Annoying Mistake: Peter riding unicorn

OMGosh...I thought my sister was the only one who noticed that! She got mad because the movie made him ride a unicorn...when in the book he obviously didn't ride one!
 
phillip isn't in the book for whoever mentioned that earlier. and yes, jill and eustace both rode centaurs. (and it wasn't even all that important. they were just going to a coronation)
 
Ya, it bugged me that Peter was riding a Unicorn and Edmund a talking horse. But if you read closely in the Last Battle, it says that Unicorns were never ridden unless in great need, such as a battle... I'm too lazy to look up where it says that... :)
 
In one of the boooks, I think it was HHB, it said that unless there was a war or some other great situation like that, it was considered immoral or not right or something like that, to ride a talking horse. And they were practicing for a battle. I'm not sure if someone said this earlier, but I wonder why they didn't have the unicorn that Peter was riding talk...but anyway. And I think that they had Edmund ride Phillip later on while hunting for the White stag because they had grown to become friends and stuff like that.
 
The thing that bothered me about Edmund's horse was not so much that it talked, but rather that it's name was "Phillip". It just doesn't seem linguistically correct. (Although nor does "Turkish Delight seem appropriate for a fantastic land).
Though I suppose the Christian name could have been carried on down the centuries from the first King and Queen of Narnia... :D
 
A_childs_imagination said:
I dont kno if anyone else has posted this but is it not very annoying that Peter is riding a unicorn? for a start it strictly states that you should never ride a unicorn and the only time one is ridden is in the last battle. i know hes the high king and everything but its still goes against C S Lewis' works!
Am i just being picky? what do you think
Click to expand...

personally i think that you are being just little to picky because it is movie and they aren't gonna do everything perfectly and word for freakin word!
 
Yea that was one fo the things that bugged me the MOST from the movie. And no there were no dumb Unicorns. There were dumb animals but not unicorns, it says so. It doesn't say that they would EVER ride a unicorn for a battle. It only says in GREAT need. NOt even for a battle. Because unicorms unlike horses have very sharp horns and so by rearing up and such they could fight a lot better without a rider. IDK how cool it looked, it was stupid.
 
I think that the whole point of Peter riding the Unicorn was for him to stand out during the battle scene. It really looks wonderful when they zoom out for the scene with the armies charging at each other. What you have to realize is that this is a movie BASED on the book. It is not a complete literal rendition of the book, encorporating every rule of the series. It was simply a case of Andrew using artistic liscence for his film. It does look better visually for him to be riding the Unicorn.
 
Knight of Narnia said:
I think that the whole point of Peter riding the Unicorn was for him to stand out during the battle scene. It really looks wonderful when they zoom out for the scene with the armies charging at each other. What you have to realize is that this is a movie BASED on the book. It is not a complete literal rendition of the book, encorporating every rule of the series. It was simply a case of Andrew using artistic liscence for his film. It does look better visually for him to be riding the Unicorn.
Click to expand...

exactly but as i said in a previous post. the unicorn may of wanted peter to ride him and the war is a great threat to narnia. and agree with what you said above
 
I read an article where William was talking about the making of the movie, and he wasn't even riding the unicorn, they had his stand in riding so he wouldn't get hurt.

I had no objections about the character of Peter riding a unicorn, per se, but I guess it felt weird to me because I had watched 'The Last Unicorn' a few too many times, and in that movie, it simply wouldn't happen. :D

Keep in mind that Phillip (Edmund's horse) was a speaking horse and he seemed not to mind having someone ride on his back.
 
Last edited:
Susan Pevinsie said:
Yea that was one fo the things that bugged me the MOST from the movie. And no there were no dumb Unicorns. There were dumb animals but not unicorns, it says so. It doesn't say that they would EVER ride a unicorn for a battle. It only says in GREAT need. NOt even for a battle. Because unicorms unlike horses have very sharp horns and so by rearing up and such they could fight a lot better without a rider. IDK how cool it looked, it was stupid.
Click to expand...

I guess I missed the fact that the freedom of Narnia was a GREAT need. maybe I should have been listening in all my history classes. I must have been wrong about all those wars started over a desire for freedom. That clearly was not a GREAT need or a reason to go against tradition. Naw, I must be crazy.
 
onlymystory said:
I guess I missed the fact that the freedom of Narnia was a GREAT need. maybe I should have been listening in all my history classes. I must have been wrong about all those wars started over a desire for freedom. That clearly was not a GREAT need or a reason to go against tradition. Naw, I must be crazy.
Click to expand...
You are crazy
 
thanks jillthevaliant. at least i know from your posts that you must be crazy too.

on a side note, danny what did you mean by your statement that turkish delight is a bad name for a fantastic land? Turkish Delight is a dessert that Edmund eats.
 
I was wondering about that too. Since Edmund just arrived in a magical world, I highly doubt he is familiar with magical eatings. The Witch said that he could have anything that he wanted and he wanted something that he likes and is familiar with! I don't understand your confusion..;.
 
jillthevaliant said:
I was wondering about that too. Since Edmund just arrived in a magical world, I highly doubt he is familiar with magical eatings. The Witch said that he could have anything that he wanted and he wanted something that he likes and is familiar with! I don't understand your confusion..;.
Click to expand...

great poem as your signiture .
 
Back
Top