Peter vs. Caspian

TreeDancer

TreeDancer

New member
I just got back from a week long mission trip and the ENTIRE time I kept argueing with two other people from my group about P.C. They were saying how Peter was the better one then Caspian and how Caspian was the one who was a wuss and Peter was better because how Peter was fighting Miraz and how Caspian wouldv'e lost if it was him. I on the other hand loved Caspian way better then Peter. Peter lost a lot of respect from me when he was a jerk in the beginning about being a kid again, then not believing Lucy, not calling off the attack on the castle, and debating the w.w.! So I loved Caspian, disliked Peter. Any one agree or disagree?
 
The movie writers were making it their NUMBER ONE priority to make Caspian--and Edmund--look better than Peter. This was a total BETRAYAL of what Mr. Lewis wrote in the actual book. The "real" Peter, though misjudging in the wilderness trek, was NOWHERE NEAR so obnoxious, then or elsewhere in the story, as the movie insists on making him.

I hate to believe that cynicism and a conscious hatred of Mr. Lewis' message are the motives for this crass revisionism. There is a simple commercial motive to guess at instead. The character of Peter drops out of the story after "Prince Caspian," whereas both Caspian himself and Edmund will be back in "Dawn Treader." Consequently, they want Caspian and Edmund to look attractive and cool to the audience, as a way of getting folks to COME to the "Dawn Treader" movie. A cheap, easy way to inflate Caspian and Edmund is to deconstruct Peter.
 
I love Peter in the books, but they totaly ruined him in the movie! I did like Caspian more, of course he is one of my favorite people from the books besides Edmund.
 
as much as i love Peter in the first movie, i didn't like him so much in Prince Caspian. but after watching the movie 6 times..Peter's character eventually grew on me. i try to see it from others perspective and understand why he behaved the way he did, but as a high king of narnia i expected him to lead by example, and he end up being a disappointment i think.
 
I think Peter was just really stressed out. He was upset that he was away from Narnia so long, felt partially responsible for the Narnians getting almost wiped out during his absence, and was upset that Aslan was nowhere to be found. So i think he was just under alot of stress, and people are always at risk of making bad decisions when they are under stress.

As for Peter fighting Miraz instead of Caspian fighting him, I think it's strictly because Peter is high king and Caspian is only a prince. It was supposed to be king vs. king, I dont think anyone was worried about Caspian losing.

But that's just my opinion based on only the movie, I never read the books.
 
Reading the books would really help us understand this fuss. actually, if you read Prince Caspian, as soon as Peter and Caspian met, Peter made it absolutely clear to Caspian that , "I did not come to replace you but to put you on the throne". however, in the movie, it seemed as if Peter was jealous that Caspian was acting as king and commanding the Narnians. This is a very grave mistake. In fact, when we would meet Peter again in the Last Battle he remains to be the very well-loved and well-respected HIGH KING, because C.S. Lewis always described him as one. He was a very honorable man, both in Narnia and in our world.

Besides, Caspian did not find it any difficulty in trusting whatever Peter's decisions were because he admired and respected him even before he(Caspian) actually met him(Peter).

from the movie point of view.. not revealing Aslan to the kids before they went into battle caused all the rivalry between Peter and Caspian. THese two were relying on themselves with no assurance that help would come from Aslan. :(
 
I love both.

I kinda liked Peter's attitude because it showed you a little bit of what he felt. He was angry because...

well just imagin you were in Narnia and a King/Queen for a few years(Narnian Time) then come back to our world as a kid again and deal with being put down and all that stuff by others.
 
I think all 3 of the main male characters had their strengths and weaknesses.

Peter has to deal with being back in our world and just being a plain kid. After being royalty and all for so long that would be a big adjustment. He also has to deal with being considered a "myth" and that he was just made up. He needs to prove himself.

Caspian is dealing with being torn between two lives also. He wants his throne as a Telmarine but then also he wants the Narnian way of life. He has to back down from Peter when he arrives.

You have to remember that they are about the same age and of course they are going to try to prove who's sword is bigger. They do unite in the long run and realize that they cannot succeed without the other.

I do not think they were pumping up Edmund and Caspian to get viewers for the next film. I personally will still go see just to see how they interpret this part of Narnia.
 
There are some things that are too obvious to see: things we don't notice because they have been made part of the very atmosphere around us. One such thing is the modern attitude of segregating the generations.

What I mean is this: at almost all times in history, there were many parts of the world in which a child grew up interacting regularly with persons of all ages--as when, for instance, the child might work together closely with a live-in grandparent at some domestic task. But in the industrialized world of the 20th century, it became the new norm for children to be rigidly divided into narrow age groups. Thus one's crowd of peers became the social alpha and omega, the supreme authority in life. This produced what Jesus called "the blind leading the blind," as it became _uncool_ to respect the wisdom of one's elders.

Mr. Lewis, in writing "Prince Caspian," was boldly swimming _against_ this tide, by writing a tale in which the hero would be sunk like a rock in a pond if he _didn't_ pay heed to his elders--Cornelius AND Peter. The Peter Mr. Lewis actually wrote about was NOT so controlled by adolescent emotions as to have gotten himself into an unequal fight over a trifle at a train station; but the movie writers made that change, because they were _intentionally_ working head-on _against_ the clear theme of the whole book. They didn't want Peter to be the effectively-adult mentor for Caspian that Mr. Lewis wanted him to be--because that wouldn't fit with peer-group philosophy. Instead, the movie Peter had to be made a PEER of Caspian's, getting into a school-locker-room rivalry with him, and being pointedly made to look all wrong for _trying_ to be that mentor and leader.

Most modern teenagers attending the Caspian movie won't be able to see the damage done to the original story, because the creed "My peer group is all!" has long since become the very air they unquestioningly breathe. But they still _would_ have been able to appreciate the book's vision of Peter teaching and helping Caspian, if Walden had bothered to SHOW the book's vision of Peter teaching and helping Caspian. Young people are still smart enough to be taught--if only someone WILL teach them, instead of just stroking their self-esteem with "Teenager knows best" messages.
 
well-said, Copperfox! it's good you pointed this out.. :) Lewis, carefully wove out the characteristics of each character for a purpose and what the screenwriters did to the movie was so unfair to that effort which Lewis gave.
 
Last edited:
I agree on that. I will say just for the movie, I liked Capsian a ton better than Peter. He was willing to learn from the former kings and queens, yet he was wise about opposing the night raid, and he was merciful when it came to Miraz ... For the movie, Caspian was much better than Peter.

And that, of course, makes Peter irrelevant, which is a crying shame when you look at King Peter the Magnificent of the books. I am totally agreeing with CF that the damage done to Peter's character makes it clear in the movie that Caspian is superior from start to finish, and Peter had nothing of value to teach him. :(
 
Right! In the _fraudulent_ cinematic revision of the characters, Peter saying at the end "We're not needed anymore" was _intended_ as his admission of inferiority, and we were supposed to believe that Peter admitting his inferiority was the greatest moral _progress_ he had managed in his lifetime!

This is why I said what I said about the "Teenagers uber alles" philosophy in popular entertainment. Anybody remember the movie and then TV series "FAME," about kids at a fashionable performing-arts school? The only way any _adult_ in the series could earn the approval of the teenager-worshipping scriptwriters was by _agreeing_ with the superior, enlightened teenagers on every subject. Walden has forced Peter into the role of a faculty member, with Caspian as the budding rock star whose feet Peter must feel privileged to kiss.
 
Caspian was definately the better of the two,imo:D.Humble,and trying to do his best,while Peter's actions were pridefull and selfish,imo...:eek:
 
Which is exactly MY point: the movie writers MADE it be that way, in ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION of the BOOK which they were PRETENDING to be basing their movie on!
 
I loved both of them. :D

In an interview with Will I read, he said (concerning the rivalry between Peter and Caspian) that they both had to learn humility, that a good king must be humble, willing to listen to his people, to compromise, etc.

In the end, with their peace made, Peter had made peace with all that had come about and all, etc. and Caspian had found his strength and courage, etc to be King of Narnia.

So, I liked both. :D :rolleyes: :p
 
Okay, fair enough, you liked the story that Mr. Lewis wrote, and you liked a movie someone made up set in a place claiming to be Narnia with a title and little else borrowed from the book. But I don't like the false advertising that claims the movie IS of Mr. Lewis' work, when it takes my favorite human hero in the series and makes him a loser. If they had said in the movie that Wilbur Googenheim the Magnificent got in a rivalry with Prince Macho-Pout, it wouldn't have bothered me.
 
Hm.
To each his own, I guess. :)

Indeed, on another thread, I put that I LOVE the book (and I really do love PC) and that I also LOVE the movie PC. :D lol

To each his own.

Also, I guess that one reason I didn't mind the changes so terribly much is that I am so used to it by now. I have witnessed all the alterations and omissions and such in the Harry Potter movies (for years now) and Lord of the Rings. So I'm very used to it. (and let me tell you, in early 'years', I didn't take it so nicely. They really messed up the story and visuals, etc in HP-Prisoner of Azkaban (the 3rd one, came out Summer 2004) and I was so mad I went home and cried. Butttttttttttttttttttttttttt....with GoF and OotP, I was okay by then, I understood, maybe lamented some things, and accepted and moved on. And maybe grew to like the changes.)

:D
 
Last edited:
i HATED that the movie made Peter and Caspian act like they disliked each other. in the book they got along fine. and they made peter look like a total jerk. they made Caspian kind of jerkish too. like when he's supposed to be opening the gate during the raid and instead goes after miraz, which kinda ruined everything.
 
Copperfox said:
Which is exactly MY point: the movie writers MADE it be that way, in ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION of the BOOK which they were PRETENDING to be basing their movie on!
Click to expand...

You didn't like the movie did you?:p
Oh,well..I actually thought it worked out better this way..Caspian wasn't as wimpy as in the book(no offence),and Peter wasn't perfect.
 
Back
Top