Peter vs. Caspian

Copperfox said:
The very same poignancy about wishing for proof could have been brought out with TRUMPKIN, who is SUPPOSED to be a skeptic AND who is friendly with Lucy. There was NO need, as in absolute zero, to have made Peter inferior to what he was in the book.
Click to expand...
Understood. And excellent point, Trumpkin would have been a better choice if that was the intent, although I don't think I'd have been quite so moved in that case - I identify most closely with Peter. I was not aiming to argue with you about it, because of course you're right - if it's "based on the book," other things could have - and should have - been done. I was simply illustrating what I took away from it, as it is.
 
Last edited:
I like Peter better, however i don't think either Peter is 'better' than Caspian and i don't think that Caspian is 'better' then Peter (if that makes sence i just prefer Peter im not saying that he's better than Caspian though) both are fighters and i think that Peter's fight scene with Miraz was made for him because he has a lot of things to protect, he knew Narnia longer than Caspian and is protecting his brothers and sisters, i don't think it would make as much sence if it was Caspian fighting Miraz however i do think that Caspian is a good leader.
So, in other words... both are great. :)
 
The interesting thing about that scene, and this ws probably mentioned earlier in some form, was that it was TRULY Peter's scene, yet even THEN the movie people did him a disservice by taking the IDEA from him, though I'm sure they had their "reasons". In the book (under the chapter called "The High King in Command" no less) the tradition of 1 on 1 combat in leiu of ones armies was not a strictly Telmarine tradition, it was Narnian as well. Caspian was wounded in the fight against the werewolf and hag, so Peter comes up with this plan and dictates the message to Miraz, as delivered by Edmund. I'm sure giving the idea to Caspian as a "Telmarine option" proved some kind of purpose, but it also demoted Peter to "the one with no good ideas".
 
To make an extreme comparison, what was done to Peter in the movie is like a small-scale version of what happens when "progressive" religious thinkers will say, "Sure, we think Jesus of Nazareth was a pretty nice guy; why, on his best day he was probably _almost_ as nice as Mahatma Gandhi!"--and then they deny that they have belittled Jesus.
 
I personally liked Peter, more than Caspian, more than book's Peter, I loved his character.
1st about the change from the book character - it is made because of modern audiences. People like angry teens, it seems and here Copperfox is right. However, I disagree that the message is - teens are always right.
It is exactly the opposite.
Peter returned to Narnia full with bitterness. He was not a "jerk", I believe, but was too anxious, too eager to be a hero again - not the hero from the 1st movie, but the mighty king who crushed giants during his reign.
He was, a bit, like Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars. But where Anakin falled, Peter survived. When he saw his warriors slaughtered like cattle and watched them with almost teary eyes, he was a true, proud knight who couldn't understand what went wrong. Moseley was magnifecent in this role, BTW, made the character as good as he was.
When he was almost consumed by Jadis (terrifying yet again), he understood what was wrong.
Himself.
And proved himself to be the hero when he defeated Miraz (another outstanding performance by the Italian actor) and let Caspian to get the crown.
In the end, he was humble again, when Aslan talked to him.
I believe that the movie Peter was the greatest hero. Caspian was courageous and cool, but the journey of Peter was amazing and I think that regardless of our opinion about the movie we should congratulate Mr. Moseley for doing such a brilliant job.
 
Darth Sparhawk said:
Peter returned to Narnia full with bitterness. He was not a "jerk", I believe, but was too anxious, too eager to be a hero again - not the hero from the 1st movie, but the mighty king who crushed giants during his reign.
He was, a bit, like Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars. But where Anakin falled, Peter survived. When he saw his warriors slaughtered like cattle and watched them with almost teary eyes, he was a true, proud knight who couldn't understand what went wrong. Moseley was magnifecent in this role, BTW, made the character as good as he was.
When he was almost consumed by Jadis (terrifying yet again), he understood what was wrong.
Himself.
And proved himself to be the hero when he defeated Miraz (another outstanding performance by the Italian actor) and let Caspian to get the crown.
In the end, he was humble again, when Aslan talked to him.
I believe that the movie Peter was the greatest hero. Caspian was courageous and cool, but the journey of Peter was amazing and I think that regardless of our opinion about the movie we should congratulate Mr. Moseley for doing such a brilliant job.
Click to expand...

I agree absolutely, I`ve been rather bothered by all the `Peter is a jerk` posts I`ve been seeing on various sites by people who do`nt seem to get the personal journey the character passes through.
 
AsbelMctalisker said:
...people who do`nt seem to get the personal journey the character passes through.
Click to expand...

I got the journey they created for Peter in the film, and I think it would have made a lot of sense if it was another character, because it is very poignant and I identified with it, can't deny. Still, it bothered me some to have Peter in 'personal journeys' of finding himself both through LWW and PC, as he is *not* supposed to need those. He was a born leader and king, and his growth and lessons in the stories are more subtle.

Specially in PC, he was already a high king, not just by title, but by spirit, so he should be able to keep acting as a king even apart from his kingdom and coming to it again and finding it changed, accepting that all was happening because Aslan wanted it to. Hard? Yup, sure, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it, but these are some of the reasons why the Pevensies are chosen as kings and queens, and Peter's the High King (it's not just because he's the older one). That's being noble by character, not just by blood or title - something that failed in movie Caspian, as well.
 
Hugs, every adaptation is a retelling. For example when I published my own fantasy book here in Bulgaria I saw an illustarion of one of the villains and I was, initially, furious. He was without horns at his helmet and his helmet is covered (the original vision is that his face is only darkness). But then I saw that the picture is good and fans like it and I calmed down.
Movie is different from the book. :)
 
"Peter returned to Narnia full with bitterness. He was not a "jerk", I believe, but was too anxious, too eager to be a hero again - not the hero from the 1st movie, but the mighty king who crushed giants during his reign."

As I have mentioned elsewhere (probably on this thread), the problem with Peter was that his behaviour regressed. His time in Narnia was supposed to have made him into a better person. It definitely worked for Edmund. However, the movie Peter became a more belligerent person who had a short fuse due to a superiority complex. He was upset people were not giving him the respect he was given in Narnia as High King when he was not doing anything to earn that respect.

Peter learned too much as High King to understand how to earn respect from others (fighting was not part of that).

In the movie, he brought that arrogance and frustration to Narnia where he was, as you mentioned Spearhawk, too eager to prove himself again. In fact, that arrogance and frustration caused him to forget nearly all of what he learned from his time as High King from giving up on Aslan (Aslan wasn't there to help so Aslan would not help even though Peter only had Aslan's help in one battle) to attacking the enemy base without knowing the pros and cons of such an endeavor (or even much of the politics of his enemy).

At the end, I just did not buy that Peter learned all he had to learn in Narnia. It seems he needs at least one more trip to Narnia before he is anywhere close to learning everything. Now Lucy and Edmund, they seemed to have the understand the situation much more than their siblings (Peter in particular) and yet, they haven't learned enough, yet.

MrBob
 
However, the movie Peter became a more belligerent person who had a short fuse due to a superiority complex. He was upset people were not giving him the respect he was given in Narnia as High King when he was not doing anything to earn that respect. Peter learned too much as High King to understand how to earn respect from others (fighting was not part of that).
In the movie, he brought that arrogance and frustration to Narnia where he was, as you mentioned Spearhawk, too eager to prove himself again. In fact, that arrogance and frustration caused him to forget nearly all of what he learned from his time as High King from giving up on Aslan (Aslan wasn't there to help so Aslan would not help even though Peter only had Aslan's help in one battle) to attacking the enemy base without knowing the pros and cons of such an endeavor (or even much of the politics of his enemy).
At the end, I just did not buy that Peter learned all he had to learn in Narnia.
Click to expand...

I got the journey they created for Peter in the film, and I think it would have made a lot of sense if it was another character, because it is very poignant and I identified with it, can't deny. Still, it bothered me some to have Peter in 'personal journeys' of finding himself both through LWW and PC, as he is *not* supposed to need those
Click to expand...

Interesting point, both Mr. Bob and Hugs. You nailed something I've been trying to figure out. All 4 of the children showed some form of difficulty adapting to being back in England (the girls hint at this at their fireside conversation, as well as conversations in England waiting for the train), yet only Peter seemed to have difficulties re-adjusting to NARNIA. Susan, though much more doubting than before--but that is what is expected considering her future--jumps into role as "warrior queen" (which ironically, in the books, is supposed to be Lucy, at least in HHB). Edmund is a kingly sword master and wit extraodinaire. Lucy is faithful and wise. But Peter...it seems he is the only one who has to learn twice. Interesting.
 
In a way its interesting that its the younger children that find it easier to adapt back to their life in England. Could this be something to do with hitting puberty twice!
Peter has I think got an additional problem to the others in that, as High King he is the one who carries the fate and expectations of the Old Narnian people on his shoulders since Aslan is apparently not present and I think it shows in the film that he feels the burden strongly.
I think Peter and Susans problems can be seen to a lesser extent in the book as well but are resolved earlier when Aslan appears to them in the forest, so the are fully prepared for what they need to do by the time they meet up with Caspian and the Old Narnians.
 
Last edited:
Darth Sparhawk said:
Hugs, every adaptation is a retelling. ... Movie is different from the book. :)
Click to expand...

I now that and agree, Sparhawk. I actually don't consider myself very picky about changes in adaptations: I understand that plot, details and descriptions usually have to be altered, but changes in the character's character (not sure if I can say that in English, but I hope you get what I mean) bother me some. For example, in LOTR, what bothered me the most was Faramir's character change. No problem in telling things a bit differently, as long as you tell the same things.

I guess I should add I enjoyed the movie a lot, despite its adaptation flaws. As I said in another thread, it saved my day.

MrBob said:
As I have mentioned elsewhere (probably on this thread), the problem with Peter was that his behaviour regressed. His time in Narnia was supposed to have made him into a better person.
Click to expand...

Elentari said:
All 4 of the children showed some form of difficulty adapting to being back in England (the girls hint at this at their fireside conversation, as well as conversations in England waiting for the train), yet only Peter seemed to have difficulties re-adjusting to NARNIA. ... But Peter...it seems he is the only one who has to learn twice. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Agree with both!
 
Peter has I think got an additional problem to the others in that, as High King he is the one who carries the fate and expectations of the Old Narnian people on his shoulders since Aslan is apparently not present and I think it shows in the film that he feels the burden strongly.
Click to expand...

This is true in a sense, but Peter begins the movie with an attitude problem he blames on "being treated like a kid", when as--I think it was Mr. Bob--mentioned, he was ACTING like a kid. When they arrive in Narnia, he STILL has this authority complex and he hasn't even MET Caspian or felt the weight of the world--or expectations--on his shoulders. AND, which is a change from the book in a sense, the Old Narnians look to CASPIAN as their leader, not necessarily Peter, even though he is the High King of Old (though the Narnians believe this, they don't respect his authority any more than they do Caspian's except when Caspian begins to). As mentioned, I think this is different in the book because Caspian immediately submits to Peter's authority.
 
Darth Sparhawk said:
It is different, but it is logical, because in the movie you see many of the Witch'servants among narnians and they would not have fond memories of Peter.
Click to expand...
It's isn't logical that Peter would have forgotten what it means to be High King in the space of a year.

One of my favorite books in Frances Hodgon Burnett's A Little Princes about heiress Sarah Crewe, a little girl attending a fancy boarding school in London while her father, the rich and dashing Capt Crewe, is in India. Sarah is so splendid, her friends call her Princess Sarah, and she tries to behave as if she reay were a princess.

When her father died penniless, and word gets to the boarding school that Sarah is now poor as dirt, the evil headmistress takes al Sarah's things and clothes, makes her into a slave, starves and mistreats her. Yet little Sarah, for the first time in her life hungry, cold and lonely, determines she will behave as if she were a princess, anyway.

When she gets her hands on some fresh bread, although she is starving, she gives most of it to a beggar. When her former classmates who are so insensitive they don't even realize she is hungry and exhausted, come to her for comfort and help with their studies, she puts her own grief aside and helps them.

She recognizes that being a princess isn't just wearing gowns and having servants. It is an attitude of fidelity, perseverance, of royalty.

Peter in the book knew this attitude very well. It would have made his character in the movie very noble and a true hero. Instead, we were needlessly given a Peter whose character immediately fell apart at the first signs of adversity. Little Sarah Crewe puts him to shame.

Between Peter and Caspian, in the film, Caspian is much the more royal and stronger character.
 
You know what Walden was doing by dissing Peter? It was lowering the bar. People used to want stories with really admirable heroes; now they increasingly want "realistic" (read "cruddy") characters, who give the audience "permission" to have lower moral standards in real life.
 
Inkspot, your comparison between Peter and Sara Crewe was brilliant. I adore that book, but I would never have thought of the similarities. Great points! :D

You know what Walden was doing by dissing Peter? It was lowering the bar. People used to want stories with really admirable heroes; now they increasingly want "realistic" (read "cruddy") characters, who give the audience "permission" to have lower moral standards in real life.
Click to expand...
Copperfox--Again, you may very well be correct. Take the superhero movies, for example. Superheroes have all these flaws they never seemed to have before to make them more "human"...Then they go and make a movie about a guy with hero abilities who is practically impossible to like at all (Hancock). Might it be that movie-goers, especially Americans, enjoy watching people mess up more than they enjoy watching the successes of others?
 
Elentari, you are my soul sister!
:)

I think you and CF are correct in your theory here; modern heroes have to be more "human" so people can relate to them. Batman has become pretty much of a freak in the latest movies, dark and disturbed. Hancock, as you say, is not even a likeable character. I don't think it is necessarily that the American audience only wants a complicated and morally ambiguous hero ... I really think it is a conscious effort on the part of the cultural elites to make people believe no one can be good.

But it's rather disturbing they would do this to Peter, in a movie for kids.
 
"As mentioned, I think this is different in the book because Caspian immediately submits to Peter's authority."

Elentari, the book makes it much easier for Caspian to submit to Peter's authority. The book Peter immediately makes plans to stop or at least stall the battles in order to give Aslan time to awaken Narnia and provide reinforcements. In the movie, the disagreements, and thus the power struggle, comes from the difference in opinion over battle strategies.

"only Peter seemed to have difficulties re-adjusting to NARNIA."

Well Elentari, since he had trouble adjusting to life back in England, he would also have trouble adjusting to life back in Narnia. He spent so much time having trouble in England with people not treating him as the High King he was in Narnia (of course, he wasn't acting like the High King, so why should anyone treat him as such), that upon entering Narnia he still had that issue looming over him that anyone who didn't automatically treat him how he thought they should was part of the problem.

"Peter in the book knew this attitude very well. It would have made his character in the movie very noble and a true hero. Instead, we were needlessly given a Peter whose character immediately fell apart at the first signs of adversity. Little Sarah Crewe puts him to shame."

Inky, I loved A Little Princess and I loved your assessment.

"People used to want stories with really admirable heroes; now they increasingly want "realistic" (read "cruddy") characters, who give the audience "permission" to have lower moral standards in real life."

I agree with that except for the final supposition. People love heroes who represent the everyman, the next-door neighbor. It shows that they can be as heroic as their idol.

Look at the Five for Fighting song, "Superman". It talks about a hero wanting permission to feel lonely and down. Superheroes cannot always be around to save the day. They have their own lives also.

MrBob
 
Back
Top