I think Prince Caspian the movie was better than Prince Caspian the book

Specter said:
Not sure if you meant this.. but both Prince Caspian and Captain America: The First Avenger were written by the same guys.
Click to expand...

I see I didn't finish my thought there - that's what happens when I get distracted, oops! And I also mentioned the movie title when I meant the character of Captain America. This is what I'm trying to say:

Because he was born in 1918, Captain America had 1918-1940s values and thoughts vs., say Tony Stark or Peter Parker. When Cap wakes up in modern times, he's completely out of his element because both people, dress, and even slang terms have changed drastically since the 1940s. People don't even think exactly the same way that he does.
Since I was clearly not born the 1940s, I don't have the same view of the world as the Pevensies might have had or the same response to certain things. So, for the Pevensies, their reactions could quite possibly not be the same ones we would have had if we were dropped into the same situations as they were.

Does that make sense?
 
Yes, it makes sense. What DOESN'T make sense is that a boy who REMEMBERED many years of being a smart, responsible man would suddenly become LESS mature than he had been before ever going to Narnia in the first place, just because his body became smaller.
 
But if the memory was more like a dream then maybe it could. When they went back into England, their bodies went back to how they were before, so the physical effects of their Narnian lives were lost. Moreover, Peter was in adolescence. Some timelines say he was 12 in LWW and 13 in PC. (I think he was a bit older - probably 16 and 17.) But if we take the younger age spectrum, isn't age 13, 14, 15 exactly the age when many young people do seem to regress; that children who seemed really mature and well-behaved seem to regress into withdrawn or moody teenagers?
 
Not buying it. In most of the world, for most of history, boys as young as ten years ALREADY were accustomed to bearing responsibility and facing hard realities, even without ever getting to visit Narnia. Novelist Louis L'Amour based his Western novels on his knowledge of actual history, and he confirmed the same thing. Boys as young as ten worked at serious tasks. They routinely carried guns, and had used them in earnest. Similar early toughness prevailed in tribal cultures. There is exactly zero reason to argue that Peter had to deteriorate. Andrew Adamson just WANTED Peter to deteriorate, so that both Lucy and the aged-up Caspian could look superior to him.
 
Peep, yes Peter as High King had the most responsibilities, but the other three were not slackers. Again, Edmund and Lucy were known to be on the front line of wars as was Peter. Unknown regarding Susan, though it is possible her title of "The Gentle" came out of her staying out of fighting in wars.

As for the characterizations, Susan hadn't adapted to England by not pretending Narnia wasn't real between LWW and PC. This is something that happened later, possibly during or after VotDT. She was the only one in VotDT who was not in Narnia or around someone who had been there. Susan was always practical and was the first one who wanted to leave Narnia in LWW before getting lost and Edmund going to the White Witch. After coming back, her practicality was accepting life in England.

With Edmund, he only joined the fight to protect Peter when he though Peter was outnumbered.

MrBob
 
Like I said, I have some issues with the change in Peter's character, so I'm going to stop trying to defend Adamson on that point. I'm just saying it didn't ruin the movie for me. It's a matter of opinion, not fact.

On a couple of factual points, CF, I think the book says that Caspian and Peter were similar ages, and that's how they look to me in the movie (perhaps Caspian is slightly older than Peter, but not so much that it was obvious to me [Edit: I just looked it up, Ben Barnes is 6 years older than William Moseley]). Also, I don't think Caspian looks much better than Peter in the movie - he has lots of flaws too. And Lucy does come off better than Peter in the book (choosing to go away from Aslan not towards). Oh and one more, even if 'adolescence' hasn't existed in most places at most times (questionable), it certainly was recognised in the UK by that time.

Bob - In the movie, it does seem as though Susan had already been effectively pretending that Narnia wasn't real; and that is based on her character development in the book, even if she hadn't gone quite so far as the movie suggests. And my point was not that only Peter had responsibilities, but that as the eldest the challenge to him may have been different, potentially harder, than for the other three.
 
Last edited:
I view Peter as about 15-16 in PC with Susan about a year younger. Caspian was about their ages. He couldn't bee too old as if he had reached 18 before PC, Miraz would have had a hard time convincing others that he should still be regent, only holding Caspian's place as rightful king.

Peep, I didn't see that Susan was pretending Narnia wasn't real, just that they weren't going to go back. After all, what would have given any of them the idea that they would have gone back? The one person they knew who went previously only went once when he was a boy. That was why I disliked Peter's attitude about not going back to Narnia. Also, the reason Peter got into a fight was, if I remember, was because someone bumped into him and didn't apologize.

I would have been far more accepting of his attitude if it was due to the war or if his father was still fighting, hadn't written in a while on the warfront, or something similar. It would have been better if he was upset that he had all the military strategies and was unable to join. Not being able to go back to Narnia was not right.

MrBob
 
Well, Miraz had already usurped the throne, and was no longer even pretending to act as regent.* But Caspian is definitely described as a 'boy', so an age much older than 17 (the age I think of Peter as) would not be very plausible. It is unclear from the book how much time had passed between Caspian having to flee from Miraz and the events of PC. It could be several years (that would be much more plausible than a very short time).

I said 'effectively pretending that Narnia wasn't real'. I don't mean that she had already got to the point she would later reach of denying it completely, just that she was well along that path.

The film doesn't say that the fighting was because of not going back to Narnia. It could equally well be understood that the war, lack of a father, frustration at being a schoolboy and not a soldier, etc were contributory frustrations.

Peeps

* Edit: Oh you mean in the film... Well, I understood that the characters were intended to be aged about 16-18, even though I know both actors were older than that by the time the movie was made.
 
I can't see the events of PC took place over more than a few weeks to a month or so. Even in VotDT, Caspian was described as the "boy king" that the Pevensies helped to ascend to the throne. Whether it meant boy king as when he was in PC isn't stated, but when Lord Bern bought Caspian in VotDT, he pointed to him and asked how much for that boy.

MrBob
 
Having just had a quick look, it seems that Prunaprismia gave birth in early summertime, and Lucy can see the summer constellations when they are in the woods, so you are right that it must be a relatively short time. There is nothing in the text to indicate that there was a break from one year to the next. And most of the Chronicles do play out over a matter of days - VDT and TSC go on for several months, but all the other stories are over a short timescale.

I have difficulty with that from a historical plausibility point of view. The idea that even a moderately successful rebellion could be raised from conception to execution in such a short time doesn't match real life. (You could make the same case for LWW, I guess, although the fact that Aslan is the one instigating the rebellion and he can use magic does help. PC doesn't have that, until they blow the horn.) [Edit: I just looked up the Peasants Revolt of 1381, which did come together in a couple of weeks, so perhaps there is a case to be made; although there had already been a mood of significant unrest and was probably based around people who were already community leaders rather than uniting around someone completely new, as Caspian was; and also they didn't have a base or fight any pitched battles, they just marched in protest to London.]

With regard to the 'boy king', I imagine Caspian as a young man. Three years had passed in Narnia since the time of PC, so if he was about 17 in PC he would be about 20 in VDT. I think that's in line with calling him a 'boy', especially by quite a senior lord, and especially when Caspian was a slave at the time.

Peeps
 
Last edited:
Miraz tried to have Caspian assassinated as soon as Miraz's wife had a son. Would he have waited a year or so to make another attempt on Caspian's life? It was stated that not long after they made the How their base that the Telmarine army found them. The description was that there was fighting most days and sometimes on nights as well. This could not have lasted for a year or more.

One more thing about Caspian, he reveals to Aslan when asked if Caspian felt he was sufficient to become king, Caspian replied that he was just a kid. Now, that could mean a middle teenager, but I am not sure if a seventeen-year-old would describe himself as a kid. I imagine him at about late 14 to very early 16.

MrBob
 
I really appreciate this discussion -- thank you all for your thoughtful sharing which is a welcome respite from the dismaying world of War Drobe in Spare Oom for me today. I guess I don't have the vision of an adapter; my fond memories of Prince Caspian and Voyage of the Dawn Treader were disappointed in the non-canonical elements infusing those films, including the treatment of Peter's character, flirty Susan+Caspian, Jadis' intrusion, the green mist, and "7 swords" themes, etc... But maybe the mental image I treasure of these stories would not be marketable as films. In any case, kudos for the art direction of those films -- so many scenes swept me up with that "You too?!! That's just how I imagined it would look like too!" feeling.
 
Peepiceek said:
As for the latest Star Wars trilogy, Episode VII was AWFUL! I could only make myself sit to the end by telling myself it was a spoof version of Episode IV and trying to enjoy it in that light. I also wonder, will the bad guys not ever work out one day that building a space station that can be destroyed with a single direct hit to a vulnerable point is not a good idea?? Episodes VIII and IX were a bit better - watchable at least, and I've seen them a couple of times each, but for me Episodes II and III are probably the best of the whole series (even despite Hayden Christiansen's terrible acting), though the latter part of Episode VI is also good. I don't know what a Mary-Sue is but I am generally ok with Rey's character, and her descent from Palpatine made for an interesting story-arc. I think what was done with Luke was plausible too. I hope they won't be making Episodes X to XII, but I would be interested in a prequel that explains where Palpatine learned the ways of the Sith and/or more about the establishment of the Jedi Order and the Republic.

Peeps
Click to expand...
While I disagree with your view of The Force Awakens (that film was like a breath of fresh air after being underwater for a while), I appreciate your comments. It's interesting that Episodes II and III are your favorites. Mine used to be VI, but now it's literally the sequel trilogy, and I do want episodes X to XII. I want to see Rey Skywalker's Jedi Order. I do want to see Palpatine's journey in a movie as well, that would be amazing.
MrBob said:
To those who think Peter was written better in the movie as a former king-turned-teenager, what of the other three? Lucy had the biggest transition from a queen who became known as "The Valiant" and had no problems fighting in a war (H&HB) to suddenly turning back into a preteen girl. Edmund was similar as turning into a young teen. They went from being tenured and battle-tested royals to barely old enough to stay home alone. Those two and Susan just accepted their lots in life and viewed their experiences in Narnia as a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

Another issue is when the movie took place. WWII is still taking place. Is Peter so desperate to leave England and go back to a place where he felt more in control? He was very close to the age where he could join the military. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't go into the reason for Peter's angst other than his want to go back to Narnia.

MrBob
Click to expand...
When it comes to the difference between Peter and the other three, I think that it's the same as a difference between other siblings at their respective ages. Susan was The Gentle, Lucy, The Valiant, but valiant doesn't mean aggressive, plus, I know this is a cliche to say, but women tend to be more mature than men from a younger age. I have been thinking about this since you asked it, and didn't see the rest of the conversation until just now, but still wanted to weigh in. I think the other siblings are either handling it better, or they are seeing him act out irrationally, and know that it isn't a good look, and they're taking a better approach, because his example isn't a very good one, at times. I think they just disagree with what he's doing and how he's behaving. But yeah, I kind of do think Peter is desperate to get back to a place he knows and that he believed would know and respect him the way they had before.
Arielle Fayre said:
I see I didn't finish my thought there - that's what happens when I get distracted, oops! And I also mentioned the movie title when I meant the character of Captain America. This is what I'm trying to say:

Because he was born in 1918, Captain America had 1918-1940s values and thoughts vs., say Tony Stark or Peter Parker. When Cap wakes up in modern times, he's completely out of his element because both people, dress, and even slang terms have changed drastically since the 1940s. People don't even think exactly the same way that he does.
Since I was clearly not born the 1940s, I don't have the same view of the world as the Pevensies might have had or the same response to certain things. So, for the Pevensies, their reactions could quite possibly not be the same ones we would have had if we were dropped into the same situations as they were.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
That makes total sense. 100%. I do also believe that we have somewhat of a romanticized view of what they might have been like, too. I mean, bullies and bad behavior have been around since the dawn of time, and where there's a Steve Rogers, there's a Red Skull. There were also the folks that would beat up a young Steve Rogers, pre-Captain America.

You're right, though, we don't know what their reactions would be like, being dropped back into Wartime England after being adults in Narnia. I think they would be similar to what the movie showed, but they could have been different.
 
"I think the other siblings are either handling it better,"

Peep, that's the point. They are handling it better. As I stated also, they had no expectation that they would be returning to Narnia. Assuming they talked with Professor Kirke, they would have discovered he only went once. This was one of my biggest issues regarding movie Peter's attitude. He felt like he deserved to go back to Narnia. On what grounds did he believe that? At the end of the movie, Aslan would have had that attitude alone to tell Peter he wasn't going back.

Another issue is that this wasn't a few weeks or months after they got back. This had been a whole year and Peter was still acting immature and partly using his experiences in Narnia and not going back as an excuse. A full year was more than enough time to acclimate to life back in England.

MrBob
 
MrBob said:
"I think the other siblings are either handling it better,"

Peep, that's the point. They are handling it better. As I stated also, they had no expectation that they would be returning to Narnia. Assuming they talked with Professor Kirke, they would have discovered he only went once. This was one of my biggest issues regarding movie Peter's attitude. He felt like he deserved to go back to Narnia. On what grounds did he believe that? At the end of the movie, Aslan would have had that attitude alone to tell Peter he wasn't going back.

Another issue is that this wasn't a few weeks or months after they got back. This had been a whole year and Peter was still acting immature and partly using his experiences in Narnia and not going back as an excuse. A full year was more than enough time to acclimate to life back in England.

MrBob
Click to expand...
This is true. It had been a full year. I did know someone who had been to war, who resented the fact that he wasn't given discounts or whatever, everywhere he went, having been a soldier. I don't know how long that resentment lasted, but I do remember it being a long time. He seemed to hold on to things like that. That could be coloring a bit of how I see Peter as being realistic because I knew someone who was acting very similarly. Not really fighting people, far as I knew, but expressing anger.
 
MrBob said:
As I stated also, they had no expectation that they would be returning to Narnia. Assuming they talked with Professor Kirke, they would have discovered he only went once.
Click to expand...
Bob, on this point, in both the book and (if I recall correctly) the movie too, Professor Kirke tells them that they should expect to return. Moreover, Lucy had actually been and returned three times, and Edmund twice, during LWW.

MrBob said:
Another issue is that this wasn't a few weeks or months after they got back.
Click to expand...
That, as a wise man once said, is the very thing that makes the story most likely to be true. I think these kinds of issues are issues that build up over time. I imagine he was probably ok over the first few weeks or months, but became more impatient the longer he was waiting.

Peeps
 
Peep, Lucy and Edmund went back after only a few days, maybe a week or so. They did not wait months. In the movie, as I recall, they fall out of the wardrobe, the professor asks them why they were in there. Peter sheepishly tells him he wouldn't believe them, to which he slyly retorts, "Try me." In the book it was different, but I do wonder why he stated it. Of course, this was before Lewis knew all about who the professor was and why he imagined anyone would get to go again because "Once a King in Narnia, always a King in Narnia."

Specter, this was about being royals in a fantasy world. They learned from those experiences. Peter acting like a kid was him regressing away from that kingly manner that he learned to live After all, see what the professor said above. Or did movie Peter learn that he was entitled to things, including things Aslan would give to him, rather than having to wait patiently and earn everything that was important to him?

MrBob
 
MrBob said:
In the movie, as I recall, they fall out of the wardrobe, the professor asks them why they were in there. Peter sheepishly tells him he wouldn't believe them, to which he slyly retorts, "Try me."
Click to expand...
Isn't there an extra bit after the credits when Lucy asks if they will ever go back, and he says "I expect so, some day, but it'll probably happen when you're not looking for it"?
MrBob said:
Specter, this was about being royals in a fantasy world. They learned from those experiences. Peter acting like a kid was him regressing away from that kingly manner that he learned to live After all, see what the professor said above. Or did movie Peter learn that he was entitled to things, including things Aslan would give to him, rather than having to wait patiently and earn everything that was important to him?
Click to expand...
There are two different issues that are getting tangled up here. One is whether the film is faithful to the book regarding Peter's character. The other is whether the film depiction of Peter's character is plausible to real life. To the first question, the answer is clearly no. To the second, I am on the fence, but I think it is not obviously implausible (if you'll excuse a double negative).

Peeps
 
"Isn't there an extra bit after the credits when Lucy asks if they will ever go back, and he says "I expect so, some day, but it'll probably happen when you're not looking for it"?"

I forgot about that stinger, Peep, but truth be told, I consider those stingers to be semi canon for the movies. Their distance from the movie--with credits between them--kind of makes it just a fun extra scene that doesn't need to be connected to the movie as a whole.

"There are two different issues that are getting tangled up here. "

I agree with the first issue that the character of Peter was vastly different than in the book. My issue is what I am discussing, how the writers made Peter's character so different and whether their reasoning was valid and how much it opposed the book character.

MrBob
 
Back
Top