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

Specter

Specter

Meeting the World
Staff member
Knight of the Noble Order
Royal Guard
Just my opinion, but I do believe this to be true.

I think that the psychological impact on the Pevensies is more accurate, and something that Lewis did not take into account when writing. I believe that, if he had been writing the books for adults, he may have, but we have no evidence to support that idea.

That said, I imagine that the Pevensies, having grown into adult Kings and Queens, and then suddenly be children again, but have ALL of the memories of being Kings and Queens, that would have done a number on them. No longer being viewed in the same regard, etc. Unless I missed something, and they remembered none of their time in Narnia, but that's not something I've ever heard suggested.
 
It took the Pevensies some time to forget about how they got into Narnia. Lucy was still telling the story in H&HB, but nothing is actually told about how much she remembered her life in England by that point. That was roughly 12 years (however old Cor and Corin were in that book). It was noted in TLB that the Friends of Narnia were all reminiscing about their times in Narnia.

Maybe they remembered it as though it were a dream at points so as to not overwhelm them. After all, Aslan could conceivably control how they remembered their times in Narnia as they were there to better understand him in their own world. The memories of a lifetime in Narnia as kings and queens would preclude that from happening.

MrBob
 
This is all true. The fact that they were reminiscing about their times in Narnia in The Last Battle sort of tells me that they remembered their time growing up in Narnia. Interestingly when they come back, and revert to children, they must remember at least some of their adventures.

That's what I think is interesting about the way McFeely and Marcus wrote the film, having the characters, well Peter in particular, feeling like he deserves more respect than he's getting. I think having aged a while in Narnia, where they practically forgot their time in England, and then returning to pre-adolescence, with all of the chemical imbalance of adolescence returning, combined with the feeling of who they had once been, it would have been very difficult emotionally and mentally. That's probably clear as mud. My main point: They grew up, returned to a time when they were growing from children into young adults and had to go through all of those changes again, and that could cause emotional instability.

I'm sure that they must have remembered at as though it were a dream. That makes sense, considering the direction he takes Susan.
 
The Dawn Treader movie offered a respectful way of depicting adjustment back to the mundane world. Edmund trying to join the Royal Army illustrated the child-to-adult-to-child paradox, without maliciously making Edmund out to be a doofus.

What Adamson did to Peter in "Prince NON-Caspian" was not merely insufficient respect, it was calculated contempt. (Remember how Adamson also changed Robin Hood into an obnoxious jerk in "Shrek"?) Peter's first onscreen appearance was designed, very intentionally, to show him as neither being able to avoid a childish fit of temper, nor able to win a fight once he got into one. And he remained a doofus all the way until the end, when he basically admitted his own inferiority. He was not even allowed to be the one who had the idea for himself to duel Miraz.

What was done to Peter here was exactly what would later be done to Luke Skywalker in "The LEAST Jedi": change him into a pathetic loser, just because.
 
I feel like Edmund's character choosing the direction he had in Dawn Treader was a result of having witnessed what happened with Peter. Edmund had the benefit of being able to talk to Peter, and see how acting up would work out.

I believe the childish fit of temper (which is what I think I might have mentioned above somewhere) is very much a character development moment. In that moment we see someone who had been a king for many years, treated with respect, and now having spent a year being treated like a child again, being frustrated by that. Now, I can only imagine what would have happened had he won the fight at the beginning. What would that have said about the character? Would that have shown greatness and royalty and a person deserving respect? Or would that have made him seem to be unbeatable so that, when the final battle comes with Miraz, we have already seen him win a fight and don't see any chance of him losing?

I wonder if we would be scared that Peter might lose the fight, if we've already seen him win other fights.

I've addressed my thoughts on The Last Jedi in the Star Wars thread, but I have to address it here: The sequel trilogy is my favorite Star Wars trilogy now. (My daughter was literally born the same day that The Force Awakens first released in theaters, which was awesome. I got to see the movie on the 17th for an early IMAX screening, and would have been seeing the movie for the second time when my daughter was being born... I still wonder what people thought about the best seats in the house being empty that night. lol). I don't see Luke Skywalker as a pathetic loser. Not at all. I see him as someone who made a rather large mistake, having actually changed as a character since we last saw him. That's character growth. In life, I have met many people who are not the same person 10 or 15 years later. They've changed so much in that time that I can hardly recognize them. And I've also met people that have not changed at all. For some it was good, and for others, it wasn't. That said, here we had a Luke Skywalker who had made a valiant effort to bring back the Jedi Order, and having pervasive darkness bring that attempt to an end. We don't know how much time and effort went into that effort, but it must have been enough to leave him in a state where he thought it better that the entire Jedi order should just go away.

Now... The Last Jedi is the title of the movie, and it is called that because it's about Luke Skywalker's journey. The entire movie is about Luke Skywalker going from bring a former Jedi Master, closed off to the Force, to showing a more powerful Jedi technique than we've ever seen. He went from being nearly unrecognizable to being the Luke we all know and love. When he shows up and talks with Leia, and confronts Kylo Ren, that is earned. If he were that Luke Skywalker the whole time, we wouldn't be surprised when he showed up, nor by what he would do. When Luke confronts Kylo Ren, he does it in the most Jedi way imaginable. If you'll recall, he failed in the cave in The Empire Strikes Back, it was because he took his lightsaber with him and then proceeded to defeat Vader there. When he was with Yoda in Return of the Jedi, it was explained that he will only be a Jedi if he confronts Vader. Notice the word choice: confront, not defeat.Yoda was telling Luke something very specific. Killing is not the Jedi way. Luke was attacking Vader, and got to the point of cutting Vader's hand off... and it was then that he understood. The Emperor had been trying to convince Luke to take his life, and then to take Vader's. Everything he was trying to do was to break Luke, knowing that the Dark Side of the Force would flow into Luke if he were to do that with all of his hatred. (The difference between this and Obi-Wan slicing Darth Maul in half, at least initially, was that Obi-Wan was fighting defensively, not offensively.. and Maul wasn't actually killed.) So Luke tosses his lightsaber aside and says "you have failed, highness, I am a Jedi, like my father before me." That was when he won. It wasn't through defeating Vader. It was through standing firm, not allowing anger and hatred to control his actions any longer. And that is the Luke that shows up on Crait. People wanted so badly to see Luke Skywalker, Jedi Master, using the force to bring down all of those walkers, and take on the First Order by himself. But that would have been something a Sith would do.. we just saw Vader do something like that in Rogue One. Instead, we saw Luke stand firm, talking to Kylo, apologizing to him, and causing no additional or needless harm. Using the most powerful Jedi technique that we've yet seen, Force Projection, and he was the hopeful Luke Skywalker that we saw at the end of Return of the Jedi once more. And his legacy lived on beyond him as the story of his battle at Crait spread. We have also, since then, seen Luke again, and he had a different Jedi Master moment. I won't say much in case you haven't had the pleasure of seeing it yet. But the difference here, again, is that while Vader slaughtered people, Luke cut down droids. And it was awesome. All of it was awesome.

You don't have to agree, this is my assessment, and this is how I see it.
 
I rewatched Prince Caspian this weekend, as I had been listening to the audiobook and had a hankering to see the film. I honestly don't remember what I thought of it when I saw it in cinema, except I remember saying that it was a good adventure film, but not a good Narnia film. basically for the reasons CF cites above: High King Peter totally commits to being an angsty teen. I didn't like that in the film because it seemed to defy the pristine character Lewis had drawn.

Watching the film again now, I think I understood a little better why that adjustment was actually more realistic. It happened for me when Susan, actually, was shooting all those arrows at the pursuing Telmarines, after she had sent Lucy on her way alone to meet with Aslan (a scene created for the movie and not in the book at all). It drove home for me that the kids were once not only kings and queens in Narnia, but had heavy, adult responsibilities, even fighting wars, and ostensibly killing opponents. Susan was killing Telmarines, right before our eyes. We get the idea in their previous reign, she may have done the same.

If you lived that lifetime and then were pulled back to a childhood in England during WW II ... where you were a kid and not a warrior or even a grown-up ... then a year later tossed back into Narnia specifically to fight a war. Yeah, I can see how that would make you an angsty teen. No one in the real world would believe what had happened to them, so they couldn't exactly get any therapy for it. Peter wanted to escape the humiliation of being a kid in England, and Susan wanted to forget Narnia and just live a normal life in England (which was explored a little bit in her short conversation with Lucy about how she had just gotten used to being back in England again). Both are realistic reactions, I would think, to what really happened to them.

And perhaps this makes PC movie a better movie for our day and age than one which was more faithful to the book. I wish they'd been able to make the rest of the series so we could see how this vision played out.
 
The thing is what they learned as an adult. Yes, the Pevensies were kings and queens and had much more heady responsibilities than most people, but they also learned about patience and the understanding that Aslan was in control. What made Peter become known as "The Magnificent" in Narnia (at least in the books)? What of patience and knowing how to avoid fights as well as letting other people's negative comments from affecting him? As a king, those attributes would be vital to being a king.

The issue in the movie was also the fact that Peter was mad at Aslan for not bringing them back to Narnia, not just his behaviour. He acted like he had a right to be in Narnia rather than back in England, as though he were cursing Aslan for bringing them back. Obviously, he didn't learn anything in his first time in Narnia.

MrBob
 
No. Just no. Peter Pevensie would not regress THAT far, into a LESS mature boy than he had been pre-Narnia. And Luke Skywalker could have setbacks, but no way would he completely turn into such a dismal failure. The Disney Corporation was not "being realistic" with Luke; it was bulldozing a male hero just because he was male, so that a Mary Sue goddess with no training could be superior to him because girl power. Or have you not noticed other Disney films like "Moana," in which EVERY female is always right and EVERY male is always wrong?
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid I have to agree with CF. In the Starwars sequel trilogy the character of Luke was totally assassinated. I don't want to believe that misandry was the motive, but when the female dominated production team appears wearing tee shirts with the legend 'the Force is female' and the new female Jedi Rey suddenly displays advanced force powers with no previous training, in marked contrast to the way Luke struggled to master his abilities in the original trilogy, it's hard to resist that conclusion.

I don't think however that misandry played a role in the way Peter's character was distorted in the Prince Caspian movie. It was just the modern sensibility that nobility is boring and that noble characters need to be torn down, usually out of a subconscious sense of envy and inferiority. But they were clearly pandering to modern feminism with the ludicrous 'girl power' version of Queen Susan. That was one of the (many) things that ruined the film for me, as it was a complete reversal of her character in the books. If they had developed Lucy in that way it would have been credible but not Susan.

But my biggest issue with the Prince Caspian film was the denigration of Peter. The arrogant, petulant boy we saw in the film was a complete reversal of the humility we saw from book Peter when he told Caspian 'I haven't come to take your place but to put you into it!' No doubt accepting that his role as a reigning monarch in Narnia was over was difficult for Peter, but he did accept it, as did Edmund and Lucy. Susan obviously never did and I've no doubt this played a role in her latter difficulties. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Susan's obsession with fashion and socialising was at least partly motivated (whether consciously or not) by a desire to recapture in England the adulation she had in Narnia. She was forgetting of course that she and her siblings were made kings and queen not primarily for their own benefit but for the benefit of the Narnian people.
 
Copperfox said:
No. Just no. Peter Pevensie would not regress THAT far, into a LESS mature boy than he had been pre-Narnia. And Luke Skywalker could have setbacks, but no way would he completely turn into such a dismal failure. The Disney Corporation was not "being realistic" with Luke; it was bulldozing a male hero just because he was male, so that a Mary Sue goddess with no training could be superior to him because girl power. Or have you not noticed other Disney films like "Moana," in which EVERY female is always right and EVERY male is always wrong?
Click to expand...
Rey is not a Mary Sue. Period.
Above is a 2 and a half hour video explaining why she isn't. The facts are all there.

Luke Skywalker was the same Luke we always knew. Brash, quick tempered, etc.

Rey was untrained in the ways of the force, but a quick learner. She had to be able to quickly adapt, growing up ALONE on a desert planet where clearly she knew she needed to carry a staff to protect herself. She also knew quite well how to use it. Being able to adapt quickly to new things has to be what kept her alive.

And Moana is literally the same story framework as Star Wars.

Luke/Moana seek adventure away from home. Luke/Moana are told to stay put by an elder. Luke/Moana have a mentor that sends them on a quest. Luke/Moana make new friends on the quest. Luke/Moana's mentors die. Luke/Moana's mentors guide them from beyond. Luke/Moana achieve their goals.

It's classic Joseph Campbell storytelling. Moana's father is protective of her. I wouldn't call that "always wrong." That's a stretch. He wanted what he believed was the best thing for her based on the information that he had. He didn't feel it was safe for her to go out beyond the reef, and honestly, it wasn't. But she did it anyway.

Also, if that's an issue with Moana, it's also an issue with Beauty and the Beast, from 30 years ago.

As for Peter, I still think he would regress into an angsty teen. It's not just about your experience at that time, there's also the chemical imbalances that naturally happen as you become a teen and stuff like that. Various things that can impact you mentally that we tend to forget about, the further we get from that time period. To me, the writers nailed the weirdness of a teen growing up into an adult and then suddenly being a teen again, with none of the people around recognizing him for who he knows he is. I know a guy who served in the military overseas, who didn't understand why a military discount wasn't a thing everyone just offered. I didn't understand why he felt that way, and still don't, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have his reasons that made sense to him.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Specter for the very astute response to all the charges leveled at all the female heroes! I love Moana so much -- and I never read it as any kind of feminist manifesto. She's just the one who gets the call, and she doesn't triumph over any evil men trying to hold her back ... I am a feminist myself and I never read Moana as crushing the patriarchy! She just does what she has to do -- very similar to Little Mermaid Ariel who defies her dad but just does so in the name of love and not to save her people. Is her story fine because in the end she gets married to a man and Moana's isn't fine because she just heals the world but doesn't submit to a male authority? That's silly. All this talk about the character assassination of boys in an attempt to make women ALWAYS RIGHT is silly. These are all just human conflicts that highlight the human condition. No one comes off as ALWAYS RIGHT in Prince Caspian film unless it is Lucy, who is right by virtue of her faith in Aslan, and even she doesn't make all the correct choices that Aslan wanted her to make. It's just our story as people, not a particular male-female-non-binary story.

And I agree, movie Peter is different from book Peter, but I think movie Peter is an interesting interpretation of the character.
 
I agree with the title of this thread, but not necessarily for the same reasons. I always kept quite quiet about it because I thought it was almost a heretical thought around here, but since Specter thinks so too then I'll weigh in.

For me, the ending of the Prince Caspian book is really lame (although I have come to understand it a bit better through the 'Planet Narnia' theory) - but the 'romp' never made much sense to me, and the school scene and various other parts seemed really naff. Basically, Prince Caspian is my least favourite of the books because I never liked the ending, so I was glad the film did away with it. I also really liked the political dimension around Miraz's rise to power in the movie, which I thought gave some interesting backstory and also was more realistic than the book. I do have sympathy with Copperfox's view about what was done with Peter's character (in the extent to which his character was changed from the book), but I also agree with Specter that the book-Peter is somewhat implausible, and it's good that the film tried to deal with some of those issues of how he might adjust to being thrown back into teenage life as an ordinary boy in England having been a High King of Narnia in his late-twenties or early-thirties. I also have some agreement with Copperfox about the modern tendency to trash male characters and turn female characters into superheroes, although I much prefer film-Susan to book-Susan so I didn't mind the changes made to her character in this particular instance.

Since VDT was mentioned too, I really do NOT like that movie - though it was more faithful to the book in terms of the characters, that is true, but the storyline was ruined by making it all about the green mist, whereas Dark Island is just ONE aspect of the book.

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
 
I agree with a lot of your points, Peep! I think the Miraz storyline is very fascinating and adds a great dimension to the movie; I noticed that as I was watching the other day. He's a good villain in the film.

It's true Hayden Christiansen did some bad acting -- but he was so cute! I remember when those films came out with him, I thought he was just adorable.

I went ahead nd watched VDT film, too, as I was on this nostalgic run, and I liked it. I loved the Eustace character and the young boy who played him, the actor did a marvelous job. I didn't mind the green mist or the dark island being the focus at all; I felt like it gave a nice coherence to the story. And I loved the ending. I was crying when Reepicheek was sailing over the wave to Aslan's country. I agree, it's maybe a better ending than the book.
 
Sorry Peeps but I really can't agree. I suppose I have a particular affection for Prince Caspian as it was the first Narnia book I read and scenes like the Romp and the conjunction of Tarva and Alambil were my first real encounter with the numinous in literature. I've read the book dozens of times since but I still can't read those scenes without tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. And of course the movie left those out. Without them it was just a generic fantasy film, satisfying only if you don't know and love the book.

I can't agree about Peter either. Was book Peter unrealistic? Only if you have a rather cynical view of what human nature (at least when redeemed by grace) is capable of. I remember similar criticisms have been made of Aragorn in LOTR. One critic described him as 'too good to be true' and 'having some of the qualities of a noble horse!' he wanted the son of Arathorn to display 'a sharp taste for sin.' There are plenty of characters like that in realistic secular fiction without dragging them into heroic fantasy.
 
I do like the first half of the book Prince Caspian, and there are key themes of the book that I think are important - particularly the way different characters understand their individual roles and act accordingly for the good of the whole. And so I was disappointed with the extent to which Peter's character was changed in the movie and the rivalry with Caspian. But, overall, I do think the film gave a better storyline than the book. Though I'd like to combine the best elements of both ideally - there are pros and cons with each.

On realism, I was responding to the point someone made above about what it would be like to be a high-profile leading adult, and then be suddenly thrust back into being an ordinary run-of-the-mill teenager. I think that would be a shock for anyone and a struggle to deal with. The book doesn't give any recognition to that, while at least the film tries to.

With regard to the film VDT, I did think the CGI was really good, particularly of the ship. But I was disappointed with the changes to the story, as I said, especially the over-emphasis on the green mist.

Peeps
 
Just tossing in my two cents worth here (are they really even worth that much? 🤷‍♀️), but I remember being soooooo excited to see Prince Caspian when it came out in theatres. Ever since I was a little girl, I have had very fond memories of my brother reading Prince Caspian to me, and it is my favourite of all the books. So when the film began, I was pleasantly surprised and happy about the changes made. The elimination of the long drawn out explanation by Trumpkin the Dwarf to the Pevensies about all that had happened with Caspian, was a breath of fresh air. Even as a lover of the book, I could still appreciate the removal of the "info dump" chapters; however, after that point, I was doomed to disappointment. The characters were very altered, new scenes were added that weren't even in the book (sorry, I am rather a book purist), and a romance between Caspian and Susan? No thank you. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good romance, but (excuse my double...er...triple negative) not only was it not in the book, it just didn't work. There was simply no chemistry between them. And they left out the best part of the book, where the Pevensies and Trumpkin follow Aslan to where Caspian's army was situated, and speak with him. Needless to say, I left the theatre a very disappointed girl.

Whether the characters were unrealistic in the book, I don't know, I am not much of a studier of human behaviour. I do think there is something to be said for differing time periods. People change with the times, just as you see in Captain America: the First Avenger. The alterations seen in Peter's character was the most off-putting to me. It seemed like he had forgotten the most important part of being king: to care for others. Instead, he went blundering off, thinking that, with all of his experience, he could win the battle and earn back his previous prestige. We also didn't need his whinging when we already had Susan, JK ;).

That being said, now that I'm older, I have since been able to enjoy watching the film, but I have to go into it with the thought of it being just a movie, and not one based off of a book.
 
Last edited:
Arielle Fayre said:
I do think there is something to be said for differing time periods. People change with the times, just as you see in Captain America: the First Avenger.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you meant this.. but both Prince Caspian and Captain America: The First Avenger were written by the same guys.
 
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
 
Just to clarify, I'm definitely not saying that the movie was better than the book because of the changes to Peter's character. My reasons are other things. But for me the movie wasn't ruined because of that. I hadn't previously been thinking that book-Peter was really unrealistic, but through discussions after the film came out I started to wonder about that. The question about the other three is valid, but I do think it's reasonable to think that the effect on Peter might have been greatest - he was the oldest and the one with most authority, so maybe the change was biggest for him. I don't think he would necessarily have become the belligerent moody teenager he is shown to be in the film, but more subtle challenges are harder to show in a short time in a movie. Also, Susan and Edmund certainly showed changes too. Susan had adapted to England by trying to pretend that Narnia wasn't even real; and Edmund joined Peter in the fight at the underground station, didn't he?

Peeps
 
Back
Top