Handling the changes they made to PC and their effects on Dawn Treader
- Thread starter ~Lava~
- Start date
Darth Sparhawk
New member
Make Aslan to die in eternal battle with Tash and start cycle of new rebirths again.
I am tolerant to changes, but even I wouldn't accept eastern mysticism in the movies.
I am tolerant to changes, but even I wouldn't accept eastern mysticism in the movies.
go to the "silly" thread and post your ideas there. I think Lava intended this one to be for serious discussion. 
So go there and have fun!
So go there and have fun!Darth Sparhawk
New member
I think that their mark in imdb is similar. The trouble with PC is that connected with appaling strategy by Disney, IMO and with the fantasy weakening slowly.
HugsForReepicheep
New member
The curious thing here is that Eustace, though improving, doesn't become a hero or anything like that in VoDT. Not even in SC, where both he and Jill are big complainers (sp?). Making Eustace hero-like would, if they have any plans of doing more Narnia movies, end up changing a lot of other characters and plots to fit the change.
So I hope - as stupid as this may make the sequence - they really just forget about the bad changes they did and try to make this one as book-like as possible, not trying to solve previous problems by making more changes. The odds are that, if they try to make up for PC, they'll ruin things faster, I suppose.
That's what they did with PC.
Elentari
New member
Well, kind of, but not really. In PC they made changes, but I don't think any of those changes were based on or because of changes they made in LWW. Besides the fact that as many fans have pointed out, the changes in LWW were more "insert invented character with invented lines for an invented purpose that fits in with the plot" (aka the fox) more than plot changing changes (Peter vs. Caspian, raid on castle, mixing up what happens where so nobody is exactly sure when anything is going to happen since it's not following the basic layout of events, bookwise). In Voyage, the changes made to the character of Caspian will DIRECTLY affect the movie, while changes to Peter, Susan, and to a degree Edmund and Lucy, will not (even though the 2 are in it, they were not "messed with"). The other characters are all new, with the exception of Reepicheep and Aslan.
Fitting in with this argument (Hugs, this is an excellent point) comes the character/heroicness of Eustace.
Eustace is not a true "hero" on the same level as Peter, Edmund, and Caspian until The Last Battle. His journey is perhaps the longest of any Son of Adam in Narnia. In Voyage, he does an occasional heroic deed (as a dragon then helping to fight the sea monster), but not to the level of the Kings. He is never crowned a King, either (which also makes him different than Shasta/Cor as well), which is a definite change from the previous two movies. (Digory is the only other not crowned king, but his experiences/deeds in Magician are DECIDEDLY different than Eustace's experiences so I cannot draw any comparisons there.) In Silver Chair Eustace grows in leadership, but he is never the one in charge (both children defer to the "adult" Puddleglum).
Therefore, making him "hero-like" to the level of the Kings WOULD DEFINITELY change the future movies MUCH more than any changes made to Caspian or Peter in PC. Eustace is more like the "every-boy" vs. the "boy-hero" (again, until Last Battle when he shows how far he has come).
Knight of Narnia
New member
I agree with both points Elentari. Changes made to LWW were more along the lines of "small additions" such as the scene with the fox or the scene at the waterfall. They could be taken out and the film would still make sense. However, if you take out the scenes where Peter is a jerk and winds up getting the Narnians into trouble, well you loose about 1/2 of the movie.
Eustace is definitely more of an "everyboy" than an actual hero (again until LB). He screws up, learns from it, and moves on. He winds up doing this several times before finally maturing enough to be a "hero" in LB.
I agree with these points re: Eustace and the changes from the LWW book.
What I don't agree with is that anything will have to be done to VDT to accomodate the changes from PC. The only thing which will really carry over (in some viewers' minds) is the Kiss, but most folks will see that for what it was, an impulsive gesture on Susan's part, and not think that any explanation is required in Caspian's role in VDT.
I think if Apted just follows VDT story, he will not have to make any changes based on PC film.
What I don't agree with is that anything will have to be done to VDT to accomodate the changes from PC. The only thing which will really carry over (in some viewers' minds) is the Kiss, but most folks will see that for what it was, an impulsive gesture on Susan's part, and not think that any explanation is required in Caspian's role in VDT.
I think if Apted just follows VDT story, he will not have to make any changes based on PC film.
Elentari
New member
True, CF...Especially if the script writers think that his NOT asking reflects badly on his character (as in moral, not script). Another option would be Lucy/Edmund just volunteering the information when they are "catching up" with Caspian ("how many years have gone by, what have you been up to, by the way Susan and Peter, bla bla bla"). Either way, it would be a change, though it MIGHT be viewed as a good one if it shows audiences (esp. Susan fans who can't understand why she's not coming back) the direction Susan is heading. ???
Yah, but this would not necessarily be predicated on any changes made in PC -- this would have been necessary to the film just because Caspian had met and gotten to know the elder two Pevensies -- so even if nothing had transpired between Caspian and Susan, he would still have asked. There is no such conversation in the VDT book, but it still would have been needed in the movie. (Lewis tells us, the readers, about Susan, but he does not give us any dialog between the kids on the ship about it.)
~Valiant
New member
The biggest change they're going to have to deal with is Caspian/Susan vs. Caspian/Ramandu's daughter. I don't want them to mention it very much, but I do think they should pay some attention to it.
Caspian: How are your siblings doing?
Lucy: Peter's studying at Professor Kirke's-- when we first got to Narnia it was from the wardrobe in his house, he was one of the first people to enter narnia -- and Susan is with our mother and father in America. Ed and I were staying at our aunt and uncle's, with our cousin Eustace.
Caspian: I'm glad they're well.
Ed: You know they're never coming back, don't you?
Caspian: Yes. *smile* Don't worry, it's been three years.
Caspian: How are your siblings doing?
Lucy: Peter's studying at Professor Kirke's-- when we first got to Narnia it was from the wardrobe in his house, he was one of the first people to enter narnia -- and Susan is with our mother and father in America. Ed and I were staying at our aunt and uncle's, with our cousin Eustace.
Caspian: I'm glad they're well.
Ed: You know they're never coming back, don't you?
Caspian: Yes. *smile* Don't worry, it's been three years.
See? al this talk about Caspian/Susan was totally unecessary. I feel like you are talking about some unknown story I have never read. It definitely doesn't feel Narnia-like.
gogogoff
New member
Peter acted like any real person would act, he is not GOD he is not perfect, so stop acting like he should have been, I think what they did FOR peter was A GOOD THING FOR HIM
No it was not a good thing for him. Why does one have to act like a jerk to "act human." Not all human beings are jerks. If acting like a jerk is a good thing for some people then that's their business. Lewis held the High King to higher standards.
Certainly I don't want people to say of me "well, his just human" whenever I act stupid. Anyone who acts like that is not worthy of our admiration. And I do know at least one "real person" who is an honorable person at all times, not a jerk.
This probably belongs in the other thread but anyway, the things is I don't believe that the way he was portrayed in PC was good for him. No way.
Xenithar
New member
Whatever they decide to do with Dawn Treader, I would think they would have a hard time screwing the story up in the first place. It's a very simple story when you think about it, where they're hopping from island to island, and meanwhile there's all the character developement between Lucy, Edmund, Eustace, Caspian, Reepicheep, etc. (which in itself is not very complicated according to the book save for Eustace being a brat and eventually getting some sense put into him after he returns from being a dragon -.-)
And of course, there's all the extra stuff that floats over from PC, like the susaspian thing, but I agree with Lieke: that they'll probably ignore the Kiss. After all, it's been 3 years in Narnia time, and I don't think Caspian would really dwell upon that 2 second gesture for that long.
And of course, there's all the extra stuff that floats over from PC, like the susaspian thing, but I agree with Lieke: that they'll probably ignore the Kiss. After all, it's been 3 years in Narnia time, and I don't think Caspian would really dwell upon that 2 second gesture for that long.
HugsForReepicheep
New member
I have to agree with you, BarbarianKing. That's one of the reasons I have already posted that I'd rather them just stick to the book and ignore the mistakes in PC in this new one. Maybe that's because I don't have imagination enough to come up with a solution as others did... Either way, I'm already picturing the jokes that might come on Caspian, and I *don't* like them. But as jokes will come and now no one can help it, jokes + book faithfull movie are a better scenary than jokes + book unfaithfull movie + some amends...
Thank you HugsForReepicheep. And I also happen to agree with you that it is best to stick to the book and forget the whole Caspian/Susan thing. Don't even mention it.
So as you can probably guess from my post count, I’m new here. I was hesitant about putting my thoughts down on this subject because it seems people have very strong feelings on the matter, but then decided, “What the heck.” I also apologize for the post being very long - I was collecting my thoughts on the matter last night while waiting for my account to get approved, and I guess I have a lot of thoughts. I don't think I'm violating any terms of use in posting a long post, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll try to assemble a Cliff's Notes version.
Prince Caspian is a story about the dark night of the soul---about the characters finding faith and believing again after that faith and belief has been tested to its limits. This is as true for the Pevensie children, who have spent a year in a world torn by war only return to Narnia to find that Narnia is in pretty bad shape too, as it is for the Narnians themselves, who have seen their world invaded and dismantled by the Telmarines, with Aslan nowhere to be found. Some characters, like Lucy, have held strongly to their faith. Others, like the three older Pevensie children, have drifted to varying degrees.
In the book, Lewis reflected this by having the children seeing Aslan in gradual steps, with Lucy obviously being the first to see him. This is probably something they could have still done with the film, but there would have been some difficulties. It is probably more difficult to show the differing degrees of faith on-screen by this device, since it’s not often that scenes are shot from the point of view of each character’s eyes, nor, would I imagine, is it easy to do. And having each of the four siblings describing how much of Aslan they could see at any given time would probably get a bit annoying.
Instead, the filmmakers apparently took the approach of reflecting each character’s degree of faith by their conduct. You have Lucy, who still believes, seeing Aslan when the others do not. There’s Susan and Edmund, who still believe deep down, but have had their share of doubts. And of course, there’s Caspian, who plays the role of the newcomer to faith---he’s been educated in the history and the stories, but it’s through the events of the movie that he truly begins to believe.
On the distant end of the disbelief spectrum, you have a character like Nikabrik, who not only does not believe in Aslan, but who embraces his nemesis from the previous film. In the context of Christian allegory, Nikabrik is like someone who, after having their faith sorely tested, finds solace in vices---he is the Narnian equivalent of someone who loses faith and turns to drinking, gambling, crime, etc.
Then there’s Peter, who seems to be a real point of contention for people. My take on it is that the filmmakers portrayed Peter as one who has lost faith in Aslan, and as a result vests all his faith in himself. He represents the people in real life of whom it is often said, “They’ve forgotten where they come from and how they got where they are.” Having lost his faith in Aslan, all Peter remembers now is that he is the High King. He has, as Lucy aptly pointed out, forgotten how he became High King---with Aslan’s help, as it was Aslan who ultimately defeated the White Witch.
BarbarianKing mentioned that Lewis held the High King to higher standards, and I absolutely agree. Not only did Lewis hold Peter to higher standards, presumably Aslan held him to higher standards as well. And for as long as he believed in Aslan and remembered that it was by Aslan’s power that he became High King, Peter lived up to those standards during the Pevensies’ reign in Narnia. But after being torn from that world and returning a year later to find that world completely devastated, with no hint of Aslan trying to set things right, the humility that Peter’s faith once endowed upon him has now given way to pride. Peter clings to the title of High King because that’s all he has now, in his mind. He doesn’t think they can count on Aslan, who has been absent for 1300 years, so now they have to count on him. In real-world terms, he has replaced faith in God with faith in his own successes, while forgetting that it was through his faith in God that he succeeded in the first place.
Of course, it’s only human to falter when we’re held up to the highest standards, such as the standards that Lewis and Aslan imposed on Peter. If that were the end of the story, then, as BarbarianKing said, it would be terribly disappointing. But that’s only half of the equation---we don’t look up to people simply because they’re human. We look up to people who, when they fail---because of their imperfect humanity---to meet the standards that they’re held to, are capable of acknowledging their shortcomings and improving themselves. That’s the aspect of Peter’s story in the film that we’re supposed to look to---not the fact that he’s initially self-absorbed and a bit bratty, but the fact that when his pride led to disaster for the Narnians, he was able to admit that Lucy was right and place his trust and faith in Aslan once more.
I guess the point of this long rambling post is that what the filmmakers did was different in execution, but still aimed at preserving Lewis’ idea. I don’t think their portrayal of Peter has made him a less admirable character in the end, because ultimately the story in Prince Caspian isn’t just about having faith, as Lucy did all along; it’s also about finding your way back when you’ve strayed, as Peter, Edmund, and Susan had to do. As for how it will affect Dawn Treader… I’m not sure. In part because, as you may have gleamed from my long-winded writing, I tended to focus on the fact that Peter was able to come back to faith after stumbling, rather than his actual behavior when he was off the path. I don’t see a problem being critical of Eustace’s behavior, because people should rightfully be critical of Peter’s behavior as well---so long as they cut him some slack once he recognizes the error of his ways and once again becomes the High King everyone expects him to be. Perhaps some of the characters should have been a bit more critical of him during his bad Peter phase, thus making it more consistent for people to be critical of Eustace, but I think it was also hard to find characters from whom such response would be in-character---the centaurs, Reepicheep, and Edmund seemingly were all scripted to be loyal to the end, and thus would not be ideal to criticize Peter. Susan shot him a few disapproving looks and questioned his motives in the castle raid, and Nikabrik was clearly disdainful of him after the castle fiasco, but Nikabrik was also so far down the road to being bad that his criticism of Peter’s behavior lost most of its credibility by virtue of the character being a near-villain. The fact that Peter’s title of High King shielded him from much of the criticism from his former subjects would probably serve to temper any disparity one might find in criticizing Eustace but not Peter; people are naturally less inclined to criticize someone who holds a position of respect and honor, even when they’re acting poorly. I’m not saying it’s the right thing for people to do, but it explains any inconsistency in the treatment of Eustace vs. the treatment of Peter in a way that just about everyone understands.
As for Susan/Caspian (I know, long-winded)… not a big deal. It was just a kiss. Maybe it’d be tougher to sell to little kids, since when you’re a little kid, even holding hands is a big deal and kissing means you might as well be married, but for most people, I think it’d require at most a minute of dialogue, if it’s given any screen time at all.
Prince Caspian is a story about the dark night of the soul---about the characters finding faith and believing again after that faith and belief has been tested to its limits. This is as true for the Pevensie children, who have spent a year in a world torn by war only return to Narnia to find that Narnia is in pretty bad shape too, as it is for the Narnians themselves, who have seen their world invaded and dismantled by the Telmarines, with Aslan nowhere to be found. Some characters, like Lucy, have held strongly to their faith. Others, like the three older Pevensie children, have drifted to varying degrees.
In the book, Lewis reflected this by having the children seeing Aslan in gradual steps, with Lucy obviously being the first to see him. This is probably something they could have still done with the film, but there would have been some difficulties. It is probably more difficult to show the differing degrees of faith on-screen by this device, since it’s not often that scenes are shot from the point of view of each character’s eyes, nor, would I imagine, is it easy to do. And having each of the four siblings describing how much of Aslan they could see at any given time would probably get a bit annoying.
Instead, the filmmakers apparently took the approach of reflecting each character’s degree of faith by their conduct. You have Lucy, who still believes, seeing Aslan when the others do not. There’s Susan and Edmund, who still believe deep down, but have had their share of doubts. And of course, there’s Caspian, who plays the role of the newcomer to faith---he’s been educated in the history and the stories, but it’s through the events of the movie that he truly begins to believe.
On the distant end of the disbelief spectrum, you have a character like Nikabrik, who not only does not believe in Aslan, but who embraces his nemesis from the previous film. In the context of Christian allegory, Nikabrik is like someone who, after having their faith sorely tested, finds solace in vices---he is the Narnian equivalent of someone who loses faith and turns to drinking, gambling, crime, etc.
Then there’s Peter, who seems to be a real point of contention for people. My take on it is that the filmmakers portrayed Peter as one who has lost faith in Aslan, and as a result vests all his faith in himself. He represents the people in real life of whom it is often said, “They’ve forgotten where they come from and how they got where they are.” Having lost his faith in Aslan, all Peter remembers now is that he is the High King. He has, as Lucy aptly pointed out, forgotten how he became High King---with Aslan’s help, as it was Aslan who ultimately defeated the White Witch.
BarbarianKing mentioned that Lewis held the High King to higher standards, and I absolutely agree. Not only did Lewis hold Peter to higher standards, presumably Aslan held him to higher standards as well. And for as long as he believed in Aslan and remembered that it was by Aslan’s power that he became High King, Peter lived up to those standards during the Pevensies’ reign in Narnia. But after being torn from that world and returning a year later to find that world completely devastated, with no hint of Aslan trying to set things right, the humility that Peter’s faith once endowed upon him has now given way to pride. Peter clings to the title of High King because that’s all he has now, in his mind. He doesn’t think they can count on Aslan, who has been absent for 1300 years, so now they have to count on him. In real-world terms, he has replaced faith in God with faith in his own successes, while forgetting that it was through his faith in God that he succeeded in the first place.
Of course, it’s only human to falter when we’re held up to the highest standards, such as the standards that Lewis and Aslan imposed on Peter. If that were the end of the story, then, as BarbarianKing said, it would be terribly disappointing. But that’s only half of the equation---we don’t look up to people simply because they’re human. We look up to people who, when they fail---because of their imperfect humanity---to meet the standards that they’re held to, are capable of acknowledging their shortcomings and improving themselves. That’s the aspect of Peter’s story in the film that we’re supposed to look to---not the fact that he’s initially self-absorbed and a bit bratty, but the fact that when his pride led to disaster for the Narnians, he was able to admit that Lucy was right and place his trust and faith in Aslan once more.
I guess the point of this long rambling post is that what the filmmakers did was different in execution, but still aimed at preserving Lewis’ idea. I don’t think their portrayal of Peter has made him a less admirable character in the end, because ultimately the story in Prince Caspian isn’t just about having faith, as Lucy did all along; it’s also about finding your way back when you’ve strayed, as Peter, Edmund, and Susan had to do. As for how it will affect Dawn Treader… I’m not sure. In part because, as you may have gleamed from my long-winded writing, I tended to focus on the fact that Peter was able to come back to faith after stumbling, rather than his actual behavior when he was off the path. I don’t see a problem being critical of Eustace’s behavior, because people should rightfully be critical of Peter’s behavior as well---so long as they cut him some slack once he recognizes the error of his ways and once again becomes the High King everyone expects him to be. Perhaps some of the characters should have been a bit more critical of him during his bad Peter phase, thus making it more consistent for people to be critical of Eustace, but I think it was also hard to find characters from whom such response would be in-character---the centaurs, Reepicheep, and Edmund seemingly were all scripted to be loyal to the end, and thus would not be ideal to criticize Peter. Susan shot him a few disapproving looks and questioned his motives in the castle raid, and Nikabrik was clearly disdainful of him after the castle fiasco, but Nikabrik was also so far down the road to being bad that his criticism of Peter’s behavior lost most of its credibility by virtue of the character being a near-villain. The fact that Peter’s title of High King shielded him from much of the criticism from his former subjects would probably serve to temper any disparity one might find in criticizing Eustace but not Peter; people are naturally less inclined to criticize someone who holds a position of respect and honor, even when they’re acting poorly. I’m not saying it’s the right thing for people to do, but it explains any inconsistency in the treatment of Eustace vs. the treatment of Peter in a way that just about everyone understands.
As for Susan/Caspian (I know, long-winded)… not a big deal. It was just a kiss. Maybe it’d be tougher to sell to little kids, since when you’re a little kid, even holding hands is a big deal and kissing means you might as well be married, but for most people, I think it’d require at most a minute of dialogue, if it’s given any screen time at all.