Fox saves ‘Narnia’ from Disney

Twentieth Century Fox yesterday swooped in like a fantasy novel’s knight in shining armor to save “The Chronicles of Narnia.” The company signed on to co-produce “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” the third film in the series based on the beloved children’s novels by C.S. Lewis.

The franchise’s future had been in doubt when Disney last month dropped the series it had co-produced with Walden Media. Walden - owned by conservative Christian businessman Philip Anschutz and responsible for smaller-scale family hits including “Because of Winn-Dixie” and “Nim’s Island” - owns the rights to the seven-book series.

Whether Fox can learn from Disney’s mistakes and reinvigorate a family franchise that’s at the very center of debates about commerce, culture and religion is something about which observers disagree.

Then again, only in Hollywood could a product that racks up a cool $420 million worldwide be considered, in some eyes, a failure.

That’s just how Disney saw the performance of the series’ second film. The first, “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” was an unqualified success. The Christmas 2005 fantasy cost $180 million to make and raked in $745 million worldwide. “Prince Caspian,” released in May 2008, cost $225 million but only made $420 million. That still seems like a tidy sum, though, and it’s more than any other Disney film made last year, except for the critical and commercial darling “WallcE.”

“Prince Caspian” also was the year’s ninth-best-selling DVD in the United States. It sold more than 5 million copies, adding almost $83 million to its take - and it just came out Dec. 2.

Fox’s move ensures that fans will once again be able to travel to Narnia. Still, that Disney would drop a franchise that has grossed almost $1.2 billion in its theatrical runs alone has observers speculating on what happened to the property that was poised to replace “Harry Potter” as Hollywood’s one sure thing.

Some have mused that there was bad blood between Disney and Mr. Anschutz after the latter renegotiated the contract following “Lion’s” smashing success. Disney could not be reached for this story; the parting was “certainly amicable,” according to Walden Senior Vice President for Marketing Heather Phillips.

“It was really just a budgetary issue. We just weren’t coming to an agreement,” she says, declining to elaborate further.

When asked why she thinks “Caspian” didn’t do nearly as well as “Lion,” Ms. Phillips states the only certain thing about the affair: “Hindsight is 20-20.”

She adds that “You could look at the release date, you could look at whether that story was the most compelling out of all of them.”

“Lion” did big business during the family-friendly Christmas season, but fans had to wait 2 1/2 years for “Caspian.” Disney thought the second film was a darker tale that could attract a teenage audience in May.

Nationally syndicated radio host Michael Medved thinks that was Disney’s biggest mistake. “There’s an attempt by major studios to basically ignore Christmas. It’s very, very weird,” he says. “If you look at all the downbeat, Holocaust-themed movies, six of them were released around Christmas. I suspect ‘Prince Caspian’ would have done much better had it been released in the holiday season. It’s a time for family movies.”

Brandon Gray isn’t so sure. “The release date is important, but it can be an overrated factor. If the movie is strong enough, people will see it, regardless of when it is out,” says Mr. Gray, the founder and president of BoxOfficeMojo.com, an online box-office tracking service.

Conceding that family films tend to do better at Christmas, or in summer when children are out of school, Mr. Gray nevertheless thinks the bigger problem is that “Lion” is the best-known book of the series, while “Caspian” is barely known.

Story Continues →