I read it again

I don't think they meant to portray Caspian as someone in his mid-twenties. Ben Barnes is the same age as William Mosley, and Peter is still portrayed as only about sixteen. I do think a slightly younger actor would have been more appropriate (because Ben looks way older than William), but given that they wanted the same actor for VODT, and he's supposed to be about four years older there, they couldn't cast a teenager.

But I agree with everyone who wanted the romp. There's no way the BBC version could have done it justice, so I'm glad they didn't try, but Walden had the resources. As much as I liked the Castle Raid with all of Edmund's ninja-fu (that kid was AWESOME), I would have preferred the romp. It does a much better job of showing just how much Aslan did to subdue the Telmarines, and shows that it wasn't Peter and Caspian who won the war.
 
^Actually, I think it showed who really won the war quite well. The narnians and Peter and Caspian couldn't win on their own, as we saw, but only with the help of Aslan. He was the one who ultimately caused the demise of the Telmarine's strategies and of Sopespian, NOT CAspian and Peter. I thought that came across very well.

Ben Barnes is 27 years old. However, I must say that when I saw him on screen, I thought he was only 21 or 22. I didn't realize he was near 30! :eek: but it shows how acting can portray you younger than you are. I mean, would anyone have really suspected Elijah Wood was 18 when they started filming LOTR? I don't think I would have had I not known it before I saw the films. The age wasn't a big deal for me. He pulled off the Caspian Adamson wanted, so I'm happy with it. Ben has some great potential. Which is why I can't wait to see him in VDT *also, just as a side note, Caspian makes another appearance in the beginning and end of Silver chair. I imagine they got an older actor so they could use him for SC as well. Just a thought, not to mention the fact that an older actor has more experience. Except with horses, Ben kinda lied about that one. :p *
 
Most of the book, if you will admit it, is quite boring. It's slow. It's narration and walking. How are you supposed to keep an audience entertained if all the characters are doing is walking and talking? Also, for the filmmakers to actually "flashback" to tell the story of Caspian would be confusing.
Click to expand...
No, I don't admit the book is boring, so I can't agree with you here. Also, the LOTR movie The Two Towers dealt with, in great part, three guys running after some other guys, and yet it managed to be entertaining, so I am fairly sure it can be done. And the filmmakers more or less did "flashback" at the beginning of the film to show the birth of Miraz's son and Caspian's flight, so that technique worked just fine. Brilliant filmmakers could have preserved the book and made the movie dramatic, engaging and exciting. Merely good filmmakers had to alter the book's themes tremendously in an attempt to make the movie exciting -- which they did, but it's just not the same story as the book. I would have preferred a brilliant adaptation of PC rather than just a good Narnia movie.
 
inkspot said:
No, I don't admit the book is boring, so I can't agree with you here. Also, the LOTR movie The Two Towers dealt with, in great part, three guys running after some other guys, and yet it managed to be entertaining, so I am fairly sure it can be done. And the filmmakers more or less did "flashback" at the beginning of the film to show the birth of Miraz's son and Caspian's flight, so that technique worked just fine. Brilliant filmmakers could have preserved the book and made the movie dramatic, engaging and exciting. Merely good filmmakers had to alter the book's themes tremendously in an attempt to make the movie exciting -- which they did, but it's just not the same story as the book. I would have preferred a brilliant adaptation of PC rather than just a good Narnia movie.
Click to expand...

I think they really wanted to keep the Pevensies coming into the story early on (as they do in the book), but I think it might have almost been better to start with Caspian immediately, do the whole backstory, and then cut to the Pevensies when the horn is blown.

And they certainly made it more exciting, but I spent most of the film going, "Wait, what? Why are they doing this? That's a bad plan! Who is in charge of this army anyway? Someone get Aslan! Someone stop these bad decisions!"
 
"Most of the book, if you will admit it, is quite boring. It's slow. It's narration and walking. How are you supposed to keep an audience entertained if all the characters are doing is walking and talking?"

Aravis, what would you suggest for TSC? A good portion of that book deals with the main three characters walking and talking. The walking and talking in PC was easy to deal with. As I have mentioned, all they would have had to do was to have Trumpkin narrate Caspian's backstory (with them showing it on screen) while they are leaving the island and getting to the gorge. Every few minutes, they could have switched back to the Pevensies and Trumpkin en route. That would have solved the problem of what Adamson said was being without the main characters (the Pevensies) for so long.

The book was not boring to me and this was my least favorite of the Chronicles!

MrBob
 
MrBob said:
The book was not boring to me and this was my least favorite of the Chronicles!
Click to expand...

I actually thought this was the most exciting of the books when I was little--it was my favorite of the seven when I was probably nine/ten/eleven. (Now, of course, VotDT is my favorite, with HHB as a close second, but whatever.) I never thought of it as boring.

(Also: watching the film, I was like, "Okay honestly, when is this duel going to be over??????" Whereas in the book I found it quite exciting, which I only realized until I listened to it on iTunes and had to hold my breath the whole time. Normally I read it too fast to worry!)
 
I just watched the animated LWW and was like wow. There's a large difference, one greater than I imaginged. There were times when I really like the new movie, but yet the animated was more true to the story. I have yet to re-read LWW but I'm rereading VOTDT b/c I want to have an idea of what the new one coming out will be like.

Everything produced in LWW was a choice. The team knew what they were going aginst when they went into the filming, they're pros right? It's still a very good film. It's true parts are ture, but the ones where they verge off the path are like a fantasy w/in a fantasy. I like them, despite the parts that I really wish I could change... a lot.
 
Animus Wyrmis said:
I think they really wanted to keep the Pevensies coming into the story early on (as they do in the book), but I think it might have almost been better to start with Caspian immediately, do the whole backstory, and then cut to the Pevensies when the horn is blown.
Click to expand...

I said the exact same thing, that it should go directly to the children when Caspian blows the horn. I think it would have been more continuous that way.
 
I agree -- although that particular sequence is the least of the new movie's troubles ... but yes, it certainly would have made more sense so that we would realize the blowing of the horn is what sparked the magic that drew the Pevenies into Narnia. We had to pause the DVD the other night so I could explain to my husband what was happening! I got the new DVD's for Xmas! Hurray. :)
 
inkspot said:
I agree -- although that particular sequence is the least of the new movie's troubles ... but yes, it certainly would have made more sense so that we would realize the blowing of the horn is what sparked the magic that drew the Pevenies into Narnia. We had to pause the DVD the other night so I could explain to my husband what was happening! I got the new DVD's for Xmas! Hurray. :)
Click to expand...

Gosh, Inkspot, your family needs to read the books! Otherwise they'll never understand the films at all. :p

Internally, the PC movie just didn't seem consistent to me. How does Trumpkin know all of what's going on at Cair Paravel? Why is Caspian so dumb? Why was Lucy left out so much? And so on and so forth. (Actually I read an interesting theory about how movie!Caspian makes no sense unless you think he was trying to kill Peter when he proposed the duel with Miraz. Which, um, actually makes some sense. ::facepalm:: )
 
Animus Wyrmis said:
Gosh, Inkspot, your family needs to read the books! Otherwise they'll never understand the films at all. :p

Internally, the PC movie just didn't seem consistent to me. How does Trumpkin know all of what's going on at Cair Paravel? Why is Caspian so dumb? Why was Lucy left out so much? And so on and so forth. (Actually I read an interesting theory about how movie!Caspian makes no sense unless you think he was trying to kill Peter when he proposed the duel with Miraz. Which, um, actually makes some sense. ::facepalm:: )
Click to expand...
My man is not a reader -- you should have heard the long-winded explanation I had to give him regarding HP OotP movie!

Regarding the PC Movie: You are right -- according to the movie, Trumpkin was captured right after he first saw Caspian lying on the ground, he was roughed up by Miraz at court and then taken to the sea to be drowned -- so how is he able to tell the kids anything about Caspian? He didn't even know who Caspian was -- the movie implies that he was captured before he ever heard who Caspian was ... so he didn't know what the horn was, would have no reason to believe the old Kings and Queens might return, etc. Yet he is able to relate it all to the Pevensies?

The movie was quite exciting, but you are right, it didn't make sense in a lot of ways. The stuff they left out of the book was crucial stuff, for the most part, so the story couldn't hang together very well in the film. And as for why Caspian was so dumb, that's a function of his being so old! If he had been a young teen, as the book implies, his innocence/gullibility would have made more sense.
 
While it's not strictly canon, I think for the purpose of the movie, they would have done better to cast someone about Edmund's age. Peter is portrayed as about sixteen or so, and even at sixteen, a boy from the medieval era should have been able to do a half-way decent job of ruling an army. If they'd cast someone closer to Edmund's age, it would have made more sense that he was impulsive and a bit spoiled. They could have made the movie slightly more believable without having to change the script a whole ton. Plus, that makes Susan/Caspian impossible, which would have been a fabulous bonus.
 
I agree, Meg. (And they can't have been all that concerned about canon because Barnes was like, what, twenty-five?) That would have made for a more cohesive film, and a less idiotic main character. I mean, I just can't imagine that he's going to make a good king.

And if they wind up doing VotDT, it's going to feel really weird; Lucy and Edmund will be so much younger.
 
inkspot said:
Regarding the PC Movie: You are right -- according to the movie, Trumpkin was captured right after he first saw Caspian lying on the ground, he was roughed up by Miraz at court and then taken to the sea to be drowned -- so how is he able to tell the kids anything about Caspian? He didn't even know who Caspian was -- the movie implies that he was captured before he ever heard who Caspian was ... so he didn't know what the horn was, would have no reason to believe the old Kings and Queens might return, etc. Yet he is able to relate it all to the Pevensies?
Click to expand...

I've not thought of this before and I wish I hadn't found out - cos now I'll think about it everytime I watch the film...:D
 
waterhogboy said:
I've not thought of this before and I wish I hadn't found out - cos now I'll think about it everytime I watch the film...:D
Click to expand...
LOL! Sorry, Jonny. With everything that bothered me about the movie, this seemed like a small matter ... but once I let go of all the major stuff that bothered me and just began to enjoy the film as a good adventure story set in Narnia, then the other gaps in the logic began to bother me. :( I should not think so hard!
 
FunkyFawn said:
It's been several years since I've read the chronicles - but after buying the DVD and seeing it again, I just had to read the book again.

There was just way way way too many differences for me not to.
.
Click to expand...

Really? Cause while I love most of the Chroinicles, I thought the Prince Caspian book was boring and the plot rather convoluted. Thats why I loved the movie so much cause it:

a: had action
b: had the stories intercut so we arent stuck with one group of characters for 5 chapers, than switch to a different set later
c: Left out the pointless partying with Bachusss
d. Made Susan less annoying
e: gave Miraz more depth

The one thing I wish they left in the movie is the part where Lucy gets Peter, Edmund, Susan, and Trumpkin to follow Aslan and one by one they end up seeing him. That was one of the best parts in the series actually.
 
inkspot said:
They called me afterward and said it was enjoyable but ... where were the spiritual lessons? What was Lewis trying to say? They hadn't read the book, but they had seen LWW movie and clearly got he spiritual message there. They couldn't figure it out at all, from PC movie.
Click to expand...

The spiritual lesson in Prince Caspian was to go to God for help, instead of trying to do everything in your own strength.

Lucy told them that they should wait for Aslan. Peter says they've waited for him long enough. So they go to the Night Raid, and as a consequence several Narnians die. The same thing goes for calling up the WW, the duel, and the final battle. They can't win without Aslan/God.

Another Lesson is following Jesus even when it doesnt make sense. Lucy said she saw Aslan and the other's didnt believe her because...they didnt see him. Faith is believeing in what you can't see. So there is a lesson in that.
 
Back
Top