Why does everyone hate this movie merged with worst change

What was the worst change from the book in your opinion?

  • Interlacing the Caspian sequences between the Pevensie sequences

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Aslan's first introduction

    Votes: 9 6.2%

  • The addition of the raid of Miraz's castle

    Votes: 9 6.2%

  • Peter's added cockiness and arrogance

    Votes: 50 34.5%

  • Susan's romantic affair with Caspian

    Votes: 49 33.8%

  • Caspian's age

    Votes: 3 2.1%

  • Something else

    Votes: 7 4.8%

  • They were all good

    Votes: 17 11.7%
  • Total voters
    145
I call you your real name in private. I don't want to be the one to divulge it in public!!! I know you don't mind, but I don't feel like doing it. Ok. I won't spam no more.
 
"Hey MrBob, this is just going to go on back and forth for a really long time. I'll have a response, then you'll have one, etc. etc. I know you're tired... (maybe you're not, but I am). Animus was right; let's just agree to disagree, huh? Shake on it?"

Tired of this? No. But this does take a lot of my time.

Here you go:


MrBob
 
THanks Michael! I love it being called Destiny though! :D...ok no more spamming.


Um, I don't think there was anything else that I didn't like about PC....hmmmmm I did LOVE Reepicheep!
 
The movie is indeed better....IF what you're looking for is a chance to pull down a heroic role-model figure and wipe your feet on his face. On the other hand, if you want a movie that has something to do with the Chronicles of Narnia, Walden Media to date has made only one of those.

Even without the completely unnecessary smearing of Peter (every excuse for which has already been refuted), it's an outrage that they made Aslan only a walk-on character for a flickering moment. Half of the payoff of the Caspian book was the way Aslan transformed the Telmarine society. The movie SHOULD have included the priceless "Miss Prizzle" scene. If you don't know who Miss Prizzle was--read the book!
 
Even without the completely unnecessary smearing of Peter (every excuse for which has already been refuted), it's an outrage that they made Aslan only a walk-on character for a flickering moment. Half of the payoff of the Caspian book was the way Aslan transformed the Telmarine society. The movie SHOULD have included the priceless "Miss Prizzle" scene. If you don't know who Miss Prizzle was--read the book!
Click to expand...
And Caspian's nurse ... I hated that her whole story was deleted from the movie. That's one of the most tender and heart-warming vignettes in the book when Aslan comes for her ... :(
 
Thank you, Inky. And yes, the excuses for smearing Peter HAVE all been EXHAUSTIVELY refuted. For instance, the argument that it's "necessary" for Peter to be a total dork because ANY superiority on his part would be "unrealistic" is refuted by the fact that ONLY Peter had this done to him; all of his siblings were still allowed to be terrific people, both on Earth and in the Narnian world.
 
Same works for the idea that he would be some kind of "pollyana" and not interesting to watch if he behaved like Peter in the book: Edmund behaved like Edmund in the book, and most people seem to think that character and Skandar's performance were top-notch.
 
Copperfox said:
Thank you, Inky. And yes, the excuses for smearing Peter HAVE all been EXHAUSTIVELY refuted. For instance, the argument that it's "necessary" for Peter to be a total dork because ANY superiority on his part would be "unrealistic" is refuted by the fact that ONLY Peter had this done to him; all of his siblings were still allowed to be terrific people, both on Earth and in the Narnian world.
Click to expand...
If that's the only thing you can think of, as well as your interpretation of the characters, I suggest you read up a bit more on the forums before claiming such... bullocks.
 
What are we fighting about? Theonly Forum I ever visit is here. I was making my statement based on the reactions of the kids here.
 
Politeness is my middle name.

I would love to discuss this politely. :D

1. Peter's character: Peter was always the leader of the Pevensie children. The absence of his leadership was a major mistake in the movie. He ignored Lucy, who had always been the closest one to Aslan, and fought with Caspian. He even succumbed to the force of the White Witch. His repentance was played down, and it didn't come as a direct result of his seeing Aslan. Unfortunately, this will also bear on Edmund's character, as well. You see, in the books, Edmund took up Peter's cloak in The VDT. He became the leader, the "straight man," if you will, but in the movies Peter has dropped the cloak early and Edmund has no role model for his character. Lewis intended for there to be a leader, a role model; not someone perfect, but someone whose highest goal was doing the right thing.

2. Susan's romance with Caspian: Well, at least he's better than Rabadash! I don't mind some attraction, but the kiss was over the top! If any Pevensie falls in love with Caspian, it's Lucy in VDT! This was total Hollywood romance junk. It's a sorry excuse for the higher love that Aslan calls them to practice. In addition, it makes Susan reluctant to leave and has no way to lead up to her rejection of Narnia. If she leaves half her heart (as it appears) in Narnia, then how can she reject it later? She looks forlorn and sad as she leaves through the door in the air (tree). Instead of her laughing at Edmund's reference to his electric torch/flashlight, one almost expects her to snap at him for raining on her pity party. Finally, I feel sorry for Ramandu's daughter not getting Caspian's first kiss!

3. Glozelle is a general: Remember who Glozelle was? That's right, a Telmarine lord, just like my namesake. This put him on the same level as Sopespian. It made their interaction more natural. But, Hollywood figured, who ever saw an army without a general? Well, for crying out loud, who ever saw a faun, or a dancing tree, or a talking badger? C.S. Lewis created a whole new world, one in which anything was possible, even an army being led by two lords in a king's court. It's when we try to distort that world to fit our own that we run into problems.

Continued on my next post.
 
Last edited:
The disney version of reepicheep.

I love Disney, but they made him out to be really cute. In the books, I've always thought of him as honorable and vicious in combat.
 
Politeness is my middle name; Part II

4: Aslan's diminished role: Why was Aslan a minor character? His glory was diminished, his return was played down, and even his appearance to Trumpkin was lacking. I believe that this is one of the worst deviations from the book. It all started when Hollywood messed up the chronology. Unfortunately, this has devastating impacts on the characters. The Aslan whose character had been established in the LWW movie was distorted, nearly irreversibly in PC, by a simple change of chronology. Truth is delicate; don't treat it carelessly.

5. Caspian, Nikabrik, and the black magic: Again, modifying the chronology distorts a character. In the book, Caspian, a kingly character, is holding court (i.e. seeking advice) with Dr. Cornelius, Trufflehunter, and Nikabrik. Nikabrik introduces his two friends, who suggest some black magic to conjur up the White Witch. Caspian, Cornelius, and Trufflehunter see the treachery and Peter and Edmund, and Trumpkin rush in, and a skirmish ensues. In the movie, Caspian, alone, is approached by Nikabrik, whose friends suggest some black magic. Caspian, at the end of his rope, does not prevent the conjuring up of the White Witch! His only objection comes while he is in the control of Nikabrik, the Werewolf, and the Hag, "No. This isn't what I wanted!" Fine time to figure that out! The real Caspian had his values and morals figured out already, and put strength in counsel. The movie Caspian was weak and succumbed to the pressure of losing after the battle at the castle (which wasn't in the book either and further distorts the characters).
Finally, the fact that the White Witch was still alive in a way raises questions about the triumph of good over evil in the first movie. I guess the triumph wasn't complete!

I hope this is the end or near the end of the discussion. I doubt that anyone will be persuaded to change his or her beliefs about the movie by what anyone else says here. I don't want to argue; my intent is that my side has a well-thought, reasonable basis for its beliefs. Only when we are free from rhetoric and namecalling are we truly objective and moving forward. :D:D:D
 
Last edited:
Captain Holly said:
The disney version of reepicheep.

I love Disney, but they made him out to be really cute. In the books, I've always thought of him as honorable and vicious in combat.
Click to expand...

Auch, yes! This bothered me more than Peter. Reepicheep was supposed to be funny because he was so serious about the whole thing--not because he spouted cute one-liners. The incident with the giant, or when he asked to fight Miraz--he was dead serious. :D

Regarding the Peter problem. (That has a nice ring to it. The Peter Problem. The 'PP'? :p) Anyway, what bothered me more was the change in Caspian. First, Caspian was supposed to already know about the Old Narnians--and Aslan. Even defended Aslan against both dwarves. The second change had way more impact though. In the book Caspian was young, inexperienced, in need of help. He was most definitely not on top of things when he called on the old Kings and Queens for help. Note: called on them for help. Not in a random panic before battle even started. Now. If Caspian had stayed as he was, just what exactly was there for Peter to compete with? Nothing. Just a rightful ruler to put back in his rightful position. But . . . make Caspian capable of handling the whole thing on his own, and what happens? Random call, no help needed--two perfectly capable young men . . . and what do you get? Either Peter says Hey! Looks like you're doing fine. Let's go on back to Cair Paravel and eat apples--or you get what they did in the movie, more or less.

So I conclude that the PP is simply a natural result of the change made to Caspian's character.
 
Dernhelm said:
He was most definitely not on top of things when he called on the old Kings and Queens for help. Note: called on them for help. Not in a random panic before battle even started. Now. If Caspian had stayed as he was, just what exactly was there for Peter to compete with? Nothing. Just a rightful ruler to put back in his rightful position. But . . . make Caspian capable of handling the whole thing on his own, and what happens? Random call, no help needed--two perfectly capable young men . . . and what do you get? Either Peter says Hey! Looks like you're doing fine. Let's go on back to Cair Paravel and eat apples--or you get what they did in the movie, more or less.

So I conclude that the PP is simply a natural result of the change made to Caspian's character.
Click to expand...

I actually totally agree with that--I think the scriptwriters were going for drama, which, well, they got. ::sigh::

But it's interesting to think that in the book, Caspian made a very calculated decision to blow the horn, even though he didn't know what sort of help would come (or if it would really work). In the movie, Caspian knew exactly who would show up if he blew the horn, and...then he had a hissy fit about it. What's up with that?
 
Dernhelm said:
Regarding the Peter problem. (That has a nice ring to it. The Peter Problem. The 'PP'? :p) Anyway, what bothered me more was the change in Caspian. First, Caspian was supposed to already know about the Old Narnians--and Aslan. Even defended Aslan against both dwarves. The second change had way more impact though. In the book Caspian was young, inexperienced, in need of help. He was most definitely not on top of things when he called on the old Kings and Queens for help. Note: called on them for help. Not in a random panic before battle even started. Now. If Caspian had stayed as he was, just what exactly was there for Peter to compete with? Nothing. Just a rightful ruler to put back in his rightful position. But . . . make Caspian capable of handling the whole thing on his own, and what happens? Random call, no help needed--two perfectly capable young men . . . and what do you get? Either Peter says Hey! Looks like you're doing fine. Let's go on back to Cair Paravel and eat apples--or you get what they did in the movie, more or less.

So I conclude that the PP is simply a natural result of the change made to Caspian's character.
Click to expand...
...I actually completely agree with that as well. Makes perfect sense! :)
 
"the fact that the White Witch was still alive in a way raises questions about the triumph of good over evil in the first movie. I guess the triumph wasn't complete!"

Sopespian, I agree with everything else you wrote, but I had to comment on this. The scene in the movie was just an extention of the book scene. The hag and werewolf were talking about bringing her back to life. The hag even asks "who ever heard of a witch that really died? You can always get them back." As Lewis brought this up in the book, the question is one that went with his own universe.

"I love Disney, but they made him out to be really cute. In the books, I've always thought of him as honorable and vicious in combat."

Cpt. Holy, Reep was cute in the books as well. It is told in VotDT that Lucy had longed to pick him up and cuddle him, but never did so as to keep his honor. He was cute. I do agree with Dernhelm that they didn't get him right, making him the comic relief rather than a serious character.

MrBob
 
Back
Top