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 still don't understand why all the other characters were so okay with this, if the theme of the movie was "Man, this would totally screw with anyone! aka Peter."

Susan, Edmund, and Lucy all went through the same age thing, and each of them was suddenly turned from an independent (and responsible) adult into a child. Arguably, Lucy would have felt this worst of all; boys in WWII England of Peter's age would have had some power and independence, but a girl of Lucy's age...not really.

And if Susan was a great fighter, as apparently she was in the movies, wouldn't not being able to fight have made her more uncomfortable than Peter, who only had to wait a few years?

What about Ed, who went back to a school where he suddenly had no friends after his change of personality? Wouldn't he have been isolated?

Or Lucy? She had the closest relationship to Aslan and might have felt the most rejected or alone, in England.

Yet all of those characters are all, "Well, stuff happens, you know. Just hang in there, Aslan'll get there eventually and stuff, I guess, don't get so angry." Why is Peter so freaked out?

Weirdly, the whole wait for Aslan/attack dichotomy was new to the movie--in the book, Peter's all "Well, Aslan will do something at some point. In the meantime he expects us to act, so! To battle."
 
"Does anyone agree with me?"

Sammy, you are going to have more trouble finding someone who agred with the changes in a thread called "Why does everyone hate this movie?" :p

"But in the LWW Peter seemed a tad arrogant anyway. He thought himself in charge and disreguarded anyone elses advice."

Sammy, I will agree that Adamson started to mess up Peter in LWW. The worst was when they ran away as they heard Ms Mcready coming after them for breaking a window.

As for him being in charge, his mother did tell him to take care of the others. Also, he was the "man of the house" in England while their father was fighting in the war. That added to his feeling of responsibility of his younger siblings.

But notice that this changes after he loses Edmund in Narnia. Suddenly, he is not so sure of himself. Who does he blame for Edmund going to the Witch's house? Himself. That humility and sense of responsibility was missing in PC Peter.

"Weirdly, the whole wait for Aslan/attack dichotomy was new to the movie--in the book, Peter's all "Well, Aslan will do something at some point. In the meantime he expects us to act, so! To battle." "

Actually Animus, book Peter immediately stops the battles. He knows that the Narnian army is inferior and must stall for Aslan. That was what the duel was for.

MrBob
 
It's a stalling tactic, but it isn't just sitting there waiting, like Lucy and Susan want to do in the movie--they still fight the duel, and Peter describes that action as accomplishing things while they wait. The movie sets it up as Peter wanting to do! battle! and Lucy wanting to, idk, sit on the Stone Table and wait. It's a very odd dichotomy that didn't need to be there.
 
i was a good movie only there where certian parts which didnt feel right such as peter and the little bits in the movie which made it stray from the book ... i didnt like that.

hopefully this will fixed in the new one!
 
What they did to Peter was not a small thing. If a movie of "The Lord of the Rings" depicted Aragorn behaving like a sulky, grouchy, pouting little boy, it would ruin the story, ruin it so badly that nothing could make up for it. None of the cinematic artistry that went into "Prince NON-Caspian" can make up for the _intentional_ ruining of a character whom Lewis designed as a heroic role model.
 
If Peter were the only character in the book, I might agree with you, but I think it's overstating the case to say that the change to Peter's character ruined the whole film. We have Peter doubting the presence of Aslan in the film, which he does also in the book - albeit in a rather smaller way, but book-Peter does try to do things on his own and doesn't have the faith he should. Film-Peter massively exaggerates this, but not so much that I dislike the rest of the film.

Peeps
 
I admit that the assassination of Peter (which did not ONLY exaggerate his weaknesses, it DENIED his virtues) didn't do the whole job of ruining the film by itself. There was also the nearly complete removal of ASLAN from the story! The schoolgirl from the original book could have been given a walk-on in the film to say, "Miss Prizzle, there ISN'T a lion!"
 
By the way Animus, I agree with you that only Peter having trouble getting used to living in England is ridiculous. Lucy goes from a queen who fought in battles to a girl who can't stay up late at night. Edmund goes from "the Just" to negotiating wheher he can have dessert after dinner.

"The movie sets it up as Peter wanting to do! battle! and Lucy wanting to, idk, sit on the Stone Table and wait."

Lucy wanted to find Aslan. Peter wanted to attack the castle, Caspian wanted to dig in adn defend the How. Who was right?

MrBob
 
Well, my point was more that they added this whole conflict in. In the book, there really wasn't an argument, was there? And Peter was pretty sure that Aslan would come to them when he was ready, not the other way around. It just seemed like an odd change, to me.
 
Sooo, i loved Edmund and Lucy and Reep, Trumpkin, and that's just about it.

Peter wins the Hate contest because of his stupid arrogance, but i also blame the screenwriter and adamson. the movie could have been great without the whole Caspian/ peter rivalry. and peter says in the book, we've come to get the throne for you not to take it away from you. :mad:

then the romance. ugh. that just bugged me. why do you need romance in the movie at all??? whyyyy. i mean caspian was supposed to be a kid.

and going back to peter, WHY:mad::mad:
that is all... for now:mad:
 
rainstorm said:
and going back to peter, WHY:mad::mad:
Click to expand...


I'll tell you why. Clues to the answer can be found as far back as ancient Greece.

The Athenian statesman Pericles once gave a speech in honor of warriors who had died heroically in the service of Athens. Pericles remarked that when men of lesser merit hear of the deeds of men better than themselves, they commonly refuse to believe that the reports are true. Sinful human nature is envious of excellence, and wants to pull excellence down rather than make the effort to BECOME excellent oneself.

Yes, yes, no one is perfect and yada yada yada....but it IS possible for human beings to be MORE honorable and brave and wise than the average batch of trousered apes. Tales of heroism are meant to remind us that this is possible. But remember, Andrew Adamson is the man who changed Robin Hood into an obnoxious jerk in the first Shrek movie. He knew he couldn't get away with ruining the heroism in the first Narnia movie; but once he had one success under his belt, he thought he COULD get away with taking the Shrek approach in "Prince NON-Caspian." He was pandering to those audience members who DON'T want to be made uncomfortable by too much nobility and moral purity. Modern popular culture wants the bar lowered, and he lowered the bar.
 
Very nice, "modern culture wants the bar lowered." That is so sad, isn't it? It's sad that people think it's more realistic for a boy who was once noble to turn into a little brat in a film, and thus the film is better than if he had retained his nobility. Who wants to go to a fantasy story to see what's realistic for a modern American teen?
 
Never thought about it like that. I think you are right Copperfox. It gives a fallible audience a way to think "See, I'm not the only one." or "I'm not even as bad as that.". I say if you want to be content with your own fallibility by watching pathetic teens make imperfect choices and go through sappy romances, then go see a twilight film and keep it there--away from the Narnia films.
 
Largo said:
Never thought about it like that. I think you are right Copperfox. It gives a fallible audience a way to think "See, I'm not the only one." or "I'm not even as bad as that.". I say if you want to be content with your own fallibility by watching pathetic teens make imperfect choices and go through sappy romances, then go see a twilight film and keep it there--away from the Narnia films.
Click to expand...
LOL. :)

I've neither seen nor read Twilight, so I don't know how accurate that assesment is, but it made me laugh. Yah, for people who really believe in goodness, and who want to know that they can be noble, it was an unforgivable alteration of the story to make Peter such a mess. That's why people hate the movie and also the worst change made to the film.

Truthfully, had Peter's character been right, I think I might have been able to go along with all the other changes, because his goodness would have guided the Pevensie party. But corrupting him just helped to trash all the other themes.

Not that I disliked the movie, found it to be a very exciting adventure story. It just wasn't Prince Caspian. It was like a "re-imagining" of PC if Caspian were a dopey 25-year-old and Peter were a little brat.
 
:D Well, I've never read the books but I've seen the movies. How true my assessment was is probably debatable among the fans.
 
Lucy Fan said:
I didn't like Peter's attitude in the movie, but that was his attitude in the book. So, it doesn't really matter that much. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

nuh uhhh, peter was really super supportive of caspian in the book. he came to help caspian. see chp 12 near the very end " ' i haven't come to take your place, you know, but to put you in it' "
 
I guess I am one of those who didn't like this movie was that they did not use a kid or a young teen to play the role of Caspian but used a 20 something year old guy to play someone who is supposed to been 13 in the book and 16 in VotDT. But then again, Hollywood has never really followed the books they made into movies. There is always something missing that is really good in the book but the director and Hollywood wants to do it their way. It is just sad.
 
T-Narnian, you're right. Are you familiar with the musical "The Wiz"? For that, they took what had been a subteen-aged girl in "The Wizard of Oz," and changed her into an adult woman. This and the Caspian change are something along the lines of not letting kids be kids.
 
Back
Top