PingBack from http://www.newworlds.ph/?p=103

I thought one Narnia movie was enough - but I thought that about the books too.  I haven't ever read the John Carter series, but the covers you're showing here are pretty scary.  All and all, my reaction is meh.

I hope not. The Narnia books are such a rich, rich source and  I much prefer them to the Potter books. As a child, my favourites were the final two (The Silver Chair and The Last Battle) and I was looking forward to seeing them realised on the silver screen. The Lion, the Witch wasn't great but nor was it too bad and it (surprisingly ) wasn't holed below the waterline by employing frightful stage school kids in the leading roles. Always puzzled me how British kids can't act whereas their American counterparts can. Maybe they spin a cocoon at 18 and come out a decade later as Daniel Day Lewis...

I don't think Prince Caspian will sell enough tickets this spring.  It opens three days before Indiana Jones 4!  So, yeah, three days of business and then it will vanish.   Although some people will see both, most theater goers will have to make a choice.  And I bet they go with Indy vs Aliens.

No! Continue the NARNIA series! There's no reason to pull the plug! You started something and you have to end it!

I'm not excited yet for Pixar to go into live-action.  Now Disney does the traditionally animated films and Pixar does the computer generated films.  In the long run, what kinds of live-action films will Pixar make?  

I hope Narnia does well- it'd be a shame to only release 2 or 3 movies out of the series.  Disney needs to have hope!  I didn't know about Indy 4 coming out so shortly after, though.  I think more younger kids will see Narnia vs. Indy, so hopefully the families with younger kids will choose Narnia...

It kind of bothers me that Disney is not planning on, at least now, taking their narnia project full circle.  Ok so the first two didn't do so hot, but obviously other companies worry about this franchise being that someone, forgive me for not remembering whom, released and plans to make the Golden Compass series.  I'm one of those people that believes that if you start something you have to carry it through, and Disney is doing just the opposite of that!

How about a little perspective here? The first Narnia movie made nearly $300M domestically and nearly $750M worldwide. That was within spitting distance of the figures for Fellowship of the Ring. That was a phenomenal financial success given the incredible popularity of the LOTR series. No one anticipates the other Narnia movies will come close to matching the LOTR second and third movies, but that doesn't mean they're not worth making. Even if they only make $200M domestically and $500M worldwide, doesn't that sound worthwhile? Of course there will always be someone to call them a "failure"...

I never read the Narnia books (instead reading LOTR seven times), but I enjoyed the Lion, Witch, & Wardrobe, and I look forward to Prince Caspian.

Narnia has more name recognition than John Carter of Mars.  It would be a mistake to expect the latter to do better than the former, I think.  Especially given the disappointing figures for space epics without "Star Wars" in the title as of late.

My daughter is looking forward to the second Narnia film. Also regarding Pixar doing live films, I think that's great. Why be limited to past experience. Or should I say Why type cast Pixar as "that studio that makes computer animation?" I hope all their fils do well.

As a longtime fan of the Narnia series I thought the first movie was terrific and have been looking forward to Prince Caspian and the others to come.  I think these are exactly the sort of classics Disney has done so well with and should make.  

Woo Hoo !!! It looks like a John Carter Movie is FINALLY going to happen ! Ptttht  to Naria ! ( christian propaganda- same old- mainstream fantasy bla bla bla ) Give use the green martians, sword fights and interplanetary romance we deserve !

*sigh*  Studios never learn, do they?

Narnia is a "long tail" project.  You do all the movies, make sure that you at least break even on the inital release, then make money for years after on rerelease/DVD.  Stopping after Dawn Treader leaves them in a position to lose huge amounts of goodwill, since they've made such a point of telling the world that they would produce the entire series.  After a while, fans start believing what you say.  Then they get really ticked if it's not true.

As for Pixar... welcome to the beginning of the end.  First off, you have to ask yourself "Why?"  Why does this film need to be done as live action instead of animated?  Does Pixar not have what it takes to develop a more serious minded story as animation?  Does the vaunted Pixar not have what it takes to finally push American animation to the next level, where it's accepted as more than "kiddie entertainment"?  Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird don't have any other envelopes to push in their current sphere?

The next question is, why does "Pixar" need to be the one to do these films as live action, and not Disney itself?  Looks to me, more and more, like Pixar is gearing up for an internal coup.

Disney has plenty on their plate.

Jungle Cruise Movie

Prince of Persia

They have plenty of opportunities to not only put new ideas on the table, but to start new franchises.

" Why does this film need to be done as live action instead of animated? "

Because A Princess of Mars is sexy , and as wonderful as The Incredibles is, it's not the right template for Mars.

Maybe Stanton and Bird just plain want to not only do animation all of their lives. As creatives, they have a right to do that.

My concern if they decide to do all 7 is the order of the movies.

The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe was the second book in the series, while Prince Caspian is the 4th book. Will we see the connections between the characters in the 1st book (magicians nephew) and the 2nd book when the 1st one is finally done?

I understand that the 2nd book is probably the most popular, but if they did not start with the first book, can they really do the whole series justice?

The BBC productions of the NARNIA Chronicles didn't do the entire series.  In fact, they did LION,WITCH, WARDROBE, PRINCE CASPIAN & VOYAGE OF DAWN TREADER, SILVER CHAIR...then quit.  If Disney does finish the chain out, I'd be pleaseantly surprised.

As for PIXAR Going live-action - more power to 'em.  With the computer animation capability they have, creating the worlds of pulp fiction from the golden age of Science Fiction is finally achievable in a believable format.  The line between Pixar and Disney is already melded into a non-existant mush, what difference does it make?

As for the JUNGLE CRUISE movie mentioned above...not much happening on that yet, really. PRINCE OF PERSIA may hit well, if follow through is continued.  But. the combination of Disney and Pixar into the live action adventure genres is a good thing...the arms of the company working in synergy with each other....as for Disney working with Warner on 1906...well, Disney worked with Paramount in the 80's on DRAGONSLAYER and POPEYE....so, this is nothing new....

I was going to bring up the same point that Skipperwest essentially did . . . no one has ever done the whole series (to my knowledge) of the Narnia books; the BBC got the farthest.    Though I even said it the first time that I heard Disney was supposed to do them all . . . that they would get bored and pull the plug.  Though I thought they would at least get to Dawn Treader.

As for the John Carter series . . . bad move.  Don't get me wrong, I loveloveLOVE those books.  But, I'm an adult sci fi geek who read them looking for a raw classic that was one of the founders of the whole genre when I read them for the first time.  Anyone who has read them needs only to think of how John GETS to Mars in the first place to realize that to todays audience, it will be completely laughable; not to mention just how un-PC the whole story is.  Again, they'll either have to change it to protect the studios' reputation or watch it tank )or alternately, get a good one-weekend return on the bad press).  The series will either fail - spectacularly - or they will have to change it so much it won't be John Carter any more.

Right...... All the tons of cool things in and if they tweak how Carter gets there series is a bust. AS for PC, sword fights on mars ain't PC or cool ? What makes you think they'll just take the books and xerox them into a screenplay ? Of course they need a rewrite, and that sure doesn't have to the essence of them. Return of the Jedi did a pretty good take on the material, they just need to it better. And it's Pixar. They will.

So why is everyone pissing on such wonderful news ? John Carter on screen ! Finally ! Pixar branches out - good for them ! Sheesh.

Heinlein's GLORY ROAD.  That's the one I've been waiting for a long, long time to get to the silver screen....

Waiting is.... ;)

Man From Mars - your first post - give us green aliens, et al...geesh....Captain James Kirk already went there! ;)

My big concern is, what does "huge business" mean? Is 500M enough? Is 400M? I would agree that if Caspian did Golden Compass numbers (70M domestic), then it probably should be pulled. But I personally would like them to do all 7.

I think the bigger issue might be that Disney has to share the profits from Narnia with Walden Media and they wouldn't have to share with anyone with the Mars series.

My big concern with the Mars series, is looking at the art attached, this doesn't look like Disney/Pixar family friendly (WAY too much skin). I don't know anything about this series, so maybe I am wrong.

To rspezzano: you are refering to the way the books are numbered RECENTLY. The books for MOST of their publishing life were: Lion, Caspian, Dawn Treader, Silver Chair, Horse, Nephew (these two might be reversed?), Last Battle. So no, they will be no confusion because MOST of us read them in the above order.

Actually, Princess of Mars is more of an influence. It was written decades before Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galatica, Adam Strange (a wholesale ripoff from DC Comics), etc.

I think the PC concern is probably more about the fact Carter served in the Confederate army before going to Mars, although PoM is awfully male wish-fulfillment in general. But I think that might make for more interesting character development.

WE could just tell people its Pirates on Mars. Maybe then they'd get it.

To jedited: ok, I read them in the recent order, although if I recall correctly, wasn't the person who owned the mansion in Lion (and who built the wardrobe), the boy from the magicians nephew? I think it flows better story wise in the current order, but that is just my opinion. If they want to appeal to the children market of today, these are the viewers that would have read the books in the recent order.

Personally, I'd love to see all of the Narnia films made, but maybe Disney wants to ax them because of all the other Golden Compasses and Spiderwicks etc that are coming out.

Its the same problem we had when Dreamworks and Blue Sky and everyone else started putting out a new computer animated film every two months.

It's probably smart for Disney to quit now, because it seems as though audiences are tiring of it quickly.

How many of these family-fantasy films can one person sit through?

You keep people interrested by bringing out the movies a year apart (like LOTR did), instead of two or three.

I can't remember being more excited than when those original trailers for the LOTR "Trilogy" ran in theaters. Touting ALL three movies instead of just one.

I still wonder why more franchises can't pull something like that off.

Regarding the Narnia books:  Jedited got the publication order correct, but chronologically withing the stories, the books are:

1) The Magician's Nephew (The title character is Digory Kirke, who grows up to be Professior Kirke in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.)

2) The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

3) The Horse and his Boy

4) Prince Caspian

5) The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

6) The Silver Chair

7) The Final Battle

So George Lucas isn't the only guy who plays around with sequel / prequel order ; )

Regarding Golden Compass:  As of February 20, 2008, Dakota Blue Richards hadn't been called back to film any sequels (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080220k.php).  The film cost $180 million to film, and made $345 M worldwide ($70 M US / $275 M foreign), but New Line Cinema SOLD MOST OF THE FOREIGN RELEASE RIGHTS.  On February 28th, Warner Brothers fired most of the 600 New Line employees; New Line is no longer a stand-alone unit, but will have business decisions made by Warner Brothers management.  The only shot Compass sequels had (according to Ms. Richards) was a strong Japan release on 3/1; it made $15M during it's first week in Japan.

I can't figure out why Disney would mess around with the Holiday release schedule for the Narnia books.  It promoted Lion, etc. as a Christian-friendly film, Christians came in droves.  Caspian was delayed (due to special effects problems, according to JHM), and was the Christian community was horrified to find the 2007 holiday movie schedule replacing the Narnia series with the Golden Compass series' strong anti-religious-authority message; US audiences stayed home in droves.  The Narnia series owns the holiday season; Disney could release "Aslan reads the AT&T Cleveland white pages" and make $300M.  Why would Disney plan to schedule the Narnia movies up against summer blockbusters (as Jim states at the end of his column)?

In Canada, all of my daughters friends families went to see the Golden Compass and the consensus was 'we sure liked that better than narnia..." ( this was a big topic at a new years party )

I've never seen what the Canadian box office was,  but culturally, the response was very different than it was in Texas.

Man from Mars - Please refrain from your obvious anti-religious blabber. I'm sure there are many other forums which would love to hear you slam Narnia & Christians... but not here. Thank you.

Anyway, while not a big fan of the Narnia books or movie, I'm surprised to hear this news. Why Disney is suddenly wary of this series is odd IMHO. I do think the release date is going to give it trouble.

While I am intrigued by anything Pixar does, I will admit to being nervous about making the jump to live-action. And not being familiar with the John Carter series... seeing the art shown here has me doubly concerned.

But, I trust Pixar's judgement. In the meantime I will keep my fingers crossed.

Only if you stop obvious pro-religious blather and talk about John Carter of Mars. :)

"According to what Mouse House insiders recently told me, Mark Andrews (i.e. the Oscar-nominated screenwriter of "Ratatouille")"

I'm sorry, whom?  I assume you're talking about the guy who wrote "One Man Band" and did story on "Jack-Jack Attack", but the guy *wasn't* nominated for Ratatouille[/i].

A point of clarification... what Pixar is getting into is live-action heavily

laced with computer graphic imagery, not the old pure live-action of

years ago.

With the improvements in CGI techniques and rendering become so life-like, there is

an increased blurring of what is "animation" and what is "real."

Having read both Narnia and John Carter as a child, I think there's room in

the Disney pantheon for both. IMHO, they appeal to different segments of

the viewing public.

This doesn't seem like the inside scoop of what is really happening at Disney.  Narnia was a sleeper hit, i.e. it made $744 million worldwide with a production budget of $180 million. . . these numbers are pretty fantastic and I would expect Disney to try to capitalize on all of this popularity.  I think that this next one, Prince Caspian, will make more.  Why?  Because the first one was a sleeper hit, but now audience know they are in store for something good and will line up to see this one at the theatres.  Plus the trailer looks really good for this one, i.e. looks like a well-made blockbluster, it doesn't have the fake feel of Golden Compass (a polar in armor yeah right), but feels like the real deal.  I would expect Prince Caspian to make as much at least as the first one plus 10% more . . . I don't how a movie can make about $744 in theatres, plus add on all the DVDs now sold and a film company would not make a sequel, especially a company that knows how to build a fan base and make reasonably good sequels like Disney.  Its like asking every 3 years, "Hey anybody want to give $200 million to get $1 Billion dollars plus continuing DVD sales?"  This is a no brainer for the financial folks.  

I think Caspian is going to make a bomb, maybe they just don't want to plan beyond Dawn Runner at the moment - and that's not really getting cold feet, just looking at more than one franchise.

I am excited about both series. I realize that Disney/Pixar can't man both at once. And one series shouldn't be slighted over the over.  

I say finish NARNIA. It numbers did well enough. I don't see where  the MARS series will make any better or worse numbers. INDIANA JONES is going to be dominant this year and hurt PRINCE CASPIAN but honor the fan base and finish the series instead of druming up PIRATES 4 or TOY STORY sequels.

PIXAR should remain animation in my opinion. Disney already has a live-action arm of the company. That it grow and thrive.  

How come all of a sudden they want to back out of the narnia series?  Seems to me there must be a reason.

My main point, however, is that Walden Media has been creating some wonderful, very Disney like films.  I wonder if they would have the right to continue the series if Disney decides to stop.

I'm sorry, but I've never even heard of "John Carter of Mars" or whatever. I don't know anyone who has heard of John Carter of Mars. I don't know anyone who would pay to see one John Carter of Mars movie, let alone multiple ones.

And before all you high-brow sci-fi types start casting aspersions, my brother is one of the biggest sci-fi nerds on the planet and he and his friends are into all that crap.

John Carter of Mars? Never heard of it. I think this thread has come full circle, because my reaction is the same as that of Smilee306 (i.e. first poster in this thread) ... meh.

But to be fair, I didn't see any of the Narnia films either.

"... meh."  = someone who has no fun in life.

We knew it was in development. But according to our buddies at Jim Hill Media, Disney and Pixar are moving forward with a film-trilogy based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars series for 2012 at the earliest... if not sooner than that. Mark

Pickstar> The thing, while Tarzan moved past pulpy novels into movies, John Carter didn't (if imdb is any indication). He was followed up by Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon and ripped off wholesale as DC Comics' Adam Strange. It's pure pulp sci-fi that occupies an odd space between tv/movie sci-fi fandom and literary sci-fi fandom. It's definitely an influence on most pop sci-fi out there but it's akin to how dime novels and Buffalo Bill's Wild West show influenced the Western. But Princess of Mars is still in print.

John Carter of Mars: If Andrew Stanton and Pixar want to dabble in live-action films, I see no reason why their "story first" motto won't work in that venue.  Good luck to both Stanton and Brad Bird; they're both excellent directors and I'm sure they'll come out with quality product.  That said, if they want to move John Carter into the 21st Century, Pixar will have to remove a lot of the more dated elements of the original story.

Narnia Chronicles: I agree with Longaway, if Disney completes the entire Narnia series on film, with the same production values they had in LW&W and Prince Caspian, they'll have a catalog series that will keep making money on home video until the sun goes supernova.  As of 2006, the books have sold over 100 million copies, and have been reprinted in 41 different languages.  Sure, that's 1/4 of what Harry Potter's pulled, but the Narnia books are established classics.  Even if the subsequent movies don't do as well, they'll more than make it up on home video.

And $744,783,957 worldwide for The Lion, The Witch and Wardrobe? That's nothing to sneeze at.

There is no question that it's the Pixar name that is going to be selling a Carter of Mars film to a public that has never heard of him and only has a vague (if that) inkling of who Edgar Rice Burroughs even is. And hopefully they can pull through with an appealling story for the franchise... I remember when Kerry Conran's name was being thrown about for directing a Carter of Mars film in the wake of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" - an original homage to the same era of Science Fiction - until "Sky Captain" didn't really go anywhere except with hardcore nerds of 1920's and 30's movies like me.

I don't know if I'm holding out for it to be good, but I am strangely looking forward to it. I've been quite derisive of the fact that every Pixar movie is about the wacky and hip secret life of toys/bugs/fish/cars/monsters/superheroes/rats who are funny because they're just like us... If they can break out of that mold by turning Carter of Mars into a serious but still all-ages live action franchise, that would be great. More power to them! I just hope they don't top of Toy Story, Bug Story, Monster Story, Fish Story, Car Story, etc. with Martian Story.

I attended the RATATOUILLE Int. Press Junket in Paris last June. Brad Bird, John Lasseter and Jim Morris (ex-ILM) were in attendance. Having been a hardcore "Princess of Mars" fan since childhood, I dedided to ask John Lasseter straight (whom I've interviewed four times previously, also during two Pixar visits at Emeryville). My question to John was: "Can you comment on JOHN CARTER OF MARS, and if Pixar is involved in any way?" John shot a serious glance at me and said: "Sorry, I can't talk about that." When I tried to press the subject further, he elaborated: "This is not the right time to talk about that." So, I knew I had hit a nerve, but I wanted to do it as diplomatically as possible. During the RATATOUILLE junket, I asked the same from Brad Bird (another mensch). He openly admitted that he has nothing to do with JOHN CARTER OF MARS. (Soon afterwards, I learned that the director would be Andrew Stanton, since the Pixar staff had visited the Estate of ERB some time earlier.) I've been following the posts here, and it's evident to me that many people have neither heard nor read these books. I think it should be remembered that the 11 "Mars" books were originally written by none other than Edgar Rice Burroughs, the legendary creator of TARZAN. According to some unconfirmed sources, ERB loved the "Mars/John Carter" worlds more than TARZAN, which he was obliged to continue in order to make a living. I think we live in incredible times, when long-awaited projects such as JOHN CARTER OF MARS, the TINTIN graphic novel series (to be directed by Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson) and WATCHMEN (Zach Snyder/Warner Bros.) are finally about to see the light of day. Those of you who have your doubts about Pixar and fearing about "too much skin" should maybe try to take a "wait and see" attitude. Pixar hasn't failed yet, and will unlikely do so in the foreseeable future. Personally I'm somewhat biased being such a big fan, but I salute this brave decision to make a TRILOGY of "John Carter of Mars" movies! Last but not least, those of you who aren't familiar with this property, I recommend you to go to either Amazon, eBay or your local library. The books are even available to read on the Web, if you do a little searching. They may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I think they're a classic piece of pulp sci-fi, which have influenced SO MANY filmmakers (George Lucas among others.). Have a nice day.

I'm perplexed at how people not being familiar with a story means they won't want to go see it. Since when? No one had ever heard of the Matrix comic prior to it's film release, but the trailers blew us away and people clamored to see the film. Heck, who had ever heard of Indian Jones prior to Raiders of the Lost Arc? It's the story that will make or break the film, not whether US pre-teens who can't find Canada on a map are familiar with it or not.  

Pickstar, your brother and his friends have a long way to go before they can claim full nerd-dom. John Carter has been featured in recent Tarzan comics, and even in the The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (the comic, not the poorly contrived film). John Carter is a well known literary character as well, being the literary sibling of Tarzan himself. But all that is besides the point. The point is it's rich soil for storytelling in today's movie media, and we've finally reached an era when we can tell those stories with some believability.

Now, not following through on the Narnia films is disappointing. They have the dough and the devices to be the first to make it happen, and they're blowing it, for no apparent reason other they seem bored.

Rspezzano, Magician's Nephew was indeed a prequel. It was the sixth book in the series. The chronological order does put Nephew first, and supposedly, Lewis preferred that order. But the printing in that order is VERY recent. At the time the first Narnia film was made, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe WAS the first in the then current order for the books.

Does anyone know what the heck captainhook91 is mad about? I didn't see any "anti-religious blabber".

I agree wholeheartedly with Digital Jedi above. Have personally nothing against Disney continuing the NARNIA franchise either, as long as it keeps on earning the B.O. dough for them.

As for Tensik's concern earlier in view of how to explain John Carter's voyage to Barsoom (as originally described in "A Princess of Mars"), I'm positive that Pixar and the screenwriter will tackle this problem through a proper reinvention. The way I see it, in the adaptation Barsoom could be explained as either:

a) an alternate reality or dimension of Mars/Barsoom

b) or that Captain Carter somehow arrives at Mars/Barsoom millions

of years ago, a la STAR WARS "a long, long time ago in a galaxy far away..."

I think some of you sceptics ought to get acquainted with the absolute coolness of Captain John Carter's character. He represents "old Southern gentlemanly values" and he's an oldfashioned HERO in the truest sense of the word. With the right actor playing the lead, John Carter could be just as memorable and charismatic as i.e. Indiana Jones played by Harrison Ford or many of the characters Errol Flynn played ("Sea Hawk," "Captain Blood") on the screen.

As for the "darkness" and the violence inherent in the Carter books, I'm sure that Disney/Pixar will be obliged to tone down the graphic violence somewhat. (There's quite a few decapitations and skewering in the "Mars" books!) However, the sword duels in these books also happen to be the most riveting and FUN ever. Edgar Rice Burroughs clearly had a lot of fun writing this action. Most importantly, the duel action could be easily done in the vein of the "Pirates of the Caribbean"/PG-13 style. You can get away with A LOT with that rating nowadays.

Now, if Pixar only could be persuaded to recruit WETA Workshop to do all those cool weapons, gadgets and costumes of the various races on Barsoom. (I know for a fact that WETA would love to do it, if they'd be asked.) I'll be first in line on the opening day, no matter what!

First, the Narnia series has hugely major legs both domestically and internationally and has something that most live-action franchises (including Indy, Potter, and the rest) do not have---expensive stars entitled to expensive perks and residuals that run the budgets up higher and higher as the series grows in popularity. Even though "Lion, Witch, Wardrobe" was a huge mega-hit sleeper, it didn't make any of the kids that much pricier the way, for example, the Potter deal (which was, fyi, originally made with the kids for only the first THREE films) has done for its growing-fast child stars. As for "Golden Compass"? It was a major FLOP, folks. It is also doing strictly so-so biz in DVD sales etc. etc.  But I seriously doubt the Disney/Walden plan was ever to do all seven "Narnia" books since they started with the 2nd and the first just won't have much 'zing' as a prequel due to its 60/40 earth-Narnia settings.  They may also combine a few books together or parts of them, just as, on the other side of the coin, the announcement was just made that the last "Harry Potter" will actually be made as TWO features because the 700-plus page book would have required too much hacking away to make it fit in a single film's feasable running time. Happily the "Narnia" books are short and won't run into that problem, and btw, if you haven't ever read them, no matter your age, you should. I did thanks to seeing the film and wondering what the fuss was all about and found them charming...and I'm no child.

Now as to the Brad Bird film--my reading of descriptions of the story in the trades is that it is mostly a mystery/adventure/intrigue story which HAPPENS to be set in San Francisco on the eve of the great quake and in which the quake is the climax that resolves the characters' interactions, but that hardly makes it a "disaster movie" per se. From the original MGM classic that gave the world the song "San Francisco (Open Your Golden Gate)" to a recent Clive Cussler novel that's been a pretty standard treatment of the event in films and books, but either way an earthquake sequence in an animated film just wouldn't have the same stand-out importance, I think, and I trust Bird to know whether his story works best as live-action or not.

Now about Mars and the Edgar Rice Burroughs books....it has always been kind of interesting to me that, given the HUGE and long-running popularity of the "Tarzan" stories, going back to the silent Elmo Lincoln starrer and through Johnny Weismuller's famous yell and the later features and Ron Ely TV series and, by extension, even the animated "George of the Jungle"...that the rest of the Burroughs opus has basically been ignored by Hollywood. It's about time, and I, for one, will look forward to it and to ME the big creative challenge will be: Do we do this as a "modern" SciFi film in style, or do we do it "period" to its roots in the Flash-Gordon-esque 1930's-style of SciFi a la the recent revamps of Disney "Tomorrowland" theming? Considering the fantasy elements of princesses and the like, I'd vote for the latter, but the marketing people may have a say re. what kinds of toys and spin-offs they think would be more profitable.

There's one more thing: Almost ALL of the recent sci-fi films about expeditions to Mars have been losers at the boxoffice--its almost axiomatic that Mars films that aren't b-picture-type serial fodder are predestined to fail, the same way that baseball-themed movies (until a few special ones in recent years) were shunned by the studios as guaranteed flops. Disney may also be banking on a renewed interest in exploration of Mars in the real world which is, after all, expected by many in the NASA community to become "the next big thing" in coming decades.

We'll see....

With all due respect, JohnWayne, I don't think you can directly compare JOHN CARTER OF MARS with the already made Mars themed movies, as it's VERY different in overall tone and style. As you know, we're talkin' fantasy mixed with classic pulp sci-fi. (I do agree with you that the films should be visualized with a very sleek Flash Gordon-esque aesthetics, one which would appeal to adults and kiddies alike.)

Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom is a world which actually rivals THE LORD OF THE RINGS in terms of diversity, races, creatures and languages. I mean its general complexity. The Barsoom of ERB has among others vegetation and growth, huge cities, seas and rivers. Thus we'd hopefully see Barsoom/Mars BEFORE it becomes the RED PLANET we all know it to be. Of course, it DOES also contain the barren desert areas that Mars is so famous for.

Thus creating ERB's Barsoom on the silver screen hasn't offered a huge challenge for film-makers only due to the state-of-the-art EFX it requires. It's also the complexity of Barsoom itself which offers a huge challenge. Especially if you'd have to explain it all to the audience in only ONE MOVIE. I salute Disney/Pixar for having the cojones to make it a TRILOGY. (And maybe beyond, depending ultimately on global B.O.)

BTW, has anyone thought that Disney/Pixar might actually make Barsoom a TOTALLY SEPARATE PLANET OF ITS OWN, to avoid any obvious misunderstandings and comparisons with Mars...?

NARNIA is irreplaceable from genius CS Lewis.  But, NARNIA remains juvenile literature.  Putting it against Indiana Jones is akin Alice in Wonderland vs. Gone With the Wind - not an equal cinema fight.

If Disney doesn't comprehend NARNIA's cinema value for generations to come, it's their own ignorance.  It would be like Fantasia or Frank Capra's 'Wonderful Life' discerned as forever flops because of sagging first year ticket sales.   8(

Years from now, if Disney jumps, I'll bet Walden Media stays resolute.

Digital Jedi - For the record, when Man from Mars says, "...Ptttht  to Naria ! ( christian propaganda- same old- mainstream fantasy bla bla bla )..." I take that as an unwarranted (and out of place concerning the topic at hand) shot at religon. So I asked him to stop. I wasn't mad, just annoyed.

Anyway, good discussion. I am completely unfamiliar with the Carter series, but I do have faith that Pixar will A) Pick suitable material, and B)Do the right thing with it. However, even from the posts on here, I have a hard time seeing how it might be successful. It sounds more like the 'dumb-retro' as opposed to 'cool-retro'. But, I speak from ignorance on it... so I'm off to the library to check it out.

Wish me luck.

Dear captainhook91: When you get your hook around a dog-eared copy of A PRINCESS OF MARS, bear in mind that it was written around 1912. Therefore it obviously has the grammatical and narrative style of THAT era. But who cares? The TARZAN stories were written around that time, the works by Jules Verne and Alexandre Dumas even earlier. You can't put a good yarn down. You probably aren't a kiddie -- as I was when I laid my eyes on a John Carter book the first time -- but I wish you happy reading nonetheless. (Personally speaking, Burroughs' first-person Gothic Space Western narrative style left its indelible mark on me.)

In case any of you current (or future) Barsoom fans are interested, you can also find ALL 12 of the "John Carter of Mars" books (for free) right at this link:

http://www.barsoomian.net/

They'll make your day. I promise.

BarsoomM66--I agree on most everything you said, but in your reply to captainhook91 you touched on something we should all consider. Is it justifiable to say that since the Burroughs Mars books were written in the 19-teens they are okay in their sexual/violence/political/social stereotypes.....and yet have the folks at Disney say that they cannot release "Song Of the South" because of its old-fashioned racial attitudes? I'm with you about not judging by today's standards the works of other eras AND that great stories are great stories, regardless of era. I'm just sayin'....that old bugaboo of political correctness is gonna bite the Barsoom epics too, and if it doesn't, they'll sadly have been "cleaned up" so much that true fans may not recognize them.

But Mars wasn't racist, the Black Pirates rocked.

JohnWayne and Man from Mars, I have my hat in my hand -- you're both on the ball. Since EBR described the Red and Green Martians (Tharks) as more or less naked, it would definitely be WEIRD to see them in jumpsuits in the films! ;-) No, I think Disney/Pixar will have enough good taste to remain loyal in terms of the Martian wardrobe, while not alienating i.e. Christians, Jews and Muslims, who might find semi-nakedness extremely offensive. (Again I'm biased here, but privately I wouldn't mind seeing Frank Frazetta working as one of the conceptual artists for Pixar - or at least one of THE inspirations for them) It'll be interesting to see how much "PC" will be ultimately applied here. Let's hope for equal depiction in terms of the many races of Barsoom, and yeah, Man from Mars -- those Black Pirates always were handsome, fiendish devils! (no racial pun intended here)

Dear JohnWayne: One more thought regarding the very interesting concerns you raised in view of ERB's JOHN CARTER OF MARS SERIES. Despite the fact that Disney/Pixar will likely apply some sense of "political correctness" into this series, I'd love to see them have enough guts to make it more or less like "RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK meets Errol Flynn." I mean, if you don't keep this series at least on the level of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN/PG-13 type of violence, then most of us hardcore fans will be VERY disappointed. Whomever they ultimately choose to portray Captain John "Jack" Carter, he must have enough personal charisma, gravitas and athletic prowess to carry the role. (Basically finding a new Harrison Ford or Errol Flynn wouldn't hurt here.) The sword-fighting sequences in the books allow for even more fanciful swashbuckling on the silver screen; with breathtaking choreography, physical feats and a proper dose of "twirling the moustache" by the antagonists. In the MARS series, the villains are true wily 'n' vicious bastards -- NOT that far removed from the late great Basil Rathbone -- whose Machiavellian facial expressions often spoke more than a thousand words. Edgar Rice Burroughs perhaps wasn't Norman Mailer, but this was ERB's forte -- simple but very entertaining characterization. It still captures my fancy, many decades later after I first read the books. I don't read the whole series once a year -- as Christopher "Saruman" Lee reportedly does with THE LORD OF THE RINGS -- but if Disney/Pixar won't do a half-assed job with the film adaptations, I bet I'll go straight back to the ERB source. And what's even more convenient, they're readily available on the Web, when I feel the urge to revisit these very, very dear characters, worlds and adventures. Disney/Pixar now has the opportunity of a LIFETIME to make it RIGHT. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

BarsoomM66...let me add one more requirement to yours re. the actor who is chosen as Carter---YOUTH. I don't think I'm the only person who is anticipating the new Indy film with a mix of excitement at the idea in general and dread at the potential for farce in Harrison Ford's age in this installment making him more like Sean Connery playing Papa Jones and less like the Indy we know and love. Installments of "franchise" movie runs tend to stretch out over years and years, and as we've seen in the past with the several James Bonds and others, nothing lasts forever. Meanwhile, re. putting naked multicolored Martians in jumpsuits kind of made me laugh and then reminded me of those pix Jim put up of the re-do of "Superstar Limo" with former Hollywood AA figures yellow-jumpsuited and hooded for the new Monsters, Inc. re-theme job. Of course, movies are all about suspense as well as swordplay....and a green Martian IN a jumpsuit does offer the director the option of a suspense moment (I say euphemistically) for that Martian to peel OUT of the jumpsuit. Oh. Wait. We were going for a PG, right? I wonder if maybe Yvonne Craig is available to reprise her famous "Star Trek" role in green?

Okay, one more reach: Maybe there would be casting problems if they did naked colorful Martians because no actor in Hollywood would want to get a reputation as a "Little" Green Man? (Smile)

I'm wondering if Jim's got this all wrong. We've known for a while about Pixar having the John Carter property, and Stanton's attachment. They've got 2 Narnia in the pipline - isn't this really about timing and not putting your eggs in 1 basket. They DID go get the Mars series from Paramount as  another series. Pirates has had it's run, Caspian will probably do very well, but is it wise to commit to 7 movies ? They've made quite the jump going ahead with 2 and 3 right after 1.

As for Mars as a series, there are 11 books, some good, some not so good, but lot's of great material. But they begin with a trilogy, A Princess of Mars, The Gods of Mars, and Warlord of Mars. Princess and Gods are great, Warlord ( in my humble, but Mars loving opinion ) could be rolled  into Gods. Anyways, it's a finite target.

I think they're just trying to play as many cards as they can ( Narnia and Mars ) and why shouldn't they ? Committing to 7 books up front  at $ 180 mil. each ? Yikes.

Cough. " As for "Golden Compass"? It was a major FLOP, folks. It is also doing strictly so-so biz in DVD sales etc. " is not out  on DVD yet. And the US is not the only market.

Valid points, my good JohnWayne :-) Of course, in older Bond movies like "Moonraker" (1979) there were always titillating pleasures to be had for us male viewers, when voluptious Bond gals like Lois Chiles peeled themselves tantalisingly out of those yellow Space Shuttle jumpsuits... Mind you, I wouldn't presume the Barsoomian/Martian women (regardless of their skin color) to be ANY LESS voluptious on the screen... LOL. Well. I totally agree with you regarding the youth of John Carter. Harrison Ford was in his late thirties, when he played Indy in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Likewise Daniel Craig (in my biased opinion the BEST 007 ever after Sean Connery) was in his late thirties, when he portrayed 007 in the new CASINO ROYALE. Now that we're faced with rumors of a live action JOHN CARTER OF MARS, who could and should play him? The actor ought to be in his early to mid-thirties, surely. Josh Duhamel? Christian Bale? Brandon Routh? The jury's out. However, I bet your patooties that when the Pixar head honchos visited the ERB Estate in Tarzana over a year ago, Danton Burroughs must have urged them to find a "handsome, charismatic fella" to play Jack Carter on the screen.

Just as a reminder, THIS is the description Disney/Pixar should aim for (kindly borrowed from the "Foreword" in A PRINCESS OF MARS) :

"My first recollection of Captain Carter is of the few months he spent at my father's home in Virginia, just prior to the opening of the civil war. I was then a child of but five years, yet I well remember the tall, dark, smooth-faced, athletic man whom I called Uncle Jack.  

He seemed always to be laughing; and he entered into the sports of the children with the same hearty good fellowship he displayed toward those pastimes in which the men and women of his own age indulged; or he would sit for an hour at a time entertaining my old grandmother with stories of his strange, wild life in all parts of the world. We all loved him, and our slaves fairly worshipped the ground he trod.  

He was a splendid specimen of manhood, standing a good two inches over six feet, broad of shoulder and narrow of hip, with the carriage of the trained fighting man. His features were regular and clear cut, his hair black and closely cropped, while his eyes were of a steel gray, reflecting a strong and loyal character, filled with fire and initiative. His manners were perfect, and his courtliness was that of a typical southern gentleman of the highest type."  

(And just you wait when he draws out his long-sword and starts FIGHTING.)

Disney sources wrote to the admins of www.NarniaWeb.com—Jim's story is completely false according to the report. Not that he meant to be completely false...! ;)

Either way, *Walden Media has the rights to produce Narnia*, so it's highly unlikely that the films would stop if Disney pulled out of the franchise.

(JohnWayne) "But I seriously doubt the Disney/Walden plan was ever to do all seven "Narnia" books since they started with the 2nd and the first just won't have much 'zing' as a prequel due to its 60/40 earth-Narnia settings."

Agh, in the asinine chronological order perhaps LWW was second, but it was first published, so it makes total sense to film it first. If they had done Magician's Nephew first, I think it might have just flopped. It's much less well known.

I read some of the Carter series as a kid, and even then I thought they were the most cornball stories ever. I reread one of them as a teen, and still thought they were cornball and incredibly derivative. Doing a series of films about that dreck would be a disaster IMO.

And oh, Jim...your worries about Narnia are overblown IMO. According to USAToday:

*Most Replayed (Commercial) on DVRs: Walt Disney's The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian ws the most-replayed ad via DVR, with 4.1 million viewers.*

This was during THE SUPER BOWL.

I think that displays a certain level of interest...

" incredibly derivative" of what ? He invented it oh informed one.

gigglesock -- You're perfectly entitled to your personal opinion about JCOM being too "cornball" for your taste, but Man from Mars is on the ball here. Edgar Rice Burroughs DIDN'T borrow from his predecessors (there were darn few of 'em making an honest living in the early 20th century), rather on the contrary -- many since have borrowed from HIM. George Lucas is a perfect example. Lucas' word "Sith" is derived -- incredibly as it may sound! -- from a monstrous flying insect in the MARS books. Princess Leia played by Carrie Fisher has more than a few similar characteristics with Helium Princess Dejah Thoris. The desert fortress battle in STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES resembles certain Barsoomian skirmishes more than Mr. Lucas would probably wish to admit. I'm sure there are plenty more "steals" from JOHN CARTER OF MARS. Get your facts straight, gigglesock.

Since I personally feel that this "John Carter of Mars" vs. Narnia piece of news needs wider attention on the Web, I leaked word of it to editor Garth Franklin at Dark Horizons, a respected movie website in Australia. I'm glad to see he printed this Jim Hill Media news flash:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080319e.php

Jim, with all due respect, I seriously question your judgment on this matter.

Think this through.  Narnia is a highly-established book series with an absolutely massive following that's been growing for half a century.  While I'm not extremely familiar with the Mars novels (I'm much more familiar with ERB's Tarzan series), I certainly know that its fanbase is minuscule in comparison to Narnia's.  Why on earth would Disney be considering dropping Narnia in favor of Mars when logically Narnia is the more practical choice?  Futhermore, why is this an either/or issue?  I'm not quite seeing why one would have to be scrapped in favor of another, especially when Disney has been rebounding rather nicely since Iger took over.

Listen, I love Pixar, and although I'm only vaguely familiar with the Mars series, I'm sure that the folks in Emeryville will continue to make fantastic films.  But I'm not seeing any sort of sound logic being used here.  It doesn't add up, Jim.

As far as people being concerned about how well Caspian will do at the B.O. this May, I do agree that Indy is a very formidable competitor.  However, please remember that another hugely hyped, high-budget film (you know which one I'm talking about) was released a mere week after Lion and in the end, Narnia came out on top by a considerable margin.  Sure, Narnia will probably experience a steep drop when Indy comes out, but if it performs like Lion, it will have incredible legs.  Also kindly remember that Lion also outgrossed Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire at the domestic B.O., another achievement that no one was expecting.  I'm not saying that Caspian will outgross Indy or that even has to, but I'm fairly certain that it will hold its own and continue to prove itself a highly lucrative franchise for Disney and Walden.

I grew up with the Narnia novels and love them more than any other book series, so perhaps I'm biased.  But logically, I don't understand how greenlighting Mars at the expense of Narnia makes any sense at all.

But we NEED Mars. Like Mars needs women.

I think the reporting is a little skewed. Disney has committed to 3 and has another series coinciding. I think they'll just have to pace themselves. And as I've said, they don't everything in one basket.

I'm biased too. The Mars series are my favorites.

Changeling---I agree that the first book would have been less successful, and the reason is, as I stated before, that it takes place at least 50-60% on EARTH instead of in Narnia and is really just a foundation for the other stories. But that is also why producing it as a "prequel" would be an iffy proposition. It just doesn't have the same "zing" as a MOVIE, while as a book it shows the wit, style, and character-building skills of the author and can be very much enjoyed on those alone.

As for the mixing, matching, and morphing of series books, consider "Master and Commander" which actually took TWO of the Aubrey/Maturin books and morphed them together. The film did very well, but the costs involved in filming it made sequels just not quite a strong enough bet for the studio to make..but MOSTLY because carrying on with Russell Crowe as Jack Aubrey would be VERY expensive, and that was my point to Barsoom about picking an established vrs. an unknown star when you begin one of these things. If the material is strong enough and you cast well, it is both dramatically and financially more viable to go with an unknown and, if you're hoping for a long series, a young one who can "grow" in the part without growing out of it.

Yea, I can't see 'known' actors in the main roles. Although I had heard that Favreau was interested in Eric Bana for the lead at the time.  Not that I'd complain about that... - Man from Mars and inconsistent.

Y'know what just occurred to me that we HAVEN'T spoken of in this thread (as if we'd left ANYthing out by now--but we did! Honest! Look:):

Will the Mars revival of interest in Burroughs lead to a revival of a live-action film of...TARZAN! You know, a kind of "re-imagined" and even "darker" more realistic one than the past semi-fantasies? Think the way both the Burton "Batman" movies and the newer "Dark Knight" ones took a well-known commodity and adapted a new take, and in this case maybe a more authentic-to-the-source take?

Del-Toro (Hellboy ) has been talking about one.

JohnWayne said:

Will the Mars revival of interest in Burroughs lead to a revival of a live-action film of...TARZAN! You know, a kind of "re-imagined" and even "darker" more realistic one than the past semi-fantasies? Think the way both the Burton "Batman" movies and the newer "Dark Knight" ones took a well-known commodity and adapted a new take, and in this case maybe a more authentic-to-the-source take?"

Batman Begins/Dark Knight aren't really "re-imaginings" as much as they took the comic's approach and adapted it faithfully

Great article.  Goes to show there is always something in the wings.  Thanks for answering a big question I had when I threw a post about the John Carter movie a couple of weeks ago, namely where is any new information.  Those domain names sure look like a big tip off.

Thanks again Jim, here is a post to the article with a couple of background links.  Even some animation from the original 1936 attempt to animate John Carter.

http://themazdisneyblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/pixars-turn-at-john-carter-from-mars.html#links

Ed Mazzilli

Barsoom, et al, frankly I don't care if Lucas' Star Wars was inspired by Burrough's John Carter. That's like saying Aardman was inspired by Clokey's crude, cornball Gumby. It might have come first but man did its descendant get improved upon! Frankly I think most people who hear that title  - John Carter of Mars - are gonna think the whole thing is high camp. Which is what I thought of the books when I read them as a teen. Hoo boy. Might as well make a film series out of Jack Armstrong, All American Boy!

jedited: "My big concern with the Mars series, is looking at the art attached, this doesn't look like Disney/Pixar family friendly (WAY too much skin)."

Other have already said this, but the art attached actually shows a little too much clothing.  In the books, both men and women basically just wear loincloths.  Well, they also wear lots of jewlery, and harnesses, and sometimes armor, but no shirts, haltertops or bras.

Also, there's been some joking here about sexy green woman, but the Green Martians (men and women) are pretty ugly.  Nine feet tall with four arms, insect eyes and tusks.  The Red Martians are the human-like ones (and John Carter falls in love with a Red Martian princess)

Pickstar: "And before all you high-brow sci-fi types start casting aspersions"

Actually, John Carter of Mars is pretty low-brow, and barely sci-fi.  it's great stuff, but anyone thinking it is anything like Star Wars or Star Trek will be dissappointed. More like Sinbad or Conan (well, a little less brutal than Conan), but on Mars where the monsters, animals and nations/peoples can be totally made up and very weird.

ShadZane, you're right. There never was too many clothes to speak of in the JOHN CARTER OF MARS books. I don't remember there having been an uproar about it in 1910's and 1920's, when ERB wrote his books. Now whether we'll see the Barsoomians dressed in jumpsuits or mere loincloths in the final films, I suspect that the human actors may actually have to go through the "300" school of building their BODY PHYSIQUES from ground up. Boot camp a la Dale Dye? Who knows. THAT is how the Green and Red Martians are depicted in ERB's books -- as sinewy, sleek and sexy. With formidable fighting skills. Yes, it's possible that MARS could reignite a renewed interest in TARZAN. But like Man from Mars, I'm pretty biased here. I'd love to see at least 3-4 well-made MARS movies before ANYTHING ELSE. NARNIA could happily co-exist -- and why wouldn't it? -- as long as it keeps on puttin' bums on seats, folks. That's what it's ultimately all about, in case we've all forgotten. These movies (MARS, NARNIA, TARZAN) are just way, way too expensive to be made just for the sake of charity. Box-office is King, alas.

I think that the JOHN CARTER OF MARS series has earned a "sci-fi rep" purely due to the fact that the books are set on Mars/Barsoom. However, towards the end of this series, the Barsoomians and Earthlings even travel to other moons and planets. (No wonder that ERB wrote a separate VENUS series; he was clearly very fascinated by all this interplanetary stuff.)

JCOM is more "dark fantasy" a la Conan. It doesn't put the same emphasis on sex and eroticism, although the martial Barsoomian men are often very handsome and the women... well, you often just fall head over heels for them, like in the case of Helium's Princess Dejah Thoris. (Now there is a true HOTTIE!)

Any-whoo, it's interesting how ERB mixed a Tarzanesque narrative and style with almost pure Lovecraftian sci-fi/horror elements. In many of the books the ambience is nothing less than GOTHIC. Also, there are plenty of monsters abound, but unlike H.P. Lovecraft, ERB describes them in almost nauseating detail. (Not that I have anything against that. ERB always was a master story-teller.)

This makes me wonder, if gigglesock has even read some of the later JCOM books, like "The Mastermind of Mars," "The Chessmen of Mars" or "Synthetic Men of Mars." They're definitely not cornball. They were written more for adults, who grew to love these types of WEIRD "Space Gothic 'N' Fantasy" tales. They were definitely not the type of "Dan Dare kiddie stuff" that seems to rile you up so much.

Talking about secondary characters, I can't wait to see how they'll portray Ras Thavas, the Machiavellian mastermind of Mars on the screen. This guy invents invisible cloaks, exotic ray weaponry and Lovecraftian monsters like it was children's play to him. Ras Thavas is more like a wily 'Q' of the Bond series, albeit with a formidable knowledge/know-how in many arcane sciences unknown to Earthlings like John Carter.

WDWTITAN, I agree re. going back to the source material--at least the more recent graphic novels Frank did of Batman--but when I said "reimagined" I meant in comparison to the lighter, campier screen versions of Batman both in the Adam West series and the earlier serial versions in the 1940's. I was comparing movie-styles-to-movie-styles, not source materials to sources. As a lifelong Batman comic reader and collector, the thing that always appealed to me about Batman in the old days pre-modern-graphic-novel stuff was that he fought with his BRAIN as much as physically (although the very early Batman actually packed a gun, of course) and that the real "detective" part of the character was, in its own way, a "super-power"--but THAT was more diluted by the Dozier show because it was all about gadgetry doing the analysis instead of Batman himself. Anyhow, just wanted to clarify my intent and agree with yours.

Gigglesock - what do you want ? You've said it, I get it , you don't care for the material. Great, it doesn't change a thing. You're a Narnia apologist. Yahoo,  have a good day anyways.

Does Jim ever comment on his own floopas after he makes one ? I think the's flooped this. Maybe ONE suit mumbled about not being so sure about both franchises, but I don't think the Narnia films are dead, just to handle 2 series - staggered ( 7 is a lot of flicks )

Well, he did come up with a half-hearted apology for his constant naysaying about Ratatouille, but other than that, I can't think of any.

I come here for the articles on Disney history, which are almost all excellent.  Jim's "insider" entries, on the other hand, are less than great.  As his articles on Ratatouille show, Jim forms an opinion and uses twisted logic, statistics, and alleged insider information to back them up.  And since his sources are anonymous, it's hard to hold anyone accountable.  I'm not saying that Jim doesn't have any insider sources, but it seems clear to me that he doesn't have enough variety of sources for his allegations to hold weight.  I've come to the conclusion that his sources consist mostly of leftovers from the Eisner era who are less than thrilled with the current Iger/Lasseter leadership and thus, constantly second-guessing every move they make.

I think the trepidation about Narnia has much more to do with recent box office of other fantasy movies, and the glut of these adaptations. Golden Compass, Spiderwick, Eragon...they all start to blend together at one point. Harry Potter and LOTR were the obvious crown properties, and I think Narnia would fall somewhere just below them in recognition (but still above most of the rest.)

If Narnia delivers solid numbers, then a #3 should be coming. But sequels generally do a bit less than their predecessors, so that's probably what the bean counters are worried about. Even if the movies are solid, will audiences lose interest after 3, 4, 5 movies? I think each movie from here on out is simply going to be a 'game time' decision.

What ultimately is in control of Disney is the quality of the movies. As long as they maintain and perhaps surpass the each preceding movie, I think the box office will be fine and justify one more...

madmaxmedia, that's good insight, and it brings up an interesting question: How much of "Harry Potter"'s success (putting aside the book audience carryover) is about its TIMING as a movie property as much as its originality or excellence in execution? If we look back in movie history not too long ago, we can see that in the scifi resurgence that the huge megahit of the original "StarWars" created, there were lots of copycats to be sure, but also some really original, clever, moving, and special movies that were science fiction at its best but that, because they were in the midst of the glut of "StarWars" wannabees that followed it, got lost in the shuffle and/or were one-hit-wonders rather than franchise-creating benchmarks.

Its definitely a good thing to be good, but being lucky enough to be "different" from the pack when you first become famous is a HUGE help in creating a franchise property.

However, since the Narnia books have been around a lot longer and with literally generations of fans more than the "Potter" books, and at least had some serious fame and literary following UNlike the more recent wannabees, I'd say they have more "legs" than the others. Of course, as long-standing classics, they suffer from having been "stolen from" by others before ariving on the mass consciousness thanks to the Walden/Disney version. In fact, there are some definite Aslan-esque qualities to a certain Lion King Mufasa and their death scenes at the hands of evil animals are similar, aren't they?

One side note re. the value of the Narnia movies. I happened to wander through an online video sales site recently and found an interesting thing: the Narnia movie is selling, even on this discounted site and so many many months after both its theatrical and home video release, at a significant premium--about $1.80 or so--over other same-vintage DVD releases. That is not necessarily the retailers' choice but more likely reflects the wholesale price point since, after a little nosing around, I found about that amount, on average, as a differential no matter who was doing the buying. IF Disney can make even a slight per-copy premium on the huge home video market for this movie because of its "classic" status and the huge family and Christian following for its content, that, multiplied over millions of sales and many years as a perrenial product is a very, very good reason to make more of them, too.

That's an interesting observation too about what the DVD is selling for. I'm surprised at the speed it takes for major Hollywood releases to reach the $4 or $5 bargain bin at Circuit City, Best Buy, etc.- that's as cheap or cheaper than renting it!

I can see how a classic series like Narnia would hold its value longer. Disney has always done a great job maintaining value of its animated classics, so this is not unfamiliar to them.

Regarding Harry Potter, I think they had a double-advantage of being not only one of the first fantasy adaptations, but also by far the biggest modern fantasy series as well. I have always considered the movies to be solid 'workman-like' adaptations- pretty much everything I expected (good) but not much more (not as good.) I think the movies have actually gotten better over time though, which definitely helps. I think as time has passed, Warner Bros. has actually taken more chances with the series by going with more alternative directors (thus showing confidence in the property.) Book adaptations are always hard anyways, especially with the length of the Harry Potter books (though not as much a problem with Narnia.)

This is a very interesting debate, where Disney is going to go with Narnia. The first movie did excellent box office and probably good video and merchandising, so the revenue is there to be made. But although Narnia is a very classic series, it's not the cultural institution that Harry Potter has become. While the Harry Potter books were still coming out, every book release was a worldwide event that also was a great opportunity to pitch the next movie as well. You see Daniel Radcliffe everywhere, but I don't even recall any of the Narnia cast members' names.

And although it's easy for me to sit here and say "well, as long as the movies do well they'll keep making them," it's a different thing for the studio as it tries to plan out its major release schedule over the next few years- you can only make so many $150 million dollar movies per year after all (or however much it costs per Narnia pic.) Both Narnia and Princess of Mars present their own opportunities and risks. I think the appeal of POM has more to do with the idea of the stories rather than name recognition.

If Disney ultimately stops making the Narnia movies, it would be nice if another studio could then pick up the baton and continue with the same cast, etc. (I read the books a long time ago, don't remember exactly how long the original kids stay around. I think Edmond is the only holdover in Dawn Treader.) The studio that did Eragon and probably anticipated doing some sequels might have those slots open...

It all depends on how you define "cultural" and certainly Narnia has proven its persistency over many, many more decades than Potter. The interesting thing to see about Potter is that it has defied the very "that's KIDS stuff!" trend that happens with other youth phenomena in the modern media age--the thing I described in another thread re. Hanna Montana and High School Musical and how short their 'shelf life' for shows and attracdtions was due to the next gen of kids wanting their OWN fan icons and the older kids not wanting the new stuff. But thinking of that, perhaps we're missing what both Potter and Narnia have in COMMON here that most of the other fantasy fictional movie-based trends lack:

They are based in BOOKS that kids ACTUALLY READ. I'm sure some shrink could do a study but without one I'm willing to stipulate anyhow that the process of actually READING a book is more "cementing" somehow and when the book is well-crafted it builds a personal and special bond between the reader and the characters/world described therein. Its true of Tolkein's books too, which most of us remember reading as youngsters. The special process is maybe more powerful with Potter only because so few kids actually READ as a first-exposure to a story nowadays vs. seeing it on TV or in the movies. Sure, there were lots of people who worked backwards from the hit films to the books in all these cases, but still, they all had an ongoing and long-lasting tradition in print before the movies.

In fact, the delay in making the films, even the very short one comparatively in the case of the Potter debut on celluloid, was always explained by the filmmakers and producers as being about the difficult problem of how not to disappoint the many reader-fans who had definite ideas in their heads as to how the characters would look, act, and live on the screen.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that when you DO go looking for Narnia materials beyond the books, you find that there were quite a few prior versions done by the BBC, by a few independent animators, and by radio/audio producers prior to this "bigscreen megahit" by Walden and Disney. They didn't catch fire somehow, and I don't think it is just a matter of marketing budget. I can also remember the Ralph Bakshi animated versions of LOTR and The Hobbit and remember thinking at the time, "Well, gosh, that's NOT what an Orc looks like in MY mind's eye!" and consigning the whole thing to the "unfilmable" until the brilliant now-instant-classic versions made recently.

Now, of course, the producers of the films are SO concerned about representing the books exactly (a process made more compulsory by J.K. Rowling's very hands-on controls over the interpretation of her books) that the last Potter has been scheduled as a 2-part 2-film production because the book, at over 700 pages, was just plain unfilmable in a reasonably-promotable running-time movie for theater viewing without major snips and cuts. I'm not sure what is more remarkable in that case---that Hollywood went with the author's wishes and the fan's desire for every detail (which may or may NOT be a good creative choice, speaking purely cinematically--books and movies ARE different media and sometimes economy in film storytelling is a GOOD thing for the story, and even enhances the sales of books afterwards when readers who never read them before want "the rest of the story" by getting the book having had their interest teased by the film) OR maybe a tribute to the even-more-amazing-than-the-fact-that-the-kids-read-it-at-all phenomenon of having a kid's book that LONG that didn't daunt the faithful children from diving in and devouring every page.

I'm not as big a fan of the Potter films as you seem to be, and frankly, I found one of the recent ones utterly nasty and unsuitable for kids or adults because of its cruelty and violence and how it seemed to revel in both. But the big point here is that when people like Lewis and others were writing, there was no stigma on authors as writers of "childrens books" nor was there quite the line drawn between a "kids book" and one for adults as we have now. But either way, book reading is a different and, I suggest this evidence proves, a more profound experience that gives lasting resonance when the characters are true and the story meaningful. A movie can do all that, of course. But its different. And always will be, even when the movie is based on a book.

Sidenote for Carter-fans like Barsoom and the non-initiated to the whole Burroughs opus....I happened to be strolling through the Itunes site today, and under "Audio Books" lo and behold, ALL of the Mars books and ALL of the Tarzan books are available to be listened to on your Ipod. Kinda pricey for "old" books in the mid-teens, but still....from the sample you can listen to free, the guy doing the reading is okay. Might be worth a check if you're curious what all the fuss here has been about.

RE FRANCHISES OF THE FUTURE: Maybe Jim will cover this soon, but as noted in the Hollywood Reporter's April 2 edition, Disney has entered into a development deal with famous Marvel Comics founder Stan Lee and his new "POW! Films" compa