The Stone Table **MAJOR SPOILERS** stay out if you don't want them

[Mrs. Pevensie]

I absolutely love the second added scene, with Jadis...I think it shows how Peter's character had weakened and Edmund's character (my favorite) had become strong! It was quick and interesting! The movie was so long, and some of the scenes (in my opinion) felt a bit dragging and boring! This scene was not one of them! The first added scene, I didn't like, mainly because of Peter's attitude. He was so mighty and arrogant! I love when Lucy says somehting like "You act like we only have two options...dying here, or dying there" (the lines probably aren't right)!

 

[DaydreamBeliever]

I loved both scenes..with Caspian lighting the torch and the flame creeping around untill Aslan's Face was lit up,and then Peter sitting on the Table looking at where the witch stood..right infront of Aslan's Face..Very poignant..I thought they were 2 of the best scenes in the entire film.

 

[Daishi]

The problem is that this did not happen in the book. Peter was well grounded in Aslan so there was no need, unless it was done purposely to deminish his character. We all know that you can fall to a greater depth and still achieve redemption. But Lewis never inteded that for Peter. So this scene was not needed.

*Shrugs*
Doesn't matter at this point.

 

[Caspiansgirl]

I have a problem when they strenghten one theme by destroying something good. There was no need for scenes where Peter acts like a jerk just because that would "add" to the movie. I am just glad that I still have the books to get the real feelings and "themes" that Lewis intended. This movie ruined that.

I had no problems with Lucy sitting on the stone table. I don't think Aslan would have minded.

I know alot of you hardcore C.S. Lewis fans are upset about some of these scenes, and how alot of the movie is different from the book, but you need to remember that not everyone has read the books. Not everyone is interested in classic childrens literature, not everyone likes to read. Yes, the people making this movie may have done it much differently than the book, but I think the important part is they still stuck with the basic elements of the story that C.S. Lewis put in. By making this movie, they opened up the world of Narnia to many people who may have never even heard of it before. Lewis created this wonderful adventure for everyone to share, and the important part is that now it is available to more people, and now that many more people can celebrate his genius.

 

[Fifth Pevensie]

I was ok with both scenes.

I remember doing a double take when first seeing Lucy sit on Aslan's table. It did seem ...disrespectful. But once she started participating in the discussion and speaking for Aslan I thought, as some wonderful posts above have detailed, it was poetically appropriate.

During the WW scene, yes, I was sad when Peter fell into the enchantment as well. He fought her in LWW, after all! But, again, once I saw that Ed was the one to defeat Jadis there was so much poetic justice and cinematic sense that I was ok with it. Using that moment of weakness to be the final catalyst for change in Peter helped me deal with it. I love how, instead of getting caught up in a back and forth with Ed or Caspian, he's just frozen by the sight of Aslan's image revealed once more. An enchantment deeper still, without any kind of witchcraft. *teary eyed*

It led to my favorite scene; the one that makes me dumbfounded when people say PC lacked faith. The quiet conversation btwn Lucy and Peter that marks the turning point. All my anger and sense of grievance over Peter's diminished greatness melted away under the spiritual power of that achingly humblingly repentant scene. *shivers*

 

[NarnianofGryffindor]

I know alot of you hardcore C.S. Lewis fans are upset about some of these scenes, and how alot of the movie is different from the book, but you need to remember that not everyone has read the books. Not everyone is interested in classic childrens literature, not everyone likes to read. Yes, the people making this movie may have done it much differently than the book, but I think the important part is they still stuck with the basic elements of the story that C.S. Lewis put in. By making this movie, they opened up the world of Narnia to many people who may have never even heard of it before. Lewis created this wonderful adventure for everyone to share, and the important part is that now it is available to more people, and now that many more people can celebrate his genius.

I thoroughly agree with that. From what I've heard they did stick to the main themes of the book, and even expanded on it. And people will become interested in the book after they watch the movie. I became interested in LOTR after I watched the movies. I saw that they were totally different, but I loved the books more because of the movies. If I hadn't watched the movies, I probably would like the books.
So now more people are exposed to Narnia, and we'll most likely get more fans of the books because of the movies.

 

[inkspot]

I know alot of you hardcore C.S. Lewis fans are upset about some of these scenes, and how alot of the movie is different from the book, but you need to remember that not everyone has read the books. Not everyone is interested in classic childrens literature, not everyone likes to read. Yes, the people making this movie may have done it much differently than the book, but I think the important part is they still stuck with the basic elements of the story that C.S. Lewis put in. By making this movie, they opened up the world of Narnia to many people who may have never even heard of it before. Lewis created this wonderful adventure for everyone to share, and the important part is that now it is available to more people, and now that many more people can celebrate his genius.

Lewis himself never wanted the books made into films; he didn't trust movies back in his day, and we've certainly come a long way since then. Maybe he was right, after all, about his own works.

 

[EveningStar]

You must remember that movies back then committed major atrocities upon their original books.

Come on, folks, you've all seen MGM's "The Wizard of Oz", right?

Did you know that Dorothy never struck her head? That the people in Oz, and Oz itself, were not just a dream in her delirium? That there was no Elvira Gulch and no attempt to snatch her dog and have it destroyed? So the Scarecrow wasn't just Old Hank, etc etc. And the adventures took place over several days. And what separated Oz from our world was a huge desert with poisonous fumes that could only be crossed by air? And that the palace wasn't really made of emeralds but of glass, and people wore green tinted goggles (supposedly for their protection)?

They just literally rewrote it in ways they thought would seem more plausible.

And how about Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde?

You know, Dr. Jeckyll didn't become an UGLY monster, he became a handsome, charming young whipper snapper who would slit his mother's throat for mad money. They didn't want to put into the movies that Dr. Jeckyll had to figure out the hard way that pretty on the outside is not pretty on the inside.

 

[Into the Wardrobe]

I know alot of you hardcore C.S. Lewis fans are upset about some of these scenes, and how alot of the movie is different from the book, but you need to remember that not everyone has read the books. Not everyone is interested in classic childrens literature, not everyone likes to read. Yes, the people making this movie may have done it much differently than the book, but I think the important part is they still stuck with the basic elements of the story that C.S. Lewis put in. By making this movie, they opened up the world of Narnia to many people who may have never even heard of it before. Lewis created this wonderful adventure for everyone to share, and the important part is that now it is available to more people, and now that many more people can celebrate his genius.

I hate to say it, but if people only see the films and don't read the books they'll miss most of the genius of Lewis altogether. The films will be hollywood fan fiction based on the stories that are classics. However, unless they try to remain more faithful...or completely faithful...the best parts will be lost, missed, or just not there. Prince Caspian left out most of my favorite scenes and most of the ones they put in were stripped of what made them so loved in the first place. The only way in my mind for people to get the heart of it is to read the books. There is no substitute. If someone only watched the films they'd miss most of Narnia. There's no replacement for the books. Not even close.

 

[~Lava~]

You must remember that movies back then committed major atrocities upon their original books.

Come on, folks, you've all seen MGM's "The Wizard of Oz", right?

Did you know that Dorothy never struck her head? That the people in Oz, and Oz itself, were not just a dream in her delirium? That there was no Elvira Gulch and no attempt to snatch her dog and have it destroyed? So the Scarecrow wasn't just Old Hank, etc etc. And the adventures took place over several days. And what separated Oz from our world was a huge desert with poisonous fumes that could only be crossed by air? And that the palace wasn't really made of emeralds but of glass, and people wore green tinted goggles (supposedly for their protection)?

They just literally rewrote it in ways they thought would seem more plausible.

And how about Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde?

You know, Dr. Jeckyll didn't become an UGLY monster, he became a handsome, charming young whipper snapper who would slit his mother's throat for mad money. They didn't want to put into the movies that Dr. Jeckyll had to figure out the hard way that pretty on the outside is not pretty on the inside.

Swiss Family Robinson is a classic example of it too. They deleted one of the Robinson boys completely and made at least one minor character change to each character. Undoubtably, Disney was the worst on the two female characters though, Mrs. Robinson is made to look like the type of woman who would faint at anything and poor Jenny Montrose was robbed of everything (her ingenuity, her bravery, her skills, her loyalty, her self-reliance, her name, her father) and replaced with the shreiking Roberta who was willing to pull a gun on her rescuers because she didn't want to get her clothing wet.

 

[BarbarianKing]

Thanks to the four posters above for explaining this. I don't know how else to get the point across that PC the movie AND the books are not the same things. I guess I cannot write as good as all of you. After all, English is not my first language.

My point was illustrated with the Wizard of Oz post by EveningStar. I thought the movie WAS the actual story because I have never read the book. Consequently, if I had seen PC first without reading the book, I would've thought that Peter was really a jerk after all and that Susan and Caspian deserved to have romance and Aslan was mean to send Susan back.

 

[Fifth Pevensie]

You must remember that movies back then committed major atrocities upon their original books.

Come on, folks, you've all seen MGM's "The Wizard of Oz", right?

Did you know that Dorothy never struck her head? That the people in Oz, and Oz itself, were not just a dream in her delirium? That there was no Elvira Gulch and no attempt to snatch her dog and have it destroyed? So the Scarecrow wasn't just Old Hank, etc etc. And the adventures took place over several days. And what separated Oz from our world was a huge desert with poisonous fumes that could only be crossed by air? And that the palace wasn't really made of emeralds but of glass, and people wore green tinted goggles (supposedly for their protection)?

Ha ha! Yes, my poor students were deeply confused and disappointed (even though they liked the movie) when we watched it in class after reading it. Reading it to them was actually the first time I'd ever read it, although I'd been raised on the movie and knew the script pretty much word-for-word, so I went through the shock as excitement as scene after scene unfolded differently. Don't forget the amazing Golden Cap found in the book! Or what a warrior the Tin Woodman was despite his soft heart.

Ahem, I'll get back on track now. I absolutely agree that a movie does not equal a book. IMO even when they try really hard! Even if they translated each word into the movie something is always getting lost in translation. Quite besides the busybody creative team, lol, that adapts things, there's also the switch from text medium to visual/audio/2hr medium.

Call me a geek but while a picture may inspire a hundred words, it cannot replace them IMO. Anyway, I do feel that because it's so hard to adapt a great book the main thing I look for in a movie is that it should stand alone as entertainment (as in I shouldn't have to like it just because I adore the book) and incorporate recognizable themes while adding something new (a spin, an unexpectedly sympathetic actor, great music?, extra backstory?) to raise the entire experience from a mere incomplete ripoff into an intriguing interpretation.

Guess which movie and book pairs I think meet those requirements.

Besides PC, there's Jurassic Park. And yes, Wizard of Oz. We had a great discussion in class about why the ending was changed and how that affects the entire story! The new Pride & Prejudice, some of which changes were deep, but overall I liked it for consciously changing the mood to one of less satire and more sensitivity. A change that made me think rather than throw things. There's more, I think, but not many.

An example of one I don't think meets that standard is, I'm sorry to say, Harry Potter. (but I don't throw things) It's faithful enough to escape my wrath but not inventive enough to hold my attention. I just watch the movies because I love the books but there's nothing for me in the movies to add upon my love for the books --except perhaps for Harry Potter movie 3 now that I think of it. Only because I thought that lake scene was even more heartbreaking cued with music and certain long-angle shots than in the book. Uh-oh, I'll stop now.

BUT a definitely horrible movie adaptation was Ella Enchanted. *shudders*

 

[~Lava~]

In an effort to get back on topic, how did you all feel about the Peter/Lucy scene after the White Witch?

 

[BarbarianKing]

In an effort to get back on topic, how did you all feel about the Peter/Lucy scene after the White Witch?

Do you remember what they said? I am a little hard of hearing so I only caught a few words. I thought that it was an important scene but was interrupted by Edmund coming to get Peter. I could have a better opinion if anyone recalls what Lucy and Peter talked about.

 

[Fifth Pevensie]

In an effort to get back on topic, how did you all feel about the Peter/Lucy scene after the White Witch?

Sorry. I did post on that in this thread just a few posts ago. Here v v

...Using the WW scene as a catalyst for change in Peter helped me deal with it. I do love how, instead of getting caught up in a back and forth with Ed or Caspian, he's just frozen by the sight of Aslan's image revealed once more. An enchantment deeper still, without any kind of witchcraft.

It led to my favorite scene; the one that makes me dumbfounded when people say PC lacked faith: the quiet conversation btwn Lucy and Peter that marks the turning point. All my anger and sense of grievance over Peter's diminished greatness melted away under the spiritual power of that achingly humblingly repentant aftermath. *shivers*

Do you remember what they said? I am a little hard of hearing so I only caught a few words. I thought that it was an important scene but was interrupted by Edmund coming to get Peter. I could have a better opinion if anyone recalls what Lucy and Peter talked about.

Sure, BarbarianKing. This may not be exact but from my memory here the scene goes:

Dark room. Peter sitting alone staring Aslan on the wall. Lucy quietly finds him and seats herself next to him. Peter doesn't quite turn his head from Aslan but addresses her, saying "You're lucky, you know."

Lucy asks, "What do you mean?"

Peter answers brokenly, "To have seen Him. I just wish I could have some proof."

Lucy gently replies, "Maybe we have to prove ourselves to Him."

Peter now looks at his sister and seems to take her words to heart. (Momentary silence)

Ed appears saying, "Pete! You better come quick"

 

[~Lava~]

I think that is right.

 

[Caspiansgirl]

I hate to say it, but if people only see the films and don't read the books they'll miss most of the genius of Lewis altogether. The films will be hollywood fan fiction based on the stories that are classics. However, unless they try to remain more faithful...or completely faithful...the best parts will be lost, missed, or just not there. Prince Caspian left out most of my favorite scenes and most of the ones they put in were stripped of what made them so loved in the first place. The only way in my mind for people to get the heart of it is to read the books. There is no substitute. If someone only watched the films they'd miss most of Narnia. There's no replacement for the books. Not even close.

Well, like someone else has already said, the movies will hopefully inspire people to read the books.

 

[Catherine]

i liked the scene w/ the white witch even if it wasn't in the book, but i didn't like it when Lucy was sitting on the stone table. it's be like sitting on the cross that Jesus died on.

 

[BarbarianKing]

Sure, BarbarianKing. This may not be exact but from my memory here the scene goes:

Dark room. Peter sitting alone staring Aslan on the wall. Lucy quietly finds him and seats herself next to him. Peter doesn't quite turn his head from Aslan but addresses her, saying "You're lucky, you know."

Lucy asks, "What do you mean?"

Peter answers brokenly, "To have seen Him. I just wish I could have some proof."

Lucy gently replies, "Maybe we have to prove ourselves to Him."

Peter now looks at his sister and seems to take her words to heart. (Momentary silence)

Ed appears saying, "Pete! You better come quick"

Ok, cool. Now I can tell you that there was no need for this either if they had stuck to the book and introduced Aslan before Peter met Caspian. Sorry, but now I have an even worse opinion of the movie. I mean, the High King needing proof? Come on! the gall of these moviemakers!

 

[Fifth Pevensie]

Now I can tell you that there was no need for this either if they had stuck to the book and introduced Aslan before Peter met Caspian. Sorry, but now I have an even worse opinion of the movie. I mean, the High King needing proof? Come on! the gall of these moviemakers!

Yes, of course. I think that goes without saying. The real question, IMO, is whether you liked how the movie makers moved the time line to include the Pevensies in on the Caspian storyline. I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I thought that was a great adjustment.

I like that instead of the story remaining divided between wandering Pevensies and battling Caspian camp the film integrated their stories at an early point. I love the book but the narrative structure IMO is off-putting and would make a strange movie.

As for the gall of High King Peter needing proof! Ach yes, terrible. Where do they get off making Peter not see Aslan when Lucy can? Don't they know he's High King?

Please let's not act as if Lewis made Peter the one closest to and most trusting in Aslan. Peter (and the others) did grumble about not having proof etc. The first time around in the book Peter refuses to follow Aslan when Lucy tells them to because, even though it's always possible it was Aslan, Peter wasn't going to take that chance without more proof. And at the campfire during the night when Lucy awakens them, Peter was in a very bad mood because he couldn't see Aslan with his own eyes. Even Ed was grumpy but was the only one who supported Lucy and bullied Pete and the others to follow.

I think sometimes during discussions there is a tendency to exaggerate the perfection of the Pevensies in the book.

IMO if you follow thru with that logic, you would have to rail against anyone ever making the gentle Queen Susan -one of the mythic four; a special witness to Aslan's great sacrifice!- lose faith in Narnia.

________

Ah, yes! For the record (and geeks like me): on my 7th viewing I noticed some slight inaccuracies in my transcript, lol. Doesn't make much of a difference but in the interests of being as exact as I can:

Peter: You're lucky, you know.
Lucy: What do you mean?
Peter (tears): To have seen Him. If only He'd given me some kind of proof!
Lucy: Maybe we are the one who have to prove ourselves to Him.

I'd also like to note in answer to my dear friend BarbarianKing and in reference to the above scene that Lucy had some questions herself, upon their return to an oppressed Narnia. (Ex. she is the first Pevensie to speak against Aslan; namely, "How could Aslan have let this happen?" on the boat when Trumpkin tells of the Narnians' fate) Happily, and no doubt thru the Lion's wisdom in reading the purity of hearts, she was given proof of Aslan's continued nearness.