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
Since Glenburne and I agree on this, I think that what I'm about to say is something he will agree with: it's not the Bible, and I don't care how much Aslan is supposed to represent Christ, he is NOT. Heck, you could say that Gandalf is supposed to represent Christ *he died and came back from the dead*, but he is NOT.

SoA, while I respect your position both as a moderator and as a pastor, don't take what I'm about to say as disrespectful. But you and several others have elevated the books to a degree far beyond what is reasonable. The kind of arguments that you have posed are ones that in the real world, don't really hold water with the majority of fans (and moviegoers, for that matter). No matter what Lewis intended, the books are books, they are fiction, and they are not given the commandment: do not add or take away to the words of these books (Revelation, on the other hand, ends with those words). Now, if somebody was changing the words of the Bible, would you be as adamant to decry those changes as well? Or would they just get an "eh, that's bad, but whatever" attitude from you? Is what's going on in our world right now culturally and socially not as important as a bunch of books? It seems to me, that you and many others place far too much value on a bunch of fiction fantasy novels that in a few years, will probably be forgotten, just like Twilight, Harry Potter, and all the other great fantasy novels that are so popular in the present time.

That said, I'm frankly tired of going around in circles with people who don't really care that there are a bunch of people (myself incuded) who are willing to tolerate the changes if the movies are made. I will continue to support the movies no matter what, and I won't be called a non-Narnia fan (as has been implied by other threads). I'm able to separate the movies and the books. However, most peope on this forum seem unable to do so.

Nothing in this world can take away from or change who Jesus is. He has been, is, and always will be the same Person He was at the beginning of time. No movie, no book, no NOTHING is able to change what the Bible says about Him. Separate fantasy from reality, and we'd all be a lot happier.
 
MrBob said:
Wooden, Specter? I have never read a character I thought was wooden. Maybe boring or not well rounded, but never have I ever described a book character as wooden. And as for believing Lucy at the gorge, he never disbelieved her. Peter took Trumpkin to task for speaking badly about Aslan and chose to go against the way Lucy wanted to go despite the fact that he felt she might be right.
Click to expand...

"Boring or not well rounded" to me is wooden. And while it is true that he did take Trumpkin to task, he still chose to go against what Lucy wanted. Why would he do such a thing?
 
First, Aravis, I would never call anyone who likes the movies as non-Narnian fan. However I would limit them to a Narnia movie fan and not that of the books.

All I am maintaining is that the books were written primarily for young people to introduce them through fantasy to Christ by having a make-believe world where animals talked and Jesus was represented as a Lion - a reference to the Lion of the tribe of Judah. That said, if one is going to make a film about the book, and change the theme and character of that which was originally written, then it is wrong.

Secondly, don't think because I value the books that I am missing out on anything. I personally feed and clothe the poor here in the Dallas/FT. Worth area, I head a children's ministry, I provide food and a warm place to visit in the apartment complex where we live. We invite the lonely widows and widowers into our home constantly for meals and fellowship, I teach the Word of God several times a week. I volunteer at a Christian Mission in Arlington. I am involved in a weekly Bible study and a home cell group. I distribute books and Bibles to those who don't have any. So, I am serving Jesus to the maximum that I can as a 64 year old man with a disabled wife who has Muscular Dystrophy. I'd like to see people half my age do half as much.

Again, I would ask you...have you read the books or is your opinion based on just from seeing the movies? Which is OK. But if you haven't read the books by Mr. Lewis then you cannot say that those of us who have are being unfair. We love Narnia, but we are ones who believe that no change is needed. If you want to draw out certain scenes such as battles and conversations, that's fine. The changes we are talking about are those that change the purpose and meaning of the whole book(s). Some changes can be good and effective, but not at the expense of the main plot and the integrity of the characters in the story. And the main plot of VOTDT is NOT the 7 lords and their swords (swords not in book), but it is the redemtion of Eustice, which seems to be maintained in the film, and the story of revelation to Edmund and Lucy as to Who they need to know in our world - Jesus Christ. Follow those two plots and the story is great. Change them in anyway and you lose the main point of what C.S. Lewis wrote. But most people seem to want the films to be other than what the intent of the author was.

Oh, and yes, I generally dislike Hollywood making any film that has a Biblical theme to it because they inevitably mess it up completely. Facts wrong, people wrong. There have been only a couple of Bible based films that haven't done that. One would be "The Passion of the Christ" and "Matthew" which was word-for-word from the book of Matthew.
 
Last edited:
Uh, doesn't my username indicate that I've read the books? Outside of HHB, I never would have heard of Aravis.

Yeah, I have read the books (All but the last 3 of them I've read 6 times), but I don't like being presumed not to have read them simply because of my opinion. :mad:

Until this topic moves back on topic (i.e., out of these ridiculous details over the Christianity bits), I take my leave.
 
Last edited:
"when you change the character of Aslan and reduce Aslan's role in a film or make him not quite Who He is in the books, you do dishonor God since Aslan is supposed to be Jesus in Narnia, who IS God."

SoA, I think Aravis has a point that taking a book too seriously is not good. It is fine to disagree with the changes to a story when translated from book to movie, but remember that every person will take something different from the book.

"the books were written primarily for young people to introduce them through fantasy to Christ by having a make-believe world where animals talked and Jesus was represented as a Lion"

Actually SoA, they were written as a way to entertain his goddaughter before realizing that Lucy may be too ol for fairy tales. The direct correlation was not intended by Lewis As Lewis himself stated: Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I’d write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn’t write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord. (quote from wikipedia.

People can read the books any way they want and can watch the movies in the same way. The interpretations in no way honor or dishonor G*d, they either honor or dishonor the specific story and characters as written. Since that is as hotly debated as anything, the idea of dihonoring something as personal as your beliefs is going to be even more controversial. I know that no one can dishonor my G*d by making a movie or writing a book. My faith is too internal for that and no character in any book written has ever represented Him to me as no one can author my beliefs.

OK, too serioius. Now onto less serious discussions.

""Boring or not well rounded" to me is wooden. And while it is true that he did take Trumpkin to task, he still chose to go against what Lucy wanted. Why would he do such a thing?"

Specter, I agee that Lewis is not the best at character building. For that matter, the filmmakers did a terrible job at making any good guys stand out in PC, but I think that Lewis had a better handle of the younger characters of his so Peter and Susan were more flat.

And why did Peter vote to go the way of Trumpkin, it was either one way or the other and he just chose to go down instead of Lucy's up. The way may have seemed more logical and he hadn't seen Aslan himself to guide him. It was why he was the third one to see Aslan. He wanted to believe but wan't willing to let go completely to his faith.

MrBob
 
MrBob said:
Specter, I agee that Lewis is not the best at character building. For that matter, the filmmakers did a terrible job at making any good guys stand out in PC, but I think that Lewis had a better handle of the younger characters of his so Peter and Susan were more flat.

And why did Peter vote to go the way of Trumpkin, it was either one way or the other and he just chose to go down instead of Lucy's up. The way may have seemed more logical and he hadn't seen Aslan himself to guide him. It was why he was the third one to see Aslan. He wanted to believe but wan't willing to let go completely to his faith.

MrBob
Click to expand...

Agreed that Lewis was better at younger characters than older. Here's the thing about Peter choosing Trumpkin's way and not Lucy's. If High King Peter was truly as noble as Caspian saw him to be, he would have chosen Lucy's way based on the logic that he'd learned from the professor at the start of the previous adventure. By not listening to Lucy the first time, by not completely letting go to his faith in Aslan (let alone Lucy, who didn't mislead him last time), he had betrayed the lessons that he had already learned. I think that is also a bit of a betrayal of the character, in some way.
 
I think you're failing to differentiate between nobility and prudence informed by faith. Peter's nobility of character is beyond question, but the question of which way to go at the point of decision was not an issue of nobility. It was a question of what was the most prudent path to their goal. Lewis (probably unintentionally) provides a micro-lesson in leadership here. To external appearances the path down the river seemed to make more sense, plus he had a reticent Susan and an unbelieving Trumpkin to deal with. Lucy (the visionary) suggested something that was not just an alternative - it flew in the face of common sense in the visible circumstances. The path up the river not only seemed to lead away from the best known path to their goal, it looked more difficult and uncertain. Only she had seen Aslan, and only Edmund had the faith to stand by her - despite the fact that he hadn't seen Aslan any more than the rest.

Peter made his decision based on natural understanding, and the fact that it was the wrong one doesn't impugn his nobility, just his faith. Aslan tested him, and he "stumbled, but did not fall" (as Scripture would put it). His error did not destroy the mission, but set it back. And at the next test, when again Lucy could see Aslan though the others could not, he led them properly.

I'm not the first to see the parallels between Peter and Lucy and what the commentators call the Petrine and Johannine traditions in Christian history. John, the Beloved Disciple, is the visionary and mystic, the one who reclines upon Jesus' breast in close communion. Peter is entrusted with leadership of the Church, which means making hard decisions. Though there are those (particularly in today's world) that would cast these roles in opposition, the truth is they need each other. Lucy would have made a terrible leader for the party from the Cair to Aslan's How - that called for Peter's firm and steady hand. But Peter needed to listen to Lucy's vision and weigh its implications for the mission. The first time he failed, the second time he succeeded, but in nothing was he ignoble.
 
Very nicely said, Roger. Peter in the book is leading as best he can in the way that makes sense, and he never behaves in a less-than-kingly manner. Peter in the film was a spoiled brat and bully. That's what makes everyone hate this movie. Not that everyone hates it. I liked it very much as a Narnia-themed adventure. I just didn't like it as a film version of PC.
 
Nobody has seen a bad adaptation of a book into a movie unless they've seen the Love Comes Softly series. You want to talk about changed characters, story, and events? The only thing LCS series used was the names of the characters and the title of each book/movie.

Compared to those, PC was a literal adaptation. Anyway, I don't hate the movie; I guess I'm not a Narnia fan, but I thought it was pretty good under the circumstances. (And don't go trying to argue with me about it; that's my humble opinion). And frankly, I never would have thought Ben was that old; I had to look up his age to find out because he looks so much younger than his actual age. So I really don't see how that is a reason why the movie is "flawed." Elijah Wood played a 33 year old Hobbit at the tender age of 18, so I don't really see why that's an issue. Ben didn't and doesn't look any older than William Moseley.
 
That's a matter of opinion I guess -- to me Ben looked like a grown man and Will looked like a boy. The reason that mattered was, it made Caspian look (to me anyway) like a dumb bunny to have no more king-craft at his age than to know what would happen if his uncle had a baby, plus not to have asked to me made king already since he was prince. He looked like a dupe because he was that old and so naive.
 
I don't agree but whatever. People can manipulate other people, and Caspian obviously thought his uncle was a good man, just as what's-her-face did (MIraz's wife). MIraz was obviously very good at both deceit and manipulation; a veil that was only lifted when Cornelius told Caspian what he knew. (If anybody has played the Prince Caspian wii video game, there are scenes between CAspian and Cornelius where they discuss what the Telmarines did to the Narnians. I haven't gotten much further than the first two, but it's interesting that they included those scenes for just the game). And when Cornelius tells Caspian "your aunt has given birth...to a son", to me the look of realization on Caspian's face shows how he suddenly realizes how much danger he's really in. In the book, Caspian wasn't aware of what was going on, and he was being taught, regardless of age, what to know about being a king.

IMO, he (In the book) wasn't the smartest lightbulb in the package either. I"ve never thought Ben looks like a 28-29 year old, therefore, I've never had a hard time believing the character he plays. I suppose that comes from not being picky or a book purist, which I am not.
 
Thanks PotW. Lucy was proposing to go into a path that was hidden along the cliffside. Not even she knew where it was, all she knew was that Aslan wanted them to go his way. Peter had this unknown path that Lucy was suggesting with Aslan on her side or the seemingly obvious way that seemed to take them to somewhere familiar. That was a very difficult decision.

"IMO, he (In the book) wasn't the smartest lightbulb in the package either."

Aravis, in the book, Caspian was about 15-years-old. He isn't going to be the brightest lightbulb. He is still learning. As for getting an actor, why not go for someone who was 17 or 18? That was closer to his book character's age than Ben was.

MrBob
 
Because apparently they felt like Ben fit the role of Caspian well. They don't usually go for who is the youngest; they go for who is the best for the role. And depending on what the role is, they ALSO don't go for who is the hottest or best looking. They go for who will do the role in the best way possible. Why would Elijah Wood have been chosen for the role of a 33 year old Hobbit if they didn't feel like he couldn't shoulder the role? Peter Jackson chose each actor for each role because he felt like that was who they needed, not because they fit the character's age or maturity.

If they couldn't find an actor who was as young as Moseley, Keynes, or younger, then they went for an actor who looks surprisingly young for being nearly 30, and who is a very good actor.
 
I don't think PJ wanted Frodo to be anything near his 30's (and in fact in the book when he set out on his quest, his 50's!). I think he wanted Frodo to appear much younger than that, to be practically a boy on a man's adventure, if you see what I mean? And that worked the way he told the story, in a way that Ben's being 26 did not work with PC. For one thing, if a young hero turns out to be remarkably strong when it comes to the trenches, then we're all for him -- like Peter and Edmund in LWW, we are impressed and cheering for him! But if an older hero turns out to be remarkably stupid -- like Caspian in PC film -- we are deinitly not cheering for him; we think he's a dope! That's why Elijah worked as Frodo and Ben didn't work as Caspian.

As for there being no young actor good enough to play the role: that's clearly poppycock. William Mosely and Skandar Keynes were practical unknowns who perfectly fitted their roles in LWW. This leads me to believe there were probaly plenty of great young actors who would much better have fitted the role of the "boy Caspian." This glaring age difference was just a big mistake if what Adamson intended was to create a film version of PC book. IMHO
 
Well, being the stubborn person that I am, I thought Ben was fantastic, and I don't think Caspian was stupid. Naive perhaps, but there is a big difference.
 
"I thought Ben was fantastic, and I don't think Caspian was stupid. Naive perhaps, but there is a big difference."

Aravis, Ben was good in PC. I acknowledge that. But how would Sam Barry done? Or Liam Kinglsey? I am just making up names of those unknowns who went to the casting call and didn't get the role. You can't know how someone else would have done. Maybe they would have been better.

I will say that Caspian was naive as opposed to stupid. Naive and vengeful. He had two reasons for not being king in the book: He was still young and his uncle had already usurped the throne. Had the filmmakers made Miraz the usurper king as they had done in the book, so much of that naivete would have been eliminated.

MrBob
 
MrBob said:
I will say that Caspian was naive as opposed to stupid. Naive and vengeful. He had two reasons for not being king in the book: He was still young and his uncle had already usurped the throne. Had the filmmakers made Miraz the usurper king as they had done in the book, so much of that naivete would have been eliminated.
Click to expand...
Agreed. For him to still be naive at his age is stupid. He could claim naivete when he was "the boy Caspian," but for the grown man Caspian never to have realized the delicate position he was in, that was beyond naive (in the film).
 
The Susan/Caspian thing put me off, especially since the romance thing in the next movie might be awkward and/or problematic.

On a side note, this wasn't in the poll or anything, but I am SO happy about how they have developed Susan throughout LWW and PC (besides the romance thing :p), making her doubtful and such, because she ends up going apostate and never joining the others in Aslan's country or whatever. Initially her attitude in LWW annoyed me, but I understood it better when I related it to her character in the books. The movie-makers made her an interesting character that way.

I'm glad they left out the part where Aslan wakes everything up; even in the book the whole description of the creatures dancing and playing and so forth was really irrelevant to the story, and to me was a bit annoying.
 
LOL, I love that bit. We call it The Romp. One of the best parts of the book as far as I am concerned, and they cut it out!

I agree with you, though, that Susan's character has been nicely developed in the films. Other than the Susan-Caspian flirtation which was silly.
 
Back
Top