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
Copperfox said:
Surprised? SURPRISED that so many of us don't like Peter's personality being dragged through mud?

How can I say this politely?

Suppose you're a Batman fan. Then suppose someone makes a Batman movie in which Batman bullies both Robin and Alfred the Butler, forces motorists off the road with the Batmobile just for fun, keeps for himself the loot he finds on crooks he captures, and sets fire to cute little kittens. Then suppose the revisionist writers defend themselves by saying, "We just wanted Batman to be more HUMAN!"

I wouldn't be surprised if you were annoyed with that.

Meanwhile, I have NO objection at all to Susan having fought, given the circumstances the movie placed her in.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you said here.
 
Regarding Peter's character: I think some people are blowing the changes way out of proportion. Peter Pevensie, in case you haven't noticed, is a teenage boy. He's not perfect. And he's also the former king of Narnia. If I were him, I don't think I'd be too happy to return to the land I once ruled to find it a mess - and in the hands of a villain. It would be unrealistic to have Peter return to Narnia and have a positive reaction.

I'm not saying that I LIKE the changes they made to Peter's character - I'm just pointing out that they were to be expected and they really weren't a big deal.
 
I voted for Aslan's introduction.
We should have seen more of Him in the film.

The night raid was kind of ok, but too long.

Otherwise I liked the film. :)
 
Lila said:
Regarding Peter's character: I think some people are blowing the changes way out of proportion. Peter Pevensie, in case you haven't noticed, is a teenage boy. He's not perfect. And he's also the former king of Narnia. If I were him, I don't think I'd be too happy to return to the land I once ruled to find it a mess - and in the hands of a villain. It would be unrealistic to have Peter return to Narnia and have a positive reaction.

I'm not saying that I LIKE the changes they made to Peter's character - I'm just pointing out that they were to be expected and they really weren't a big deal.
Click to expand...
*applauds*
 
Lila said:
Regarding Peter's character: I think some people are blowing the changes way out of proportion. Peter Pevensie, in case you haven't noticed, is a teenage boy. He's not perfect. And he's also the former king of Narnia. If I were him, I don't think I'd be too happy to return to the land I once ruled to find it a mess - and in the hands of a villain. It would be unrealistic to have Peter return to Narnia and have a positive reaction.

I'm not saying that I LIKE the changes they made to Peter's character - I'm just pointing out that they were to be expected and they really weren't a big deal.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of something they said in the PC commentary.;)

He didn't have to start making stupid decisions and fighting with Caspian and ignoring everyone's advice though.:rolleyes:
 
"Peter Pevensie, in case you haven't noticed, is a teenage boy. He's not perfect. And he's also the former king of Narnia. If I were him, I don't think I'd be too happy to return to the land I once ruled to find it a mess - and in the hands of a villain. It would be unrealistic to have Peter return to Narnia and have a positive reaction."

Lila, there's a difference between attitude and skill. Peter in the books understood war and that an inferior side who is virtually cornered does not attempt an offensive. He did right in the book by stalling in order to get his forces better. Movie Peter was not a great military leader.

Now he came back 1,000 years after he left. What would he have expected Narnia was going to be like when he returned? Just as he left it? The first time he went to Narnia, it was a mess so a millenia may alter the landscape a little.

The problem with his attutude, however, began with the fight at the train station. If it was just limited to Narnia, that would be one thing, but he had major issues from the start.

MrBob
 
I think the biggest change for me was Caspian.
But i still think he did pretty well.
I sorta made my brain think i hadn't read the book when i went to watch it because i knew there would be BIG changes and i didn't wanna be TOO disappointed :D
 
Lila, there's a difference between attitude and skill. Peter in the books understood war and that an inferior side who is virtually cornered does not attempt an offensive. He did right in the book by stalling in order to get his forces better. Movie Peter was not a great military leader.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I still don't get how Peter being a teenage boy = Peter being an idiot. In case, no one else noticed, two other children were teenagers - Susan and Edmund and Lucy was even younger. They didn't act like dunderheads all through out the movie. I was a teenager myself once and I can tell you that the majority of us would have been appalled at the way Peter behaved. Maybe American teens in the 21st century can get away with that kind of posturing but a British youth living during the Great War won't. To say nothing of one who had actually been a King and been accountable for the lives of hundreds of people.
 
i think the thing i was most diappointed with was not just how quickly they came to realise they were at Cair Paravel, but how UNAFFECTED they seemed to be by it.. no sense of wonder, of questioning, of loss for their whole kingdom. that whole sense of return and poignancy is the most cherished moment for me, and doesnt appear again in the novels until the finale of the last battle.
 
It was a close call between the su-Caspian romance and the evolution of peter's character, but peter won out. Of course it did make sense, a lot of people would act like peter did under the circumstances, but i still think the real Peter was made of stronger stuff than that, letting his situation turn him into a jerk. They spoiled one of the best characters.
 
moonspinner said:
I was a teenager myself once and I can tell you that the majority of us would have been appalled at the way Peter behaved. Maybe American teens in the 21st century can get away with that kind of posturing but a British youth living during the Great War won't. To say nothing of one who had actually been a King and been accountable for the lives of hundreds of people.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

The Telmarines weren't exactly in "Narnian" territory, and never really bothered with them until Peter and co. left, so Peter wouldn't know the tactics of the Telmarines too well. Good militarists? Bad strategists? He wouldn't know. Taking on the castle was a bold move; a strange but bold move that cost lives. Sure, it was the wrong decision, but Peter made it with no knowledge of the Telmarines' knack for strategy, even under opposition.

Let's remember Peter was a king, a feared, respected warrior who won battles. You could see the look of shear surprise and sorrow on his face when he knew Narnians were dying from his decision when he looked behind himself at the gate. Sure, "Peter was a teenager," yes he was a teenager. And a teenager who used to be a full-fledged high king ordained by God to rule over vast lands, who comes back and loses his first attempt at saving Narnia would be a bit pissed. Yes, I'm sure any teen from any era who had that experience would act the same way.
 
I wonder if Edmund might not have had a word about the battle as well. He was, after all, a military strategist like his brother. He led many battles including the Battle of Anvard in which he helped to lead his side to a great victory.

"And a teenager who used to be a full-fledged high king ordained by God to rule over vast lands, who comes back and loses his first attempt at saving Narnia would be a bit pissed. Yes, I'm sure any teen from any era who had that experience would act the same way."

Truman, his anger at Caspian after the castle raid was justified. Caspian had messed everything up. Peter also messed things up by not taking Miraz when they had the chance. I think any military leader will tell you that when you have the leader of the enemy secured, you have the upperhand.

But as I said, his anger and "teenaage angst" was there before he went to Narnia. Why had he reverted to childish behaviour after returning from Narnia? Edmund, Susan, and Lucy were all kings and quens along with Peter. Lucy missed out on the most as she was closest to Aslan. Edmunhd went from bully to respectful preteen boy (and student?) and had to constantly keep from reverting. Susan handled the transition well even though she also was the eldest queen of Narnia. Why was Peter acting so badly? He lost no more than his siblings, yet in the movie, for some inexplicable reason, he expected to go back.

MrBob
 
C.S. Lewis wanted only one whinny kid, and he made him accompany Lucy and Edmund in the Dawn Treader. If he had wanted a whinny king, he would have written it in. The movie makers wanted one whinny kid and they wrote him in.
 
Truman said:
I disagree.

The Telmarines weren't exactly in "Narnian" territory, and never really bothered with them until Peter and co. left, so Peter wouldn't know the tactics of the Telmarines too well. Good militarists? Bad strategists? He wouldn't know. Taking on the castle was a bold move; a strange but bold move that cost lives. Sure, it was the wrong decision, but Peter made it with no knowledge of the Telmarines' knack for strategy, even under opposition.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing movie!Peter with book!Peter. In the book, Peter came to the Old Narnians camp and right away realized that it was ridiculous to engage with a superior army. The best decision was to challenge Miraz to single combat and either end the war immediately with no more loss of lives on either side or stall until Aslan came. The bold move of the Peter in the movie was Hollywood trying to portray the Battle of Helm's Deep's Alternate Ending with the wrong character. In the book, Caspian and the Old Narnians had no practical military experience, made that mistake. Peter did not.


Let's remember Peter was a king, a feared, respected warrior who won battles. You could see the look of shear surprise and sorrow on his face when he knew Narnians were dying from his decision when he looked behind himself at the gate. Sure, "Peter was a teenager," yes he was a teenager. And a teenager who used to be a full-fledged high king ordained by God to rule over vast lands, who comes back and loses his first attempt at saving Narnia would be a bit pissed. Yes, I'm sure any teen from any era who had that experience would act the same way.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you're mixing up movie!Peter with book!Peter. In the book, Peter won't have needed to be pissed because he: a, won't have made such a dunderhead decision in the first place and b, trusted in a higher power than himself (Aslan) and never expected to win Narnia for Caspian by his own powers. As it was, I was never sure if Peter in the movie was fighting for the Old Narnians, or for Caspian or for himself.

And like Mr Bob explained, movie!Peter's teenage angst started in the train station, long before he returned to Narnia and found it in ruins. He wasn't pissed off because Narnia had been overrun by the Telmarines, he was pissed off because... Hollywood thought that being pissed off is appropriate behaviour for teenagers.
 
Last edited:
Making Peter a jolly "I'm-a-Dudley-do-Right" character like he was in the book would've only made out to a Mary Sue, and people wouldn't believe such a character, in fact some might even hate him. I know I would. The filmmakers made Peter make such mistakes in the movie to show that everyone is just as vulnerable to failure, and that even the greatest leaders learn from their mistakes, not triumphs. It also gave a much bigger climax to the duel and the field battle at the end.

(Mods: Was this merged with the "Mistakes in the Movie" thread?)
 
But the movie went LIGHT-YEARS too far in the other direction. For instance, there was absolutely NO need to have Peter get in a stupid, pointless brawl at the start of the film. It was part of a planned and malicious program to tear down what is noble and admirable. Peter DOESN'T have to be "impossibly" good to be better than the jerk they portrayed in the movie. They DIDN'T "only want to make him human," they wanted him to be LESS than even the level of goodness and strength which average mortals CAN attain. It was as if they depicted George Washington trembling under his bed because he was afraid of a thunderstorm, or Thomas Edison unable to do basic arithmetic.
 
Yes, you're correct to say Washington and Edison wouldn't be correctly identified if such characteristics were pushed onto their true demeanors. But you're forgetting that Peter isn't a historical figure, and is just as subject to interpretation as Oliver Twist. You're over the line with Washington "hiding from a thunderstorm." Calling that a comparison to Peter's teenage angst (which is prominent in most teens, even without the ripping away of kingly power) is a far cry from accurate. Peter is a... kid. Washington and Edison were established gentlemen with places in their work which they understood. Peter was a teenaged boy who was thrust in and out of a high-king position given (and taken away) by God.
 
I think everyone is making truthful points here, but I still can't imagine Peter returning to Narnia and having NO REACTION to what had been going on. As Truman pointed out, portraying Peter's character as it was in the book would've made him look like a Mary Sue (or Gary Stu, in his case :p). I'm not saying that Lewis did anything wrong by giving Peter minimal flaws, but translate his character into movie form and you'll have an atrocious 21st century film. Movies today need character development in order to keep fans interested. Unfortunately, the writers' decisions are not always embraced by us diehard fans.
 
Back
Top