A Rebuttal
Four words:
Here we go again.
For starters, I'm not trying to offend anyone in this post, so bear with me. This is my rebuttal for the main blasts I've heard and read against the movie for its "inaccuracies."
I read the book, "Prince Caspian," and absolutely thought it
sucked. I hoped,
so very badly that they would not stay true to it because of how terribly the book dragged. They did and I
LOVED it, and I'll tell you why.
I've seen many here who've shown their "hot heaping humps of hatred" for "Prince Caspian" the movie, and not one of them has ever,
ever said how any of the things they either added, subtracted, or altered were "wrong" in the sense of storytelling. Sure, it didn't follow the book. Isn't storytelling supposed to be about enjoyment? So many people who stick to C.S. Lewis' original writings have shown their utmost disgust for anything un-Narnia related if presented in a Narnia film. Why? Obsession.
Aravis is absolutely right in every way, I can't even describe how right she is. Lewis' Narnia stories were not written in some dim-lit room with research papers and concentrated thought. We're not talking Stephen King or... Tolkien. We're talking children's stories, of which he never indicated he was seriously putting all his thought into, and which I'm positive that
if he went back in time, he would write them all over again differently. There goes your "by the book" mantra out the window. It's almost as if the books have become a dogma among fans. It's scary.
--People are upset about the "Peter/Caspian" conflict presented. Why? Because Peter's not a Jesus character like the perfect boy he is in the book? No one is like Peter in reality. So what can the filmmakers do? They give him some character qualities and quirks (trust me, I've read all about screenwriting). Let's examine this character's situation. Peter is a boy who just got back from ruling over thousands. He was the high king, practically ordained by Aslan, who himself (or should I say
Himself) is Jesus incarnate, apparently. Ok, personally ordained to be a high king by God? Yeah, I want that.
Frankly, I'd be a bit pissed if I couldn't return, because of the wonder, magic, enjoyment, kingship, fun, riches, friends, and adventures I left behind. Peter is suddenly wisked back to Narnia. I'd be as happy as anything if I were him.
Narnia is under tyranny, and needs a new king. Been over a thousand years; it's time for some good things to happen. Caspian is young, inexperienced, and a bit naive. After a short while, Caspian has the loyalty of the Narnians. Peter comes in and understands the status quo. Now... what do they do? They raid the castle. I'll talk about that addition in a bit. They lose. Now, I don't know about you, but Peter is a
human. Wouldn't it be natural for Peter to take out his anger on something?
"Oh no! No! Peter's a good boy! He does the right thing!"
(How many times have I heard that...
)
We're talking about
teenagers here.
"That's not the point! The point is that we follow Peter's example! That was Lewis' intent!"
The most noble and wise people who have ever lived on this planet (besides Jesus) have learned from... their decisions? No... Their triumphs? Nah, can't be... Oh, I know! ...Their mistakes? That's how people relate: they learn from their mistakes. Peter made a mistake and that was the pinch. Everyone can relate to someone as noteworthy as Peter, the High King of Narnia when he learns from a blunder he makes. That's how leaders become wise. If we have a perfect idol who knows no wrong like Dudley Do-Right, we have a flat, unconvincing card that carries as far as clouds carrying stones. A character like that has no substance, no emotion. We might as well call him Aslan 2.
Not that Aslan isn't a wonderful character, but Aslan is excused because he's a god, and plus he lets the Narnians run their own country most of the time (we're talking 100 to 1000 years in jumps). It is then up to the characters to figure out their problems. In every book it is the characters who always fix their emotional, internal problems. Aslan does nothing to interfere with that. He only interferes when the Narnians have no way of accomplishing their goal without his help. Sure, he may visit them and give them advice, but he only gives them help, never the answer... unless he knows it's impossible for them to figure out certain things (like their deaths in TLB).
We are also all forgetting how Peter and Caspian both resolve their differences in the movie later after the white witch is destroyed again.
--Many are upset about the Susan/Caspian or "Suspian" relationship (as some refer). The excuses for it being wrong?
"Plot-wise, it messes with the relationship between Caspian and Ramandu's daughter in VDT!"
No, it doesn't. This attraction between Susan and Caspian is only carried to the extent of flirtation.
That is it. The "romance" (which it can hardly be called so) is resolved with Susan's decision to never return. It is also resolved with her line, "I'm 1300 years older than you," and it is
also resolved with the
3-year time gap in Narnia in-between the events of "Prince Caspian" and "Voyage of the Dawn Treader"; surely young Caspian has lost his interest in Susan by then.
"It wasn't in the book! And it's unnecessary!"
I thought it was cute. Two people possessing looks like Susan and Caspian would naturally be attracted to one another at first meeting. It's not much of a "bizarre" idea. Considering the time frame of the book would give us an hour-long movie, which is much too short, it adds a bit more beef into the story; nice subtle subplot, carried out and dissolved in the end. There is no indication anywhere of anything remotely close to a "relationship" between the two, and this false idea should immediately cease being discussed because it just isn't true. The form is simply not there.
Sure, it isn't in the book, but it isn't necessarily
wrong. It goes against none of Lewis' principles, and I'm positive that if Lewis himself were here he would not object.
---Continued in next post...
