|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WILL CHRONICLES OF NARNIA BE THE NEXT LORD OF THE RINGS?
For starters, both films are based on
beloved fantasy tomes by tweedy English academics that even happened to have
lived in the same era. Also, both movies were also filmed in New Zealand. But
the million dollar question is: will Narnia be as big a box-office hit as Rings?
Or make that the 292,000,000 New Zealand dollars question, because that is the
amount of money its producers have poured into the film thus far . . . Both films are about the eternal struggle between Good and Evil, with capital letters: in Narnia four children enter a magical land through an old wardrobe and meet the lion Aslan who is trying to liberate the fantastic country of Narnia from the clutches of an evil Ice Queen (Tilda Swinton, Constantine). Needless to say, the children join up with the forces of Good. In Rings a similar simplistic tale of Good vs. Evil is played out in a magical realm inhabited by elves, dwarves and other fantastical creatures. Starring a cast of mostly unknowns like Rings (at least at the time of its making), Narnia is directed – without any whiff of irony this time around – by Andrew Adamson of Shrek fame. Like Rings, Chronicles of Narnia is slotted for a December release date instead of the usually crowded American summer movie season.
Comparisons are unavoidable, and there can be no doubt that Narnia is hoping to cash in on the current vogue for fantasy movies, especially with Pottermania continuing unabated and the three Lord of the Rings movies having brought in something like $2,9 billion U.S. dollars at box-offices globally – more than the annual GDP of a country like Mozambique! Without the recent successes of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, it is unlikely that a project like Narnia would have been green-lit, especially since fantasy movies had a mixed reception at the box office in previous decades with expensive films such as Legend (1985) and Willow (1988) flopping at the box office. However, the new millennium seems to have ushered in new anxieties (the first Lord of the Rings movie arrived on U.S. screens mere months after the September 11 attacks) that make audiences seek out escapist fantasy fare. So will Chronicles of Narnia be the next Lord of the Rings? It seems unlikely. The Narnia film may be more “family-friendly” than the “sombre, violent and almost morbidly death-obsessed” (as one critic described it) Rings, but the Tolkien novels, after languishing as a hippie cult favourite novel at campuses for decades, have more successfully penetrated the popular public consciousness – largely thanks to some innovative and popular calendar art work in more recent years. Put more simply: Lord of the Rings is better known than The Chronicles of Narnia. Also, Chronicles of Narnia has a whiff of Johnny-come-lately about it. After all, Lord of the Rings was first . . .
So while Narnia may not exactly bring in $871 million like Fellowship of the Ring did back in 2001, expect to see some Narnia sequels in future: it was probably a wise decision of Narnia’s producers to option the six other books in the series for big screen adaptations. The books are Prince Caspian (first printed in 1951), The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952), The Silver Chair (1953), The Horse and His Boy (1954), The Magician's Nephew (1955), and The Last Battle (1956). So who knows? Narnia might even be bigger than Lord of the Rings. Mike Goodridge, U.S. editor of Screen International, certainly believes so: “If you look at the Rings cast when they went into that, they were absolutely run-of-the-mill. Nobody knew who Orlando Bloom was! This being a Disney film, it’ll play very broadly. It could be huge.”
Click
here to receive our free weekly e-mail newsletter.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||