Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
December 13, 2010
Michael Lynderey: I would say that's it. Yes, some franchises have pulled themselves up out of the rut, but I just don't see where they have left to go here, barring some grand but improbable gestures - like adding in a few name stars (...Taylor Lautner and Justin Bieber?), acquiring a mega-star director (James Cameron?!?), or unleashing the next film in 3D (just kidding). I still think this particular Narnia film can make it to $100 million, but whether the next one is out in May or December, I don't think it could.Perhaps with more boy wizards, house elves, or hobbitses...Kim Hollis: Do Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings stand out that much more for their triumphs?
Josh Spiegel: What Walden Media has tried to do with Narnia is what Warner Bros. successfully did with Harry Potter: bring to life a seven-book series in at least that many films. The undertaking is incredible whether the books are old or are still being released. The Lord of the Rings trilogy succeeds where Narnia does not by being consistently action-packed enough to be turned into films, and the Harry Potter series is similarly structured in a very cinematic sense. Narnia isn't the same, unfortunately.
Edwin Davies: The Harry Potter series is impressive because of the consistency it has displayed over the last decade. The series has been able to hold onto most of its audience in a way which Narnia simply has not been able to do, something which it has achieved partly through dint of the films being a better product but also because of the clockwork precision involved in making the series. They have delivered a film almost every year since 2001, ensuring that there was little possibility that people would forget about the series, which seems to have been one of the big stumbling blocks for the Narnia films. Though, in Narnia's defense, the Harry Potter film series benefited greatly from the fact that new Potter books were being released as the films were, and each of these was a huge event in itself which fed into the excitement surrounding the films, something which the Narnia series couldn't possibly hope for. Though if C.S. Lewis did rise from the grave to write another Narnia novel, I'm sure it'd be a pretty big deal.
Matthew Huntley: I would say Harry Potter does not stand out as much as LOTR. Like Edwin said, the parallel releasing of the latter Harry Potter books with the movies made the awareness that much higher, a luxury that makes it sort of unfair to compare to Narnia.
LOTR, on the other hand, does stand out and its success remains incredible. However, I'd be curious to know if The Hobbit finds similar success. When that film finally comes out, it will have been (likely) ten years since the last LOTR film. Will such a huge gap have a negative effect on its box-office? Only time will tell.
Jim Van Nest: I would argue that what WB has done with Harry Potter is nothing short of amazing. Tell me the last time any series got to a fourth movie that was any good. The fact that they've now put out seven HP films that have all had the same high level of quality, to me, is incredible. Not once has WB just "phoned one in" to get the inevitable cash flow...each film has actually been good. Believe me, if the Potter flicks started to suck, their audience would shrink as well. I think the success of the franchise is at least partially due to the quality of the projects.
Michael Lynderey: It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, most of the time. Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are mega-books and made for mega-movies on the same scale. The same is true in many ways of the first Narnia title. The rest were never as popular or ranked on the same level as the majority of Potter and Rings books, so the box office responded in kind. How often does a really well-selling book make for a total box office disappointment? It happens, but not most of the time.
Continued:
1
2
3
4
|
|
|
|
Print this column
