New "Trilogy"?

Talk about any aspect of the films.

Moderators: starkat, daughter of the King

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby daughter of the King » May 22, 2017 1:13 pm

So I guess I was the only one who immediately thought of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? It's a trilogy, so naturally, it has five books. :p Although that's not the right number either. Perhaps Madeline L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time series is a better example of a trilogy not necessarily meaning three. It has been labelled a trilogy in the past, but there are actually four or five books depending on which ones you count.

Honestly, I think it's far too soon to take this super seriously. The first three weren't really a "trilogy" either. I thought he was just emphasizing that they're not going to let the previous films have a big influence on the rest of the series. Also, if I was going to pick a book to skip, it would be LB. I just can't think of a good way to make the third act work well on film.
Narniaweb sister to Pattertwig's Pal
User avatar
daughter of the King
Moderator
Princess Dot
 
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sep 22, 2009
Gender: Female

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby The Rose-Tree Dryad » May 22, 2017 1:18 pm

Anfinwen wrote:MN does not require us to have any pre-knowledge about Narnia, and in HHB we don't actually have to know who the Pevinsies are other than the rulers of Narnia. Both are much better stand-alones than LB. They have very different feels and styles. The studio gets three shots at making a widely successful movie. It would make sense to hold off plans for LB till they see how successful the others are and if an ending and closure for Narnia are necessary.


That's a great point and it did cross my mind last night... all of the remaining stories except LB are relatively easy to adapt. Aside from the fact that LB is probably the most difficult of all the Chronicles to turn into film, it's also probably going to be more controversial. (More theologically heavy, the fate of beloved characters, et cetera.) That said, it's really hard for me to think that they wouldn't plan to make this film when it's the only other book that Jill and Eustace are in. Especially if The Silver Chair is a success.

fantasia_kitty wrote:That aside, I'm most definitely on the "you're reading too much into this" boat. It makes NO sense to me whatsoever that a studio would have already decided they'd just do three out of the four remaining books when there's that much potential $$$ to be had. I know Doug Greshem is bound and determined to have all of the books made into movies. Is he going to settle on a studio that isn't going to do that? I suppose it's possible if this is his only option, but still... the deciding factor is going to be the success of each movie, not an up front decision. That's just business sense.


I'm pretty sure that they still intend on making all of the books into film, if they are financially able. I think that what they will probably do, however, is group three of them as a "trilogy" and leave one of them to release after The Last Battle. Probably MN. And then they can theoretically reboot LWW, PC and VDT after that to make more money... following the HarperCollins order, sort of. *eyetwitch* (I can live with that if we finally get the VDT film that Narnia fans deserve, though.)

A similar thought about a full reboot of CoN actually crossed my mind back when the Mark Gordon comments surfaced... but it seemed like such a crazy idea back then. 8-} Not so sure anymore!

fantasia_kitty wrote:I'm not quite sure what you're talking about Rose. How did we read too much into the reboot comments? That some people thought we were starting over from scratch or what?


Gah, I muddled what I was trying to say. ;)) What I was trying to convey was that we made a mistake in not taking Mark Gordon's comments at face value, so it seems like it could be a mistake to not take Johnston's comments at face value here.

FriendofNarnia2 wrote:Didn't Gresham say at one point that TMN was his the story he most wanted to see adapted, or was that something I just dreamed up?


I'm not sure about that, but I do know that his connection to MN is deeply personal because of losing his mother at a young age (as well as her previous, miraculous remission that bought her a few more years of life with her loved ones). Is it possible that Gresham, precisely because MN is so important to him, is planning on having MN made following a SC-HHB-LB trilogy? Perhaps even independently and giving him more control over it, making it less commercial? If he could only pick one movie to fully "protect" from Hollywood, it would probably be MN.

Glumpuddle wrote:I suspect the new trilogy is SC, LB, MN. SC will end on a cliffhanger that will lead into LB. Then...somehow we connect to MN. Not sure how. If that trilogy does well, they'll do HHB as a Rogue One style side story. Hopefully they won't get cute and call it "The Horse and His Boy: A Narnia Story." :P


Well, one thing we can do here is compare to the Walden trilogy. It's definitely considered a trilogy, and there is no cliffhanger in LWW other than the hint that they may be going back to Narnia someday. Same thing in PC, except with only Edmund and Lucy. The stories are largely unconnected aside from that, but it's still a trilogy. What threads them together is the recurring characters. So I think it's probably more of a question of how Eustace and Jill will fit into MN or HHB.

(What a question to wrestle with! 8-})
—The Rose-Tree Dryad, a.k.a. Rose @};-
Image
NW sister to Melian_Maia, lover of narnia, Elanor and juzuma loves lucy + NW twin to MissRosario
User avatar
The Rose-Tree Dryad
Moderator
 
Posts: 3708
Joined: Aug 21, 2010
Location: A secret garden
Gender: Female

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby Glumpuddle » May 22, 2017 2:27 pm

It's certainly possible that by "trilogy," Johnston just meant there are currently 3 films in development.

The Rose-Tree Dryad wrote:Well, one thing we can do here is compare to the Walden trilogy. It's definitely considered a trilogy


Walden's Narnia became a trilogy by accident; they were unable to finish the series. This is different. Here, they seem to be conceiving the next few films as a trilogy from the beginning.

Also, the Walden franchise failed. The last thing they will want to do is repeat the same mistake. They will want to take a different approach.

daughter of the King wrote:Also, if I was going to pick a book to skip, it would be LB. I just can't think of a good way to make the third act work well on film.


They could easily just change the ending of LB to something more manageable. I think if a book has to be skipped, HHB is the easiest target.
Image
YouTube.com/gpuddle | Facebook.com/gpuddle | Twitter.com/glumpuddle
User avatar
Glumpuddle
NarniaWeb Fanatic
News Poster, Podcaster
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: May 14, 2004
Location: United States
Gender: Male

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby The Rose-Tree Dryad » May 22, 2017 3:15 pm

Glumpuddle wrote:Walden's Narnia became a trilogy by accident; they were unable to finish the series. This is different. Here, they seem to be conceiving the next few films as a trilogy from the beginning.


It's true that it became a trilogy by accident, although I think I've always kind of mentally grouped it as a trilogy within the series because they're the books that involve the Pevensies. Would they have changed anything, though, if Lewis had stopped with VDT? Would they have overhauled the three stories to make one overarching narrative? (Well no, I wouldn't put it past Hollywood, but I guess it would depend on the filmmaker and the involvement of the Estate.)

Some trilogies are about building a story to a conclusion over the course of three films (like Star Wars), but others seem to introduce new characters and villains and adventures with each film that's released. Aren't most superhero movies like that these days? (It makes me sound like a hipster, but I haven't seen enough of them to know. :|) And some of those turn into trilogies (Captain America, for one)... but I don't know how many of those properties began with the intent to make a film trilogy. Still, it seems to me that the idea of making a series of films that are primarily linked by characters rather than building an overarching plot isn't dead.

The worst part is, either perspective is a total can of worms! I prefer finding a way to include Jill or Eustace in HHB or MN to a huge overhaul of three books because it seems to be the least invasive option, but it's still very concerning and mindboggling. I want the presence of Aslan to carry the series and link the films together; I want audiences to want to go see the movie just because they see Aslan appear in the trailer. I guess Jill and Eustace being involved in a third story wouldn't necessarily mean that Aslan wouldn't be that kind of character, but still. This whole "balance between achieving the essence of the story and making a commercial film" is going to be an... interesting tug-of-war. I'm missing the days when we were thinking this was going to be a lower budget film.

Sigh. I hope you're right, Dot. ;)) It's hard not to go into speculation overdrive after being starved for news for so long, though. :))
—The Rose-Tree Dryad, a.k.a. Rose @};-
Image
NW sister to Melian_Maia, lover of narnia, Elanor and juzuma loves lucy + NW twin to MissRosario
User avatar
The Rose-Tree Dryad
Moderator
 
Posts: 3708
Joined: Aug 21, 2010
Location: A secret garden
Gender: Female

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby Impending Doom » May 22, 2017 4:51 pm

I think that until additional evidence surfaces, we should take this with a grain of salt. We actually have more reason to believe that there won't be an overarching theme and that Silver Chair will be a stand-alone film.

David Magee on Twitter wrote:"My job is to bring SC to life, not add in themes from other books."

"Not even thinking about the Last Battle yet. Only Silver Chair."

"I am writing Silver Chair, nothing decided about future films yet."

"We're still at the start of making Silver Chair. I have no idea what will happen on "The Horse and His Boy."


I have a very hard time believing something this significant wouldn't even be mentioned to David Magee.

Glumpuddle wrote: What's your theory, FK? Did Johnston simply misspeak? Did he forget there are four books remaining? Does he not know the meaning of the word "trilogy"? I can't think of any other explanations.


Could Joe Johnston have signed on to direct 3 Narnia films? Is he referring to 'his' trilogy'? Seems like a bit of a stretch...
Image
Instagram.com/becauseofnarnia | Twitter.com/becauseofnarnia
User avatar
Impending Doom
NarniaWeb Nut
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Oct 05, 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby The Rose-Tree Dryad » May 22, 2017 5:37 pm

^"Good for you, Impending Doom! You're the only one of us with any sense, I do believe." :ymapplause:

Seriously, those tweets are heartening to read after going down some rabbit holes into the Underlandish realm of wild speculation. ;)) That does seem to quell concerns about altering The Silver Chair to make it the beginning of a three-part story. However... it's possible they could still include Jill and Eustace in MN or HHB without changing SC at all. The thoughts I had about how they might alter HHB would still "work" even if SC itself is an extremely faithful adaptation (so long as they don't include the blind poet's story, of course).

Jumping on the speculation train may be a bit premature, but it is so strange that he chose to use the word trilogy if there was no reason for it... it would have been so easy to say a brand new Narnia series or brand new set of Narnia films. He seemed to be choosing his words carefully in the video, too.
—The Rose-Tree Dryad, a.k.a. Rose @};-
Image
NW sister to Melian_Maia, lover of narnia, Elanor and juzuma loves lucy + NW twin to MissRosario
User avatar
The Rose-Tree Dryad
Moderator
 
Posts: 3708
Joined: Aug 21, 2010
Location: A secret garden
Gender: Female

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby wolfloversk » May 22, 2017 10:06 pm

My guess is if they are taking trilogy to mean three literally, they are talking SC, HHB, and MN.

In other words it may be as simple as they're not planning to do LB yet... which makes sense cuz it would be a few years in the future.

I'm not too concerned about them trying to connect the plots... I think they just plan to release 3 related movies in relative quick succession... and not have a seven year gap in between. "Trilogy" can be a loose term when it comes to plot-connected-ness... On one hand you have something like Star Wars, where it's a single story arc following the same main characters, on the other you have Jurassic Park where it's a set of three connected, but separate, stories that don't always follow the same characters or take place in the same location.

Furthermore, they may be building it as a new trilogy since that seems to be the current big thing in Hollywood, especially with Hollywood reboots (The Hobbit, Star Wars, and Jurassic World are all prime examples) and especially in the Fantasy and Scifi genres. It's not enough to make just one blockbuster movie these days... they gotta make a threesome :P
Avi by AstrowolfD
User avatar
wolfloversk
NarniaWeb Zealot
The Riddle Master
 
Posts: 6738
Joined: Dec 28, 2009
Location: Jurassic World
Gender: Female

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby Reepi » May 23, 2017 3:33 am

FriendofNarnia2 wrote:Yeah, and how in the world would you tie the remaining books together, especially if The Silver Chair is the 1st Act. You would think the Act I would be The Magician's Nephew.

And what would be the thread that ties the stories together? Here's some ideas. (Note to any filmmakers that might be reading this: I DO NOT want these things to happen).

1. Eustace in The Magician's Nephew
2. The Lady of the Green Kirtle in the Magician's Nephew somehow. Maybe the White Witch meets her when she flees into the Western Wilds. (But even so I'm not sure how she fits into the Last Battle.)
3. Introduce the Calormens into The Silver Chair. Perhaps they work with The Lady of the Green Kirtle somehow. Films 2 and 3 would be HHB and TLB.
4. Tie Father Time into the remaining stories. He's already in TSC and TLB.


Well, what about tying them together like this:
1. Jadis in MN (naturally).
2. The Lady of the green Kirtle turns out to actually be Jadis in TSC.
3. Tash is replaced by Jadis in LB.

And there you have it, a super-connected trilogy :ymsick:
Reepi
NarniaWeb Guru
 
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sep 22, 2006

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby FriendofNarnia2 » May 23, 2017 5:16 am

Reepi wrote:
Well, what about tying them together like this:
1. Jadis in MN (naturally).
2. The Lady of the green Kirtle turns out to actually be Jadis in TSC.
3. Tash is replaced by Jadis in LB.

And there you have it, a super-connected trilogy :ymsick:


Nooo!!!

The good news is that Joe Johnston seems to confirm that the Lady of the Green Kirtle is NOT Jadis. :-)
Check out "The Magician's Nephew" and "The Last Battle" trailers I created!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwWtuk3Qafg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrPxboeZqrA
User avatar
FriendofNarnia2
NarniaWeb Guru
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Jun 26, 2006
Location: United States

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby narnia fan 7 » May 23, 2017 11:06 am

I asked David Magee about all of this on Twitter. This was his response

David Magee wrote:The plan is simply to continue making the remaining Narnia books into films.
“I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.”
User avatar
narnia fan 7
NarniaWeb Guru
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
Location: United States
Gender: Male

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby Pattertwigs Pal » May 23, 2017 4:06 pm

Wow, it is amazing how one little word can cause so much discussion. Here are the places he said the word "trilogy."

Joe Johnston wrote:Everything is new. This is the beginning of a brand new trilogy. We will make reference to characters and events in the other films as the book does, but think of this as the beginning of an all-new trilogy.

I don’t think so. For … really, the main reason is that that cast, those main characters, have aged more than would be natural to be playing these characters. And even though this is a different cast with Jill and Eustace, even though Eustace was in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Will Poulter, who is a very good actor but he’s too old to play Eustace now. But beyond that, I want to set this apart from the other trilogy and so I’m going to start with an all-new cast and I don’t think anyone will say “Hey, how come that person’s not in the movie?” It wouldn’t be appropriate.

I'm going -- I'm going to oversee the design of all this stuff but I believe in leaving this kind of to the professional. I have a wonderful production designer who will, ah, have a team of illustrators and designers to help bring that vision to the screen. And I think that -- I think that you're going to love it. I know I will. And you're going to see that it is set apart from the films in the other trilogy. Or in the original trilogy.

Trilogy is one of those words that is trick to define and often misused. Simply put, it is three works that are connected in some way but each is complete in itself. This does not mean that it has to have same characters - just being a Narnia Story would be enough of a connection. Narnia (meaning both the country and the world) and Aslan are the connection between the 7 books.
ex. The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and the Return of the King is NOT a trilogy.

So Eustace and Jill would not have to be in the 3 movies for the 3 movies to be considered a trilogy.

It seems like asking what he means by trilogy would be a good question to submit for Q & A part 2
Image
Silver Chair Reading Group
NW sister to Movie Aristotle & daughter of the King
User avatar
Pattertwigs Pal
Moderator
Cookie Queen of NarniaWeb
 
Posts: 4924
Joined: May 16, 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby CorazonBandido55 » May 23, 2017 8:57 pm

I think we are reading too much into the trilogy word. IMO trilogy just may refer to SC, HHB and LB. BOTH SC and HHB involve plots or characters that will be vital to LB, so that's why I'm thinking it's being referred to as a trilogy. Considering the pushback that was received by the plot changes with Prince Caspian and DT, I don't anticipate them adding Jill or Eustace to HHB or MN, although I appreciate the openness to having a film adaptation that isn't 100% faiithful to the book. I'm thinking that it's MN that was left off the hypothetical trilogy, if only because it's a prequel to the entire series. You can always come back and market a prequel to a series of films, especially if they are financially successful.
your fellow Telmarine
User avatar
CorazonBandido55
NarniaWeb Nut
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Jul 28, 2008
Location: New Braunfels, TX, USA
Gender: Male

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby coracle » May 23, 2017 9:41 pm

I am inclined to see it as meaning "a short series of films" rather than a mathematical statement!
(I know someone who for years said "a couple" to mean three)

A group of films tends to be three, so a trilogy of films can be accepted as a group. If Joe was saying this in a bit of a hurry, off-the-cuff, he probably couldn't think of the word for four at the time!
(it's 'tetralogy' if you want to know - I just Searched for it)
“Stale water is a poor drink,' said Annlaw. 'Stale skill is worse. And the man who walks in his own footsteps only ends where he began.”
― Lloyd Alexander, Taran Wanderer
User avatar
coracle
Moderator
NarniaWeb's Auntie
 
Posts: 19028
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Gender: Female

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby Ryadian » May 24, 2017 11:36 am

coracle wrote:If Joe was saying this in a bit of a hurry, off-the-cuff, he probably couldn't think of the word for four at the time!
(it's 'tetralogy' if you want to know - I just Searched for it)


I was thinking the word might be "quadrilogy", in which case I would kind of forgive calling it a trilogy even if there are four. ;))

Perhaps this is because I'm being blindly optimistic at this point, but I'm firmly in the camp that he misspoke. From what I can see from the transcript, he only referred to the new movies as a "trilogy" once - all other times he used that word, he was referring to the Walden films. Also, when he referred to it being an "all-new trilogy", it was in direct comparison to the previous trilogy. I think he just repeated the word to make a contrast - and given that this was an unscripted video, I think we might be reading in too much into the use of the word "trilogy" in this one particular case.


FriendofNarnia2 wrote:I really don't think Douglas Gresham would approve of any changes on the scale of The Green Mist. He seems to be disappointed with some of the things that happened with the VDT movie, and I don't see him letting it happen again.


^This as well. I have a hard time believing that, if they were talking about only making 3 of the remaining books this early in the process, that Douglas Gresham wouldn't be putting his foot down. Also, as Impending Doom and narnia fan 7's pointed out, Dave Magee has said more than once that he's only working on TSC and they're planning to "continue making the remaining Narnia books into films". Unless they're both either un- or misinformed about the plans, or keeping it to themselves/lying on Twitter (I find the former considerably more likely than the latter), this doesn't seem consistent with having already decided to focus on making three books into a trilogy instead of making all four books into movies (assuming, of course, TSC does well enough to justify it financially).
Image
N-Web sis of stardf, _Rillian_, & jerenda
Proud to be Sirya the Madcap Siren
User avatar
Ryadian
Moderator
 
Posts: 11384
Joined: Jun 10, 2004
Location: Minnesota, US
Gender: Female

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby The Rose-Tree Dryad » May 24, 2017 4:22 pm

Ryadian wrote:Perhaps this is because I'm being blindly optimistic at this point, but I'm firmly in the camp that he misspoke. From what I can see from the transcript, he only referred to the new movies as a "trilogy" once - all other times he used that word, he was referring to the Walden films. Also, when he referred to it being an "all-new trilogy", it was in direct comparison to the previous trilogy. I think he just repeated the word to make a contrast - and given that this was an unscripted video, I think we might be reading in too much into the use of the word "trilogy" in this one particular case.


That's a very good point about him potentially just repeating the word to make a contrast. I certainly hope the idea that he just misspoke is correct. (Maybe that's why the video has been taken down!)

That said... I still feel very leery. The word "trilogy" on its own is one thing, but when combined with Johnston's stated desire to make a very commercial film and that TSC will be a big film where he can hire the best people... that paints a more particular kind of picture in my mind. Clearly people are investing in this property in hopes that it will bring in a lot of money over the course of multiple films, and it would not shock me if the "trilogy" mention is indicative of longer term plans to turn the remaining books into a more conventionally marketable set of movies. If we were still thinking that this was going to be a lower budget film, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned.

So I'll wait and see, but hope that the misspoke camp is right, or hope that at least when he says trilogy, he only means that the studio is thinking about about loosely grouping three films thematically and not planning to change them to create one narrative. *crosses fingers*
—The Rose-Tree Dryad, a.k.a. Rose @};-
Image
NW sister to Melian_Maia, lover of narnia, Elanor and juzuma loves lucy + NW twin to MissRosario
User avatar
The Rose-Tree Dryad
Moderator
 
Posts: 3708
Joined: Aug 21, 2010
Location: A secret garden
Gender: Female

Re: New "Trilogy"?

Postby waggawerewolf27 » May 24, 2017 5:19 pm

coracle wrote:I am inclined to see it as meaning "a short series of films" rather than a mathematical statement!
(I know someone who for years said "a couple" to mean three)

A group of films tends to be three, so a trilogy of films can be accepted as a group. If Joe was saying this in a bit of a hurry, off-the-cuff, he probably couldn't think of the word for four at the time!
(it's 'tetralogy' if you want to know - I just Searched for it)


Actually I think you are right. Because, offhand, I couldn't think of the word for a group of four books/movies/plays/or whatever. Groups of three are relatively common, and the word for three, in particular, seems to be the same in both Greek and Latin. After that, confusion reigns. A heptology would be a group of seven books etc (Harry Potter or CON), but I've vaguely heard such a group also called a septology, especially as a group of musicians is a septet. The Greek-derived prefix for seven in our vocabulary is Hept, as in Heptagon, whilst the Latin word for seven is Septem. And what do people mean when they say "several"?

Ryadian wrote:I was thinking the word might be "quadrilogy", in which case I would kind of forgive calling it a trilogy even if there are four.


As I've never heard the word tetralogy used before, I, too, would be scratching around, wondering whether or not I meant quadrilogy, which would be coupling a Greek derived suffix (from logos) with a Latin prefix (quart). However, four musicians are called a quartet, whilst in maths, a square and a rectangle are both quadrilateral polygons. So I've learnt something new, and thank you, Coracle. Isn't semantics fun? :))

Anyway, at some point, if Joe Johnson expects that other Narnian movies might be made in the future, if he can, that is something to look forward to. For now, the main thing is to progress with SC.
User avatar
waggawerewolf27
NarniaWeb Zealot
 
Posts: 6390
Joined: Sep 25, 2009
Location: Oz
Gender: Female

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests