Film continuity

I agree, it's a radical departure from the book, and I think the "whole point" of the PC film must be different from the book, because Peter and Caspian in the film are having a power struggle, which could never have happened given the climate of the book. So it will be very different from the book, but I think it can still be a good film.
 
To have Caspian even IMAGINE opposing Peter's will, and then to claim you are faithfully adapting Mr. Lewis' work, is as if you said that the Pope in Rome has no authority at all, and then claimed that you were a practicing Catholic. And do they expect us to believe that Aslan would for one instant tolerate Caspian mouthing off to the far more experienced Peter? What does this do to the humility of Caspian as established in the book? In the book, THE WHOLE REASON why Aslan judged Caspian worthy to be a king was that he WAS humble!

I think I'm going to start a thread to the effect that many flaws in cinema versions of great books are NOT just a matter of taste, but a matter of today's writers losing the very concept of the cardinal virtues.
 
Since the above post, I have sent to Douglas Gresham a copy of the post I made to begin the "Concept of Virtue" thread. Having seen my misgivings about the handling of the Peter-Caspian relationship, Mr. Gresham wrote back to me as follows:

Dear Joseph,

I wouldn't worry too much about that sort of rumour, see the movie
first and then comment.

Blessings,

Doug.
 
Wow! Do you think maybe there isn't such a power struggle and a fight between Peter and Caspian? That would be good. Thanks for posting that, CF.
 
In the BBC version Caspian is very young. In the book Caspian is about the same age as Peter, but not as mature or tried. I don't know anything about how this movie is being played out. But to try to make rivals out of Peter and Caspian would be a waste of time in character development. The book is already full of character development to bring in more. There are so many characters that each need to be brought out in the movie. In LWW there was just the 4 children, Aslan, the witch, the beavers, and Mr Taumus. In PC, you have the 4 children, which are all very much developed in new roles, Aslan, Caspian, the two dwarfs (both very unique), the badger, the squirrel, Reepicheep, Miraz, Dr. Cornelius, plus minor characters like the bears, the giant, the moles, Trees, Bacchus and Silenus, and Sopespian and Glozelle. PC is a story full of characters that must be given time in order to complete the story. Adding other story points means you may have to cut out other character developent. You already have a lot of rivalry in Caspian's council.
 
I totally agree with Tim -- and I have a fear maybe they are going to gloss over some of the important characters in the book in favor of developing this rivalry from Peter and Caspian -- but maybe based on Gresham's response to CF, that is not the case. I hope not.
 
That kind of meddling is even done with the Bible! Cecil B. DeMille's classic film "The Ten Commandments," though it certainly is worth seeing, wasted more than an hour of screen time on a totally made-up-from-nothing intrigue plot which involved Moses having the chance to become the next Pharaoh of Egypt himself. Actually, there is no basis for supposing that Moses was ever among the leading five or ten candidates for the royal succession; and the superfluous melodrama crowded out many genuine Biblical events they COULD HAVE portrayed.
 
The problem with this sort of thing going on in the earlier filmed movies is that there arise problems with the later films in terms of continuity. They had the kids a bit older in LWW and thus they needed an older Caspian and that changed the storyline where they felt that the nurse was out of place for PC, and so the story was lessened a bit.

The more this sort of thing goes on, the more I wonder what future films will look like. Will they be the stories we've loved or will they be something different? Time will tell.
 
Well...most of us overlooked the age flaws and a few(?) other obvious differences between the book and the film, the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and declared that we loved the film. I am sure that each of the upcoming films will have some major differences also, but I am hoping that we can come away saying that they were still great films. At least I pray that it is so.
 
I'm thinking that much of what we are seeing/hearing may be rumors specifically designed to attract the attention of the fans. Maybe Susan is swing away with a sword in battle, but this may not be what it appears. It could be a response to an unusual situation (and there are plenty of them in this story) where the only reasonable option for someone is to take up a sword. Another possibility is that Susan did in fact become a good swordswoman in her reign as queen. And the fact that she departed from what Aslan had intended for her (not to fight in battle) may be indiciative of the change of heart she was slowly going through as she matured-- after all, she was the last one to see Aslan.

I have less of a problem casting Prince Caspian as being an older teen or young adult. As I have interpreted the stories, I had always felt he was that age anyway. Although Peter did an excellent job s High King, that doesn't mean that every King character in the stories needs to be really young.

I am looking forward to the film, and it is my sincere hope that they do stick mainly to the storyline. I do understand the need to take a few liberties with the story in adapting it to the screen, and that this story presented some unique challenges. Still, they need to be careful to stay close to the story line.

Some films have been made that stick remarkably close to the story. 'Apollo 13' is a good example. They even went as far as to use the full-strength NASA terminology in describing what went on up there.

As far as spiritual content goes, if they say they are going to ramp up the antispiritual message in the 'Golden Compass' film series (which may not be made-- the film bombed, and deserved to do so), why can't they ramp up the spiritual message in the Narnia films?

Lastly, I am thrilled to hear that there is serious talk of older films. But at the rate they are releasing them, I see me staggering, bent over into the theater to see LB. I will be the first in the door and last into my seat. At the end of the film, someone will find me, and come to conclude that I have 'gone off to see a lion'!
 
"Another possibility is that Susan did in fact become a good swordswoman in her reign as queen. And the fact that she departed from what Aslan had intended for her (not to fight in battle) may be indiciative of the change of heart she was slowly going through as she matured-- after all, she was the last one to see Aslan."

timbalion, Aslan expected them to fight after they were queens and kings. He never gave the girls any directive not to fight. In Horse and His Boy, Lucy goes into battle.

The only one to say anything about women and battles was Father Christmas in LWW, but I don't think his statement was meant to intend that queens could not go to war.

MrBob
 
What Father Christmas actually said in the book--which the movie altered in a cowardly concession to political correctness--was "But battles are ugly when women fight." Mr. Lewis knew enough history to know that some women HAD fought in various wars--but also enough history to know that:

1) If women were in action on the battlefield, it sometimes meant that their side was in desperation, throwing everything they had left at the enemy in a last-ditch effort to ward off defeat and destruction.

2) Women who were captured alive during a battle (or its immediate aftermath) usually became victims of indescribable cruelty, degradation and violence.

3) In some cultures (many Native American ones, for sure), there was a tendency for women to "compensate" for the fact of their average strength being less than that of men, by showing their OWN indescribable cruelty in torturing defenseless enemy prisoners who fell into THEIR hands.
 
MrBob said:
"Another possibility is that Susan did in fact become a good swordswoman in her reign as queen. And the fact that she departed from what Aslan had intended for her (not to fight in battle) may be indiciative of the change of heart she was slowly going through as she matured-- after all, she was the last one to see Aslan."

timbalion, Aslan expected them to fight after they were queens and kings. He never gave the girls any directive not to fight. In Horse and His Boy, Lucy goes into battle.
Click to expand...

Queens traditionally don't go into battle, at least not in my experience. There are, of course, notable exceptions.

MrBob said:
The only one to say anything about women and battles was Father Christmas in LWW, but I don't think his statement was meant to intend that queens could not go to war.
Click to expand...

It could be that this is one of the 'continuity breakers' that exists in the Chronicles. Mr Lewis wasn't sure whether he would erite future stories, so there were some things in LWW that are inconsistent with the future books. Another example is, it is mentioned when He was first encountered in LWW that Aslan had a throne and scepter. Subesquetly, we see Aslan as simply a lion, with no instruments of authority, or of anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top