Why does everyone hate this movie merged with worst change

[inkspot]

There were so many things to hate in the film if you wanted to be picky about it, but most of the major ones related to how the themes of the book (and even the essential storyline) were done away with. One thing that was distriessing which didn't have anything to do with how closely the film followed the book was Caspian's accent. It was pretty atrocious. I am glad they let him have a more British accent in the new film.

Caspian's age was another reason to hate the film -- he seemed like a huge grown-up lunatic for not understanding Miraz's character or how precarious his position would be if Miraz had a son ... and why would someone as old as film Caspian never have wondered what happened to his dad and the seven lords and why he wasn't being made king now that he was an adult (as he appeared to be)?

In that instance the movie, just as a movie, faltered. Most of the changes they made, if you thought of the film as just a movie, separate from CON, were ok and made for an exciting movie -- but that particular change didn't work in any film whether it was part of CON or not.

 

[MrBob]

"Recall that the BBC version, which was meticulously faithful to the books, in general, did PC in two episodes, compared with four for VDT and six each for LWW and TSC. This suggests they didn't find it that compelling as a televised story."

Peep, just because one group of writers cannot make a film/miniseries good enough does not mean another set of writers cannot do so. I watched the BBC movies on DVD and felt the worst part of them (besides the antiquated special effects) was the choice of actors.

Yes, they could have fleshed the writing out a bit while still staying true to the story. They did this in Walden's LWW wonderfully. Had the Walden writers done something similar with PC, keeping it as close to the story as BBC PC or Walden's LWW, they may have been able to do better.

I have given suggestions on numerous occasions about how they could have incorported the Caspian backstory better. Have Trumpkin tell it, with the audience watching the scenes of course, interspersed with scenes of them leaving the island and heaing to the gorge. This allows natural breaks in the Caspian backstory to be filled with the Pevensies so that we don't miss them for too long.

MrBob

 

[Animus Wyrmis]

Caspian's age was another reason to hate the film -- he seemed like a huge grown-up lunatic for not understanding Miraz's character or how precarious his position would be if Miraz had a son ... and why would someone as old as film Caspian never have wondered what happened to his dad and the seven lords and why he wasn't being made king now that he was an adult (as he appeared to be)?

I agree completely. What was he doing during all his lessons anyway, watching the clouds? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND HOW MONARCHIES LIKE YOURS WORK, CASPIAN, WHAT. Also it didn't make any sense to me that he was so terrible with planning battles and things. (I know Miraz is supposed to not like him, but he likes him enough to keep him alive and an heir for this long, so...)
/rant

 

[Peepiceek]

Peep, just because one group of writers cannot make a film/miniseries good enough does not mean another set of writers cannot do so. I watched the BBC movies on DVD and felt the worst part of them (besides the antiquated special effects) was the choice of actors.

Yes, they could have fleshed the writing out a bit while still staying true to the story. They did this in Walden's LWW wonderfully. Had the Walden writers done something similar with PC, keeping it as close to the story as BBC PC or Walden's LWW, they may have been able to do better.

Actually, I wasn't so taken with LWW - they had changed so much of the dialogue, and they introduced the whole sequence with the fox and with the crossing of the river. They weren't especially faithful to the book.

I agree completely. What was he doing during all his lessons anyway, watching the clouds? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND HOW MONARCHIES LIKE YOURS WORK, CASPIAN, WHAT.

Actually, in military monarchies, as the Telmarines clearly were, it is normal for the strongest of the old king's relations to take the throne, rather than having a fixed line of succession. Neither book nor film states explicitly that Miraz had no right to become king after Caspian IX; he is a usurper because he killed his brother. (Admittedly, it is implied by the fact that Miraz did not become king immediately, but this could be to do with political disagreements.) Besides which, since Miraz controlled Caspian's education, he is unlikely to have him taught that Caspian is the rightful king and Miraz the usurper.

Peeps

 

[Josh]

Peter was never cocky. I think people just misinterpreted his actions.

He felt responsible for saving Narnia, so when Prince Caspian started questioning and defying his orders...after he's the one who caused the trouble in the first place...it only made sense for him to get upset...and notice he never really had a big argument with Caspian untill after several Narnians died....because CASPIAN screwed up the Night Raid by trying to get Corneilius and by waking up Miraz for a stupid little revenge attempt that he ended up wimping out of only to get more Narnians killed.

And Peter was an adult once. So when the world treats him as a worthless kid and people start picking on him, of course he'd fight. People say thats not what an adult would do, but remember now that he's back in a teen's body teenage hormones and issues merge with his older self.

And since when is a kiss goodbye a romantic affair?

 

[Peepiceek]

Josh

I agree that Peter's character in the film is not altogether implausible, although personally I think he would have more maturity than that - but then, I don't have examples of other people who have been adult kings for fifteen years then being changed back into teenage boys, so who's to say what would be normal in that situation? However, the objection is that the film completely distorts Peter's character as represented in the book, and in the process loses some of the important moral and spiritual messages that the book is trying to convey.

I guess the same is true with regard to the Caspian / Susan romance, although personally I don't think that does any great damage to the themes of the book.

Peeps

 

[Lila]

I don't have a problem with the fact that Peter's character is different than it was in the book. I'd rather see a realistic portrayal of a character than an exact replication of the author's creation. To be honest, Lewis didn't include much character development in his series, and that would never play out well onscreen. What he DID do right was the symbolism and themes, and I agree with most of you that those elements were not as apparent in the film as they should've been. But it's not like they were completely absent. The filmmakers just made them more subtle. Whether that is OK or not is up to the viewer.

 

[Animus Wyrmis]

Actually, in military monarchies, as the Telmarines clearly were, it is normal for the strongest of the old king's relations to take the throne, rather than having a fixed line of succession. Neither book nor film states explicitly that Miraz had no right to become king after Caspian IX; he is a usurper because he killed his brother. (Admittedly, it is implied by the fact that Miraz did not become king immediately, but this could be to do with political disagreements.) Besides which, since Miraz controlled Caspian's education, he is unlikely to have him taught that Caspian is the rightful king and Miraz the usurper.

And yet Caspian, who presumably has the best claim to the throne pre-Miraz's kid (he'd probably have to fight a couple of lords, maybe some cousins) has...apparently like no military knowledge (see: everything he managed to screw up in the raid) and no political knowledge (woah, the king having a son might make him want to kill me?!). He's nearly twenty-five, so if Miraz has been keeping him alive all this time it's with the idea (explicit in the book) that he's going to be Miraz's heir (a nephew is better than a stranger); he doesn't have to know the truth about his own father/rights to know how courts *work*--people who are threats to the king's chosen heir get removed.

Case in point: the queen is having the baby that will make or break Caspian's future* and Caspian is sleeping peacefully. How long do you have to live at court before you understand this is a big deal for you?

*I am guessing a little here, but it seems like Telmarines don't let women inherit, so my guess would be that Miraz would marry Caspian off to his daughter to shore up the succession, and then as soon as she had a son probably kill Caspian off and name himself as regent again

 

[Peepiceek]

And yet Caspian, who presumably has the best claim to the throne pre-Miraz's kid (he'd probably have to fight a couple of lords, maybe some cousins) has...apparently like no military knowledge (see: everything he managed to screw up in the raid)

I don't think the raid failed due to Caspian's lack of military strategy, although perhaps it failed due to his immaturity in letting his emotions and perrsonal desire for revenge come before the mission as a whole.

and no political knowledge (woah, the king having a son might make him want to kill me?!).

Surely the killing of rivals is the exception rather than the rule, and is hardly a political rule.

He's nearly twenty-five

Where do you get that from? I think he is portrayed as being Peter's age - a teenager.

he doesn't have to know the truth about his own father/rights to know how courts *work*--people who are threats to the king's chosen heir get removed.

If he hasn't been taught this, he would not have had the opportunity to see it. The only time it had happened was with his father, which he was too young to know about, and Miraz concelaed the murder so well that even his own wife didn't know about it.

Case in point: the queen is having the baby that will make or break Caspian's future* and Caspian is sleeping peacefully. How long do you have to live at court before you understand this is a big deal for you?

In the book, and the film does not suggest otherwise, the queen had been in seclusion leading up to her giving birth, so Caspain didn't actually know she was pregnant.

Peeps

 

[Sir Cabbage]

I can only really repeat what others have said (and I think I've written in many threads about my disdain for certain parts of this film )...
I must also admit I haven't seen the film in a while so I might get some things slightly wrong.

1) Caspian and Susan romance. Really did not fit. Kind of missed the point of the end of that particular story. Also with the inappropriate singing at the end... TOO much.

2) Caspian and Peter man rivalry thing. But Peter got on so well with him in the book.

3) Obsession with battle sequences. Tone it down! Sorry to sound a bit sexist, but it kind of made it more to the male appeal side; well, for me anyway I felt it lacked more rounded story what with the constant fighting.

4) They didn't go much into the beginnings of Caspian's character - they went right over the fact of him having a nurse, and the magician didn't appear much.

5) Other things I can't think of at the moment.

 

[Sir Godfrey]

It was a difficult decision between Peter's Cockiness and The Love Affair between Caspian and Susan. However in the end I opted for Peter's arrogance, for it competely ruined and changed the character we all know and love from the books. He was obnoxious and peity. In fact he is only rivaled by Hyden Christen's preformance as Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars Prequels. Although I think Peter's arrogance unlike Anakin is both ill founded and competely unbecoming. Anakin had cause for his pride, though Hyden competely ruined his character by becoming a whining brat.

I hate to say that Sir Peter Wolf's Bane, High King of Narnia is equal to the snotty and arrogant Dark Lord of the Sith.

 

[Animus Wyrmis]

The lords have disappeared within his lifetime. Miraz is, canonically, someone who Disappears people he doesn't like; Caspian would have seen that at court--if not by death, then by exile or being sent to some remote place or a simple fall from grace. This is normal court intrigue stuff.

re: the queen's seclusion--the servants still talk and the king, as well as higher nobles, would have been informed. If Caspian had had any spies among the court he would have heard from them as well.

Basically, Caspian comes across as so naive as so make me wonder at his ability to manage at being an actual king. :/

 

[MrBob]

"I wasn't so taken with LWW - they had changed so much of the dialogue, and they introduced the whole sequence with the fox and with the crossing of the river. They weren't especially faithful to the book."

Peep, they were a lot more faithful with LWW than PC. I didn't mind some changes of dialogue and scenes. I accept that they had to turn the quiet escape from the Beavers' house into a chase.

"I don't have examples of other people who have been adult kings for fifteen years then being changed back into teenage boys"

Oh come on, I know 20 of them. They are all perfectly fine

"Where do you get that from? I think he is portrayed as being Peter's age - a teenager."

Therein lies the problem, Peep. They chose someone who was much older than even William to play a teenager and it showed in his looks. They also never explained how old he was supposed to be in the movie, which made the audience assume how old he was. I wonder how many non-readers took him to be a 15-18-year-old?

I wish they had simply gone with the book in regards to the politics of the kingship. In the book, Miraz had slowly turned from being Lord Regent (he was the next in line after Caspian) into being king outright by usurping the throne. Why anyone, from Caspian to the other lords to the people in general, would accept Caspian not taking the throne is ridiculous. Why would they have accepted a kingless kingdom for so long when the heir to the throne was of age?

MrBob

 

[Josh]

I don't get the hate for Peter's character. And I really don't think a whole lot of the non book readers found him to be bad anyway.

Anyway, I think they made CASPIAN very unlikeable. You've got a guy who looks a bit older then the Pevensies who, after calling for their help, argues with their tactics, screws up the Night Raid, and attacks them on 2 occasions.

I mean he ruined the Night Raid. The plan was going so perfectly then he went against the plan to get Doctor Corneilius then screwed the whole thing up by WAKING UP MIRAZ then LETTING HIM GET AWAY!!! Dr. Corneilius would have been fine. I mean, the plan was working, so if they got Miraz held hostage or whatever the could have arranged for Corneilius to be freed. But no, Caspian felt the need to go to Corneilius and then wake up the enemy so everyone in the army could get slaughtered. Looking back we know Peter should have called off the attack, but after everything they went through I can understand feeling they should at least try. Unfortuatly Caspian ruined Peter's perfect plan and as a result got several Narnians killed.

And then Caspian says his first mistake was calling the Pevensies. Um, no. If he hadnt called them the Narnians would be trapped in Aslan's how as Miraz's troops slowly kill them all. And even if he challanged Miraz to a duel he would loose. I mean, look at him. He just acts like a scared little wimp the entire movie filled with doubt and self esteem issues.

I was surprised that Peter, Edmund, or Susan, didnt beat that guy up for ruining the Night Raid and getting angry at the them for doing his dirty work.


I have no problem with Ben Barnes btw, but I just don't like Caspian in PC. I think he will be better in VotDT.

 

[BarbarianKing]

Like I said before, no one hates the movie. We just think it's a fantasy story loosely based on Prince Caspian.

 

[Peepiceek]

Basically, Caspian comes across as so naive as so make me wonder at his ability to manage at being an actual king. :/

Which is one of the (apparently few) points that is common to both book and film - you should be pleased! In both book and film, Caspian is inexperienced, and feels himself unfit to take up the kingship, and Aslan says that it is because of this feeling of unworthiness that he is the right person to appoint as king.

Peeps

 

[Peepiceek]

"I wasn't so taken with LWW - they had changed so much of the dialogue, and they introduced the whole sequence with the fox and with the crossing of the river. They weren't especially faithful to the book."

Peep, they were a lot more faithful with LWW than PC. I didn't mind some changes of dialogue and scenes. I accept that they had to turn the quiet escape from the Beavers' house into a chase.

You felt that action-filled LWW needed to be spiced up, but PC with only half a dozen scenes should have been left alone??

"Where do you get that from? I think he is portrayed as being Peter's age - a teenager."

Therein lies the problem, Peep. They chose someone who was much older than even William to play a teenager and it showed in his looks. They also never explained how old he was supposed to be in the movie, which made the audience assume how old he was. I wonder how many non-readers took him to be a 15-18-year-old?

Possibly a fair point.

I wish they had simply gone with the book in regards to the politics of the kingship. In the book, Miraz had slowly turned from being Lord Regent (he was the next in line after Caspian) into being king outright by usurping the throne. Why anyone, from Caspian to the other lords to the people in general, would accept Caspian not taking the throne is ridiculous. Why would they have accepted a kingless kingdom for so long when the heir to the throne was of age?

I think the film's take is more plausible, if there is not an automatic appointment to the throne, there was no immediate need for a single king, and there was disagreement over who should take the throne. If we take film Caspian to be a teenager, he was not yet 'of age'.

Peeps

 

[Peepiceek]

3) Obsession with battle sequences. Tone it down! Sorry to sound a bit sexist, but it kind of made it more to the male appeal side; well, for me anyway I felt it lacked more rounded story what with the constant fighting.

In fairness, it is a story about a war - they need to have a fair bit of fighting. They didn't introduce more fighting than the book has, I don't think. In fact, they omit one part, where the Pevensies run into the Telmarine outpost and get bombarded with arrows.

Oh yes - they do introduce the fight between Peter and Caspian before they realise who each other are, but I think that's the only one.

Peeps

 

[inkspot]

I agree completely. What was he doing during all his lessons anyway, watching the clouds? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND HOW MONARCHIES LIKE YOURS WORK, CASPIAN, WHAT. Also it didn't make any sense to me that he was so terrible with planning battles and things. (I know Miraz is supposed to not like him, but he likes him enough to keep him alive and an heir for this long, so...)
/rant

LOL! So totally agreeing with you

IWhere do you get that from? I think he is portrayed as being Peter's age - a teenager.

MrBob and AW have both answered this: the character referred to in the books as "the boy Caspian" was played by a grown man in his 20's who looked his age. It was bizarre.

The lords have disappeared within his lifetime. Miraz is, canonically, someone who Disappears people he doesn't like; Caspian would have seen that at court--if not by death, then by exile or being sent to some remote place or a simple fall from grace. This is normal court intrigue stuff...
Basically, Caspian comes across as so naive as so make me wonder at his ability to manage at being an actual king. :/

Right. Why was he 25 years old and unable to figure out what was going on? He seems like somewhat of an idiot. Caspian in the book had his age to fall back on -- but Caspian in the film = somewhat of a dim bulb.

They chose someone who was much older than even William to play a teenager and it showed in his looks. They also never explained how old he was supposed to be in the movie, which made the audience assume how old he was.

Yup.

Which is one of the (apparently few) points that is common to both book and film - you should be pleased! In both book and film, Caspian is inexperienced, and feels himself unfit to take up the kingship, and Aslan says that it is because of this feeling of unworthiness that he is the right person to appoint as king.

But in the book Caspian is 12 or 15. In the film he's a big grown man!

He was obnoxious and peity. In fact he is only rivaled by Hyden Christen's preformance as Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars Prequels. ...
I hate to say that Sir Peter Wolf's Bane, High King of Narnia is equal to the snotty and arrogant Dark Lord of the Sith.

ROFL! It's true! Sad but true.

I don't have a problem with the fact that Peter's character is different than it was in the book. ... What he DID do right was the symbolism and themes, and I agree with most of you that those elements were not as apparent in the film as they should've been. .

One of the themes though had to do with the nobility of the Pevensies in the face of disaster, and that was ruined by Peter's immaturity.

I'm so glad we're back to dissing this film. Hours of entertainment.

And honestly, I liked the film. It just wasn't a CON film per se.

 

[Animus Wyrmis]

Which is one of the (apparently few) points that is common to both book and film - you should be pleased! In both book and film, Caspian is inexperienced, and feels himself unfit to take up the kingship, and Aslan says that it is because of this feeling of unworthiness that he is the right person to appoint as king.

But book!Caspian is younger, so he has a reason not to have much experience with this...and even so, he's humble and receives the aid he asked for without trying to fight his own allies. And he's shown to have done fairly well pre-Pevensies too, just that he was outnumbered and didn't have enough experience.

Movie!Caspian is older (is he meant to be Peter's age? Really? Then why not get someone who was a teenager to play him?), and he doesn't have much of a chance to hold his own before the Pevensies get there, and then he fights with them. They both feel inexperienced, but book!Caspian seems to be more experienced, where movie!Caspian seems to think he's more experienced until the moment with Aslan.

ETA: Or what inkspot said! Also, re: how believable it was to go from being an adult to a child...well, Edmund, Susan, and Lucy all manage it quite well in the movie, and I would argue it's *Lucy*, not Peter, who would have the biggest change--Peter is nearly old enough to be a man, especially with so many off fighting, but Lucy goes from an adult and a queen to someone who can be sent to bed without supper and is still in primary school. Yet she isn't angsting all over the place and no one I've talked to has complained about that being unreasonable.