's also not forget that she's actually not real this time around. It's part Edmund's thinking, just like Lucy was thinking herself as Susan. It's the evil permeating them that's making it happen. I don't think anybody else but Edmund saw her.

 

[Gaith]

Hm. My hunch is that she can be as sensual as she likes, but so long as she doesn't physically occupy a common space, it can't really become a credible sexual temptation. Compare to the scene in The Golden Compass in which Lyra offers herself to Iofur as a daemon - it's an explicitly not-sexual scene and scenario, even apart from the whole species divide, but since they're walking around and breathing at each other, it carries that unmistakable charge. Spectral visions, OTOH... more akin to nudie mags/web sites: all promise, no potential.

Still, good on them for going as far as they did, I suppose, as Lewis probably wouldn't have even gone that far.

But I'd still be quite happy not to see any more Narnia movies produced.

 

[Gepard]

My problem with having Jadis as a temptation for Edmund is that they already explored this aspect in the previous movie and i thought he passed the test.

Her continued appearances in the series makes me wonder if they were setting her up as an ongoing villain, with plans to replace Tash with the White Witch in The Last Battle– assuming the films were to get that far. Having the Witch return with her followers to overthrow Narnia would sidestep the racial and cultural insensitivity of using ersatz Muslims as the evil opposition to our good Christians, and allow them to bookend the series with the same conflict that began it.

Heck, I know people have been questioning the viability of filming The Magicians Nephew, and that approach could allow the two to be rolled together into one story by weaving parts of Nephew into Battle as flashbacks, establishing how the Witch got to Narnia in the first place and why she's so powerful there. Plus you'd get the nice bookends of showing Aslan, the Witch and the Pevensie family present for both the creation and the destruction of Narnia.