Is Reepiecheep too big?

Petyamester

Petyamester

New member
I found that the mice were too big in the movie. Reading the book I imagined them as ordinary scale. Maybe like that they wouldn't work as they should as a CG character. But when the action scenes were in the castle, they were showing them in closeups only, so we had a feel that they are small again, but when they showed them together with the children, they were about half the size of Peter.

What do you think?
 
I thought he was the perfect size. I was actually hoping that they wouldn't make him too big, knowing that he was apparently huge in the BBC version.
 
Reepicheep was a warrior in the books.

How would a stuart little figure fight people that are 6 times bigger then him with a puny sword the size of a staple.
 
I think he was the right size but...I think the tails should've been just a little shorter...looks like a rat not a mouse. :|
 
Normal mice are MUCH smaller than squirrels; the talking squirrels of Narnia seem to be made to follow normal-animal behaviors more closely than the talking mice do; so maybe Aslan saw no need to enlarge Pattertwig's race. Reepicheep's race, on the other hand, would need to have SOME increase in body mass, to have any chance at all of surviving on a crowded, milling battlefield and not getting stomped flat.
 
Lewis described Reep as two feet high when on hind legs in VotDT. In that respect, they were much smaller from what I remember seeing in the movie. But I found them to be perfect size.

Not all talking animals were larger than their dumb counterparts. The larger animals such as elephants actually were a little smaller.

MrBob
 
MrBob is right -- it's as if Aslan created them to relate to humans in a comfortable way -- elephants a bit smaller than normal, mice a bit larger. (although we know of course that the mice only became talking mice -- and presumably received such large stature -- after they chewed the ropes off dead Aslan at the Stone Table.)
 
I think Reep was the right size but his features were more RAT like than MOUSE like.

Rat
rat2ij7.jpg


Mouse
mouseface1.jpg


Nonetheless, he was still cute.
 
I thought Reepicheep was the right size..he could have been a bit smaller,and shouldn't have been any bigger,but he was perfect.:D
 
i don't think Reepicheep was to big. Remember, in MN, when Aslan makes all the talking animals, all the big animals shrink a little, and all the small animals grow. and it mentions a couple times in ll the book where Reepicheep is a character how Narnian talking mice are bigger than the dumb mice of our world.
 
I'm sure someone already brought it up, but in the books, it is mentioned more than once that the Talking Animals were larger than their non-talking counterparts. In PC, Reep was what, 2 feet tall? I think it said he got bigger in VDT. idk. :p

EDIT: ah, nvrmind, I see MrBob and others beat me to it. :D
 
Last edited:
As to the height in the books - yes, it was 2feet in VDT, but I've also been told by my sister that in PC Reep was 1.5 feet.

Now, I'm bad at guessing height, but my first reaction to Reep was that he was too small. Then, when I watched it a second time (having been reading VDT I was trying to figure out if he was 2 feet or not), I thought he was around the right size.

I did think, however, that when he was sitting on Caspian's chest when they first meet that he was too small. It might just be that I have problems guessing heights, but to me in that scene he looked way too small, then in other scenes he looked bigger.

I remember noting that he was about the height of the boy's knees at the end - it was hard to tell as the camera angle kept changing, but when it was about straight on, he seemed to be knee-height to me. Which, to me, was too small as I was thinking 2 feet, but for a foot and a half that seems about right (Unless I'm mucking up guessing heights - this time how high a guy's knee is - again).
 
LOL! That was a complicated explanation, Starre! Welcome, I did not see you post before.

I think Reep was a good height in the movie.
 
Back
Top