Annoying Mistake: Peter riding unicorn

Tirian of Narnia said:
I have a question though, is the unicorn in the crowd at the coranation scene the same one as in the battle? Becouse since I got the dvd I noticed that after the unicorn gets shot it is still moving.
Click to expand...
Yes, you see the unicorn getting up, implying he was only wounded, and thus able to be healed by Lucy's cordial. Actually, that type of warfare would tend to produce a lot more wounds than flat-out killings. Of course, back in the days of that type of warfare, there wasn't very good aftercare, so most people died of even minor wounds - unless they had a healing cordial, of course.
 
Siren said:
All of Narnia would have fallen back into winter if Jadis won. Jadis had killed Aslan...I think it was a "time of great need", not to mention, I am sure many of Narnia's inhabitants thought it may be their last battle. Also, I didn't notice a unicorn in the crowd till the final battle. So perhaps when a unicorn heard of Aslan's death, they felt compelled to help. And who better to allow to ride then the prophized Son of Adam, High King of Narnia.
Click to expand...


Ya beat me to my point, good job. I'm not sure why everyone is getting into an uproar over the rights of these talking horses. Yes, we know what the books say. I think alot of these people are misinterpreting Lewis's whole purpose for mentioning it. I think the only reason Lewis mentions the whole bit about "except in war, where everyone must do what he can do best, no one in Narnia or Archenland ever dreamed of mounting a Talking Horse" (Horse and his Boy), was to differentiate between common horses and Narnian horses. Everyone reading these stories obviously knows what a horse is, many of us have even ridden them. The point in him mentioning this has more to do with giving equality to them, instead of being seen as subservient (which common horses are). The point was not to make it seem as if talking horses were GODS that no one dared ride or risk the wrath of Aslan himself.

Those of you that misinterpreted that small comment are missing the most obvious explanation out of all of this, which Siren pointed out. Aslan is dead, and the troops are rallied around the Pevensies (who have yet to prove themselves in war, these are not yet the Golden Years of Narnia, they are still just children). They are just children, but in Aslan's absence, the only hope they cling to is the prophecy of the children. What greater honor is there than to allow the future High King of Narnia (chosen by Alsan himself) to ride on your back as you charge into battle against the most powerful villain ever to enter Narnia (who has an army greater than your own)?

If Reepicheep were alive, he would've volunteered to carry Peter into battle...but obviously the Unicorn makes more sense as it is actually competent in that scenario.

What do you suggest? For Peter to sit in the rear and WATCH the battle? Cuz there is no way he's going to be able to keep up with all the beasts. Knowing the honor that Narnian creatures revere, it would've shocked me more if one of the talking horses had NOT volunteered to carry Peter and Edmund into battle.

The idea of Peter NOT riding a talking horse/unicorn into battle is proposterous to me in this situation.
 
My two cents is that, with Peter and the unicorn, it was a crucial battle, and Peter was the commander. Since his survival was of total importance, he needed a mount with a maximum of intelligence, agility, and strength. The unicorn was an optimal choice, so the rules could be bent. And besides, the talking beasts would choose to emulate Aslan, just as we are called upon to emulate Jesus, on whom Aslan is based. If Aslan was willing to bear the girls on his back, then the unicorn and Phillip the talking horse should be only too willing to bear the boys on theirs.

Besides, it gave Phillip Streuer a chance to get his voice in. And did any of you notice that the radio announcer talking about the raids was Douglas Gresham?
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
Yes, you see the unicorn getting up, implying he was only wounded, and thus able to be healed by Lucy's cordial. Actually, that type of warfare would tend to produce a lot more wounds than flat-out killings. Of course, back in the days of that type of warfare, there wasn't very good aftercare, so most people died of even minor wounds - unless they had a healing cordial, of course.
Click to expand...

Yes! But if you look carefully, at the coronation, the unicorn is there. Standing at the front :)
 
Tirian of Narnia said:
That's what I meant, that I saw him at the coronation so how could he be dead? He's right behind the lion with a glasses and a mustach I think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, someone said he was killed in battle....but he's wasn't......obviously! :rolleyes:
 
i didn't like that as well but what i also didn't like as much is how he rode it. he looked dumb, his sword waving in the air with his shield in the other and not holding on to the unicorn. so why couldn't he have put his shield on his back and used his sword when he needed to instead of waving it up the whole time.
 
Peter is also the High King of Narnia!
It would make sense him riding one of the noblest of all steeds!
Plus it really looks good on screen!
The only thing is at the "White Stag" scene at the end,
Edmund is riding Philip.
Your only suppose to ride talking horses into battle,
Hunting a Stag is not a battle!
Also if Lucy had her dagger the whole time why didnt she try yo cut Aslan's bonds?
Also I wish they would have come out of Narnia at the end in their Kings and Queens clothing!
Eustace and Jill got to keep thiers,
And they were not even Royal!
 
Kingaslanofnarnia said:
Peter is also the High King of Narnia!
It would make sense him riding one of the noblest of all steeds!
Plus it really looks good on screen!
The only thing is at the "White Stag" scene at the end,
Edmund is riding Philip.
Your only suppose to ride talking horses into battle,
Hunting a Stag is not a battle!
Also if Lucy had her dagger the whole time why didnt she try yo cut Aslan's bonds?
Also I wish they would have come out of Narnia at the end in their Kings and Queens clothing!
Eustace and Jill got to keep thiers,
And they were not even Royal!
Click to expand...

Eustace and Jill were personally escorted back to England by Aslan who made a special exception for them. The Pevensies simply tumbled back through their wardrobe by mistake.

Lucy wasn't thinking of freeing Aslan, he was dead...the girls were grieving. Why would you cut loose a dead person? The mice, despite not knowing how to talk at the time, apparently knew of the deeper magic (or else they were just hungry for rope, I don't know).

I thought the scene with Edmund and "Phillip" at the end was appropriate, they seemed to have bonded and become friends (in the movie anyway, none of it happens in the book). It's not like the children would've invited a talking horse along on their hunt if he hadn't been transporting someone. If he wanted to be apart of this special occasion of hunting the stag, he would've had to volunteer to carry his friend Edmund. I suppose if he were a lazy horse and didn't care about the stag he would've chosen to stay home. It's obvious by the way Edmund talked to him that he wasn't ordering him around, he talked to him like a friend does.
 
Honestly I don't see what the problem is, I've read the book 3 or 4 times over, I know what it says about Talking Horses and Unicorns, but really, its a movie, he has the right(as the director) to change it up to make it more interesting. It was dire need so they came and helped out. Same with LOTR but thats a whole different ball game.
 
I believe they could've just had him ride a whit horse, because as a unicorn is a magnificent creature, and is to be treated with utmost respect, I don't think it was right that he rode one. By the way, I liked Edmunds talkinghorse :) .

P.S: Check out the "Whereabouts" post plzzz
 
Corin Thunder-Fist,
Kingaslanofnarnia is right about the clothing thing....
Because in Price Caspian they changed their clothing,
So they wouldnt go back to the train station in their royal garb!
Lucy and Susan loved Aslan,
Why would they leave someone they loved bound?
Also in the book Aslan had to make Lucy go and heal the wounded,
In the movie she did it on her own.
 
Last edited:
yeah, but then y doesn it say in all the reviews that the movie is true to the bk in eVERY way. I DO think that unicorn mistake is a bIG mistake. maybe, they forgot or didn't notice that, it's a cruel thing cuz unicorns r special in Lewis' bks and this scene makes it luk like they're like ll general talking horses....
 
*sigh*

Guys--
Sorry to burst your bubbles, but unless CS Lewis was the director, set designer, costume designer, casting director, etc., and the book is used as the script:::::NEWS FLASH: THE MOVIE IS GOING TO BE AS CLOSE TO THE BOOK AS IT CAN GET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I get really annoyed when people think, "Oh, Peter says this in the book, and he NEVER says it in the movie!" or "They added this line into the movie!" or "OMG, that isn't what Cair Paravel is supposed to look like!" . I mean, come on.
IT'S AS CLOSE TO THE BOOK AS IT CAN GET. GET OVER IT.
sorry if i was a bit rude!

ps: Hasn't anyone even thought that maybe it was a DIFFERENT UNICORN??????????????????????????????
 
Last edited:
You were rude.
But right.
No movie is going to be Identical to the book.
The only complaint I had was they could have set up Aslan's Character more!
Aslan and Lucy had a close relationship,
Which they really didnt show too well in the movie!
 
I do believe I heard that Andrew is going to do that in the Extended version, I can't wait for it:D:D:D:D!!!!!!!
 
Back
Top